What is Wrong With The Republicans??
Moms View Message Board: The Kitchen Table (Debating Board): What is Wrong With The Republicans??
This is sure to trigger a debate, but I had to ask the question. DH and I have been registered Republicans since we could vote, over 35 years ago. The first President we ever voted for was Richard Nixon in 1972. We all know how that ended, but then we had Gerald Ford, and Ronald Regan, too. For the most part, the Republican platform is closer to what we, personally, believe in...regulated spending,self-reliance, smaller government. Also, God and family. Bill Clinton's antics made us glad we voted Republican, even though we lost. However, the party of late is giving me pause, and really makes me ashamed.
We have George Bush, who has a (IMO) "cowboy mentality", and has gotten us into such a tragic and protracted situation, with young Americans dying everyday. There seems to be no way out. I have tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, in acknowledging that he is privy to things that we have no idea about. And, yes, we have not had a terrorist attack since 9/11. (Tho I don't believe that the war in Iraq has anything to do with that).
Now we have people like Ann Coulter who made a false and bigoted statement regarding John Edwards' sexual preference, to a crowd of cheering Republicans. Then we have Rush Limbaugh on the radio (who is a big bag of wind) making petty comments about John Edwards' looks. What, are we in the third grade?
I listen to some of the conservative radio talk show hosts, and it seems that they are all insensitive, uncaring and not at all compassionate toward those less fortunate, like undocumented citizens (ala Bill O'Reilly).
On the other hand, I don't see any Democratic candidates that really make me anxious to vote, either. It has become a popularity contest, and a competition between the best "connected" people. It seems like those running, on both sides, are more interested in fame and ego for themselves than the very treacherous state of the country and the world.
The people who want to lead us and protect our way of life have seemed to lose touch with the people they serve.
Hol, I totally agree, I haven't been voting as long as you, but that's only because they have that age limit thing I've been a republican since birth, just ask my family! I would say as far as Rush and Ann go, they are acting out of "shock" because that is how they get paid, they are not politicians and frankly could not be. For me I have to remember that although I don't agree with everything that is said or put into action that the Republican party is still way more in line with my way of thinking and lifestyle.
I dont' agree that our country is in a treacherous state, I do choose to be a VERY proud American and SO appreciate the everyday luxuries and securities that cannot and will not happen in so many areas of the world. Including the freedom of speech afforded to idiots like Rose O'Donnel AND Ann Coulter alike!
OH-- BOY! You are covering a lot of different topics in this one thread. I hope we don't get too confused.
The problem with the Republicans, plain and simple, is that they lack truly conservative leadership. The only thing Bush has been leading is the War on Terror. He hasn't been leading a conservative movement the way that Reagan did.
Oh, and there most certainly IS a way out of Iraq--WIN! The troop surge has proven to have a positive impact, and we aren't even up to the troop surge capacity yet.
Violence down amid Baghdad crackdown, Iraq says
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraq's military Wednesday reported significant reduction in violence a month after launching a coalition crackdown in the war-racked capital.
The numbers of deadly attacks, assassination attempts, bombings, mortar strikes and kidnappings have dropped since the operation's mid-February launch, said Iraqi Brig. Gen. Qassim Atta.
The number of civilians killed in Baghdad in the past four weeks was 265, compared with 1,440 killings from mid-January to mid-February, said Atta, a spokesman for the operation.
Atta also reported that 94 terrorists were killed in the February-March period, compared with 19 in the January-February time frame.
Other figures released by Atta included:
102 roadside bombings in the February-March period; 163 in the January-February period;
36 car bombs in February-March; 56 in January-February
109 mortar attacks in February-March; 204 in January-February
22 assassination incidents in February-March; 519 in January-February
10 kidnapping incidents in February-March; 98 in January-February
Atta offered the statistics as key indications that the security crackdown is bearing fruit.
Ann Coulter is a little over the top, but she sure can slam a liberal in a debate. And if you listen to Rush long enough, you get to understand that he illustrates absurdity by being absurd (although, I tend to tune out when he plays his song parodies) and that he is very passionate about this country and the people in it who make it work.
Barack Obama also said that Edwards was "cute." Not exactly a very masculine way of describing him. Edwards opened the door himself by admitting to being able to appeal to the female demographic due to his "sensitivity."
I don't think we need to feel compassion for ILLEGAL ALIENS who, the most part, have absolutely no respect for our laws and come to the US to get a free ride on the backs of honest tax-paying citizens.
When you said "The people who want to lead us and protect our way of life have seemed to lose touch with the people they serve" you couldn't have said it better. Washington DC is in and of itself a separate culture based on popularity and priveledge. They get there and all thoughts of who voted them in are lost to the struggle to be accepted into the inner social circles and the media.
Don't lose faith in conservatism, even though the Republican Party isn't acting very conservative lately.
I agree with you, Lisa, about Rush's "songs". Yesterday, he referred to John Edwards over and over as the "Breck girl", and played a parody of the song "I am Woman (hear me roar)", with a singer that was supposed to be Edwards. How petty!!
The one candiadte the Republicans have that is probably the most decent and moral is Mitt Romney and you don't even hear much about him. (if looks were the criteia for being President, and sometimes, I think so) then he is a shoo-in. I just wish that people would look beyond his religious affiliation. They were able to do so in 1962 when John Kennedy, a Roman Catholic, was elected.
The Democrats have been more courteous and restrained, so far, regarding their opponents. I don't count idiots like Rosie O'Donnell, or any other celebrity type, as having any bearing on anything. If you put them all together, they couldn't spell "IQ".
One of the things that Rush blabbers on about is trying to discredit Al Gore and the Democrats regarding "An Inconvenient Truth" and global warming. While Al Gore lost whatever shred of credibility he had with me when he said he "invented the internet", and put an inappropraite "lip lock" on Tipper in a public forum, I DO believe he is on to something. Why can't the "Right" give him the benefit of the doubt? There certainly is compelling evidence. What if, in ten or twenty years, we find out he was right, what will the wind bags have to say then? I think we need to listen and consider what he is saying before it is too late. What can it hurt?
I sometimes think that Rush needs to fill airtime, so he belabours a subject to death. I am just very uneasy about November 2008.
I checked in one last time before bed to see if there had been any responses, and now I have to stay up a while longer and type a response!
It seems that you listen to Rush Limbaugh, but you aren't really "listening" to him. The reason that Rush is pounding on Algore and global warming is that the media has given so much attention to it and he is simply trying to combat the effort to guilt trip us all into believing that we have sinned against the planet. He doesn't want the population to get hoodwinked. He has presented numerous arguments debunking the theory (and it IS just a theory) that global warming is man-made.
The New York Times has even poked holes in Algore's movie. And BBC's Channel 4 aired a documentary refuting the claims made in the movie and replacing omitted information as well. It is very straightforward and basic. You can watch it here on Google Video. (You may as well get both sides of the issue, right?)
The "left" is trying to make we little humans (mostly Americans) responsible for changing the climate of the entire Planet Earth. We are bad. We are greedy. We are negligent. We are wasteful. We are irresponsible. We are destroying the planet and we must all pay the price. (Talk about alarmism.)
The truth is that we did not create the planet, we are merely inhabitants. We do not have the power to change the climate either way.
Ice caps are melting on Mars. Did we do that, too? Could it be possible that the source of our energy (the sun) is getting hotter?
And at the same time that ice caps are shrinking in the Arctic, they are increasing in size in the Antarctic. How does that reconcile with "global" warming?
Furthermore, and perhaps most important, is that global warming cannot possibly be science. The global warming advocates say that there is a "consensus" among scientists that global warming is man made. However, with regard to science, there can be NO consensus. For one thing, there are too many scientists who disagree with it. And for another, science is not subject to a vote. Science is precise. Science is based on proven facts. There is a required method to determining scientific fact that has not been met with regard to man made global warming.
When it was believed that the world was flat, it was due to a consensus among so-called scientists. Only by theorizing that it was round and performing an experiment to PROVE that it was round did it then become accepted as fact that the earth is round. The same must apply to man made global warming.
Global warming is the latest effort around the world to grow government, increase taxes, increase regulation, and to limit the behavior of a free people.
And lets not even get started on the size of Al Gore's own carbon footprint....
Hol - here I am. And here is the Urban Legends page that refutes the canard that Al Gore said he invented the internet. Gore Internet
What's wrong with the Republicans? I don't know that anything is wrong with Republicans, per se. I know a lot of Republicans and they are, by and large, fairly nice people. I do think a lot of the blame (for what is "wrong" with the Republicans) can be laid at the feet of people like Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove - and that people tolerate media persons like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh doesn't help. I find "our" tolerance of nastiness and crude insults to be very upsetting and I don't like what it says about the American ethos. As I posted in another thread (also on the debate board) nastiness in politics is nothing new. But that the U.S. voters bought into and voted in a way that essentially legitimizes this kind of tear-down, negative, nasty (and often false, maybe even libelous) campaigning is distressing.
I do think George Bush was a major Republican mistake. Molly Ivins (whom I am sure is *not* resting in peace) had him pegged long before he became the Repubican candidate, having known him for a long time when he was governor of Texas. I frankly think he's not very smart, is pretty much of a "Johnny One-Note" when it comes to ideas and his general thinking - and I do think people like Cheney and Rove are the "powers behind the throne". I also believe that if it had not been for 9-11 he would not have been re-elected (nor been able to have the U.S. invade Iraq for specious and proven false reasons) - his "popularity" ratings were pretty low on 9-10.
I think part of what is wrong with the Republicans is that a group of single issue people have gained a great deal of power, and are able to control who the party nominates and supports. And by that I mean the right-wing religious group that believes that the issues of abortion, gay rights, and other "moral" issues are more important than any other issue - like issues of the U.S. economy, our relationships with other nations, education (and if you think "No Child Left Behind" is a success, I will give you a whole lot of articles that cogently argue otherwise), health care, our nation's infrastructure (highways, bridges, and, of course, flood control and levees). And a huge amount of financial support for some Republican candidates comes from this "religious right", as well as from companies like Haliburton (which is now moving its CEO and a significant though not majority of its corporate management activities to Dubai), Erik Prince (who is the founder of Blackwater, a company that provides "private security" personnel to the State Department in Iraw, often called mercenaries, to the tune of a $300 million no-bid contract), and companies and individuals who want their tax obligations reduced and their obligations to their employees (through OSHA, Labor Dept. enforcement of union organizing rights) and the general public reduced or not enforced, and so on. What the religious right has done that I think is very dangerous is promote "single issue" voting - if a candidate is OK on such "moral" issues as abortion and gay marriage, never mind that s/he doesn't have an idea in his/her head that wasn't put there by major campaign funders.
Whatever I might think of John McCain, who was a serious Republican candidate in the last election or two, I think he is a heck of a lot smarter than George W. Bush, had and has a lot more ideas - many of them not unreasonable ideas (imo) about important issues for this nation - and is more capable of thinking things through for himself and not being controlled by any one group or collection of financial supporters. But he wasn't "pure" enough on moral issues, so we got Dubya (as Molly Ivins called him) instead.
Let me close with saying that Dwight Eisenhower is one of my presidential heroes - a man who personally thought that segregation was OK, didn't like the whole idea of desegregation, but because he was President of the United States and the Supreme Court said segregation was Unconstitutional, sent federal troops into Little Rock to enforce the Supreme Court rulings and allow several children to go to school. A man who can follow his oath to "protect and defend" the Constitution ahead of his own personal beliefs is a man of honor and integrity - and he didn't use "signing statements". And I worked very, very hard for the re-election campaign of Phil Price, a Republican state senator in Pennsylvania in the 1980s, because he too was a man of integrity (and intelligence) and far, far better than his Democratic candidate opposition. While in general I will vote for Democrats over Republicans, I do vote for the candidate, not the party.
As for Bill Clinton - every time I think of the stupidity of his personal behavior I become enraged. But I think history will judge that except for that one area of real stupidity, he was by and large one of our better presidents, in terms of both domestic and international policies - and he left us with a budget surplus which has been tossed away on the same kind of "nation building" that George Bush deplored when he was a candidate the first time around, and in tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthiest individuals and corporations.
Hol, there is no such thing as an "undocumented citizen", unless you mean the thousands of people who are being denied medical treatment because, under the new Medicare rules, they can't produce original, certified birth certificates or passports. NYTimes
Undocumented aliens are another issue entirely, and one on which I am very torn. In principal, I don't like the idea that non-citizens come into this country illegally and work here - for several reasons. I recently read of a raid in New England on a factory which has a contract to make equipment for our soldiers, where hundreds of undocumented aliens were employed, and I wonder why that company wasn't employing citizens and persons with legal status - except I know that one of the reasons the company was able to get the contract was because it was the low bidder, and one of the reasons it was the low bidder was that it employed "illegals" (undocumented aliens) and its personnel costs were significantly lower. And Karen was complaining in her thread about the preponderence of undocumented workers doing housing rehab and rebuilding in New Orleans right now. But I think we all know that very few U.S. citizens would do the kind of work that undocumented aliens do on farms throughout this country, in the conditions and for the wages involved in that kind of work. And, are we prepared to pay the higher costs that would come from serious enforcement against employers who use undocumented workers? Employers do it because they can get a way with paying these workers less in wages, can fire anyone who tries to collect overtime for working more than a 40 hour week, don't have to provide healthcare insurance, and can often (especially in construction work) get away with paying in cash "under the table" and avoid the whole range of employer costs required by law, like workers' compensation and unemployment insurance, employer's share of Social Security, etc. And, by paying under the table, they can pay a lower "gross" wage but the worker may net almost as much because federal and state income taxes are not withheld and paid to the various governments. They can also avoid having to comply with a whole range of worker safety rules because they can deny that they employed an injured worker and fire anyone who complains about unsafe conditions.
I also think that our present "quotas" for allowing foreign workers to work in this country are unrealistically low, and if the quotas were significantly raised along with really serious crackdowns on companies that employ illegals, would be significantly reduced.
But "undocumented citizens" - no such thing.
Win in Iraq, Lisa? Not this year, not next year, and not ten years from now if, heaven forbid, we still have troops there 10 years from now. You can cite your statistics and I can cite mine, but I think the bottom line is that Iraq, and most of the Middle East, isn't ready for "democracy" now and may not be ready for democracy for generations to come. Much of the Middle East still thinks in "tribal" terms and loyalties, not national terms or loyalties. Most people in the Middle East are still living lives of grinding poverty and, other than the oil industry (thanks to an accident of geology) there is little industry, manufacturing, or other major sources of significant income in the Middle East.
A science fiction writer, Lloyd Biggle, once wrote "Democracy imposed from without is the severest form of tyrrany." and I think he is absolutely correct. Revolutions (which often - though not always - lead to democracy come from within a nation, by the collective action of the people living in that nation. And until a majority of people within a nation (or geographic area) want democracy and are willing to struggle to achieve it, it won't happen.
The analogies of Japan and Germany post WWII are not in any way comparable to Iraq or the rest of the Middle East. In both nations there was a population that was by and large educated, a long history of modern technology and industry, and a long history of electing its leaders. (Yes, Japan had an emperor, but it also had an elected parliamentary body). Both had a long history of government/police enforcement of laws and keeping order that were obeyed by most of their citizens. And both fought conventional wars with conventional armed forces and had recognized, conventional governments that could actually surrender and could sign surrender documents and treaties that their citizens would accept. None of these conditions apply to Iraq or Afghanistan. In 1945 the U.S. had 350,000 occupation forces in Japan alone - right now we have about 150,000 in Iraq. As for Afghanistan, the Russians had as many as 100,000 troops in Afghanistan at one point (remember, we have about 150,000 in Iraq right now) and couldn't manage to control that country.
Win in Iraq - not likely. And at this point we have spent 3000+ American lives, with about 10 times as many wounded, and over $4 BILLION - with more human losses and dollar costs to come.
And for what? To deter weapons of mass destruction? (like Iran's growing nuclear capability?) To overthrow a vicious dictator? (like the present ruler of Sudan?) To fight the global war on terrorism? (but most of the 9-11 perpetrators were Saudis, and, as far as anyone knows, most of the Taliban fighters attacking coalition troops in Iraq are holed up in Pakistan, one of our "allies" in the "global war on terrorism". And many intelligence sources believe Bin Laden, who inspired if he didn't plan 9-11, is in Pakistan.) Because Sadam Hussein supported Al Quada? (But, according to most sources - like the CIA - he didn't.) Because Sadam Hussein had complicity in 9-11? (Again, acording to most sources, he didn't.) Stay because Iraq will deterioriate into civil war with other nations providing troops and support? (But, according to many, including U.S. generals, Iraq has a civil war presently, and lots of support for the people fighting that civil war is coming from other nations. And this kind of civil war would probably have happened when Sadam died or was assassinated, so all we appear to have done is speed up the process.)
Or, one of my favorites - stay because if we leave, we have wasted the lives of the 3,000 plus U.S. troops who have already died - as if having more U.S. troops killed somehow validates the reasons for putting the first 3,000 in harm's way, and ending the risk to the lives of U.S. troops somehow dishonors those who were slain.
Win in Iraq? I doubt it. And despite Republican pronouncements that they lost Congress in the last election because they weren't "Republican" enough, every poll shows that the majority of the U.S. thinks we should get out, that this is a war we can't win and one which will only cost us more lives and more dollars. As Commander in Chief, Bush can probably keep U.S. troops in Iraq for the remainder of his presidency. I don't see sufficient movement in Congress to change that, and even if Congress were to legislate removing our troops (and was - very unlikely - able to override a presidential veto), it would wind up in the courts when Bush refused to remove the troops (as I suspect he would, no matter what Congress did). So we can look forward to more deaths, more wounded, and more dollars expended. And for what?
Well... Ditto Ginny. I've got nothing to add, other than my absolute shock that anyone could believe we could win in Iraq, with an all-volunteer military. I think Ginny, covered it well.
Actually, as I thought about it in the shower this morning, we did win the "war". What we never worked out, and still haven't worked out, is what do next - in the aftermath of winning the war (I won't call it "the peace", because it certainly isn't).
I don't know that having an all volunteer military (rather than drafted military, I guess) is the issue. The issue is we went in with far too few troops, didn't protect hospitals, utilities, water supply, etc., from the getgo, and even now - and even with the additions Bush wants, which is somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 or 35,000, depending on which day and which speech it is - don't have enough troops to handle the occupation of a hostile country with guerilla fighters who don't blink at blowing themselves up if it means they can blow up some other people in the process (and they don't limit their victims or potential victims to U.S. military or U.S. targets).
I am having a hard time sleeping...
Snopes isn't as reliable with regard to politics as it is with other urban legends when it comes to the facts. I have read their message boards and other political pages enough to know that the operator of the Website is decidedly liberal.
So what is the difference between "taking the initiative to create the Internet" and "inventing the Internet" anyway? A hair. A very well split hair.
Oh, and No Child Left Behind was authored by none other than Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy, to whom President Bush granted the task. The fact that it hasn't worked yet has more to do with the huge government bureaucracy that the public school system consists of than it does with the Act itself.
I do not understand why one would think that a man who violates his fundamental beliefs, be they religious or not, while in office is a man of integrity. Morals, values, ethics, and principles are what make a person who they are, and if serving in office means betraying one's own personal ethics, then I would have had more respect for the man had he resigned his commission and stood up for what he believed in rather than abandoned his beliefs in order to satisfy some job requirement.
I agree about the "undocumented citizens." I thought about this after my last post, but I wanted to get some sleep (ha! ) so I looked up the definition of "citizen:" 1. a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection (distinguished from alien). 2. an inhabitant of a city or town, esp. one entitled to its privileges or franchises. So, by definition, a citizen would have to be documented in order to be entitled to state protection, priviledges, and franchises. A citizen is exactly the opposite of alien, yet illegal aliens feel an entitlement to our nation's protection, priviledges, and franchises. I think you get the picture, right, Hol? I am not sure how you came up with the term, but it doesn't apply.
The rest of the Middle east doesn't need to be ready for Democracy. The reality is that Iraq is ready for democracy and must be prepared to defend it, just the same way we defended ours during the Revolutionary War. This is Iraq's Revolutionary War, a fight for their freedom and integrity as a sovereign state, a state that has the right to govern itself in the way in which its people see fit. I have read stats (I can produce the link if you wish) that say that the majority of Iraqis feel that, for all the suffering, they are better off now that they are out from under the rule of Saddam because now they have the opportunity to take control of their own government.
And "forcing" Democracy? In my mind, democracy is akin to freedom; that is, freedom to a government by the people and all that jazz. Just how do you "force" freedom on someone?
A news story in June of 2006 said that the United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003. This information was declassified and is from the report by the National Ground Intelligence Center read story here. "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."
But, that's apparently not good enough. So, let's see what the Democrats had to say about WMDs back in the late 1990's.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
Incidentally, on Snopes.com, when I first looked this up, the answer was false because the quotes were taken out of context. Now I have found that they are true. http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
As far as human loss goes, this war is dwarfed by losses that we have suffered in previous wars. We've lost 3,200 in Iraq in four years. In one day in WWI the British lost 19,000. In WWII the Japanese overran the whole Far East in five months, took 130,000 British prisoners in Singapore and 85,000 US and Philippinos at Bataan. In 1942, off the East coast of the U.S., German U Boats sank 350 ships in 6 months torpodoing them off the mouth of the Mississippi River within view of Miami Beach. (If we had today's news media in 1942 we wouldn't have gotten anywhere near D-Day.) In the Civil War, 1861-1865, we had 364,000 Union Deaths in Service and 133,821 Confederate Deaths in Service. In the Korean War, 1950-1955 we had 55,000 Deaths in Service.
All in all, as wars go, this one is going pretty darn well. What I am saying here is that we need to keep this war in perspective. While I agree that any human loss is tragic, it is evil that makes war necessary, and I am grateful that all of our soldiers in all of our wars volunteered to make these sacrifices and answer the Call to Duty.
That there is little else in the way of industry in the Middle East may have something to do with the decades of Radical Islamic Fundamentalism that has had a stranglehold on that area of the world and that has suppressed growth while other areas of the world have experienced a flourishing economy. The Radical Fundamental Islamic belief is that, according to Allah, the West is evil and they must not indulge in our kind of success and abundance.
Although the Middle East cannot be compared to WWII Japan or Germany, there is a long, very long, history of hatred for the United States. There is an hour-long documentary on YouTube, done in 6 segments, detailing the vile hatred for us and their desire to kill us all and is verified by actual video taken of terrorist leaders. So just because the terrorists aren't conventional with conventional armed forces and don't answer to recognized, conventional governments, does that mean we should NOT fight this enemy?
Oh darn. I have to go up and make my kids' lunches and then take them to school. I have no time, right now, to read all this, and it's so interesting! I guess I'll have to come back later!
In your reality, Lisa, Iraq is ready for democracy. I don't see much to indicate that this is true. As for forcing freedom, the quote I cited does not refer to freedom, it refers to democracy, a specific form and system of government. Imposing any form of government, democracy or any other, from without is, imo, a form of tyrrany simply because it is imposed.
I don't think the comparisons of losses in this war with the losses in other wars matters particularly - what matters is how people feel about the losses. The American public was willing to accept the losses of WWI and WWII, and, to a great extent, in Korea. It was not willing to accept the losses in Vietnam and that war was closed down. From what the polls say, the American public does not feel the losses in Iraq are worth what we are either achieving or trying to achieve.
Islamic fundamentalism is a serious and major issue. And it has been (and, I fear, will be) around a long time. I think that the "modern" version probably stems, to a great extent, from Western European colonialism in the Middle East. Western European nations simply moved in, took over, established governments they could control or simply took over government - and this kind of behavior has always produced opposition, usually ending in revolution unless the colonial government has the good sense to get out when the writing is on the wall. (England sometimes had the sense to get out; France seldom or never did.)
I haven't done a lot of thinking about it, but I suspect that some of the reasons for the lack of industrialization in the Middle East stem from the immense wealth oil produces for the ruling powers (who then don't need industrialization to be wealthy and may well oppose it, because industrialization requires certain kinds of education for the "working class" and can produce a "middle class"); and the ability of the Islamists and the ruling powers to use Israel as the reason everything is so bad for the common people so that they focus on Israel as an enemy rather than seeing their own governments as what is holding them down. It's interesting that India, which was under colonial rule for so long, has become so modern in many areas, where Egypt, for example, hasn't.
But, starting a war in Iraq was not fighting Islamic fundamentalists. Saddam Hussein's government was, by and large, secular - by far the most secular of any government in the Middle East other than Israel. What we have done in Iraq is take a country which, because of an often oppressive dictatorship, was largely secular, and turn it into a battleground for Shiite and Sunni fundamentalist terrorists, and other groups which receive support, funding and arms from other nations in the area with their own agendas.
I am so sorry that I have turned a couple of my dear MV friends into "night people" like me! LOL! Also, I want to apologize for an error in semantics that I made. I didn't mean to say "undocumented CITIZEN". I realize that that is an oxymoron. I MEANT "undocumented RESIDENT". Mea culpa.
I have just been very disturbed about what I have been hearing in the media lately. I listen to Rush Limbaugh more out of the same part of us that can't look away from an auto wreck. I am horrified, and can't believe what I am seeing (or in this case, hearing). I can't believe that Rush, and Ann Coulter and others of their ilk get paid such huge sums of money to pontificate and spew such adolescent pap. Lisa, do you agree that calling a grown man "The Breck Girl" is not serious politics?
Ginny, I so WISH that someone of your intelligence, integrity, insight, and love for their country would run for President. I am not being facecious or sarcastic. I MEAN that with the the utmost sincerity. You are astounding with what you know and how well informed and thought out your opinions are. However, you probably wouldn't run because you are not "connected" and bought and paid for by special interest groups.
I am grievously concerned about what is happening in our world. I am afraid. As the mother of two teenaged boys, I am TERRIFED of the reinstution of the draft. I personally remember the Vietnam War and the futility of that. I remember being profoundly affected when I visited The Wall in Washington, DC in 1992, and touching the names. They were MY peers. Young people cut down in the prime of their life. Thay didn't get to live and have and raise children, and bless their parents in their old age, as I have been able to do. I prayed that we would never know such collective loss and grief again, as a nation. Now, the children and grandchildren of that generation are having to go through it again.
I guess the mindset is that, every country that we can democratize is one less enemy we have to worry about (putting it in simplistic terms). It is also another country that we can conduct free trade with. However, I think that WE are acting like colonialists and imperialists when we ASSUME that we can force OUR way of life on everyone else. I totally agree with the writer that you quoted Ginny who said that democracy cannot be imposed from *without*, but from *within*. Being a government OF the people, it has to be desired BY the people. Excellent point!
Also, no outside force can ever win in a religious war. The only reason that it stopped in Northern Ireland was because the citizens themselves desired for it to stop. There is a Moslem man from Jordan who owns our local pizza place. He espouses peace and talks freely about the "similarities" between Chritianity, Judaism and Islam, i.e the Old Testament prophets, the Creation story, etc.. However, he is a self-styled theologian and says that our Holy Bible was written by commission of an emperor in A.D. Rome to "unify" the people. He says that all the infighting between the Shiites and the Sunys is due more to political ideology than religious. I'm don't know enough about it to know if he is even remotely correct. (Not the Biblical part. I personally believe that the authoring of the Scriptures is Divinely inspired).
The same argument was made during Vietnam: "if we pull out now, all the lives that have been lost is in vain". So, we kept it going until 58,000 died and countless others came home to live lives of mental and emotional agony. It was ALL in vain. Even the troops in Iraq are exhausted. They speak openly in the press (which surprises my veteran/historian husband because he said that, at one time, such acts would have been considered sedition).
I'm sorry, Lisa, but in this debate, I think that I agree with Ginny. That's why I started this thread because I need to learn more. I have been very confused and, at times, disgusted by what I have been hearing from the Right. It is sad that Israel has continually been blamed for the ills of the world. While there WAS no nation of Israel before 1948, Hitler used the Jews as the scapegoats to further his agenda, and formulated the Holocaust. I know that you are a person of faith, and so am I (and so is Ginny), and the Bible states that God's people will always be reviled by the world. There will also NEVER be peace in the Middle East until Jesus reigns on the Earth again, which I don't think is too far off. I DO agree with you that character, morals and integrity are crucial in our leaders, but I also agree with Ginny that a President takes an oath to protect and defend the constitution, regardless of their own beliefs. And I also agree with her that the Right has become too single-minded. Issues such as abortion and gay marraige should not be political issues, but individual issues. I would never have an abortion myself, but I think the right should be there for those who would. I don't know how I feel about gay marriage. Marriages today, between heterosexual people are in jeopardy, with the divorce rate at over 50%. I live fifteen minutes from the world's largest gambling casino, Foxwoods. I would never set foot in the place, but I am not going to say that it should not exist, because people have the right to decide for themselves.
Ginny, I live 90 minutes away from that leather factory in Fall River, MA that had the INS raid, so it got a lot of local press coverage. There were terrible working conditions there with no bathroom breaks allowed, no lunch breaks, and long, under paid work hours. Basically your early 20th century "sweat shop". When the raid occurred, people ran everywhere, trying to flee. There was mass hysteria. Nursing mothers were jailed, leaving infants in the care of relatives or friends. Civil rights attorneys went to Fall River to try to help the workers. I agree with you that the problem does not lie with the undocumented workers. It lies with the immigration laws and quotas. I was appalled at the local radio talk show hosts who were SO unkind in making fun of the workers and calling them "Jose", and adding an "o" to every word, like "it's not my faulto", etc. SO sophomoric (and this is in renounly Democratic Rhode Island). I cringed listening to it. I mean, we have the national disgarce of the likes of Ted Kennedy and his drug-addicted son Patrick who is a US Representative from RI. Patrick thinks that he is beyond reproach, and acts like he created "spin". The kid has never held a "real" job, or done anything of significance in Congress. We also have a newly elected Senator, Sheldon Whitehouse, D-RI, who unseated moderate Republican Lincoln Chaffee (son of the long-time, late Senator John Chaffee, a man of impeccable integrity). He ran on the platform of "ending the war in Iraq". I guess the majority of the voters in RI thought that he could do that single-handidly. Well,we haven't heard much from him since. He rode in on the Democratic wave of other Democrats who told THEIR constituents the same thing. I realize that Bush has veto powers, but where are the results of THEIR promises?
I am just so disgusted at this point, and confused. I abhor voter apathy, but I can understand how it happens.
Sorry...I didn't mean to be so lengthy. I thank you both, Ginny and Lisa, for your well thought out opinions.
I have to say, Hol, that the Kennedys (any of them) have never been among my favorite politicos - and I voted for John. I've always felt that the Kennedys, as a group, believe(d) that they know what is best for me better than I know - a certain "noblesse oblige" condescension.
I also understand how voter apathy happens, but voter apathy just lets them get away with it. After Florida in 2000, don't tell me that my vote or your vote doesn't count. Heck, we had an election here in Pennsylvania that, after three recounts, came down to a 129 vote majority in the last election. Every vote counts and every voter should realize that.
I grew up in Chicago, and when I left Chicago Dick Daley (of great renown and infamy) was Mayor for the umpteenth time. (In fact, I was registered as a Republican in Chicago because that was one way I could express my opinion of the Democratic machine - I later realized that I really do want to vote in the primaries, so I changed to Democratic registration.) I moved to Philadelphia just in time for Frank Rizzo's appointment as Police Commissioner. When I was actively working on public school issues I had more than one meeting with City Council members who later wound up in jail for various serious offenses - the most charming and intelligent one being Izzy Bellis. Corruption, abuse of power, and just plain indifference to the wishes and needs and wellbeing of citizens is nothing new - but it will certainly never change if we don't take our opportunities to "throw the dirty rascals out" whenever we think a politico is a dirty rascal - or indifferent, or simply not representing us well.
I do think people have every right to vote "single issue" politics if that is what is important to them. I just wish it weren't so important to them. I do think as a nation we have many matters more important for our government to deal with than matters that I, personally, think of personal and moral issues, rather than government issues.
Well, I gave it my best shot! I am glad I could help (I think!) I haven't gotten into a debate in a while, as Ginny is a formidable opponent and it is emotional and time consuming.
I know you already have your mind made up, but I'll just provide some historical perspective on the "Breck Girl" syndrome.
As I said, you have to remember that Rush illustrates absurdity by being absurd. (It's just the way he is, and apparently it works for him- he's got 13.5 million listeners.) So, when you hear Rush being absurd, it's because he is mocking someone else because THEY are being absurd.
So this all got started in 2004. There was video taken of John Edwards getting ready for the debate with Dick Cheney before the election. The video goes for 2 full minutes as he is having his hair primped and acting quite feminine in the process. He combs his hair, the assistant applies hair spray and works to comb each strand into place and repeats, he looks in a compact mirror a continues to perfect his coiffe, to put each hair in its proper place, and why? Why-- if HE was so serious about the urgent issues of the day and serious about the office for which he was running, was he so darn pre-occupied with his appearance? What does that say about his purpose and his authenticity ?
Watch the video here (just turn the volume down, there's music you won't like. ;-)
As for Iraq, even if we do win, there will not be any celebration or pride, as everyone will ask "Why did it take so long? Why did we lose so many lives? Could have been done sooner. Shouldn't have been done in the first place." Thanks to all the negative media reporting and Democrat drum beat of defeat, the population of our country may very well be beaten down as well, so that even when victory happens, it will be clouded.
Okay, I gotta go do some housework.
See ya!
Well said, Ginny!! Lisa, when I posted my last "epistle", I had to take DS Shawn to work. Rush is on here from noon to 2:00. I no sooner turned on the radio, and he is playing a song parody entitled (I kid you not), "Barac, the Magic Negro", to the tune of "Puff, the Magic Dragon", and there was chorus of Al Jolson, minstrel show type singers in the back! I couldn't believe it!! And the Republicans expect the American voter to take them seriously???
Ann Coulter, too, showed the height of insensitivity when she made the comment, about a year ago, that she had never seen a group of women who "enjoyed wallowing in their own grief" more than the 9/11 widows. Clearly, she has never lost someone close and dear to her (and in such a senseless and tragic way), or she is just incredulously ignorant and insensitive.
I have to say that I have not seen the Democrats taking the "low road" yet, in trying to villify and discredit their opponents.
Which brings me back to my original question.
Hol, we were posting at the same time!
Democrats most certainly do villify their opponents. You just don't see it now because they are fighting amongst themselves about who will be the next Democrat nominee. When that is decided and the Democrat nominee puts his/her nose to the grindstone, every other ad you will see will be from the Democrat Party digging up dirt on the Republican opponent. Just wait. It happened here in Michigan last year when our Democrat governor got re-relected. A year before the election, the Michigan Democrat Party started uttering slurs against the Republican challenger while he stuck to the issue of our state's lousy economy.
Wow, the whole Breck Girl thing is petty. So what, he primped before going on TV in front of the whole nation?? I'm sure every politician does, because appearances do matter in our society. If that's the most you can use to put him down, he's doing good. Ann Coulter can be described with quite a few words that are not acceptable for MV. That woman is dispicable.
So "Puff the Magic Dragon" has morphed into "Obama the Magic Negro."
Once again Rush is illustrating absurdity. You can find this origin of this one at the L.A.Times, which has published several articles saying that Barack isn't "black enough" to be the first black president and truly represent Black America. Obama the Magic Negro. So now who's being petty?
Author David Ehrenstein said it first in this article, and Rush's satire is simply aimed at the media who is singling Obama out because he is (not) black. (His mom was white and his dad was Kenyan.) He isn't REAL, as Snoop Dogg or Al Sharpton. He isn't African American so he doesn't count as black. Obama is just here to assuage white guilt. Whites are going to support him because they feel guilty over slavery. Hence, what Ehrenstein is saying is that whites who support Obama are racists and their attempt to assuage white guilt by supporting him is worthless because he is not truly black.
Shelby Steele has written a book about the concept of white guilt and how it has allowed our society to become more passive about any number of transgressions that the country has made since its inception.
The Left is obsessed with race, and they are the ones making a big deal about it, not the Right, and then they are accusing everyone else of being racist.
Honestly, this is satire, nothing more and nothing less. Rush is NOT making fun of Obama. He is making fun of the media who is picking on Obama because of his race.
Lisa, with all due respect to the LA Times, the last time I looked, Kenya IS in Africa. Wouldn't that make him African-American?
Apparently, the color of Obama's skin is just not a dark enough shade of black. 
Lisa, I just wanted to jump in here and let you know that I agree with most of what you said. I didn't want you to feel like you were going at this alone. I have gotten caught up in this stuff more than once and have finally figured out it is best to just keep my mouth shut. Nothing good ever comes of it and I feel my blood pressure rise. LOL However, I didn't want you to think you were alone in most of your views. You go girl!!
LOL Vicki, it is best to avoid the debate board, when at all possible.. People feel strongly for what they believe and will justify and argue to no ends... Even in the instances when they can be disproved.. They know what they know and they have known it for so long they can't see past what they know, you know what I mean... LOL
They know what they know and they have known it for so long they can't see past what they know
I don't think I have ever read anything more true. LOL
I know exactly what you mean Bobbie and it is more true than most people will ever admit.
I can participate in most things other than politics...most of the time I just keep my mouth shut. LOL
I just read what I wrote above and I don't want anyone to take that the wrong way. I am not talking about anyone here at all. I think this is the case with most people that you talk politics with. They have their mind wrapped around something and nothing is going to change it. It goes both ways too.
Just didn't want anyone to think I was talking just about any one person or people here. Politics is just usually a loosing battle to try to hash out. LOL People believe what they believe and their mind isn't changing. Myself included most of the time. LOL
What my father used to say, Vicki, is that there are people who go through life saying "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind's made up."
I know that there are times when others on the board have proven me wrong, and I hope I have always admitted it. I do think it is worth discussing politics and political issues, here or anywhere. There is always the possibility that you will show someone something they didn't know that opens a mind to new ideas or at least a better understanding of how other people arrive at different positions. If I don't talk with people who don't agree with my thinking, how will I know the other points of view? If I don't learn about other points of view, then "my mind's made up" ... which, thanks to my father, I never saw as a desirable way to be.
Thanks, Vicki!
I have stayed away most of the day today because I had to get caught up on housework. Plus, we had a storm last night and this morning and I unplugged the computer. I knew that if I plugged it back in I would just spend the day on the Internet!
I know what you mean about the debate board. It tends to suck you in. I had been able to resist a good debate quite well until this one.
But I don't have much more to add. Yet, anyway.
LOL, Ginny you debate until your hearts content but "my minds made up."  I will just keep my referee flags handy and my moderators hat on with this one....
I didn't mean to start any huge debate here. I am very open to learning, and to the opinions of others because I DON'T "know what I know". When you are brought up wirh a certain ideology that seems to make sense in your adult life, and then as years and circumstances unfold, you observe factors that put to question what you always "thought" you believed, it is time to question and ask others, so that you can either validate your own feelings, or consider another point of view.
I may be old, but I hope I never stop learning.
I actually heard a local commentator say today that the Edwards camp released the disturbing news about Mrs. Edwards for the "sympathy" vote. That, since he is not officially running yet, that there was no need for us to know any of this yet.
I watched my MIL suffer a long and very painful death from breast cancer. I truly wish Mrs. Edwards well, and she is in my prayers. To say that someone would use such frightening news to further their political agenda is just horrifying to me.
So, why IS the Edwards family making a public deal out of what is a profoundly private personal crisis?
What if Mrs. Edwards' cancer is terminal? Have they thought about what the kids are going through? They are only 6 and 8. Their number one worst fear is that they could lose their mother. Whatever happens, their father will be largely unavailable because he is going to be busy running for (or serving as) president.
Or, if their father is running for/serving as president, how good of a job will he be able to do while his wife is fighting for her life and his kids are scared to death of losing their mommy?
Yes they SAID in their press conference that they talked it over as a family, but the kids are too young to grasp the enormity of what their dad is getting into. It was 3 years ago the first time when he ran for vice president, and they were only 3 and 5. How much could they possibly contribute to the "family decision"?
In my opinion, Mr. and Mrs. Edwards SHOULD focus totally on getting their family through this crisis.
It's not like Edwards can't afford to quit work for a while.
(Meaning that he is in a financial position that allows him to choose.)
I don't think they shared it with us for sympathy, but for honesty. You know people will dig and if they don't come out with it, someone else will.
That being said, I have lived through someone with met breast cancer. Sure we heard the doc and his optimism, but the reality is, she doesn't have many years left. I watched my father and another friend go through the death of their wife (my dad two). My dad who is a normally very logical sane person, just was not. Edwards has now lost my vote. No matter how dumb w might or might not be, that doesn't compare to a grieving man. It is a real scary thing in my mind. My dad just did such stupid things (as did this other man I know), and completely out of character and made NO sense whatsoever.
As far as the cancer. My step mom had the same thing, early treated initial breast cancer. Mets 8 years later. Found those mets through a routine check the end of may. She died a long horrible death in dec. Most people do manage to live 3-4 years, but the longest I know of anyone living with the same cancer is 7 years.
If they hadn't told we would have been told any way.. That is the way the circus we call politics works... I to have concerns over how good of a President a person can be while his wife is dying.. Except for the detail that many of our Presidents have been on deaths door themselves, yet they were elected...
Ditto Bobbie. However - just want to throw this in - I knew a woman who was diagnosed with breast cancer, had the appropriate treatments for it, few years later it metastasized to her bones and she lived 18 or so years after that before she passed away. Just something to think about..........
However, *my* personal opinion on that particular issue is that he'd be crazy to embark on a campaign, while he even said that he'd be with her, whenever/wherever/whatever it took. I just don't see how he can make this work.
I think it is a decision the Edwards family had to make, which, clearly, they did. And, if they hadn't gone public, someone would absolutely have outed them, which would have been much worse.
So agreed.... At least if it was on their terms, they had control... God only knows what the media would had done if they had been the ones to find out... It would have been turned into so much and twisted about to the point they would have been back peddling to get the truth of it out.. Which most people wouldn't have believed.. Much better coming from the horses mouth....
I have no problem that they announced it and avoided media speculation.
But Mr. Edwards also announced that he was running for president anyway. I believe that the "sympathy vote" remark was born out of disrespect for this man who calls himself a family man yet has chosen to pursue his own political goals ahead of his family's best interest.
From what Mrs. Edwards said, it was as much her decision as his for him to continue the campaign.
On a side note, Molly Ivins, who died several weeks ago, was first diagnosed with breast cancer 7 years ago, and as far as anyone can see, led a full and productive and happy life until the last few months.
From what I have been hearing on the radio, if Mrs. Edwards' cancer responds to the drugs she will be able to live a normal, productive life for maybe the 18 years Karen mentioned, or maybe 7 years. But it is up to them to decide how they live however many years it may be. If she doesn't think he should put his life on hold until she dies - for 5, 7 or 18 years - then who else has any say in it.
I didn't hear either of the Edwards asking for sympathy - rather, they both seemed optimistic and hopeful. I think the "sympathy vote" comment was out of line, and probably stemmed from a commentator's desire to find some way to put a negative spin on the announcement. Certainly, if this board is any sample, there are a lot of people who might vote against Edwards simply because he is running for president while his wife is being treated for cancer.
Until now, I haven't heard anyone mention anything about the sympathy angle myself. That thought really hadn't occurred to me.
My first thoughts were wondering how in the world that family is going to endure cancer treatments, campaign appearances, public scrutiny, and their children's fears and anxieties as well as their own.
Granted, they have made their decision. No one has the right to tell them to do otherwise and expect them to listen. But, they are public figures and as such are subject to public scrutiny.
I would have had more respect for Mr. Edwards had he gone into private life to be there full time for his family. As far as putting "his life" on hold, his FAMILY should be his life, and the choice should be obvious.
Haven't they already been through all of this once? Didn't he back down from something last time? Maybe I am mixing something up?
But, maybe because they have been through this once, they know more of what to expect and feel that he can do both? I don't know, but I don't want to pass my judgement on them as to what "I" THINK I would do in that situation. I feel only the people in that situation should have say in it. If they are both ok with him running and they are the ones directly involved in it, who is anyone else to say what they should or should not do?
I don't know, maybe I am way off. LOL
I can understand him wanting to stay in the race, I can understand her wanting him too.
My issue with voting for him (and he was my forerunner as of yet..says the republican..), is through my experiences I can't imagine how badly things might go if she dies while he is office. I agree you can't stop living, but this is one of the few times I know ahead of time that this candidate is in for some tough times.
As much as dubya has been a disgrace, there are videos circulating around of him giving speeches during his first run for presidency. And then some from current speeches, very obviously you can see a decline. Same holds true for clinton. Being the president is a very demanding, difficult job, it ages you fast. For me it is just too much to think of all those pressures and add a very sick wife to that and how difficult it could be.
But this is one of those issues that I come to with a very prejudice mind. When my mother died, I watched my dad just go crazy. And we got to experience this again when his second wife also died of cancer.
You are absolutely right, Kaye. No matter how the incumbent approaches the presidency, it is a difficult job. Every president I've ever seen looks about 10 years older for each 4 years in office.
And, given your experience, your bias is perfectly understandable. In fact, most of the time I think a bias is perfectly understandable (heaven knows I'm biased about a whole lot of subjects). You at least know why you are biased, and are basing it on your own experience. That is a whole lot better than having a bias because of what someone said someone else said that someone else might (or might not) have heard.
I do not think that the Edwardses released the news to appeal to the "sympathy" vote. When I heard that commentator say that, it horrifeid me because it is just another example of the seeming insensitivity of the Republican party of late.
My heart truly goes out to them. They have a very long, hard road ahead, as a family, with her illness. I don't believe that he will continue to run, even though he may say so now. The campaign is grueling, and he cannot possibly campaign effectively with what is going on in his life. The news of the relapse is new, so I don't think they know yet WHAT they are going to do. I WOULD lose respect for him, however, if he continues with the campaign.
The Edwards family is no stranger to tragedy. They lost their teenaged son several years ago in a car wreck. That is why they chose to have the two little ones. It has been speculated, because she was older, she had to take fertility treatments to get pregnant, and that MAY have triggered the cancer. It is all very sad.
"I do not think that the Edwardses released the news to appeal to the "sympathy" vote. When I heard that commentator say that, it horrifeid me because it is just another example of the seeming insensitivity of the Republican party of late. "
Hol, it's not just Republicans wondering about the "sympathy" vote. In fact, This ABC News article reveals that there are some on the Democrat side who say that the "sympathy" element may indeed help Edwards.
"They handled yesterday with such dignity, both Sen. Edwards and Mrs. Edwards. It was very powerful," said Democratic consultant Bill Carrick. "I wouldn't be surprised if people say, 'I want to be supportive of them."'
One Clinton supporter said privately he believed the attention Edwards received from Thursday's news conference would put him on track to surpass Obama as the presumed No. 2 Democrat in the race.
And there is this article from Wilson, North Carolina where the community expresses sympathy.
This situation crosses partisan boundaries and could help John Edwards' campaign, [Frieda Craft Eakins] said.
"This is the type of thing that breaks down barriers that normally exist in an election," she said. "I don't necessarily think it will change people's vote. But it might for people that are on the fence."
Hol, I think what you are having trouble with is the fact that this is bare-knuckle politics. By its very nature, politics is very insensitive, and politicians must be thick-skinned. As I mentioned before, politicians open themselves up to all kinds of criticism on both sides of the aisle. And, although you tend to believe the best in people, you have to understand that candidates on both sides often do whatever it takes to win elections. It's the brutal reality of the world of politics.
|
Members
