Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

From lewrockwell.com:
A Week of Bush Is Like A Year of Clinton by Anthony Gregory

The number of deceptions, prevarications, miscalculations, bungles, calamities, usurpations, and out-right atrocities of which the Bush administration and its kept Republican Congress are guilty, only in any given week, boggles the mind, and evokes a depressing swell of nostalgia for the Clinton years....

In the last four years we have witnessed the greatest explosion of government power and size since the LBJ-Nixon policies of guns in Asia, butter at home. Budgets, deficits, federal spending, social programs, body count – no matter how you slice it, examine it, analyze it – adjusted for inflation, indexed to gross national product or setting aside non-discretionary spending (as if the government simply couldn’t cut that) – the Bush years constitute one of the saddest episodes in American history....

Read the full essay....
Yup, this is one of the reasons the Republican party left me. The Republican party keeps moving away from true conservative principles they are supposed to stand behind. My views haven't changed (much) -- I just don't find them represented by the Republicans any more.

Normally, I only quote a paragraph from essays like this. With this one, however, it was hard to even choose two. No matter what side of the aisle you sit on politically, if you care about US politics at all, I encourage you to read the whole piece. If you're already not a fan of Bush, it'll reinforce your view and possibly give you more ammo. If you are a fan of the current administration, it'll present you with some arguments that you should be prepared to defend against.

The really disappointing thing is that as much as I'm unhappy with the current administration, I'm almost positive that I'd be even more unhappy had Kerry won the presidential election. It seems that the Republicans are enjoying their position as head of the executive branch and holding a majority in the legislative branch. It won't last -- I expect that next year's Congressional election will be the wake-up call they don't seem to be recognizing is brewing now.

Really, more and more, I'm becoming unhappy with the current two-party system -- especially when it's difficult to find many substantial differences between the two parties.


( 31 comments — Leave a comment )
May. 27th, 2005 12:36 pm (UTC)
It won't last -- I expect that next year's Congressional election will be the wake-up call they don't seem to be recognizing is brewing now.

I don't agree. I think it's gonna be another GOP sweep.
May. 27th, 2005 12:59 pm (UTC)
What makes you think that?
(no subject) - prester_scott - May. 27th, 2005 01:02 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - emike2k3 - May. 27th, 2005 01:04 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - madkawa - May. 27th, 2005 01:17 pm (UTC) - Expand
(Deleted comment)
(no subject) - madkawa - May. 27th, 2005 01:40 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - eagle243 - May. 27th, 2005 03:51 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - prester_scott - May. 27th, 2005 04:56 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - madkawa - May. 27th, 2005 04:58 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - eagle243 - May. 27th, 2005 05:46 pm (UTC) - Expand
May. 27th, 2005 01:10 pm (UTC)
The "nowhere else to turn" idea is exactly what the two party system is counting on. The choices given aren't, or shouldn't be, the only choices. There has to be a push for other options if we are to move forward. The two parties now are so hell-bent on opposing each other that they forget about the true intent or beliefs of the people who elected them. Just look at the piss-poor voter turnout. People want other options. The issue is how and where to start. Things like contributions are a big roadblock - money still drives the vote, unfortunately.
May. 27th, 2005 01:17 pm (UTC)
Well, that's why being an Independent makes the most sense! The parties assume the votes of the people registered with them.

And, BTW, read this. Jane's Law explains what we are seeing happen:

I agree with you that it's likely that the Democrats will regain some seats in Congress. Maybe not enough to take back the Senate or House, but some. But no one, and I mean no one, has ever lost an election by promising to spend more money on the pet projects of constituents, and that's why the Republicans (as winners) keep spending more money and forgetting about that whole "small government/tight budget" stuff they were talking about for the last 50 years. They want to win, not just be right.

May. 27th, 2005 01:19 pm (UTC)
I agree... both parties are out to win and not represent.
(Deleted comment)
(no subject) - bodnej - May. 27th, 2005 01:36 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - madkawa - May. 27th, 2005 01:43 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - bodnej - May. 27th, 2005 02:02 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - madkawa - May. 27th, 2005 02:29 pm (UTC) - Expand
May. 27th, 2005 01:30 pm (UTC)
Yeah, I was going to mention Jane's Law.

The reason I agree there will be a GOP sweep in the near future is because the Dems are increasingly insane. Which makes it easier for the GOP to behave badly and still win votes.

Now, by insane I don't mean that the party core is going around with tinfoil hats. I mean that they're doing stuff that is politically insane, or - more to the point - moronic. I suppose that's what happens when the party is being taken over by big money that is nowhere near mainstream (i.e., George Soros).

The only way Dems will get more seats in the House or Senate is by the local pols running for the spots keeping the big party crazies away from themselves... ignoring the national platform, ignoring Moveon.org, ignoring that crowd. Because the areas that will find those ideas attractive are already voting for those kinds of Dems. On the local level, there are plenty of reasonable Dems left. I voted for many Dems when I lived in NC, because I believed in that particular candidate -- not because of the party they were in.

In NYC, there are no acceptable Dems (and almost no acceptable Repubs) -- it was sad, because the 2001 election is the only one I've ever skipped. I still leave certain entries blank when I vote, because I can't vote for =anybody=. Bleh.
(no subject) - bodnej - May. 27th, 2005 01:52 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - madkawa - May. 27th, 2005 02:31 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - meep - May. 27th, 2005 03:51 pm (UTC) - Expand
May. 27th, 2005 01:25 pm (UTC)
He's not reading the right conservatives if he thinks that Bush isn't getting criticism on the issue he names. RenewAmerica features that sort of thing so regularly, I've been skipping those articles because they're not saying anything I haven't read or thought already. He also fails to account for the pro-life motivation to vote the Republicans in. (They're far from perfect on the pro-life set of issues, but they're a damn sight better than the Democrats who want to murder anyone who gets in the way, at taxpayer expense, no less. And while the Republicans don't do much, they do a little.) I think failing to account for the Bush43-Clinton difference on that set of issues fails to bring sufficient understanding to the problem we have. (And mind you, I've heard a lot of pro-life grumbling that the Republicans aren't delivering on their pro-life promises, so the criticism is around on all sorts of issues.)

As for solutions, I want to see a minimum of four functioning political parties in all states. That would provide some alternatives and still provide some checks on power while allowing different ideologies to cooperate when they agree on particular issues.
May. 27th, 2005 01:45 pm (UTC)
I don't understand, "Democrats who want to murder anyone who gets in the way." I think both parties are doing this... Iraq comes to mind for the Rep side of things. *sigh*
May. 27th, 2005 02:03 pm (UTC)
The difference is that the current administration still bothers with the formality of making an accusation. The Democratic party makes no such trouble. Mindy, of course, the current administration seems not to care whether the person is guilty, they just care about the appearance of guilt. The Democratic party, contrastingly, believes that abortion on demand and euthanasia, just to name a couple, should be rights supported by the taxpayers. As for Iraq specifically, well, it was at best poorly planned and got targeted as a part of the policy agenda, so there's the appearance of guilt I was mentioning earlier.
(no subject) - madkawa - May. 27th, 2005 02:25 pm (UTC) - Expand
May. 27th, 2005 01:48 pm (UTC)
He's not reading the right conservatives if he thinks that Bush isn't getting criticism on the issue he names.

"Declarationists" and the like have no power whatsoever in the GOP. Zero. Zilch. Bush and the Congressional Republicans are going in the complete opposite direction on most issues.
(no subject) - tldz - May. 27th, 2005 01:58 pm (UTC) - Expand
May. 27th, 2005 01:48 pm (UTC)
NPR described John McCain as a "possible 2008 candidate" yesterday.

I would forgive the Republican party everything if they would nominate him.
May. 27th, 2005 01:49 pm (UTC)
Remember McCain-Feingold?

He'd never get my vote.
May. 27th, 2005 01:54 pm (UTC)
Hmmm. I think the solution is not in "who" but in the granularity of choices. If a so-called good candidate just hooks up with the major parties, it'll end up being a poor choice due to his/her being locked into that parties interests (or in those who paid the party for their interests).
May. 27th, 2005 02:10 pm (UTC)
This seems to be a popular theme this week. I thought the exact thing two nights ago. Although I despise the Democrats, the Republicans have shown themselves to be similar, but with a "more conservative flavour." I can't defend the explosion of the size of government...or the possible intrusion of the Gov into my life.

I can't say that I'm a member of any party. The world™ will do what it will. I'd rather say that, God willing, I'm a subject of the Kingdom, and let that colour how I deal with polity and with good works.

( 31 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

June 2013
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow