Does the republican party deserve to be electorally punished?

[GePap]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
The Democrat problem is that the Republican ideaology appeals to Americans more; all the problems they have with Bush deals more with questions of compete$nce and not of idealogy.

How so? Last time I looked, Congress is the only branch of the American government which is always directly elected (2000 is a great example of how the executive branch isn't). After the 1994 landslide the Republican mayority declined steadily, with one break in 2002, and now they are back in the minority in 2006.

So what gives you the impression that "republican ideology" appeals to more Americans?

[Theben]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I would have voted for Gore in 2000, and was pleasently surprised by Bush, and would have voted for Bush in 2004.

Maybe you weren't happy with Bush, but then you never would have voted for him, so why are you speaking for those who voted for him in 2000, and 2004?

B/c I know people who did vote for him and now are pissed. Also, despite the judicial coup-de-etat that handed the presidency over to Bush (and let's not quibble on this point, b/c we all know that's what happened), I was willing, albeit grudgingly, to give him a chance. Hell I even went so far as to say that maybe the admin knew something about the direction the ME states were heading and the need for some kind of intevention was necessary, that they really did the right thing but couldn't tell anyone. Sad to say even that lame excuse didn't pan out.

When will the dems stop their obstruction of the courts? There are a record number of unfilled judicial nominees, which are being held over because of ideological reasons. Perfectly qualified nominees are being held over because they are not the 'right' nominees for the dems.

Eh? The dems are less obstructive than the repugs were under Clinton. And the reason they're holding up those positions for ideological reasons is b/c those candidates are too ideological to safely say they'd uphold the Constitution over their own personal agendas.

Can you name any of the DOJ and justice appointments made by Bush that were unqualified for the job?

Elok beat me. But I'm sure if I google it I'll find some more.

Unlike Pelosi et al? I'm sorry, the Dems have control of the congress and they still can't get anything done. Don't blame the republicans, for the failure of the Dems.

B/c of the threats of filibusters and prez vetos?

Such as raising taxes like Clinton? I don't see sane fiscal policy coming from Congress.

Job growth, low unemployment, govt surplus? I'll take that any day over what we have now, thanks. A lot saner by far.

IOW, if they become a clone of the dems then you would be approving.

Actually I wouldn't. But the FACT is this is the most anti-democratic, most authoritarian, least tolerant, and most abusive of power of any presidency we've ever had. And they're getting away with it, b/c people like you don't care on account of Bush et al. is "one of your own".

[Darius871]

Originally posted by GePap
Well, from 2002 to 2006 we had a completely "Fiscally conservative" Republican government, and the chart shows what happened then.

I wouldn't deny that neither party is fiscally conservative. A veto-holding president might be, but fat chance when you have to choose between passing Congress' bloated budget or a government shutdown.

[David Floyd]

First of all, the 2000 election was so close that you can't say it was just handed to Bush. If there was a nation-wide recount, with as little of a vote margin as there was in some areas, it could have changed the results in other states as well. Also, if Bush won the popular vote, I seriously doubt there would be as much angst over SCOTUS "handing" the Presidency to Bush. The court vote went straight down party lines, but if you're going to blame the right wing Justices for that, you have to blame the left wing ones as well. Or, you could just say you disagree with the decision and not blame any of them for partisan votes.

As for Congress, it seems to me that it was Pelosi who adjourned for vacation in the midst of what had to be the single most important issue to many Americans, and it was the Republicans who stayed in the chamber and kept talking about it. Yeah, of course they did so for political reasons, but it isn't their fault that Pelosi handed them a gold mine.

[Ben Kenobi]

Miers! Got in first!

Which was scuttled by Conservative backlash.



If Miers is the best you got, that's pretty sad.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Darius871


Actually his deficit was stable, at least relatively:

Debt monetization will do that, its just a damned shame that Republicans couldn't be as smart as Jimmy Carter, though Bush is making minor steps towards that goal.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Guynemer
McCain is going to win. I'll take bets to that effect. And I'm not voting for him.

Let's see if Obama can start polling in the 50%+ range. If I were a Dem, I would be worried that with so much exposure, Obama is still polling sub-50%.

[Ben Kenobi]

B/c I know people who did vote for him and now are pissed. Also, despite the judicial coup-de-etat that handed the presidency over to Bush (and let's not quibble on this point, b/c we all know that's what happened),

Notwithstanding the fact that the voters of Florida voted for Bush. Sore-Loserman anybody?

Sad to say even that lame excuse didn't pan out.

Well sure. Saddam Hussein is still rattling his sabres. Oh no, wait, no he isn't.

Eh? The dems are less obstructive than the repugs were under Clinton.

There's a record number of judicial emergencies. That's completely unacceptable when they are qualified nominees. I don't care if they obstructed 1 or 2 Clinton nominees, that doesn't justify retaliation by shutting down the whole process.

And the reason they're holding up those positions for ideological reasons is b/c those candidates are too ideological to safely say they'd uphold the Constitution over their own personal agendas.

Thank you. Ideology trumps competence. If they are competent, they should be appointed, period. Ginsburg got appointed unanimously, why did they reject Bork.

Since when did you care about personal agendas interpreting the constitution? Isn't the constitution a living tree?

B/c of the threats of filibusters and prez vetos?

That's what happens when you tack on domestic pork onto a bill for funding the troops. No one likes that stunt.

Job growth, low unemployment, govt surplus? I'll take that any day over what we have now, thanks. A lot saner by far.

You'd take high taxation over economic prosperity?

Actually I wouldn't. But the FACT is this is the most anti-democratic, most authoritarian, least tolerant, and most abusive of power of any presidency we've ever had. And they're getting away with it, b/c people like you don't care on account of Bush et al. is "one of your own".

Pelosi et al is far more authoritarian. Bush will be remembered as Bush the Good, while his father will be Bush the lesser.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Truth in advertising.

You get surpluses if you raise the taxes.

How brilliant is it to double taxation levels and balance a budget.

Actually the timing and the details of the tax increase/decrease are very important. It's not a simple matter of just collecting more taxes.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Theben
By what used to pass as conservative yes, a lunatic far-right neocon, no.

This sentence makes no sense.

[chequita guevara]

He's saying that 30 years ago, Obama would be considered conservative, but in today's environment, old-style conservatism is considered liberal, while out and out reactionary politics is what now passes for conservative.

[DinoDoc]

What part of Obama's history would lead one to believe that he would have been conservative at any point in time? Please consider more than just selected positions such as abortions because I'd like a more broad based answer.

PS That's not what he said though. Neoconservatism is foreign policy ideaology who's supporters can be either liberal or conservative which is why his statement made no sense.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by GePap

Well, from 2002 to 2006 we had a completely "Fiscally conservative" Republican government, and the chart shows what happened then.

Anyone who has even a shred of honesty will admit that Republican rule hasn't just been a dismal failure but an absolute failure.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Carter's deficits were extremely small.

That's not what everyone said at the time. The deficits in the 70's were just as big of a deal as today's deficits are. People are just as stupid too.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DanS


Let's see if Obama can start polling in the 50%+ range. If I were a Dem, I would be worried that with so much exposure, Obama is still polling sub-50%.

If by "sub-50%" you mean 53.2% (which is about where he has always polled) then yes but other wise this is just another stupid and verifiablely wrong post by DanS.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/