[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
…I’m used to some of my adversaries contorting my positions to meet their opposing arguments, but to quote me with different words with different meanings is unacceptable…
[/quote]
I wasn’t trying to twist your words. I just flat misread what you said, and misquoted you.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
RSU -
Yes, McCain is a flip flopper. We would be better served if he were to switch parties.
Bush will welcome McCain’s support, much like he will welcome Zell Miller’s support. Does that make Bush a flip flopper? absolutely not.
Your assertion that Bush flip-fopped on McCain is wrong - Bush never aske McCain to be his running-mate after demoralizing him in the primaries.
BB-
This is a Clinton coup for 2008. I don’t think Edwards has the support to vault over Hillary. He won his senate seat by default, and probably wouldn’t have won re-election. Now Hillary can start running against whoever wins in November, almost immediately. [/quote]
Bush did not flip flop on McCain, but he has flip flopped plenty since in office. Did you see the President Bush vs. Governor Bush debate on the daily show last March?
Edwards…yes just what we need! I think the trial lawyers of America are under represented…Edwards will be in a good position to change that and make the lawyers in America even more powerful than they already are!
Great Choice Kerry…Haha
John Kerry has the most liberal voting record in the Senate (when he actually shows up for a vote).
Edwards has the 4th most liberal voting record in the Senate. He’s to the left of Gin-nosed-Ted and ‘Cankles’ Clinton.
How can the Democrats honestly expect to draw votes from the center, when they are so decidedly left-heavy?
Even if they try to sell a Clinton-like move to the middle, their combined voting record is will be cannon fodder for Bush/Cheney.
Chucksmanjoe,
“Think what is needed is on TV in magazines, internet, a socilistic government needs to be studied, and explained to the American people what it is.”
There already is, assuming you can read.
“…then we are going to move to the far left than we ever did…And God help America…”
Nonsense. The Democratic ticket is very liberal - and it should be. That’s where the Democratic Party is right now. But your paranoia is stupid. The country isn’t suddenly going to succumb to European socialism if these guys were get elected.
There are many very good countries that have a more socialistic government than we do, and I am perfectly comfortable when traveling in them. By your definition, Canada would be one of these ‘scary socialistic’ places to live, but I have a great time in Canada and do some of my best hunting there. England as well. Austria. All much more ‘socialistic’ than we are.
Is that an advocacy of their style of government? Of course not. If I was in any one of their parliaments, I’d still be fighting the tide of increasing levelling. But your exaggerations miss the mark. The US culture doesn’t support a shift to the far Left - but if you want to join your kinsmen radicals in Montana, be my guest.
Oh, and NewsMax is not worth the paper its printed on. I say that as an avowed conservative.
[quote]oubigguy wrote:
Bush did not flip flop on McCain, but he has flip flopped plenty since in office. Did you see the President Bush vs. Governor Bush debate on the daily show last March?
[/quote]
My interpretation of RSU’s question was that it was pertaining solely to the Bush - McCain issue.
Has Bush changed his mind? yep
Has he pissed a bunch of us on the right off by moving to the left? yep
Does that make him a flip-flopper? I don’t know, he seems to change his mind only once, and then he proceeds on that issue.
He doesn’t have a history of sticking his finger in the air and changing his position multiple times like Kerry.
–How quickly we forget how little Bush knew about…well, anything! What’s worse, he claims not worry about learning more, but prefers to be briefed by people who worry about learning more.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
How can the Democrats honestly expect to draw votes from the center, when they are so decidedly left-heavy?
[/quote]
–They are no further left than Bush-Cheney are right.
Rainjack,
“Yes, McCain is a flip flopper. We would be better served if he were to switch parties.”
On this issue, I couldn’t disagree more. McCain is no Democrat, he’s a proud Republican in a party that is losing its character.
He is no sycophant and is very independent. But the Republican Party could use a dose of his conservatism - it has run astray of its ideals and principles.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Rainjack,
“Yes, McCain is a flip flopper. We would be better served if he were to switch parties.”
On this issue, I couldn’t disagree more. McCain is no Democrat, he’s a proud Republican in a party that is losing its character.
He is no sycophant and is very independent. But the Republican Party could use a dose of his conservatism - it has run astray of its ideals and principles.
[/quote]
You’re entitled to your opinion, but I can’t stand him.
He’s positioned himself as the poster-boy for the gutless ‘undecided’.
He actually entertained conversations with Kerry about being his veep. That alone makes me question his loyalty to the right.
Can you tell me how the republican party, as a whole, has run astray of its ideals?
thunderbolt:
Are we still talking about the “highjackers” of the GOP as being the religious right?
BB:
There were two interesting things about the Kennedy/LBJ “stategy”:
a)It was STILL a VERY close “win” for Kennedy, requiring some MAJOR hijinks in West Virginia.
b) Sam Giancana and his boys assured voting was “tight” in many areas.
(Note: these are Political Facts…no Oliver Stone Stuff!)
So…did LBJ make a big difference? Popular Vote, probably not … Electorial College and “twisting the arm” of a lot of Southern Dixicrats…yes!
I agree with you guys that Edwards would not have that type of political influence.
Mufasa
thunderbolt13, I have a degree in History Political Science, and have studied all aspects of history. Both sides of the aisle too.
SO you don’t like newsmax.com…well here is an article written in the Ohio State Univ Sentinel. Entitled:The World According to John Kerry
19 Feb 2004 by Antonio Ciaccia
"…The first thing we have to do is to roll back the Bush tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. Fiscally responsible tax cuts for working families can grow the economy, but there is no excuse for special tax cuts for the rich.?
6/7/03, from MoveOn.org
John Kerry is definitely one of the more socialist Democratic candidates (obviously, he?s nowhere near as bad as Kucinich). His economic ideas are nothing more than an attempt at a redistribution of wealth. One of his primary stances in this campaign is that of an anti-capitalist mentality. His Robin Hood economics are without principle, and only aim to divide America with common class warfare. Just as with other Democrats, Kerry?s big enemies are ?Big (fill-in-the-blank).? This includes big corporations, big pharmaceutical companies, big CEOs, big rich fat-cats, big insurance companies, big HMOs, etc. Senator Kerry wishes to penalize those who have created jobs and those who have achieved the American dream. They need to learn to be more unsuccessful!
?Our inner-city schools and our rural schools need better buildings, more textbooks, higher paid teachers, the best principals, and smaller classes.?
1/25/04, from Associated Press
Sadly, this stance is what is considered to be ?pro-education.? Kerry said this after denouncing the idea of school vouchers, an attempt to give parents more choice in where they send their children to school. Vouchers are a great step, no doubt, but it still is not the answer. The only way to get the education issue off of the debate table every four years is for us to privatize it. Only then we will have the most effective education system possible, and it will also be the most fair. According to Kerry, and all of the other candidates for that matter, we must just keep dumping money into the bonfire of public schooling. Kerry?s statement advocates one thing- the worse the school does, the more money we will pour into them. Teachers don?t give ?A?s? for failures, and government shouldn?t give financial support for ineffectiveness.
?I don’t think the Democratic Party should be the candidacy of the NRA.?
11/5/03, from ?Rock the Vote?
In this statement, John Kerry opposes individual rights. The National Rifle Association stands for freedom: the freedom to defend yourself and the freedom to overthrow a tyrannical government. The NRA stands for what should be the law of the land; not this society of gun control. Kerry, like countless others, feels that the NRA is too extreme for their liking. The NRA?s unpopular stance on assault weapons scares many citizens, and Senator Kerry is one of them, and he wants to ban them. His stance is very similar to many politicians and soccer moms. They believe that only safe guns should be on the streets. This is extremely subjective. Some people think foam, Nerf guns are unsafe. Should we ban those too? Arguments like these only erode more and more liberties away. Without the NRA, I am very certain that all guns would be banned so politicians and soccer moms could feel safe from crime. These anti-gun activists are ridiculous. Banning guns to reduce crime is like banning sex to reduce rape.
?Making health care a right and not a privilege is something worth fighting for.?
1/25/04, from Associated Press
John Kerry is not one of our Founding Fathers, yet he believes he can just create rights. In fact, if he was alive back then, he would have been shot and killed. The Founders in no way would?ve supported the socialist values endorsed by John Kerry. I don?t care how much of a disease someone has; the government has no right to fund it with money from another man?s wallet. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are the only moral rights that we have. You have the right to improve your own life; not the right for others to improve it.
?I will never privatize Social Security.? 1/4/04, from Iowa Primary Debate
Obviously, John Kerry doesn?t trust us with our own, hard-earned money. John Kerry believes that the government can control money better than we can. All one has to do is to take a look at the national debt to see how well government controls money. Americans have the right to spend their money however they choose. If I want to take my earnings and flush them down the toilet, I have the right to do it!
?I support increasing the minimum wage by $1.50 over the next year.?
1/25/04, from Associated Press
Things like overtime pay and minimum wage should be left up to each individual business. Government cannot force businesses to pay people certain wages. It is in the best interest of the industry to pay workers fairly, and they will do so accordingly. These are the kind of regulations that drive businesses out of this country. You have no right to receive money that you are not earning…"
On the website townhall.com:
Inching toward socialism article written: January 8, 2002
It is difficult to understand the long-range implications of current events. This is to say, it is difficult to know whether a current event is part of a historical sidetrack, a cultural fad or a mainstream trend. Smart people have called our attention to this reality. For example, the late Ayn Rand described the insidious process which takes a society, inch by unremarkable inch, to socialism: “The goal of the ‘liberals’ – as it emerges from the record of the past decades – was to smuggle this country into welfare statism by means of single, concrete, specific measures, enlarging the power of the government a step at a time, never permitting these steps to be summed up into principles, never permitting their direction to be identified or the basic issue to be named. Thus, statism was to come, not by vote or by violence, but by slow rot – by a long process of evasion and epistemological corruption, leading to a fait accompli. (The goal of the ‘conservative’ was only to retard that process.)”
When the federal government took over the task of inspecting luggage at airports and terminals, it added more than 30,000 new employees to its payroll. Most of them will become dues-paying members of government unions. They will become unremovable, overpaid wards of a government monopoly. They will become predictably dependent upon and grateful to the advocates of big government and higher taxes. They will become Democrats.
Surely there can no longer be any doubt that America is well on its way down the slippery slope to socialism. The government continues to grow in size, power and arrogance as it asserts increasing sovereignty over the lives and behavior of its subjects. The noose tightens, and the rabble wear it like a badge of honor.
Our progression on this path is so subtle that only in retrospect, when it is too late to resist, will we understand that our freedoms have been irretrievably forfeited and our Constitution irreversibly abandoned. In the words of Irish philosopher Edmund Burke, “The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts.”
The idea of socialism is attractive. Its basic seductive premise is the same as that of modern liberalism: The government is responsible for implementing altruism throughout society. The government must control all available resources with a view toward equality and fairness. The government must fight the selfish impulse of people to keep the fruits of their own labor. Everyone, impelled by “compassion and caring,” must sacrifice for the common good, so that all may share and share alike.
This noble-sounding doctrine is often expressed this way: “From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.” So what if it’s the creed of communism! However, there are a few problems when one descends from the political pulpit and attempts to translate this ethereal concept into practice.
Given a choice, people are disinclined to immolate themselves in service to others. The sacrifice of the fruit of one’s hard labor for the achievement of a larger social goal is not natural behavior and cannot be maintained on a voluntary basis. Sooner or later, it requires force, which will not come openly, but like a thief in the night.
What comes to mind is the observation of Lord Chesterfield that " … arbitrary power … must be introduced by slow degrees, and as it were, step by step, lest the people should see it approach."
The massively cruel and ruinous communistic experiment of the Soviet Empire would not have been necessary if philosophers and intellectuals had not ignored a basic truth about human nature: Human beings, as a derivative of the instinct to survive, are innately driven to act in their own self interest. Not withstanding propaganda, conditioning or brute force, any government or institution which runs head on against the grain of this basic human drive is doomed to fail.
We seem not to have learned a basic lesson of history: Capitalism harnesses human self interest; socialism exhausts itself trying to kill it.
The bureaucrats, who seize and dole out other people’s assets, initially see themselves as humanitarians. Eventually, they conclude they are indeed superior to others, and treat themselves accordingly. They make laws to which they are not subject; they vote themselves and their wards privileges and benefits. They no longer serve; they rule a nation of the government, by the government and for the government.
From American Daily…Kerry?s Economic Plan By JB Williams (04/07/04)
…Kerry?s plan requires only two beliefs, 1) that the ?rich? owe an acceptable lifestyle to everyone else, (acceptable to Kerry that is), and 2) that our government can better manage our resources than ?we the people? can on our own. It ain?t what America was designed to be, but let?s give it a try.
Last I checked, nobody could turn a $100 item into a $1000 debt faster than our federal government, and you don?t even need a calculator to know this is a problem. That pretty much eliminates any possibility of buying into belief number 2.
So those who believe in the Kerry economic system really only need believe in item number 1, governments obligation to keep you in the lifestyle you have become accustomed to, courtesy of the Federal government, or more accurately, the ?rich?, as defined above.
All you have to believe in to support this concept is ?socialism?, governments Right and Responsibility to determine what level of economic status is ?fair? for all citizens, then collect and redistribute the nation?s resources accordingly.
There is of course, one little problem with this economic plan. The 50%, who pick up the tab for America, also pick up the tab for feeding all those countries around the globe that have already tried this economic plan, and failed.
That shouldn?t discourage you though, just because America feeds the world via that old dusty outdated system known as ?freedom?, it doesn?t mean that the more ?progressive? concept of ?socialism? is without merit. In fact, it would appear that the concept of ?socialism? is alive and well, at least at DNC headquarters.
I gotta tell you though, if I were one of those being targeted for economic ?fairness? by people like Kerry, I would simply cash out and move along, leaving those of you who feel you have a Right to my earnings standing there dumbfounded and empty handed.
Then I would sit back and wait to see your next move, once you figure out that the ?rich? won?t feed the government that feeds you forever, and that the ?rich? who create jobs in this country, can decide at any time that it?s no longer worth the hassle.
I wonder just how many would die of starvation before deciding to take care of themselves? I wonder how many remember how to take care of themselves, or that America is designed specifically for those who want to take care of themselves, free from government interference?
Too many in America are hoping to win the lottery without even buying a ticket these days, and politicians hungry for power, like John Kerry, are all too willing to capitalize on that fact.
Nope, you don?t have to be smart at all to follow the Kerry economic plan, but if you have any smarts at all, you could never buy into it.
I?d love to see the wealthy in this country hand you the keys to the store and head for the islands. Kerry would get his wish for sure then, one economic class. Unfortunately, that would be one equally poor and desperate group of people. I guess really there is only one requirement for supporting the Kerry plan, gross economic ignorance.
And …these articles (again not in newsmax.com,) are just the tip of the iceburg… Link onto this google search link…
John Kerry socialism - Google Search
And you will see I am not the only one, (nor just newsmax.com,) that are saying what I did…you will see article, commentary, and report after report saying the same exact thing…that Kerry is far left than most of the Democrats are…
Joe
Rainjack,
That’s fair.
I don’t want to hijack the thread but:
“He actually entertained conversations with Kerry about being his veep. That alone makes me question his loyalty to the right.”
I don’t think he entertained nearly as much as the media hoped he did. As for loyalty, I believe McCain is more loyal to his country than to the party line.
“Can you tell me how the republican party, as a whole, has run astray of its ideals?”
Again, I don’t want to take up too much space, but I’d go for these:
Boy! I am super inspired after hearing the rousing...upbeat..enthusiastic...positive...movitivating speeches made by Kerry and Edwards this morning! I know we have it really good in this country...but Kerry's wife and Edwards wife made me feel so much more blessed! There are SO many things going right in this country and it was a true blessing to hear it confirmed by the Democratic presidential nominees and their wives! YEAH!!!!!
Chucksmanjoe,
I never said I thought Kerry had a good plan for America. I don’t want Kerry as President, and I am voting for Bush.
If you copied, pasted, and wrote all that to convince me Kerry isn’t the way to go, you wasted a considerable amount of time.
Kerry is a very liberal Democrat - my point is that he should run as one.
As for my contention that the US wouldn’t instantly become socialist-lite - Kerry, if elected, doesn’t make laws, Congress does. And the current Congress is in no mood to begin blueprints for a New Great Society.
At least for now.
UCLA Corporate Law professor Stephen Bainbridge opines that Edwards’ plaintiff’s bar status will hurt Kerry’s chances notsomuch by turning off independents as by energizing Bush’s natural base – any thoughts? I agree – doctors and small businessmen HATE plaintiff’s lawyers – to the point that some doctors even argue they won’t treat lawyers’ or their families.
/2004/07/missing_the_poi.html
…
They’re all right that constantly calling John Edwards a trial lawyer may not directly change a lot of votes; indeed, I’ll concede that in some places (Madison County, Illinois?) it’ll probably help the Dems. But here’s what Reynolds et. al are missing: John Trial Lawyer Edwards is going to re-energize key segments of the GOP base who might otherwise have wavered. Doctors. Small business owners. The US Chamber of Commerce. The Business Roundtable and the National Association of Manufacturers. All part of Bush’s base, but all wavering due to Bush’s free spending ways, Iraq worries, the economy, etc. All of those folks, however, have a deep animosity towards trial lawyers. The prospect of having a trial lawyer one heart beat from the Presidency will re-energize them to contribute to Bush, the RNC, and the emerging pro-Bush 527s. If Bush makes real tort reform and class action litigation reform campaign issues, they’ll do even more for Bush.
Even the NY Times gets it (after all, even a stopped clock is right twice a day):
"Mr. Edwards's background as a trial lawyer before he entered the Senate is already drawing fire from another group with even deeper pockets: business leaders and manufacturers. Few things are capable of uniting industry groups as much as their opposition to trial lawyers. And few politicians have been as adept at exploiting that hostility as President Bush, who, at the urging of his political adviser Karl Rove, has made attacks on trial lawyers a central part of his political strategy ever since his first run for Texas governor a decade ago."
"The selection of Edwards will significantly invigorate manufacturing and business, both large and small, to oppose the Kerry ticket," said Jerry Jasinowski, the president of the National Association of Manufacturers, an influential trade group in Washington. "Trial lawyers are the pariahs of the business community, which is more frightened by them than terrorists, China or higher energy prices."
Another top business group, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which generally supports Republicans, may choose to actively support the Bush-Cheney ticket in light of the choice of Mr. Edwards.
This is key. Clinton won in large part because he didn’t scare business. Sure the bulk of the business community supported the GOP in '92 and '96, but Clinton made in-roads and, more important, did nothing to energize the business community against him. The WSJ made this point the other day:
"To be successful, a Democratic presidential candidate doesn't need the active support of America's CEOs, but he does need to keep them on the sidelines. Jimmy Carter lost his bid for re-election at least in part because business was determined to dump him. Bill Clinton won election and re-election at least in part because the business community, while not strongly supportive, wasn't threatened by him."
Kerry’s choice of Edwards will threaten the business community as few other moves would have, which will mean that they will not be on the sidelines.
BB:
To tell you the truth, I WAS one of those “wavering physicians” (I’m actually a registered Independent).
Tort reform and Medical Malpractice reform are at the top of my personal list. There simply is no way that I would have a VP and/or a potential President in the White House that do not support those two issues. And lately, that’s where I want to know where a Congressional or Senatorial candidate stands.
Will casting my vote for Bush change all that? Hard to say…but at least I will feel better when a collegue is willing to give up all he or she has worked all their Life for during a grueling (and rediculous) deposition…
Mufasa
Mufasa:
That’s why I always make sure to tell doctors I am a CORPORATE lawyer before they treat me… =-)
[quote]rainjack wrote:
John Kerry has the most liberal voting record in the Senate (when he actually shows up for a vote).[/quote]
Okay, I have to call you out on this.
How can Kerry be the most liberal Senator AND a flip-flopper?
Logic dictates that one of these charges is hot air. How can someone be “consistently liberal” and also consistently change his mind on issues?
Also, for all the people who complained about Edwards being a trial lawyer, remember Abraham Lincoln? He was also a trial lawyer before he took office, and we know what a bad job he did.
Edwards is a self-made man. He comes from a poor family and was the first to go to college. Any success he has in life, Edwards EARNED it. Compare that with Dubya who was a drunk and an underachiever, and got everything in life because his father was VP and Prez.
Edwards is a trial lawyer who made a career out of protecting the little guy. I’d say that compares favorably with Cheney, who is widely regarded as being in Halliburton’s pocket.
Bush’s entire cabinet will be a negative this election:
Powell- stepping down in 2004
Rumsfeld- documents implying that Rummy okayed Abu Ghraib abuse have been released.
Cheney- Halliburton profiteering scandals. Voters find him arrogant, aloof and abrasive. Heart problems
Rice- Lied during 911 commission, or came off as being incompetent
(depending on your reading)
Ashcroft- even conservatives are starting to turn against him. Has violated constitutional law.
There is also a felony case in the works, against a Bush senior official, for leaking the name of an undercover CIA operative to the press (the Valerie Plame case). Some think the finger points to Karl Rove, others speculate Cheney or a Cheney staffer was the perpetrator (or should I say perpeTRAITOR).
Can’t wait to see Edwards and Cheney debate!!!
I’ve also seen some stories that Kerry wanted McCain and that Edwards was Kerry’s second-choice for VP. Not true!
Both Kerry and McCain deny that Kerry asked McCain to join the ticket.
However there is someone who IS a second-choice candidate… DICK CHENEY.
Bush asked McCain to be his VP during the 2000 election. But McCain turned him down, because he was so pissed about the dirty campaign that Bush ran during the GOP primary. (Bush campaigners accused McCain of being mentally unstable, of having an illegitimate child, and other mud slinging tactics).
Cheney headed up Bush’s 2000 VP candidate search committee. After interviewing and reviewing all the candidates, Cheney told Bush that HE was the best candidate. And that’s how Cheney became Veep.
And you dopes think Bush is a ‘strong leader’. Ha! Bush does what he’s told.
That’s why Bush hasn’t fired a single staffer, even amidst all the scandals like the Abu Ghraib abuse. I’d love to see Dubya try to fire Rumsfeld!!! Rumsfeld would put Dubya in a half-nelson and make him cry like a little girl!
[quote]Lumpy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
John Kerry has the most liberal voting record in the Senate (when he actually shows up for a vote).
Okay, I have to call you out on this.
How can Kerry be the most liberal Senator AND a flip-flopper?
[/quote]
As a senator from Mass. He has the most liberal voting record in the Senate.
As a Presidential candidate - he has tried to be all things to all people. For the war. Against the war. For the 87 billion for Iraq. Against the 87 billion for Iraq.
The difference is, voting your conscience in the senate (being a true liberal), and flip flopping on the presidential campaign trail (trying to move to the center, void of substance).
Which is he? I think talk is cheap - what he does speaks louder than what he says he does.