Are Progressives Out of Ideas?

One of the main reasons bandied about for the GOP's decline is its lack of ideas. According to this re-telling, conservative think tanks once kept the idea pipeline freshly stocked, and it was this intellectual revival that underpinned GOP victories in 1980 and 1994.

The fact that this argument gets made internally shows that conservatives care more about ideas even when they (supposedly) don't have any than Democrats do when they are ascendant and (supposedly) chock full of them.

Witness my daily e-mail from the Center for American Progress: The New New Deal.

We are now engaged in a full-on debate over the return of nearly eight decades old economic policy, with George Will and Tyler Cowen weighing in on one side of the new New Deal debate and Paul Krugman, Brad DeLong, and OpenLeft arguing on the other.

But no one is pointing out that having a debate over the New Deal in 2008, much less recreating it, is patently absurd. The New Deal began 76 years ago. The New Deal is about as relevant today as the economic policies of John Quincy Adams were at the turn of the 20th century or Reconstruction was in the post-World War II period. Republicans should be mocking the fact that "change" apparently means 76-year-old economic dogma that first burst onto the scene a few years after the Talkies became all the rage. 

The age of liberalism's ideas should be at issue here. The agenda of the incoming Obama administration is looking remarkably similar to an unfinished to-do list from the time Democrats last had complete control of the government 16 years ago: an economic stimulus (albeit one 30 times as profligate), national health care, and gays in the military.

Don't they have any new ideas?

Democrats have made an electoral killing off the idea that Republican ideas are old. One of their major memes in the last election was that John McCain was too old and couldn't use a Blackberry. So it is ironic that their new, young, and fresh! President is directly modeling his agenda off that tried during a decade-long prolonged depression older than the man he defeated.

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (3 votes)


King Henry tried the other idea.

Friedman's I mean.

Would you care to suggest something else to stop this? I'm all ears.

Umm.. no

There has been a great deal of ink, anger, and tears spent by Conservatives trying to undo

a.  A Progressive Income Tax, where higher earners pay higher taxes

b.  Keynesian stimulus of the Economy via government spending.

These two battles are still being fought, and will continue to be fought as they have been since September 1774 by the men who met at the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia.

I watched with amusement as Dr. Krugman handed George Will his Conservative myths on the New Deal in a handbasket.

Progressive ideas under Obama ARE new:

The idea of a new generation of an American Economy, and its Recovery based on Energy Independence are new.

Seeing Energy as a National Security issue are new. 

Obama's proposed economic stimulus package is unprecedented in size, scope, and reach. 

Obama's Progressive vision of a Foreign Policy grounded in mutual global collaboration, and a world united to meet and overcome unprecedented global challenges such as terrorism, radical climate change, and global trade issues is new.

Progressives are stoked, energized, and impatient to get this country moving forward.

Conservatives, as usual, are focussing on criticizing, second-guessing, obstructing, and standing in the way of progress, and trying desperately to maintain and preserve the status quo and worse, to go back to the halcyon days they imagined under Ronald Reagan.  That's what Conservatives are all about, by definition, for God's sake: The past.

A great American, Thomas Paine, said:  "LEAD, FOLLOW, or get the HELL out of the WAY!"

We have seen these bitter 12 years Conservatives are unable to lead.  We are seeing they will not follow.  And now we will see them refuse to get the Hell out of the way!


No taxation without a Keynesian stimulus of the Economy!  Doesn't quite have the same ring to it, I'm thinking.

To respond to your points:

--"The idea of a new generation of an American Economy, and its Recovery based on Energy Independence."  See:

--"Seeing Energy as a National Security issue."  See:

--"Obama's proposed economic stimulus package is unprecedented in size, scope, and reach."  Taking your predecessor's bad economic ideas and doubling down on them is not new.  See: those George Will "conservative myths" on the New Deal you referenced earlier.

--"Obama's Progressive vision of a Foreign Policy grounded in mutual global collaboration, and a world united to meet and overcome unprecedented global challenges..."  See:

New Ideas

Carter's ideas were also revolutionary and visionary.  And what have Conservatives done for thirty years but mock and denigrate them?

But Obama's ideas take Carter's foundations and extends them and builds and erect complete new structures based on today's issues, and on our common future, not our past.


1.  Carter only took Energy as a foundation for our Economy in the direction of Conservation and a more prudent use of our resources.  Obama's stated vision is millions of new jobs, new industries, and selling our discoveries, our green technologies, our new methods and materials in trade to other countries to replace the manufacturing and materials jobs we've lost.

2.  Energy as a National Security Issue was never imagined with the importance and urgency of a post-911 world.  Obama knows that 3000 Americans are dead in part because of Gas pipelines and oil rights and Energy concerns in Afghanistan.   Oil Companies are in Iraq and Kuwait and Kazakhstan and other places where their and our American interests put us in conflict with other countries, and continue to put us at risk.

3.  "Unprecedented" means new.  You could look it up.

4.  Wilson's 14 points were once again a primitive foundation, a base.  The League of Nations Wilson described never got off the ground and crashed in flames, under fire from Conservatives.  In Wilson's time there was no European Union, no China as an Economic behemoth and a totalitarian state, no United States as a total military and Economic Superpower, dominating the entire world and yet dangerously losing speed and altitude and headed for a huge decline and fall. 

Obama's ideas represent the fresh, new energy that states strongly that countries and societies can work together, that the US does not always have to dominate  or be the best and brightest, only the hardest worker, the most generous contributor, the leader in decency, in freedom, in human rights, in the dream of our forefathers of a great nation founded on the proposition that all men are created equal, and will be afforded the opportunity to excel  equally, and will be equally able to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.    And some will excel more than others, and that's part of Obama's story,and the story of America as well.

NOTHING is more new than the fact that a Black man has been elected President of this great Nation, and it has made us greater.


The "size, scope, and reach" of Obama's stimulus package is going to dwarf anything Roosevelt or Johnson did?  If I had said that during the campaign, I think you would have called me a liar.

Also, to repeat the point I made in the first post, on the stimulus package and bailout(s) Obama is playing FDR to Bush's Hoover.  He's proposing something that will probably be bigger, but is mostly in continuity with Bush's economic proposals from the last few years.  And therefore not all that new.

I think you are mistaken

but you're talking about things that I only remember from high school, so if you have some scholastic research, please help!

Hoover was a stubborn laissez faire proponent (FDR was as well, but people poured fire down his neck and he MOVED.) -- this is not to say that he wasn't smart, but he was entirely wrong.

He thought that we were looking at a Black Swan Event, which was a reasonable assumption, for a while.

Not new, just different

The past election cycle was very much about claiming the leadership within the parties, and for the Democrats, the conservatives (or moderates, what have you) won.

Really, the fruity fringe is all up in arms about it.

The fact is that conservative Democrats outnumber the fringe left, but it's the fringe that seems to be the loudest.  That's why Reagan was able to use the charge of 'catering to special interest groups' against them so effectively.  It was true.

That's changing.  That is new.

And you can see the beginning of that in Obama's foregoing of campaign money from those traditionally Democratic groups.

But 'New?'  No.

Obama's economic policies will be dominated by the (now discredited) Chicago School

His social policies will be dominated by the more conservative minority base.

He will be a great disappointment to the Left, for the most part.

But you will never beat this man by waiting for him to screw up the way that GWB did.  There will be no Katrina disasters here.  He's too smart for that, too wily.

As for where did the Republicans go wrong, the time of the neo-cons is at an end.  It is now a period of re-organization.

Grover Norquist, Jonah Goldberg, et al, were never on par with a Newt Gingrich.

It's time to call the children in from recess. 

Pragmatic Democrats aren't precisely conservative

(though fiscally I think you're right).

I hope that the era of big business republicans and religious right republicans is at an end. I can see the fissures forming already...

Awesome Rebuttal!!

There is nothing new under the sun.

Obama's biggest agenda  is going to be New Deal 2.0.

Carter's energy policy 2.0.

HillaryCare 2.0.

Bailouts without end.

IT WILL FAIL NOW AS IT HAS BEFORE (See Japan 1990s, FDR 1930s).



you are truly the king of the idiots

George will has no scholastic integrity

can you please listen to someone competent? Other people around here recommend GOOD conservative economic blogs (not me. I prefer the people who figured out about problems ahead of time)

Will does write something worthwhile...

...about three times a year.

When he's good, he's really good-- he's excellent.

Easy to miss it due to the boredom factor. 

umm... that was teddy that gave us a progressive income tax

1900 or so, not 1774. And Keynes came after him (though you could argue that the WHIGs were pretty big about infrastructure investment, which leads to productivity increases...)

I admire your enthusiasm, but -- historical accuracy??

Why 76-yr-old ideas are still valid

Republicans have never, never repudiated the entire New Deal socialist foundation - only tinkered with slowing its progress - which is why these 76-year-old ideas still have legs.

Any ideas that consist of transferring the nation's tax wealth via the individual income tax (i.e., stealing from some citizens' wallets) to "less fortunate" or "entitled" citizens (even non-citizens) are always in fashion for some. If the goal is income redistribution by force, who cares if the idea is 5,000 years old?

They never give up these ideas, no matter how badly they're defeated in elections (e.g., 1994). Democrats will always view any Republican interruptions of their control of the federal government *not* as voter repudiation of core Democrat ideas, but simply as pesky irritations that slow down implementation of the entire redistribution package. That package now includes federalized health care, preschool and after-school care.

I don't know how, or even if, Republicans can combat the Democrats' continual stimulation of greed and envy in people's hearts. (Social Security can't be ended - only privatized perhaps - and our own Reagan created the Department of Education to dispense ever-growing subsidies to the teachers' unions, who every day teach our children in factory schools to hate freedom, enterprise and faith in God, and love socialism.)

The other thing the Dems have done is to tell outright lies repeatedly in order to get elected and then stay in power. They've also shamelessly stolen Republican ideas and positions in order to get elected and stay in power (Clinton, Obama). Republicans have to be ready to point this out - to expose these liars and thieves who don't care about ethical means, only achieving their ends. There really is no room for "peaceful co-existence" with people who are trying to bury you.

I believe the only thing Republicans can do is painstakingly point out Democrats' role in stealing our money, bankrupting the federal government and increasing its control over our personal lives - include GWB in that, too, unfortunately - and call for a rejection of the whole gooey mess. The TV ads during the Hillary health care crisis (Harry and Louise?) worked pretty well, as they put these facts into human terms that real people can understand. Is it possible to dumb-down Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" to fit on bumper stickers?


I agree with your post

Except about the part that Reagan created the Dept. of Education.  That was done by Carter as payoff to the NEA (I do believe the American Federation of Teachers did oppose it at the time).  Reagan promised to undo it, but well so much for that. 

By the way Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism is such a brilliant and seminal work on the state of the American Left and its very real fascist tendacies that I just don't think you could "dumb it down" to a bumper sticker slogan the average young person who was educated in today's public education system would understand.

Jonah Goldberg an incredible douchebag, and is widely known as "The Doughy Pantload" for good reason. 

His work on the absurdity of  "Liberal Fascism" is almost a self-parody of the CONservative Movement, , and has caused only great merriment and mockery among serious scholars.


Goldberg was instrumental in why I gave up reading the editorials in the newspaper.

What an idiot. 

the fact that the idiots are on the right

is an indication of exactly how right-leaning the media is. ;-)

Oh plsease spare me your sanctimonious bullshit

Jonah Goldberg is brilliant and you simply can't argue against his premise. I am tired of you assclowns who wanting to live in your leftist fantasy that only "your kind" has acdemic credentials.  In fact most of your so-called academics parrot the same old quasi-intellectual garbage descended from Marx that is simply repackaged for your intellectual masturbation. 

Please point me to the conservative alternatives...

Let's assume for a moment that 100% of the country were to wake up one day and suddenly agree with conservatives/Republicans that Obama is clueless or evil, or both.  Where do we go to find the alternatives proposed by Republicans that will allow us to avoid the inevitable Obama failures?  I'm not being snarky just sincerely curious:  I hear a lot of rhetoric from conservatives/Republicans about the error of Obama's ways, but not once do I hear them go on to list their proposals for how the following issues should be handled instead: 

  • Economy/bailouts
  • Health care
  • Environment/energy
  • Jobs
  • National security/terrorism

Again, not be snarky but curious, can you point me to a website or some other source that explains the alternatives advocated by conservatives?  I never heard anything specific on these topics during the election or since, of any significance, offering alternative solutions.  The closest McCain came was trumpeting the surge and that he alone knew some way to find bin Laden, but precious little else of any specifics.  We all may be happy to join you in shooting down Obama's plans if we had any clue what Republicans see as the alternatives.


RE conservative alternatives

I have to agree with acinphx on the dearth of conservative ideas brought forth in recent years. That's because we didn't have any conservatives running at the top of the national ticket in 2004 or 2008.

However, riffing off my earlier comment, Americans are now used to looking to the federal government to solve every problem - despite the Constitution's deliberate restriction of the role of the federal government by reserving many rights to the States, through the interstate-commerce clause, and by restricting the federal government's revenues to indirect taxes.

Since 1916, however, the federal government has had direct access to every American's wallet through income taxation and - since WW2 - to continuing access via paycheck withholding. Add in a Social Security system whose original safety-net purpose was deliberately expanded by the Democrats to include payments for welfare and almost any problem you can name (including alcoholism as a "disease"), and you can see why so many people now look to the federal government to be sugar daddy and provide all the answers.

For years, the Republicans have just gone along with so many of these issues, unable or unwilling to argue for restraint, prudence, and fiscal responsibility as did the Founding Fathers. Now that much of the citizenry is used to getting government checks, government bailouts, government solutions to every problem, how can conservatives suggest less cash is the ultimate answer, rather than the Democrats endless more more more cash?

It seems that for every issue conservatives would like to turn back government involvement/control to the private sector - to reduce taxation and get inefficient government out of our lives - there's a federally funded industry to fight them. Two examples:

1) education: vouchers or support for home schooling? Try fighting the teachers unions

2) restrictions on abortion or embryonic stem-cell research? Try fighting the multi-billion-dollar dead-baby industry, which will undoubtedly have its federal cash tap turned back on by Obama.

I too am waiting for someone creative to offer conservative solutions that will sound more attractive to the citizenry than endless dollops of tax monies to every conceivable interest group.

I know government isn't the answer to everything but...

by the same token, leadership and policy on key issues of national scope can only be set by the federal government.  It seems unproductive at best to expect 50 separate state policies on overarching issues like the environment, fiscal regulation, immigration, etc., to produce the best results.  I am not a person who thinks every solution depends on a government check.  But I also don't believe that unfettered free markets always reach the best solution.  This is where my quandary is:  like them or not, at least Obama/Democrats seem to talk about and are attempting solutions, though admittedly they lean to the 'big government' type.  On the other hand, conservatives seem to do nothing but whine and moan about what the Democrats are doing but without coming out and saying what they would do instead.  Do they lack ideas or just don't want to be honest about what their ideas are?  I just want to know what they would do instead.  Leave it all to free markets?  Leave almost everything but national defense to the states?  If not either of those, what do they propose the federal government do about these issues?

And as I said, I don't feel that government is or should be the solution to every problem.  On the other hand, I think conservatives give way too much credence to the old Reagan saw that "government is the problem."  We're always going to have a government.  Why, then, should we "hire" people (Republicans) to run something they see as a 'problem'?  Would you do your best work for an employer that you viewed as a 'problem'?  In that light, it's no wonder the Republicans have seemed to 'run' the government into the ground for the past several years.  If I were an employer, why would I hire someone who wanted to work for me but went about town loudly proclaiming that my company is the problem?  It just doesn't make sense.  If you want the job, you had better be prepared to tell me why you're the best person for the job and your ideas for improving my company.  It's nothing but the lazy way out to run around declaring others (individuals and entities) are the problem and at the same time offering no productive solutions of your own. 

you should check out Dr. David Brin's blog

it's a fascinating read, and you'll find a lot of 'middle of the road' solutions.

I'm a 'middle of the road' type person. We need gov't , and we need free markets. We need gov't to preserve free markets for National security (global warming is a nat'l security issue -- just ask Gen'l Clark)

dead babies or dead adults? you decide.

Parkinson's kills a lot of people, you know.

The founding fathers should not be freaking worshipped. Particularly when their time was SO DIFFERENT from ours.

You aren't calling for the gold standard are you? ;-)

Who are you calling 'Progressives?'

These people are the degenerate remnants of institutionalized identity politics, which in turn devolved from the issue-based student movements of the 60's.

Hence, their vision of Tolerance & Diversity entail complete homogeneity of thought.


They are no more 'Progressive' than they are starfish.

It is unacceptable to allow them to claim the title of great Republican leaders of the past.

No, I believe that McCain was the progressive running for president.

Obama is a conservative Democrat, which is typical of minorities.

But the blacks, latinos, muslims, et al, that have a cultural predisposition toward social conservatism have been blocked out, most notably by the hands of the Old Guard-- Limbaugh, Coulter, et al.


It's a typical urban black Baptist you're up against, not some sort of progressive. 

You sound as shrill as radical

left hippies who call Bush and the Republican party "lizard men" who are secretly scheming with some master plan that drives every twist and turn of our government's actions. Throwing in phrases like "a typical urban black Baptist" simply distances you even further from reality.


You must be mistaken.

I was Assistant Minister of Music at a black baptist church in Parkville, Mo, (a suburb of Kansas City) for two years.

Simply reporting what I saw as accurately as I can.


But I never voted for Bush.  Would never dream of it, not in 1000 yrs, not if his opponent was Lucifer Himself.


The past election cycle was the first I voted Republican for president, and if you look at the candidates the Republicans have been offering, you can see why. 

umm... the UUC is a white mainline denomintion

known for marrying homosexuals.

Within it, Rev. Wright's church was a minority megachurch of the evangelical stripe.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with Baptists, other than the preaching style.

Beneath you, Patrick

This is a just a silly, thoughtless post that adds nothing to the debate.

Not worthy of your usual efforts, Patrick.


I come here for relevent political commentary from one of the few intelligible right leaning outlets still available, and out comes this shit? I use such a strong word simply because this post rings of sore loser syndrome, where while your victorious opponent walks away you call out some pitiful sob of a taunt.

First of all, I fail to understand the criticism of progressives for trying to finish an "unfinished to-do list," what is the point of a to do list except to finish it? If, by your own admission, the ideas which are at the core of Democratic politics have not resulted in real and lasting action in the government then what incentive is there for them to stop?  With 40 million people uninsured, and as health care costs continue to accelerate while not achieving nearly as effective longevity or quality of life gains as came from previous progress in medicine the previous century... well, why shouldn't we be talking about health care?

The "new New Deal" is yet another theme picked up and spread by a frenzied media which has little to no idea what direction the Obama administration will go in first (has anyone not heard the media beating the phrase "Team of Rivals" to death, despite the fact that there are no real 'rivals' in his team at the moment?). Obama and the Democratically controlled legislative branch seem set to push through a stimulus package and they will likely get it, so why shouldn't it be more along the lines of FDR's public works programs? Most economists scoff at "stimulus" rebate checks, and question the long term usefullness of stimulus agendas anyway as any payments now are offset by taxes later. Since that is the case, why should we not at least show some prudence when stimulus is approved to shore up our waning infrastructure, and maybe even create some jobs in public works projects that will end in the near future (2-5 years) and can then be taken off the books. Instead of throwing up protectionist policies, restricting trade, or trying to pick winners in the new "green" economy, or giving tax breaks to government approved businesses and individuals?

My point is, regardless of the conversations you seem to be privy too within Republican circles, there has been an absolute failure to shine a public light on whatever the heck those are as the next phrase following "GOP" these days is "social conservatives". The slogans used by John McCain in 2008 were the same as Republican talking points have been for the past 25 years, lower taxes, Democrats can't understand what it means to be patriotic, and liberals can't be trusted at a time when the nation is under threat.

As for Barack Obama's economic agenda, in his 60 minutes interview he specifically said that while there are lessons to be learned from the past (and he did reference the New Deal), that the solutions he uses when in office will address the problems of today rather than keep trying to apply old solutions to those that no longer exist. Other than announcing his desire to pass a new stimulus package, I have seen no information about specifics that he will be using to attempt to revitalize the economy so I have to also question how it is you seem to have pinned down exactly what it is that the fairly competent looking (thus far) economic team Obama has assembled will be doing in the months to come. Creating straw men to knock down and build up the idea of "conservatives car[ing] more about ideas" when you have absolutely no clue about how much debate is going on within the new administration about what direction to take come January 20th, much less what the hell Congress will, specifically, do now that Bush will no longer keep a lid on them.

I thought this site, and its posters, were better than this. I hope you can restore my confidence going forward

arrogance and foul language

I come here for relevent political commentary from one of the few intelligible right leaning outlets still available, and out comes this shit?

Lib-tards cannot express themselves without windy pointless self-important arrogant prose .. or 4 letter words. or in this case, both. Go away you jerk. We dont need you crapping on our carpets with your arrogance and foul language.

okay, you quisling, who said that you wanted to speak french.

shut your hole.

eliminate your egress.

What, do I need to find even harder to understand words to get my fucking point across?

LibTrolls cant stop the foul language

This isn't Kos. If you want to you the F-bomb and tell people "shut you hole" do it there. You Libs seem to love being foul-mouthed jerks. 

You are a world class jerk, a RisingTide of name calling BS. I know its part of the Saul Alinsky way, but did you actually take a class "A-holes 101" or does it come naturally to be such a twerp?

“I am a Republican, a black, dyed in the wool Republican, and I never intend to belong to any other party than the party of freedom and progress.” -Frederick Douglass



what's your problem?

seriously, why the censorship?

why eliminate useful words out of our vocabulary?


The irony

"We don't need your arrogance, lib-tard!" Oh, stop, my sides are killing me!


The more of you who die off the better it is for humanity.

The tolerance shown on this site

Is sure to drive more moderates into the party!

Maybe you'll get your lucky wish and I'll die next time I deploy! I'm not a combat troop, but there's always the chance I could get embedded with an army platoon. Keep crossing your fingers!

umm... big ben's on my killfile list

for very good reason.

As a Jew, I find it rather emotional to be called fascist. Let alone fascist for supporting socialism.

It's clear that he's just using hateful language, and is at any rate illiterate enough to not bother to learn whatever I'm talking about, before rallying against it, simply because it's what I said (see: Colorblind Racism).

It's not possible to have a strategic discussion with a five year old, and it's not possible to have an interesting discussion with big ben.

Clocks may be right twice a day, but I'm not sure if that's true for Big Ben.

Arrogant LibTroll twerp plays victim card

"As a Jew, I find it rather emotional to be called fascist."

Then as a LibTroll Jew spewing venom and name-calling on this board, you should think twice of falsely calling pro-freedom American conservative 'fascist' just because its the left-tards favorite stupid swear word.

You are stupid if you think it "OK" for a non-Jew to be called fascist when they are not. I guess a german is supposed to be thrilled by it?!?

Besides, by watering it down, you are insulting your fellow Jews who were victims of the real thing, n'est ce pas?

"Let alone fascist for supporting socialism."

Uh, nazi was/is National Socialism. Go ahead, reread "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" and try to find some air between the state-managed socialized capitalism of the third reich and the state-managed socialized capitalism of the Obama nation.

It's not possible to have a strategic discussion with a five year old, and it's not possible to have an interesting discussion with big ben.

Then leave the board and never come back.  Your trolling is ... boring and stupid.

Godwin's Law having been fully breached, I will step away from any F-bombs if you will - no Fa... , Fu.. or ... Falwell.



I'm calling out the romantic movement

not 'profreedom conservatives', if there yet is such a thing!

What part of freedom is letting the government ban medical procedures? Let alone drugs?

What part of freedom is torture? Jesus Christ might have something to say about that, neh?

What part of freedom is the Patriot Act?

What part of freedom is deliberately spreading Anthrax to the people who were preparing to stand against it? [not putting the tinfoil hat on, here, folks]

Doesn't it just drive you mad when people say that bush has prevented all terrorism attacks since 9-11?

or is that just me?


Today I am a Democrat. tommorrow, I hope to not be. Is this too difficult to understand?

What part of freedom

Is not being able to say fuck?

Which part of civility and common sense

is lacking in the Liberal trolls?

It's not a restriction on your 'freedom' to avoid saying 4 letter words in someone elses forum.

It's common courtesy!

Or maybe you don't parse these sentences, so let me try ...  It's (*&^(*&^-ing common courtesy!

I dont have a link handy , but there WAS a study done comparing leftwing and rightwing forums on the internet, and they found one startling difference: The level of obscenity on the leftwing boards is far far higher.

That merits a "Why am i not surprised" response.



A lack of civility

Would be calling those who dissent from your opinion "libtards". That is an example of a lack of common courtesy. Yet you seem to have no problem with that one. Care to explain the discrepancy?

Are you one?

If you are not, there is nothing to be worried about.

I wouldn't consider myself one

But that doesn't mean it doesn't decrease the civility of discourse here. Practice what we preach, eh? One who lives in glass houses etc etc.

This site is dedicated to rebuilding the Right, correct? If that is the case, you will have to win over people like myself and RisingTide, who are sympathetic to many of the principles the right has (lowered taxation, more freedom) but have not sided with them for various reasons. Mine are:

1) Incompetence. The shining example is Alberto Gonzalez. If you or I couldn't remember anything we did at our job, and something went south, we'd be fired. He keeps his job amid praise.

2) Hypocrisy. Republicans decry big spenders, and then bring home pork to their own communities to get re-elected. They talk about family values and then cheat/divorce their wives. They talk about freedom but support things like the Patriot Act and the War on Drugs.

3) Culture war. I'm atheist, and I find many more on the right than the left that decry my beliefs as evil. I often hear the phrase "good Christian values", which doesn't sit right with me. Gays, blacks and many other communities are most likely put off by Republicans for different but similiar reasoning.

4) Inability to deal with reality. From stumping for creationism to decrying 'elitism', the GOP of today seems to not want to face facts, as it were. They have quite a few policies that are based not on what works, but on social/moral issues (abstinence-only sex ed comes to mind). Republicans need to get back to basics and supporting programs that work, and cutting out those that don't.

Back to civility

1) Why should I care to win over people who already have drunk so much koolaid they cant see things straight? Or attack conservatives/Republicans etc. over things I know are factually false? Like I had to rebut an anti-Palin smear 2 mins ago that RisingRedTide threw out.

I am sorry but this is a forum, not a restaurant where you can bark at the waiter "Hey, I dont like this plate of GOP, give me something I can eat." and we stepin fetch it. MY cure for the Next Right is not to cater to the left or give up, since they are indeed a threat to our freedom, and it may not be your cure/view. Vive le difference. It not my job to have to agree to your terms is my point.

2) I will be civil to everyone who doesnt descend into troll-like behavior that is designed to disrupt the board. RedTide has basically told several posters to die and throws attacks around freely. I suggest you dont follow his example, and I will try not to get too much mud should I end up wrestling the pig so to speak. I'll try to stay away from calling lib trolls 'tards.

3) Your points of specific concern are 'more like it' - and something that can be discussed civilly, so long as you dont descend into what looks to be the ol' double standard of attacks GOP flaws and ignoring those on the other side. Those get REAL tiresome real quick.

I've discussed some of these on my Travis Monitor blog.

4) Of most interest would be to say/state what your voting history has been and why. Maybe you are a libertarian? Or you voted Democrat? It would be interesting indeed if the Dems are geting libertarian votes, since its an indication of serious GOP missed oppty.




My voting history

Actually, I have not voted before this election, in which I voted Dem for Pres, Senate, and Rep. Before 2006 or so, I felt that either side was pretty much as bad as the other. (Note: I am 26, so I was able to vote as of the year 2000.)

However, after Katrina occurred, I started to read up on politics. I am stationed in Biloxi, MS, and saw firsthand the aftermath. (I was deployed at the time, but came back two weeks later.)

The progress was nearly non-existent in New Orleans. I bought about 300 dollars worth of toys to deliver to a children's hospital during Christmas that year, and I'll never forget what Canal Street looked like. No order, trash strewn about, buildings boarded up, roofs missing, and no one working on it.

After that, three main issues made me vote Democratic. Coercive interrogations, the Patriot Act, and Alberto Gonzalez. The politicization scandal, and the Administration response, was pathetic. From the evidence I've read on coercive interrogations, most of the info is unreliable; also, what's to stop a country from being MORALLY justified now to torture soldiers? Finally, the Patriot Act was another far-too-large government program that I didn't agree with. We're spending who-knows-how-much on data mining, when TARGETTED investigations would save money but also guarantee that trained agents would be working on the most promising cases.

I consider myself 'liberaltarian' right now.

Break it up, you two

Move along.

Gather your thoughts.

Inflamed passions can carry hurtful wounds, but cooler heads will prevail.

That is to say, that, as it stands, the both of you are on the losing end.

Walk it off.... 


My 'inflamed passions' stopped a few posts ago. This was just a sober analysis of when, how and why I've voted the ways I have.


I will admit that the arguing bored the fvck out of me, and I was unable to complete the thread.

Will someone please discuss their colonostomy?