But is it likely that a high percentage of those that said they would have voted for her will really decide differently between the two remaining candidates based on her say-so?
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
But is it likely that a high percentage of those that said they would have voted for her really decide differently between the two remaining candidates based on her say-so?[/quote]
Maybe, we will find out Tuesday
[quote]John S. wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/01/scozzafava-endorses-democrat-dropping-ny-congressional-race/
The Ex-Republican candidate is backing the Democrat. Looks like this election may be going to the democrats.[/quote]
Anyone who still votes for these people needs medication.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
We need candidates that uphold capitalism and our Republic. Halfway between capitalism socialism is only slightly better than socialism. Halfway between a Republic protected by the constitution and complete mob rule democracy is only slightly better than complete mob rule democracy.
A compromise, by definition, cannot be the best solution. [/quote]The middle is where you’ll find your capitalism. The loony/far right supports corporate socialism. They claim they want unregulated business, but because they’re bought by corporate interests what they do is interfere to benefit their patrons – corporate socialism. If you’re looking to the far right for someone to stop that, well good luck with that…
Can you give us examples of persons you are calling “far right” and who have the position you say, either as demonstrated by words or actions that you can specify that “interfere to benefit their patrons”?
What is your definition of far right? I suspect it is different than the common definition of conservative, but actually really have no idea what you had in mind?
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Myself, I have no recollection of any such prediction in Reagan’s day.
In fact, I recall the Democratic Party continuing to control the House during both of his terms, and the Senate as well during the last two years of his second term, as well as throughout GHW Bush’s term.
That is not to say that someone may not have predicted it, but it would have been a strange prediction given the Democrats never losing control of the House during that period.[/quote]
That’s true they never lost the House but they did lose seats. Beyond that many republican governors were elected during the 12 years of republican rule of the White House. There was a great deal of talk regarding the demise of the democratic party at every level.
In 1980 Reagan’s first win the republicans took 12 additional seats to control the Senate for the first time since 1954. Notables such as (1972 Presidential candidate) Sen. George McGovern bit the political dust. Predictions were rampant that the democratic party was on the demise. After Regan crushed Walter Mondale in 84’, Mondale winning only his home state of Minnisota and the District of Columbia talk grew of the democrats having to revamp their entire party or they would be obsolete as the republicans also kept control of the Senate. At this point people were in fact claiming that the democrats as a party would have a difficult time ever capturing the white house and in fact the party itself was in deep trouble due to a political shift largely made up of something called “the Reagan democrats”.
“millions of Democrats who voted for Reagan. They characterized such Reagan Democrats as southern whites and northern blue collar workers who voted for Reagan because they credited him with the economic recovery, saw Reagan as strong on national security issues, and perceived the Democrats as supporting the poor and minorities at the expense of the middle class.”
The talk only grew stronger when George Bush (the 1st) beat a very weak Michael Dukakis by 8% to win the 1988 Presidential election. That was a 40 state win by Bush Sr. in the Electoral College. People were talking about 12 years of republican rule of the white house and the Reagan democrats were supposedly not going to leave the republicans and would eventually put an end to any chances the democrats had of winning the Senate or the House. That of course never came true. Just as the republicans will bounce back in the mid-term elections and beyond.
[quote]John S. wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/01/scozzafava-endorses-democrat-dropping-ny-congressional-race/
The Ex-Republican candidate is backing the Democrat. Looks like this election may be going to the democrats.[/quote]
Not necessarily, DeDe is so unpopular in that district that it may have a reverse effect. Keep in mind that it’s the most conservative district in NYS. I still predict a win by Hoffman in a close race.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Can you give us examples of persons you are calling “far right” and who have the position you say, either as demonstrated by words or actions that you can specify that “interfere to benefit their patrons”?
What is your definition of far right? I suspect it is different than the common definition of conservative, but actually really have no idea what you had in mind?[/quote]I’ll answer your second question (my definition of ‘far right’) first. When I think if conservative’s I think of Barry Goldwater or Ron Paul.
Goldwater quotes that may help explain:
“A lot of so-called conservatives today don’t know what the
word means. They think I’ve turned liberal because I believe
a woman has a right to an abortion. That’s a decision that’s
up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some
do-gooders or the religious right. It’s not a conservative
issue at all.”
- Barry Goldwater, 1994 Los Angeles Times interview.
“I have little interest in streamlining government or in
making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size.
I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to
extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal
them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel
old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have
failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an
unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover
whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first
determined whether it is constitutionally permissible.
And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my
constituents’ interests, I shall reply that I was
informed their main interest is liberty and that in
that cause I am doing the very best I can.”
– Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.), “The Conscience of
a Conservative”
“We do not seek to lead anyone’s life for him.
We seek only to secure his rights and to guarantee him
opportunity to strive, with government performing only
those needed and constitutionally sanctioned tasks which
cannot otherwise be performed.” Barry
or William Safire, New York Times op-ed, August 27, 1984
“No President,not even born-again Jimmy Carter, has done
more to marshal the political clout of these evangelicals
than has Ronald Reagan-- to his historic discredit.”
Ron Paul quotes:
“Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven’t had capitalism.”
“Cliches about supporting the troops are designed to distract from failed policies, policies promoted by powerful special interests that benefit from war, anything to steer the discussion away from the real reasons the war in Iraq will not end anytime soon.”
“How did we win the election in the year 2000? We talked about a humble foreign policy: No nation-building; don’t police the world. That’s conservative, it’s Republican, it’s pro-American - it follows the founding fathers. And, besides, it follows the Constitution.”
"I am absolutely opposed to a national ID card. This is a total contradiction of what a free society is all about. The purpose of government is to protect the secrecy and the privacy of all individuals, not the secrecy of government. We don’t need a national ID card. "
“Our country’s founders cherished liberty, not democracy.”
To me the ‘far right’ includes folks who try to impose their:
-moral values (for example Goldwater’s quote â??I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass.â?? – in response to Falwell’s anti-gay stances)
-religious beliefs (again Goldwater: â??It’s wonderful that we have so many religious people in our party, … They need to leave their theologies in their churches.â??)
The far right led the charge against our rights to not be spied upon (abetted by the gutless lefties that were afraid to appear ‘soft on defense and terrorism’), and against basic rights like habeas corpus, and against holding telecoms and elected officials accountable for what are likely illegal (felonies) actions.
Regarding your first question (far right names whose corporate socialist actions benefit their patrons) – good question. First, remember I’m speaking out against both loony extremes – left and right. I specifically mentioned the far right in the post you quote in response to that one person. Don’t take that as my singling out the far right on this.
The first Ron Paul quote above is illustrative.
Examples of corporate socialism:
-during the recession in the 80s there were tax rebates and lower tax rates for the largest corporations to “stimulate economic growth and job creation”. USX (US Steel Company) instead used its tax rebate to acquire Marathon Oil and its rival Japanese steel, rather than invest in its own steel operations.
-Taxol (the best-selling cancer drug ever) was developed with $500 million in publicly funded research and testing. The National Institutes of Health granted exclusive production rights to Bristol-Myers Squibb Inc. for a 0.5-percent royalty, then Squibb was paid ~$700 million in just the first five years of Taxol’s production for government health-care programs at markups up to 2,000 percent over production costs.
-Look at the Bush’s prescription drug plan that specifically prohibits the federal government from negotiating prices with drug manufacturers. Obama’s has negotiated a similar prohibition in his current health care proposal. There are great examples of politicians putting their corporate patrons interests ahead of the voters.
-Look at the bailout with taxpayer money for the big financial corps who were ‘too big to fail’ – and after bailing them out they’re ‘too bigger to fail’.
As for names of far right folks who do this – check out who voted for this stuff. NOTE – not all who voted for it are ‘far right’ – see above for which of those who voted for it are far right. Remember I’m advocating the ‘sensible center’ and decrying the loony extremes. Some lefties voted for the above – they’re bought out by the same corporate interests, they just support individual socialism along with corporate socialism.
I’m not sure I sufficiently answered your question. Let me know where/what I need to expand on, what I missed, etc., and where you disagree. And apologies for mistakes/typos/bad editing/etc., as it’s late and your questions had no quick/easy answers.
Well, it is not clear to me. Names and specific statements or acts fitting in the categories you stated would have helped. (On the actions, I don’t consider taking tax money, just less of it, to be “giving” anyone anything. It is still taking.)
The only name I saw was Bush.
So from that I have to conclude that Bush is your concept of “far right.”
If stipulating that definition, then I agree with you. Most who consider themselves conservatives (I am a libertarian and stipulate it for communication) would not stipulate their definition.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Well, it is not clear to me. Names and specific statements or acts fitting in the categories you stated would have helped. (On the actions, I don’t consider taking tax money, just less of it, to be “giving” anyone anything. It is still taking.)
The only name I saw was Bush.
So from that I have to conclude that Bush is your concept of “far right.”
If stipulating that definition, then I agree with you. Most who consider themselves conservatives (I am a libertarian and stipulate it for communication) would not stipulate their definition. [/quote]Hmmm… let me try again…
I hold to an ‘older’ definition of conservatism, one that believes in smaller government, government keeping its nose out of peoples private lives, providing a level playing field for people and business then stepping back (with some assistance in special times – disasters – and special roles – national defense), respect the Constitution and our Rights and Freedoms, that sort of thing. Bush2 would be to the right of that (increased gov’t size, confounded religion and politics, weakened our Freedoms, etc.). Huckabee too. McCain too (especially the one that ran for president, not as much the ‘maverick’ McCain.
Pretty much most of the republicans left standing would be ‘far right’ (at least they publically are – that’s the way the republican wind is blowing and they know to not stand against it, else rush et. al. will target them. The reps seem to be purging themselves of those who are conservatives (my definition).
What most call conservatives today aren’t by the old classic definition. Call em neo-cons, or far right, or whatever, they’re not from the Barry Goldwater school (who used to be considered pretty far on the right – that’s how much things have changed as today’s ‘conservatives’ would call him liberal for many of his views).
Example of action – from http://www.eschoolnews.com/policy/index.cfm?i=61423
“Net-neutrality opponent Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is the top recipient of campaign contributions from large internet service providers like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast over the past two years, InfoWorld reports. McCain has taken in a total of $894,379, according to a new report from the Sunlight Foundation and the Center for Responsive Politicsâ??more than twice the amount taken by the next-largest beneficiary, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. ($341,089). Meanwhile, McCain has emerged as the ISPs’ biggest champion against new “network neutrality” rules from the Federal Communications Commission, which voted Oct. 22 to move forward in the process to adopt such rules. Shortly after the FCC vote, McCain introduced a bill (the “Internet Freedom Act”) that would block regulation of the nation’s largest broadband networks.”
Now, net neutrality isn’t a clear cut issue, but basically (as I understand and support it) it’s a means to keep a level playing field, by preventing the big companies from pricing out smaller companies, stifling competition and innovation. This is an example of where gov’t stepping up to ‘regulate’ preserves our current relatively level playing field, and prevents big companies from screwing things up. Not ‘regulating’ our current relatively level playing field, and allowing the big companies to do what they want, would hurt us as a society (by reducing competition and innovation) – so I’m for net neutrality.
So, that’s a specific example of a far-right (by Barry Goldwater conservative definition) putting the good of the big companies that bribe errrrr… donate to him, ahead of the good of the country.
And note Reid is the second-largest beneficiary – thus my including both loony extremes in my statements.
Another note – the money given to McCain wasn’t printed in telecom basements, it’s from us – from our cable/etc. bills. Our money is being used to stop net neutrality (is that a tax write-off too?), which will cause our cable bills to rise if we want the premium/etc. content that they’ll be able to charge more for absent net neutrality. So, we’re paying now so we can pay more tomorrow – thanks to McCain et. al.
Conservatives (by the Barry Goldwater definition) would try to preserve our currently relatively level playing field for all telecoms – big and small, contributors or not – and then get out of the way, playing no favorites, and letting the market determine winners&losers.
Does that help, or do you want more?
No, you’ve made clear that your definition of “far right” means such as McCain and Bush.
It is a categorization that most self-described conservatives would not agree with.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
No, you’ve made clear that your definition of “far right” means such as McCain and Bush.
It is a categorization that most self-described conservatives would not agree with.[/quote]That’s why I refer to them as loonies (same with left-most). That people who advocate the gov’t butting into their private lives consider themselves ‘conservative’ shows how much they’ve perverted the term. Or who spend us into huge deficits (bush)… or who appear to put their allegiance first to the bible instead of the constitution… or who root against our country putting making the other party look bad ahead of the good of the country…
A pox on their houses.
I’m thinking the best chance for the much-needed third party will come from the middle, with folks who reject both loony extremes.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Nick Danger wrote:
A pox on the houses of all the extremes – liberal and conservative and religious and all the rest.
I like a lot of Ron Paul’s ideas – how they don’t hate us because of our Freedom but because we’re over there interfering with their lives, how we can’t afford this empire and we’re going broke like Rome and Britian so even if it is a good idea we just can’t afford it, how the Fed needs monitoring, and similar views. I see that as pretty mainstream, not extreme.
Republican are generally chasing the extreme right, while dems have been trying to move just to the left of the reps (as seen by FISA, support for the wars, etc. – there are exceptions such as the public option) while trying to ignore their left wing as much as possible (as shown by Obama fighting behind the scenes against the public option while courting Snowe).
It would be nice to see a new party of the ‘sensible center’ form, as they seem to be pretty much ignored by both parties.
Maybe we’ll get lucky and the loony extremes will kill each other off.
We need candidates that uphold capitalism and our Republic. Halfway between capitalism socialism is only slightly better than socialism. Halfway between a Republic protected by the constitution and complete mob rule democracy is only slightly better than complete mob rule democracy.
A compromise, by definition, cannot be the best solution.[/quote]
The idea isn’t to take the loony ideas of each extreme and add them, then divide by 2 to get a
‘compromise’, as you suggest. The idea is to reject their loony ideas completely, take them off the table.
Unfortunately we’re becoming more polarized, not less (esp. the republicans who are eating their moderates), and it looks like that won’t change until things get even worse. I thought the savings&loan debacle would be a wake-up call – nope. Neither was enron, nor the tech bubble. Not even the housing bubble and this depression. The collapses keep getting larger, and what is coming next is scary.
[quote]Nick Danger wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Nick Danger wrote:
A pox on the houses of all the extremes – liberal and conservative and religious and all the rest.
I like a lot of Ron Paul’s ideas – how they don’t hate us because of our Freedom but because we’re over there interfering with their lives, how we can’t afford this empire and we’re going broke like Rome and Britian so even if it is a good idea we just can’t afford it, how the Fed needs monitoring, and similar views. I see that as pretty mainstream, not extreme.
Republican are generally chasing the extreme right, while dems have been trying to move just to the left of the reps (as seen by FISA, support for the wars, etc. – there are exceptions such as the public option) while trying to ignore their left wing as much as possible (as shown by Obama fighting behind the scenes against the public option while courting Snowe).
It would be nice to see a new party of the ‘sensible center’ form, as they seem to be pretty much ignored by both parties.
Maybe we’ll get lucky and the loony extremes will kill each other off.
We need candidates that uphold capitalism and our Republic. Halfway between capitalism socialism is only slightly better than socialism. Halfway between a Republic protected by the constitution and complete mob rule democracy is only slightly better than complete mob rule democracy.
A compromise, by definition, cannot be the best solution.
The idea isn’t to take the loony ideas of each extreme and add them, then divide by 2 to get a
‘compromise’, as you suggest. The idea is to reject their loony ideas completely, take them off the table.
Unfortunately we’re becoming more polarized, not less (esp. the republicans who are eating their moderates), and it looks like that won’t change until things get even worse. I thought the savings&loan debacle would be a wake-up call – nope. Neither was enron, nor the tech bubble. Not even the housing bubble and this depression. The collapses keep getting larger, and what is coming next is scary.
[/quote]
Left is more gov’t. Right is less gov’t. It matters not who they are doling favors out to. Interfering with the economy on behalf of consumers or businesses is a leftist move. All the looneys are on the left, Republicans included.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Left is more gov’t. Right is less gov’t.[/quote]What world are you living in?
Right brings gov’t snooping into bedrooms, what tv shows you can watch, spying on email/phones/mail, confounding religion and gov’t, ineffective wars on drugs, etc. Bush increased gov’t as much as any lefty, and far-righters pass corporate socailist laws like lefties pass individual socialist laws.
Drinking the right’s koolaid is no different than drinking the left’s.
Can you give us an actual example of this snooping in bedrooms? Or is that just a line that you’ve heard and nodded along to, without actually having a clue of any specific (it just sounded good), and are now passing it along?
Can you demonstrate to us that in contrast most Democrats favor ending the so-called War on Drugs, or even that there is a difference? If not then why is this peculiar to “the right?”
Can you give an example of a “corporate socialist law?” Do you know what socialism is?
Or have you just soaked up a lot of memes and don’t actually have examples for what you say?
By the way, just to save the time of a possible likely response of yours: when corporations of a given kind still pay billions in taxes, the fact that that amount is less than some possible yet higher amount, if not for a given legislative act, does not comprise “corporate socialism.”
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Can you give us an actual example of this snooping in bedrooms? Or is that just a line that you’ve heard and nodded along to, without actually having a clue of any specific (it just sounded good), and are now passing it along?[/quote]
the patriot act.
Surely you can back this up. How does the Patriot Act “snoop in bedrooms”?
Well, wait a sec, maybe you can.
I suppose that if you have terrorists calling you from overseas, while you’re in your bedroom, and you like having phone sex with these terrorists, the Patriot Act would result in you being snooped on in the bedroom.
Bad enough that you’re a bleeding heart for terrorists… but having phone sex with them? You disgust me.