a moderate turning militant

[Solly]

Originally posted by Sava
there aren't two political ideologies in the world

So Bush is a bad far-right person, and Saddam Hussein is a nice one?

[SlowwHand]

Not explain, Dissident?
Try pulling the wax out of your ears.
Ask Pekka how to do that.

[Dom Pedro II]

I think that he means that Bush comes from a very different political idealogy as Saddam Hussein.

Not to mention the fact that the system that support them both are entirely different, and their powers are vastly different as well.

Right and left has really become far too bastardized to be the end-all of the political spectrum.

First of all, if you go far enough to the right, you end up on the left... both extremes end with the same thing: totalitarianism.

[Al B. Sure!]

it's bull**** to say Bush is far right... he's a typical conservative republican who, to become elected, had to moderate himself a little in a few areas.

[Dom Pedro II]

Well, what IS a typical conservative Republican? Conservative is another word that's been bastardized... it implies wanting to avoid change.

EDIT: Sorry, ORIGINALLY in its classical context it is meant to avoid change

[Gatekeeper]

When I identify myself as a moderate Republican — i.e., more liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal ones — I get "oohs" and "ahhhs," and kids actually ask me what it's like to be a dinosaur.

How annoying.

Gatekeeper

[Dom Pedro II]

Well... the trouble with being a Republican voter who's "conservative" on fiscal issues is much the same as being a Nazi to support the social dental program... you're along for the whole ride!

[Sava]

he's a typical conservative republican

Your opinion on what makes someone conservative is messed up if you believe this.

[H Tower]

Bush is photogenic?

Only if you hand him a banana and let him swing from the trees

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
it's bull**** to say Bush is far right... he's a typical conservative republican

You contradict yourself.

[GePap]

Moderates and independents and all this types of folks also tend to be apolitical: they opt themselves out of the process, and thus have no voice. When half the elligible voters don;t vote, whom on earth do you guys think will decide the elections?

It is a rule of politics: the people with a "crusade" to wage set the agenda, cause they are the active ones that create the situation, and everyone else is left to react to them.

[Kramerman]

both are photogenic and charismatic leaders who know how to pander to their own constituencies to an amazing extent and to the exclusion of everyone else.

clinton, yes... bush, definately not

both are extraordinary fundraisers, capable of having sponsors drop megabucks for the candidates that they bless.

most any successful (as in getting elected to high office) politician is a good fund raiser... i dont think bush or clinton are special. They may have raised more money than others before them, but thats just becasue others before them didnt need as much

both are hated by their ideological enemies, yet both often coopt the other side's initiatives.

again, i dont remember any successful president that hasnt had this ability to some degree.

both of them have grave issues with being truthful or honest towards the american public at large.

name me a politician that doesnt!!!

[ajbera]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
When I identify myself as a moderate Republican — i.e., more liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal ones[...]

Interesting you mention the social liberal/fiscal conservative dichotomy, 'cuz John Derbyshire had this to say about that particular blend:

A high point of NRO this last month was Maggie Gallagher's piece on marriage, in which she made the point — not original with her, but not made half as often as it should be — that "social liberal, fiscal conservative" is an oxymoron. Socially liberal policies, when implemented, generally end up as higher government expenditures and increased government powers. Relaxation of the divorce laws was socially liberal…but ended up swelling the welfare rolls. Liberalization of drug laws gets you more drug addicts, more need for treatment centers and counseling services. More open attitudes to homosexuality were socially liberal…but led to lavishly funded programs to look after AIDS victims and pay for research into cures, and to state patrolling of our speech and thoughts via "hate-crime" legislation. Relaxed attitudes to crime and punishment were socially liberal while they lasted…and had to be paid for with expanded police forces and vast prison-building programs…and so on.

It's not difficult to see why this should be so. Work the logic back from "fiscal conservative." If the state is not managing or paying for something, then the people must be managing it and paying for it themselves — the original American ideal of self-support. That implies the willingness and ability of citizens to organize themselves in stable, coherent, small groups for mutual assistance — families, neighborhoods, associations, and townships. And that implies the readiness to sacrifice some of one's own liberty to group norms and common endeavors...which is the point at which social liberals jump to their feet and start yelling angrily.

I'm not certain I buy into this, but as someone who himself is, in many ways, socially liberal and fiscally conservative, this definitely caught my eye and made me think.

[Victor Galis]

That quote is just dripping with right wing propaganda though.

[ajbera]

That doesn't mean it doesn't contain truths, if not necessarily TRUTHS.