Monday, April 10th 2006
Disloyal Democrats & Renegade Republicans
A nice, topical letter in today’s Chronicle. Robert A. Casper Sr. writes:
Recently, a very nasty note was put on my car while parked in Berkeley. It was obviously a reaction to the Bush bumper sticker I had on my car.
I was initially angry because the intolerant individual didn’t have the courtesy to leave his name. Later, I became depressed and saddened. There was a day when a Republican could vote for Jack Kennedy and a Democrat could vote for Ron Reagan. Those that lost would accept the election and move on. No longer…
Today, if a person, Republican or Democrat doesn’t embrace the party’s total ideology, he or she is disloyal or a renegade. Certainly there are positive things that Bush has done as well as positive things that Bill Clinton did.
This is all too true. Deviate a bit from the party platform and suddenly you’ve become a Democrat in the eyes of your peers. It surely goes the other way too (from my experience reading DemocraticUnderground and DailyKos). Respectful criticism and disagreement is to be expected when someone espouses a minority viewpoint, but it’s becoming more and more common to see outright hostility between people who, aside from the disputed issue, agree more often than not. Whether it be the war, immigration, gay marriage, abortion, or what have you, there are people who think you must hold a certain view on that one issue or you’re not a conservative/liberal.
I don’t know how we’re going to get beyond this. I don’t think it’s the fault of the two-party system, since no amount of parties could ever adequately cover the diversity of views in a given population. The Greens and Libertarians no doubt face the same internal disputes as the Dems and Pubs. Is this just a “feature” of democracy? Or can we just agree to disagree and focus on what we have in common?
Wow, pat, this is the first time that I’ve read a post of yours and thought you were waaayy off base. Look around BCR; there are a number of different viewpoints on a wide number of topics (abortion, wiretapping, the war, bush, immigration). We’ve had debates how many times this year? Six? Ten? And no one at those debates accused anyone of “not being Republican” enough? Not to my knowledge.
As for the comment you linked to, based off what I’ve read of Mickey’s, he DOES sounds like a Democrat, at least on national security/war-related issues. But even if he wasn’t, I’m not sure how one person’s accusation implies that an entire party has ideological tests.
There are key points to each party’s platforms, and I think when someone disagrees with one of those key points it is surprising, but look back to the RNC in ‘04. It was mainly several moderates encouraging voters to rally around Bush, despite ideological differences. That is what I expect from a coalition party like the GOP.
Comment by John — 4/10/2006 @ 1:46 pm
Well I wasn’t talking so much about BCR. I’ve just observed that some people in general are less tolerant of dissent. I’m not saying this just because of one comment. It’s not even so much of a partisan thing. Just turn on talk radio and you can hear people railing on, say, immigration and how anyone who doesn’t agree is a left-wing traitor (and they include Bush in this). Or go on Free Republic and see how for every person who wants to have a reasoned debate on an article, 20 others throw out accusations of “RINO” (Republican in Name Only) or tell them to go to some liberal forum.
Also, in the comment in question, Mickey wasn’t accused of sounding like a Democrat but being one. As if knowing one’s position on a single issue is enough to judge a person. If a single deviation from the party platform is all it takes, then none of us are Republicans.
Comment by patr — 4/10/2006 @ 2:08 pm
Obviously, I have to respond to this since I am the ‘person’ who made the comment in question. It’s okay, you can use my name! I am not ashamed to admit that I have actually made the comments that I’ve made, you know.
I’m really not understanding the confusion regarding my annoyance with Mickey’s posting from a liberal viewpoint about the Iraq War. Archangel called this ‘censorship’ on my part– so what Archangel is saying, apparently, is that a Patriot blogger should be able to post ACTUAL POSTS on this blog in favor of abortion. I’m pro-choice to a limited extent but I do NOT support Patriot bloggers posting actual posts on here holding that issue position. I don’t care what the bloggers or anyone else says in the comments section. Actual posts should have a conservative outlook. Mickey’s posts regarding the Iraq War have put forth the exact viewpoint that Democrats hold on this issue. As I said repeatedly in previous comments: Of course there are Republicans who oppose the Iraq War. This does not make them any less Republican. But these Republicans who don’t support the Iraq War tend to not have the type of rhetoric that Mickey is using on this blog: They are not saying that they don’t support the troops, they are not saying that we should withdraw before the job is done, etc.– they ARE saying that we shouldn’t have gone to war in the first place, that we should try to win more world support so we aren’t there alone, and that we should try to transfer power over to the Iraqi forces as soon as they are able to take care of the situation themselves. Those are all rational and acceptable arguments, and AGAIN I will repeat: Mickey’s arguments here are irrational and literally are identical to the anti-war ‘Bush is a war criminal’ ‘This is not a legitimate war’ ‘Let’s withdraw regardless of whether the mission has been accomplished’ Democratic positions. Mickey is free to hold these views but he should not be making actual posts on a conservative blog with these views. How many times do I have to repeat this? I’m not saying that Mickey “isn’t a Republican.” He sounds more Republican-ish than I am on economic issues, in fact. I’m a very moderate Republican myself. I can only say that John said it perfectly when he said that there are key points on the party platforms– and national security is undoubtedly a key point on the Republican platform right now. If you disagree with the Republicans on such issues, then you have to admit that you are on the other side. You can have a debate about these issues, but you are not on the Republican side of these debates. You simply cannot say that Mickey’s posts are representative of the Republican’s position on the Iraq War– they are representative of the Democrats and should not be on a conservative blog. In summary, I am not ‘intolerant of dissent’ but I do think that actual posts should remain as conservative as possible on this blog– but people can say whatever they want in the comments section, of course.
Comment by Kerry — 4/10/2006 @ 2:37 pm
Its amazing how positions that were blatantly liberal 10 years ago such as raging deficit spending and nation building oriented foreign policy are considered “conservative”.
My positions are not liberal in the slightest, rather, I am defending the policy core that made the party so eminent, a commitment to fiscal discipline and restrained foreign policy.
Bush is not a conservative, for all his Christian blustering, he is a big spending foreign policy idealist.
Comment by mickeyk — 4/10/2006 @ 2:58 pm
And about the Democrats, its a sad day when that floundering wreck of a labor party comes up with good ideas the Republicans can’t grasp. It will sicken me if I have to vote for them.
Comment by mickeyk — 4/10/2006 @ 3:00 pm
In fact, it is the Democrat Wilson, and his ingenious liberal raging idealism that Bush clings to.
Comment by mickeyk — 4/10/2006 @ 3:02 pm
Dude. Mickey is on fire. If anything his approach to foreign policy is coming from the right (not the traditional leftist humanitarian policy that Bush and his love-struck fans have been pushing down our throats).
Props to Pat, too. I hope you two run the print magazine some day.
Comment by cw — 4/10/2006 @ 3:07 pm
Last time I checked there was no official “Republican” position that one should hold. I don’t remember signing anything that compelled me to support the war or to hold on until some “mission” is accomplished. Quite frankly I don’t give a rats ass what happens in Iraq. The less of our tax money is spent on contracts there the better.
Even the most ardent supporters of the conflict will back away as there is no real progress, leaving a few desperate ideologues looking like idiots. SO who wants to be in that boat?
Comment by HB — 4/10/2006 @ 3:09 pm
And what kind of success in Iraq can we really claim if we haven’t stolen any oil from them? Like a couple trillion dollars worth, at least.
Comment by HB — 4/10/2006 @ 3:15 pm
Well, Mickey, the world changes. 10 years ago, 9/11 hadn’t happened yet and the situation was completely different. The parties have also changed over time, and 9/11 was an event that created new lines of party division. I think that the Iraq War has the potential to transform the Middle East and strengthen our national security from the threat of terrorism. I know you disagree with me, so don’t bother saying so. But post-9/11, the Republican Party took my side in this disagreement and the Democratic Party took your side. So go ahead and vote for the Democrats, because this is the change that has taken place. You can’t go back to the pre-9/11 world, no matter how much you wish that you could go back to that earlier form of Republicanism and that earlier world context. Also, you say that the Democrats have come up with “good ideas the Republicans can’t grasp.” Well, to that I only have to say that the country disagrees with you. The Republicans are still considered to be stronger on issues of national security than the Democrats are.
Comment by Kerry — 4/10/2006 @ 3:17 pm
Just because you’ve been brainwashed by some fearmongering about 9/11 EVERYTHING is different?
Yeah, the Republicans have chosen to become the party of jingoism, but that does not mean they should abandon principle on everything from illegal immigration to prudent spending policy.
Comment by HB — 4/10/2006 @ 3:31 pm
HB, how have I been brainwashed? This is what amazes me about the people who surround me. This campus is full of ultra liberals trying to convince me to hate Bush. And then I go on a so-called conservative blog and I find that it’s full of people trying to convince me to hate Bush. And then… I proclaim that I’m a big fan of Bush. Me, brainwashed? HB, I know who you are! You know me, you are my friend. I am the last person in the world who you could accuse of being brainwashed.
I took a class called “Political Parties” at Berkeley (I do NOT recommend it– a terrible class) but I can tell you that the parties have drastically changed over time. You cannot say that the way the party was at any one time is the way it’s always been or the way that it is supposed to be. 9/11 did change American foreign policy in a very essential way and it did change the lines of party division. You can’t go back to an earlier time.
Comment by Kerry — 4/10/2006 @ 3:41 pm
Totally off topic, and PING: Hovannes.
Did you guys delete last year’s BCR election thread over on Res Ipsa? The one where Kerry wrote that little statement and we got into a long, long, long argument? I wanted to go back and read that huge comment thread, just for fun, and I can’t find it anywhere. Someone deleted it? Why? That was one hell of a fight!
/End tangent.
Comment by Morbo — 4/10/2006 @ 4:10 pm
9/11 has nothing to do with the Iraq war currently. Although we did invade to destroy WMD’s to keep them out of the hands of terrorists that threat has been dealt with (by finding out they were taken out of Iraq months before we invaded). At the moment, actually, our continued guerilla war in the country only seams to be fanning the flames of terrorism, as Al Qaeda gains all kinds of recruits to fight against our occupation.
If the Shiite militias took over Iraq we would actually have a stronger grasp against Al Qaeda (although both fundementalist, the Shiites and Al Qaeda are mortal enemies).
Once again, this war has nothing to do with 9/11 or defending American territory, it has everything to do with the idealistic cruscade to convert an Arab nation to civil society.
Comment by Mickey Klein — 4/10/2006 @ 4:52 pm
“it has everything to do with the idealistic cruscade to convert an Arab nation to civil society.”
And that goal has EVERYTHING to do with 9/11. The fact that people always claim the two are disconnected flabbergasts me. 9/11 made many people realize that a purely defensive effort to stop terrorism is simply unfeasable. We can’t stop people from killing us - we have to stop them from wanting to kill us. And the way to do this is to transform the nature of hatred and to try to democratize.
You can disagree with that method, but it is entirely entiwned with 9/11. The call of 9/11 isn’t that of a tactical bind of Saddam to Bin Laden, but in how 9/11 changed the way we percieve the world, and how we have to interact with it.
Comment by Morbo — 4/10/2006 @ 4:59 pm
I have a couple of issues with you Kerry, and none of the them deal with your conservative viewpoints. My issues with you are your surprising desire for lock-step party unity and your carelessness when it comes to facts.
“I do NOT support Patriot bloggers posting actual posts on here holding that issue position.” - Kerry.
Now, I might be a bit crazy from all the rain, but to me, that sure sounds like you support censoring what bloggers can and cannot post from a purely political standpoint. Not that you find certain things offensive, but that you believe conservative blogs should only post conservative viewpoints (that you happen to think are correct, I’m sure.) Frankly, I think Mikey, Patr, and all the other Cal Pat bloggers should be able to post whatever they want to. I often think they miss a lot of the big news stories, for instance (No Delay post!?), but that’s up to them.
My question to you is why: Why must this blog have Kerry-Approved Conservative Posts only?
As to your factual accuracy:
“They are not saying that they don’t support the troops, they are not saying that we should withdraw before the job is done, etc.– they ARE saying that we shouldn’t have gone to war in the first place, that we should try to win more world support so we aren’t there alone, and that we should try to transfer power over to the Iraqi forces as soon as they are able to take care of the situation themselves.”
You could EASILY replace the “they”s in this sentence with “Democrats,” because that is what I and nearly all of my Democratic friends believe. That’s what John Kerry said during the election. That’s what more moderate Democratic Senators have said. In fact, the Democrats who’ve said something else are by far in the minority!
“If you disagree with the Republicans on such issues, then you have to admit that you are on the other side.”
Arrgh. Did they stop actually teaching people to think since the last time I took a poli sci course? As Mickey has stated, core beliefs or not, if the standard for determining who was a “real Republican” (or Democrat) could turn on a single issue, there would be far fewer “real Republicans.” That’s far too simplistic, however. Moreover, it’s clear that you are arbitrarily deciding what is a GOP “core issue,” and how someone fits on that scale. Mickey could just as easily say that your “less than Republican” economic views make you a hardcore liberal. Not to mention the fact that you ok will killing babies, “to a limited extent.” Why shouldn’t that make you a Donkey in disguise?
“The Republicans are still considered to be stronger on issues of national security than the Democrats are.”
Again, just plainly wrong. You would have been right awhile ago (just barely), but these days, Americans trust Democrats more than they trust Republicans on every issue, including national security, and especially Iraq.
The country disagrees with you right now, Kerry.
Comment by Archangel — 4/10/2006 @ 5:00 pm
example: chaos in the streets all over the nation today, and yet our government is silent. 9/11 isn’t everything.
Comment by HB — 4/10/2006 @ 5:09 pm
But how much has the Iraq war brought us closer to having the terrorists not want to kill us? All indications are that the Arabs with the guns are becoming rapidly more anti-American and for that matter, better trained in combat against us.
There is no indication that our occupation is improving Arab sentiment towards us, or to our type of society. In fact, the militia strengths indicate that fundamentalists have gained strength since the invasion.
Whether or not it was Bush’s intentions to fight back 9/11 by creating a pan-Arabic democratic peace, it is a foolish and ineffective strategy.
Comment by Mickey Klein — 4/10/2006 @ 5:15 pm
The Afgan war, however, is an example of a good strategic response to 9/11. We went in with a clear political objective, to destroy the Al Qaeda training camps and prevent their further open operation. Rather than occupy the country and try to morph the society we manipulated native elements to bring about our objective, and then rewarded them with continued power.
The result is that we eliminated a great deal of Al Qaeda bases and operatives, and maintained a system of monitoring for the area.
As for the democracy we created an elected position for Mayor of Kabul, gave him a 4,000 man security force to protect the palace and streets and created a sort of national assembly to discuss common issues. The remainder of the country remains ruled by warlords.
Here we responded effectively to 9/11 by actually decreasing Al Qaedas abilities and not falling prey to democratic idealism.
In Iraq, where our democracy scheme is under way, the power of Al Qaeda has increased exponentially.
Comment by Mickey Klein — 4/10/2006 @ 5:25 pm
“Arrgh. Did they stop actually teaching people to think since the last time I took a poli sci course?”
“Mickey could just as easily say that your “less than Republican” economic views make you a hardcore liberal. Not to mention the fact that you ok will killing babies, “to a limited extent.” Why shouldn’t that make you a Donkey in disguise?”
Oh my goodness, Archangel. Did you understand a single word that I said in my previous post? I am a former Democrat and I admit openly that I am a moderate Republican. I said that I would not post my “less than Republican” economic views or my abortion views on this blog. You ARE a bit crazy from all the rain if you think that it’s ok to have liberal posts (note: POSTS, not “comments”) on a conservative blog. If you want ‘balanced’ posts then this should be a general political blog, not a “conservative” one.
And Ethan, it’s nice to see your amusement at my blog fights.
Comment by Kerry — 4/10/2006 @ 5:44 pm
just a little side note that I find interesting about the Iraq war. to my knowledge (and my knowledge is hardly 100% complete)most of the violence is coming from the Sunni triangle. the Sunnis were powerful and under Saddam, and will lose power in a democratic Iraq to the majority Shias.
however, if US troops leave Iraq and a civil war in Iraq breaks out, who has the numbers and the oil/money? the Shias. in other words, if the Sunnis succeed in kicking us out, and they get their civil war, they will lose. they dont have the money or the men behind them.
I have heard nothing about this aspect of an Iraqi war, anywhere. not in the news, not in the classroom, nowhere, and I would be curious to see how someone would respond to this, either in favor of or against the idea that the Sunnis really ought to want US troops around for their own sakes.
Comment by Ben Chapman — 4/10/2006 @ 5:54 pm
and now a comment on party loyalty: I would just like to remind everyone that we have a system of primaries, in which all wings of the parties are represented. in 2004, Democrats could choose from a range of Liberman to Dean to Kucinich and everything in between (they settled on Kerry for some reason) and in 2000, Republicans could choose from the “moderate” McCain and “conservative” Bush. every party has this.
in my humble opinion, we vote on which candidate more closely resembles our opinions and policy opinions, and if he wins, great, if not, we either decide we dont have enough in common with the choosen party candidate or we decide we have enough in common with him to compromise some issues to get other, more important ones done.
Comment by Ben Chapman — 4/10/2006 @ 6:06 pm
We were fighting with the Shiites before, but we gave them control of a few cities to placate them. The Shiite, militias, however, are seperate from the Army and they are clear contenders for sovereignty. Most notable amongst these is the Muqtada al Sadr. They propose a Shiite dictatorship.
The enemies of our enemies are our friends for the moment, but once that engagement is off we are no where nearer to fighting the most grave enemies to the sovereignty of our democratic government.
Its like cutting of heads of a hydra…
Comment by Mickey Klein — 4/10/2006 @ 6:07 pm
It would, however, advance our efforts to better elections if the militias representing the minority are crushed.
Comment by Mickey Klein — 4/10/2006 @ 6:08 pm
I’m sure like Hamas, the Shiite fundamentalists wont mind going through an election to get in power once their military opposition is gone.
Comment by Mickey Klein — 4/10/2006 @ 6:11 pm
Ethan: I actually can’t access them and it seems the Way Back Machine didn’t archive them. If you really want to see them I’ll let you know if I find a way to get to them.
Comment by cw — 4/10/2006 @ 7:36 pm
Once a person is elected you can’t criticize what he/she does. Nope. Never.
LOL
Comment by HB — 4/10/2006 @ 8:01 pm
You peeps haven’t learned anything here at Cal.
Conservatives used to be the majority in Berkeley before the ‘60s. Now they are the minority and get attacked with intolerant views because of their European or ideological tradition. Face it American tradition is losing and being replaced by international traditions of the dominant minorities trying to become the majority down the road. Politicians cannot stay in office unless they cater to the new minority who can sway the vote.
Today, to be a conservative in Berkeley is a noble and courageous act in their view. It is too easy to be in with the choir crowed of democrat/socialists party and spout their rhetoric. It’s just too easy.
Let me demonstrate:
America sucks, Bush sucks, the neo-cons are evil incarnate. Lol, Just so brilliant of a intellectual- demonstrative prose. I hear it daily on the streets and in academia’s media. This is the current height of the democratic party’s intelligence, or should I say emotionalism? They cannot argue so they are the first to start calling names at anyone that doesn’t see how evil America is or in the same views as they see it. I remember Clinton calling people he didn’t like trailer trash – such high prose for a man of prominence. He taught young children how to speak dirty-words, cheat on ones spouse ,lie about it and stick things into young women’s crotches – such a high-moralist society he espoused. He also taught little kids about how it was OK to ignore the UN Authority and make pre-emptive strikes and war on other countries and bomb from the air instead of ground troops so that the innocent civilian death-stats were in the tens of thousands. Clinton ‘ first’ showed how America could nation build around the world. Now Bush follows in his footsteps with war and nation building. Nation building was warned by the founders of this country NEVER TO DO.
This war costs us billions per month and takes away money from US education.
The US has some oil reserves on its property but the democrats keep voting against it – they are the problem too. It may not be enough, but it is better than nothing.
Lesson to the car with the bush sticker guy, example: Come to Berkeley in the minority and you get something attacked, like the lefties experienced before ‘60s –nothing changes only the dominant party but not the street names.
Comment by Anonymous — 4/10/2006 @ 8:38 pm
Thanks, Hovannes. Let me know if you find anything. I just think it’d be interesting to read that again, a year out.
Comment by Morbo — 4/10/2006 @ 9:20 pm
“I said that I would not post my “less than Republican” economic views or my abortion views on this blog” - Kerry
But as I asked, why not? What would happen?
“If you want ‘balanced’ posts then this should be a general political blog, not a “conservative” one.”
I don’t care about balance. I care about intellectual freedom. The bloggers should be able to post what they want, within reason. It doesn’t make sense to artificially limit what they can and cannot post based on someone else’s politics!
That’s a fascinating post Ben, but I’m not sure what role it played in the current debate. I don’t think we were talking about picking our politicians.
And why ignore all of my other questions, Kerry? That has to be the most frustrating/amusing part of arguing with the “true conservatives” on this blog; their ability to not answer questions.
Comment by Archangel — 4/10/2006 @ 9:36 pm
Archangel, this is a conservative blog. Intellectual freedom has nothing to do with it. It’s like if someone wanted to write a weekly column on ESPN.com about federal interest rates - it’s not about sports.
If you want to make posts advocating non-conservative positions, then this is the proper place to do so.
Comment by Morbo — 4/10/2006 @ 9:42 pm
I didn’t say I was a “true conservative,” Archangel. I’ve repeatedly said that I’m a moderate Republican but that I wouldn’t want my non-Republican-like views posted as actual posts on this conservative blog. As I said before, you apparently don’t understand a word I’ve been saying. Thanks, Ethan, for trying to clarify this to Archangel.
As for your other questions that I didn’t respond to, I really don’t see the point in responding, but I guess I might as well.
Point 1: “You would have been right awhile ago (just barely), but these days, Americans trust Democrats more than they trust Republicans on every issue, including national security, and especially Iraq.”
What can I say about this, Archangel? There is no convincing you that you are wrong. I don’t trust polls. I think that the Republicans will always have an edge on national security issues and that those are the most important right now. I also think that the trend is that Republicans have an edge on social issues (although I disagree with some of them). You’re just going to have to wait and see what happens in the next election. I just don’t think any dramatic changes have occurred since the last presidential election. The Democrats still seem to be unsure about what to say except that they hate the Bush administration.
Point 2: “they ARE saying that we shouldn’t have gone to war in the first place, that we should try to win more world support so we aren’t there alone, and that we should try to transfer power over to the Iraqi forces as soon as they are able to take care of the situation themselves.”
“You could EASILY replace the “they”s in this sentence with “Democrats,” because that is what I and nearly all of my Democratic friends believe.”
Well, if the Democrats believe this then I don’t know why I’ve heard so much demand from them for a timetable for withdrawal. Again, I know I can’t argue with you about this because it’s pointless. I’m not a military strategist but I think I understand that having a timetable would undermine everything we are doing in Iraq because the insurgents could save their energy and resources for when the U.S. leaves. I’ve heard endless complaints from Democrats about this war being an “illegitimate” one, but Saddam Hussein’s regime was illegitimate in my opinion and I think it was legitimate for Bush to make the decision to go to war based on the intelligence information that he had. A state has the legitimate interest to ensure its own security. The types of arguments put forth by Democratic and Republican opponents of this war have been very different. Republicans opposed the beginning of the war but support the troops and want to leave only after a stable government is set up in Iraq. Democrats have gone so far as to try to ban military recruiters on college campuses in their protests against this war, demanding a timetable for withdrawal just as Mickey has called for on this blog. I don’t care what you say: In the post-9/11 world this is a new line of party division and it is an important one. In my own case, this issue made me decide to become a Republican. I’m sure that many other people who are my age chose their party identifications based on this issue as well. I’m officially done commenting on this thread, have a nice day.
Comment by Kerry — 4/10/2006 @ 10:52 pm
my comment about primaries is to point to the fact that a “true” Republican or Democrat really doesnt exist. rather, there are all sorts of ideas represented in both parties, within a certain range on the political spectrum, and in a democratic fashion, the majority of the party members decide what issues get the highest priorities of that party in a given election.
Comment by Ben Chapman — 4/10/2006 @ 11:25 pm
“It’s like if someone wanted to write a weekly column on ESPN.com about federal interest rates - it’s not about sports.” - Morbo
No, actually it’s not like that. The logical result of what Kerry wants is that in a “conservative blog,” no one should be able to post something that is not conservative. That would include critiques of “conservative” view points. That’s ridiculous!
That’d be like someone doing a weekly column on ESPN.com and saying that you can’t say anything having to do with the A’s (Because any true Bay are baseball fan is a Giants fan.)
Again, I ask you Morbo, why shouldn’t Mickey be allowed to post something that doesn’t seem uber-conservative?
Comment by Archangel — 4/11/2006 @ 1:09 am
“I didn’t say I was a “true conservative,” Archangel.”
Hence the quotations. Nonetheless, it is humorous that a “moderate Republican” is lecturing another Republican for acting/sounding/being an ultra-liberal because of his stance on one issue that this “moderate Republican” believes all Republicans should hold.
“I don’t trust polls. I think that the Republicans will always have an edge on national security issues and that those are the most important right now. ”
Based on what then? Tea leaves? Fortune cookies? As a self-respecting poli sci major, what do you base your opinion on?
” I also think that the trend is that Republicans have an edge on social issues ”
Again, all I ask for is some evidence. Anything. You can do it.
“because the insurgents could save their energy and resources for when the U.S. leaves”
I think most military strategists and experts in the field believe that the military can no longer solve this problem. And while Bush may have you convinced of this argument, the military itself has set dates and times when it expects to begin pulling out troops. Do you think they are just helping the terrorists too?
“A state has the legitimate interest to ensure its own security.”
Too true, but what was the security risk here? No serious intelligence suggested that Iraq was going to attack the US any time soon. So where’s the beef?
“Republicans opposed the beginning of the war but support the troops and want to leave only after a stable government is set up in Iraq.”
Blatant revisionism. Name one major Republican who opposed the beginning of the war.
“Democrats have gone so far as to try to ban military recruiters on college campuses in their protests against this war”
What you’re saying here is the Democratic Party tried to ban military recruiting. Are you sure you want to stick to that?
I’m sorry Kerry, your last post was just so haphazard and all over the map that I can barely keep it all straight. Instead of discussing things rationally, you slink away, saying you’re tired of debate when it gets difficult. No wonder you switched parties! I sincerely hope your papers aren’t as wishy washy as your posts here!
Comment by Archangel — 4/11/2006 @ 1:22 am
Ben,
That makes perfect sense. My apologies.
So, do you agree with Kerry and Morbo, that you and other bloggers here should only post “truly” conservative items?
Comment by Archangel — 4/11/2006 @ 1:23 am
“Blatant revisionism. Name one major Republican who opposed the beginning of the war.”
Lincoln Chafee.
Pat Buchanan. (I could insert an anti-Semitic joke here, but I’ll refrain.)
Richard Armitage.
In short, people that Kerry wouldn’t allow to post on this blog. Chafee and Armitage being not conservative enough. Buchanan being too conservative. But Kerry is just right.
Comment by Donald — 4/11/2006 @ 8:14 am
This really fustrates me. How did Bush walk into the White House and redifine conservatism to liberalism? How did fiscal restraint turn into spending like Johnson? How did restrained foreign policy turn into democratic nation building? How did federalism turn into unprecedented federal intrusion?
I honestly half don’t know what to say.
Comment by Mickey Klein — 4/11/2006 @ 9:33 am
All I can say is that I am loyal to the conservatism that first fired my mind to politics. The writings of Thomas Sowell and PJ O’Rourke.
Comment by Mickey Klein — 4/11/2006 @ 9:40 am
How can you not see Bush betraying the conservative vision before your eyes?
Comment by Mickey Klein — 4/11/2006 @ 9:49 am
Donald,
Thanks for the clarification. Good for Chafee.
So, one GOP senator, one former deputy sect. of state, and one talking head (I’m sure there are more talking heads though) were against the war before it began. It would still seem that the vast majority of Republicans were all gun-ho about the war to begin with. Kerry is still quite clearly wrong.
Comment by Archangel — 4/11/2006 @ 10:26 am
The sad thing is most Republicans are perfectly happy to have things redefined for them, as long as there is plenty of tax cuts and minature American flags. (you know, bread and circuses)
Comment by HB — 4/11/2006 @ 10:32 am
I wouldn’t mind the bread the circuses and long as Bush would pay for them honestly.
Comment by Mickey Klein — 4/11/2006 @ 10:43 am
as*
Comment by Mickey Klein — 4/11/2006 @ 10:43 am
I have no issue against Mickey posting anything here, because Mickey does espouse at least some kind of conservative values (small government, low taxes. and Mickey, I do not want to put words in your mouth so feel free to clarify your own political views). in the context of a primary, Mickey can run for any position, and let the voters of the party decide.
Kerry does make a good point, this is a conservative blog. but conservative refers to many things, such as “moderate,” “neocon,” “paleocon,” “religious right,” etc etc etc. if someone were to post purely liberal ideas here, then I would not say “do no post here” but i would say “there are liberal blogs out there.”
remember, each party has a range, and i feel that the Patriot can accept everyone within that range. for the sake of simplicity, ill say that range is center-right, and its a wide range that goes from McCain, Arnold, Bush, Reagan, Buchanan, and anything in between. Mickey clearly falls within that range. Howard Dean, on the other hand, does not. then again, anyone outside this range wouldnt want to post anything there anyway.
wow, that was convoluted! if you want me to clarify what im saying, say so and ill try again.
Comment by Ben Chapman — 4/11/2006 @ 10:58 am
No, I think I get it.
Obviously this is a conservative blog, and so it’s understandable that the posts would have a conservative view point - What I think is ridiculous is Kerry telling anyone that unless their post is “conservative enough,” they shouldn’t be allowed to post! That smacks of censorship. As you say, conservatism runs the gambit, and I strongly believe people on here should be able to post what they believe (within reason.)
Comment by Archangel — 4/11/2006 @ 11:07 am
Hey Kerry,
You can add Newt Gingrich among the ultra-liberals now!
“It was an enormous mistake for us to try to occupy that country after June of 2003.”
– Newt Gingrich” (Referring to Iraq)
Comment by Archangel — 4/11/2006 @ 2:02 pm