This post from my friends at Red State is a snapshot of everything that is wrong with the current Republican party:
John McCain is a fool. He is also a charlatan. He is convinced that the world would be better off if everyone agreed with him and has set about to make it so. When McCain was accurately criticized by third party interest groups, he set about restricting the first amendment. Now, because he was a prisoner of war who was tortured, he has decided to take moral high ground on how the United States treats enemy terrorists, though the United States does not torture terrorists. Nonetheless, McCain has chosen to believe terrorists in captivity and reporters bent on destroying the war effort than the military personnel who are keeping us safe.
John McCain is attempting to add to the appropriations process a provision that would prohibit the United States from doing to captured terrorists those things we are prohibited from doing to American citizens under the 5th, 8th, or 14th amendments to the United States Constitution. We will, in effect, be giving constitutional protections to enemy terrorists who, when given the opportunity, slowly saw off the heads (graphic violence) of captured Americans.
McCain wants to take the high ground. He also wants favorable media attention. The media has been trumpeting unproven stories for some time now that accuse the United States of torturing captured terrorists. Most of the so called “torture” is not torture. In fact, many of the techniques our military uses are designed to wear down the ideologically hardened terrorists who will not talk and have been trained to endure multiple forms of harassment and abuse.
The post then goes on to show graphic pictures of what terrorists want to do to innocents, as if that ‘proves’ anything.
I carry no real torch for McCain, as he lost me a long time ago with McCain-Feingold. But to reduce McCain’s opposition to government sanctioned torture (yes, Blanton, even to ‘captured terrorists’) to a desire to receive favorable press attention is obscene.
And that isn’t even taking into account the rest of the trope offered up in the post.
Edmund Dantes
It’s really amazing watching “conservatives” (I use the term very loosely for these people) that always were suspicious of Government and never really trusted it to suddenly believe in the infallibility of our ability to identify “terrorists” to torture.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/03/AR2005120301476.html
And a little anecdote that might hit close to home for you college professors.
One official said about three dozen names fall in that category; others believe it is fewer. The list includes several people whose identities were offered by al Qaeda figures during CIA interrogations, officials said. One turned out to be an innocent college professor who had given the al Qaeda member a bad grade, one official said.
Steve S
It’s projection.
New Rule. You can only complain about something if you would complain about that whether the President was a Democrat or a Republican.
McCain and most Democrats would not be happy about torture regardless of who was in charge.
Republicans would only be complaining if it had been Clinton in charge, and not Bush. That shows you who are the ones who only care about politics.
Steve S
New Republican mantra:
A polite society is one where ever citizen is afraid of being turned into the Gestapo for pissing off their neighbor.
Does Godwin’s law apply if I mention Gestapo?
Al Maviva
“obscene”?
I think you mean obtuse.
It’s also worth noting that restricting legally permissible methods of interrogation to those contained in the Army FM will potentially (1) Restrict the ability of interrogators to vary from script, thus telegraphing “plays” and preventing useful innovation; (2) probably result in a classified FM that is only briefed up to the Senate Select Committee, if at all, an equally uncontrollable situation; and (3) Might have the effect of hamstringing other agencies by forcing them to following Army doctrine, which the Army can then use as a bureaucratic lever against other agencies within the intelligence community.
Restrictions on torture are good. The way McCain is going about it, is maybe not so good.
There. Now was that obscene, or merely profane?
Lines
I like John McCain in a way. I think he’s well meaning and I think he’s in a strange position. Outside of one’s party, yet recognized as fully entrenched in that party. I would rather see him become a full fledged Independent and get away from the party mentality that has crippled his moral ground.
But I don’t like him enough to ever vote for him.
As for the Republicans that like to take pot shots at him, they need to stop being manipulated by their fears and start thinking about the future of America. Islamics arn’t going to topple our government. Our government will topple itself long before then. Whether they excuse it by the threat of Islamic terrorism or a crushing debt that spiraled out of control, right now the responsibility really lies with the Republican party.
Al Maviva
One other thing. I haven’t seen the appropriations bill alluded to, but if McCain is attempting to provide 4th & 5th Amendment protections to captured Al Qaida, that would be exceptionally stupid and invidious. Please note, I said “if.”
Jack Roy
Huh. Don’t take this the wrong way or anything, John, but if you just (a) doubt the wisdom of the Iraq war, and (b) agree that abortion, while immoral, shouldn’t be illegal, you’ll be a Democrat.
And if you concede that the Swift Boat Veterans were full of shit, you’ll be a traitorous Democrat.
SomeCallMeTim
This stuff kills me. Don’t like your party right now, John? There’s actually a pretty obvious solution: VOTE FOR THE OTHER GUY! Your vote signals your priorities to your party. Voting Republican doesn’t meant that you are in favor of torture, or runaway spending, or secret government, or massive executive incompetence. It just means that you think the possibility of future tax cuts makes up for those evils.
Charles Bird
Agreed, John. My own comment here. As far as the McCain-Feingold legislation goes, McCain may have spearheaded it, but Bush was the one who signed the goddam bill. That’s a wash as far as I’m concerned.
Anderson
Two words describing today’s Republican Party:
No Morals.
Lines
The new Republican Golden Rule:
Do unto others until its done unto you.
Steve S
Great point. And if there are things that some Democrats are saying that you don’t like. Well, if they aren’t becoming official policy, you can just ignore them.
In fact, you can help me in pushing for more liberal economics platform within the Democratic party. The Republicans have already abandoned liberal economics and ain’t going back. The Democrats are looking for ideas.
Cyrus
Why is it stupid, though? Genuinely curious about your reasoning. If we’re talking politically, well, it might look like coddling terrorists to those who believe we coddle every domestic criminal in the first place. But if we’re talking stupid in terms of practical effect, I don’t understand. If prisoner abuse provides little or no useful intelligence, why not?
Thomas
Al Maviva, what disturbs you so much about applying Constitutional protections against torture to suspected terrorists or insurgents?
MI
The post then goes on to show graphic pictures of what terrorists want to do to innocents, as if that ‘proves’ anything.
I’m glad someone on the right is pointing this out. If you can have pet peeves about such serious issues, this has been mine. The, “they do it too” or “what they do is worse” has always been, more than anything, strikingly lazy thinking, especially for people like the folks at Red State who fancy themselves intellectual conservatives. They could and should do better than that.
Tyler Simons
I think you mean “tripe” instead of “trope.”
From Wikipedia (so take it with a grain of salt):
Same source, same grain:
I get the impression that you’re trashing the entire line of argument in the post you cite. That suggests the latter term to me. I’m pretty much a centrist, and “tripe” is the word I’d use to describe the bullshit extremist sensationalism you cite. Good work, regardless of the actual term you meant to use.
John Cole
Thanks, Tyler. I mean ‘trope’ as in ‘bullshit talking points,’ so perhaps I meant a combination of the two.
neil
You know, I see the right doing this all the time, offering pictures of 9/11 or pictures of beheaded kidnappees or whatever else, and it has always struck me as a totally reprehensible tactic to shut down debate. They really couldn’t make it any more explicit: They think you should shut up and they try to shock you into doing so.
What I want to see is examples of the same tactic used by the left blogosphere. I’m certain that it is much less common, but I’m not so far gone that I think the right has a monopoly on shutting down debate. There probably was a day when it was less so — I remember plenty of people warning me not to vote for Nader because Bush would try to overturn Roe v. Wade, full stop, end of discussion — but now you can find lively debate on DailyKos on even this subject. So, Balloon Juicers, I want to see it — what have you got?
jg
Just thought I’d point another thing wrong with the republican party. My party until Bush came along.
stickler
I have no idea why any thinking conservative, let alone anyone with libertarian tendencies, would bother reading Redstate. That site is all about increasing the size and power of the Government and attacking anyone who dissents. They want to ban abortion, they hate the idea of a right to privacy, and they support the Patriot Act. Round ’em all up! They support the Iraq invasion — but not taxes to pay for it. I pointed this out and got banned for my trouble. Ah, well.
I was in good company. For awhile, it was fun watching the paranoid purge festival that seemed to crop up every week (“Off to The Pile!”), but eventually the disconnect with reality got too tedious.
Remember their rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth, denunciations of Michael Schiavo? The site is packed full of halfwit jingoes and Puritan scolds. Your valuable time is better spent elsewhere.
jg
The republican party has always been known as the ‘tougher’ party. But when did it get to the point we’re the dems are so ‘soft’ that you have to vote republican or die?
ape
“John McCain is a fool..”
I thought this was a precise, labourious piece of satire until I’d read almost to the end. An A-grade 13yr-old’s essay entitled:
“What would I have to believe to vote Republican today with a clear conscience”.
I mean: “because he was a prisoner of war who was tortured, he has decided to take moral high ground on how the United States treats enemy terrorists”.
Jesus H Christ.
Steve
Everyone the government tells us is guilty of a crime must be guilty… except, of course, for members of the Republican Party. Somehow Tom DeLay is the only person on the planet who has been unjustly accused of a crime. Every other accused person wants to saw off our heads, take the government’s word for it.
Krista
What I want to know, is when the REAL Republicans – you know, the ones for fiscal conservatism, small government, non-nanny-state, are going to actually wrest back control of their party. The Republican party today (and a lot of people who profess to being Republicans) bear absolutely no resemblance to that initial ideal. Instead, Republicans (the ones with the microphones, anyway) are about runaway spending, tax cuts for the wealthy, pre-emptive war, torturing suspected enemies, John Wayne-ish foreign policy, and Big Brother telling you what to do with your naughty bits. Are the old-school Repubs going to ever get back control over their party, or are they going to concede defeat, become Libertarians, and try to get enough votes to have at least some influence from the outside?
Sojourner
I think the jury’s still out on McCain. He certainly seems to have no qualms flinging his arms around Bush when it suits his political aspirations. I’m not sure what he stands for other than doing what he has to do to get what he wants. My concern is that he’ll whore himself to the Bushies to get the Repub nomination. If he does, he’s no different than the rest of them.
The Disenfranchised Voter
I will go with never. We will see the fall of the Republican party before that ever happens.
Steve S
Kruschev had to play nice with Stalin or get sent to the Gulag.
Maybe McCain thinks he can play nice with Bush, and then we he gets in charge he can change things?
Steve S
It’s the perception the Republicans want you to have. The Democrats have done a terribly lousy job at understanding the issue, and instead of hitting it they pander to it and simply reinforce it.
I believe when you get down into the nuts and bolts and real issues, you’ll find the Democrats are better at protecting the nation than the Republicans. The Republicans just shout a lot more and wave their arms in the air.
Andrei
With only a small touch of snark, that will never happen until the alpha male tendencies of GOPer like Cole can finally admit with a straight face that a pre-emptive war in Iraq might not have been the best idea as a response or policy in repsonding to 9/11. What keeps people, especially males, in the GOP first and foremost is a staunch “pro military” strategy. The alpha male part. My father-in-law and my own father both voted for Bush largely because they both used to be in the Army and Navy respectively. Hell, look at the things Stormy says and you’ll see why they stick to a party that when taken collectively, is actually very counter-productive for their general interests. This weighs in far more than abortion, religious right zealotry in their own party, and now the obscene way in which the GOP has made everyone think that tax breaks for those well off are fine while we have to pay for a war.
Cole seems to refuse to acknowledge that the war in Iraq *might have been* the wrong thing to do. The day he or anyone like him can actually admit that it *might have been* a bad idea is the day he’ll be able to even consider voting for anyone not in the GOP party. And not a day sooner.
And that’s where the Dems miss the boat, and why Kerry lost the election. During a time of stress and threats of terror, the Dems refuse to act tough with the GOP about the *right* way to fight a war on terrorists, and they lose elections. Even with all the scandal going on right now, many GOPers are loathe to vote Dem strictly because of this reason it seems. And I think Cole would tell you that’s the Dems fault and I would have to agree. (If he indeed say that, since I’m obviously wildly speculating.)
jahyarain
everyone needs to stop complaining about the republican party. there’s only one problem with the regressive party…it exists. but this too will end sooner than many of you think.
Don
How does this make him any different from any other pol?
Ancient Purple
I don’t think you have too much to worry from this administration.
Hell, they aren’t even providing much 4th and 5th Amendment protections to American citizens.
Mac Buckets
Not particularly in regards to you, Krista, but I think it’s funny when Democrats complain about Bush not being a REAL conservative with regards to spending. They used to hate real conservatives — I guess it’s difficult for some to understand how they Must Hate Bush while also hating that he’s not the kind of Republican they used to hate. It’s almost the reverse situation to when Clinton insituted welfare reform — but I didn’t hear the GOP complaining about how they wished Clinton would be a REAL Democrat and fling the dosh about.
Is it that we are all finally decided that fiscal conservatism, small government, and non-nanny-state policies are good things?
Or do the Democrats just want the GOP to go back to cuts in government so they can re-open their well-worn “GOP wants old people/young people/sick people/poor people/dark people to starve in the streets because they hate them and only care about the rich” playbook?
Electorally, social spending increases (which Bush has long ridden as the “compassionate” conservative) seem to be working out well for the Republicans, so I don’t see any reversal near-term. I mean, what are the Democrats going to say about it, since their only argument seems to be that they’d spend even more?
So short answer, K, is it’ll take a different GOP party leader who is not so into “compassion” with his conservatism and is not afraid of the old Dem playbook, or it’ll take the electorate to stop voting for spenders (don’t hold your breath there, since both parties are generally spenders right now).
Since your list of your impressions of what the GOP is about now defines “old-school Repubs” mostly as “pre-Reagan Repubs,” I’m guessing the answer is never.
ape
re “Alpha male tendencies of GOPers like Cole”
even the most rabid Bushites sometimes see the light for a moment. (cf Hitchens describing Bush’s ‘criminal insanity’ in wanting to bomb Al Jazeera) what holds them back from true insight is not love of Bush and/ or militarism but hatred of ‘liberals’. that’s the real story in contemporary thought.. the massive, massively successful hate campaign against ‘liberals’, who are almost entirely imaginary demons so sinister that even Dubya & his manifestly venal incompetent cronies still end up preferable.
this also answers Krista’s question: “What I want to know, is when the REAL Republicans – you know, the ones for fiscal conservatism, small government, non-nanny-state, are going to actually wrest back control of their party.”
the GOP is driven by an agenda of anti-‘liberalism’. that’s why the activities are so contradictory. They are all just the opposite of the imaginary demonic liberal. (ever more tax? no! less tax. accountability? no! don’t criminalise politics: more pork! question the administration’s decision-making and conduct of the war? no! don’t hate america. give unconditional support. universal mass sex free-for-all? no! Dubya OWNS your pants & all within them.)
‘no enemies to the right’ is only a valid tactic if the alternative is truly terrifying. only adherence to this creed explains the moral insanity of these critiques of McCain’s modest proposals.
aop
Red State sucks. There are some smart commenters there, but it’s ruined by the paranoid and pathetically show-offy banning of “trolls,” by which I mean, anyone not 100 percent committed to carrying water for the GOP and King Jesus Bush the Lesser.
Krista
I think it’s because of what Bush is spending the money ON. That’s why a lot of Dems are appalled. I’m just speculating, of course, being neither Dem nor Repub. But I think a lot of Dems are disgusted that Bush has been flinging around all of this money on things which they feel will not benefit the average American citizen. So in their view, it’s like, “Jaysus! Not only is he creating record deficits, but Joe Regular isn’t even getting anything out of it! If we ever get back in office, we’ll have a hell of a time paying for any social programs, ’cause we’ll be stuck with the bills for his irresponsibility!”
Or something like that…
Davebo
I’d say this is an excellent example of why Tacitus chose to leave Red State.
Mac Buckets
The GOP was long seen as the stronger anti-Communist Party (wasn’t that why Reagan changed parties?), and they supported the Vietnam War under LBJ when his own party wouldn’t. Also, the unilateral disarmament stance got traction in the Democratic Party with McGovern and others and doomed them to be regarded as tissue-soft in many American’s eyes. The deathknell was the fall of the USSR under the Reagan-Bush rule that many Dems opposed so vehemently on defense matters.
stickler
Krista asked a simple question upthread:
The answer is “never.” Because to try this would be to break the Party. This is the real reason the GOP moneymen pushed W. so hard against McCain in 2000. McCain angered the foot soldiers too much with his “mullahs of the Right” comments.
They’ve made a deal with the Devil (the Pharisee fundagelical community), and they’re stuck together. Any attempt to break free would split the (already-fragile) Republican coalition and guarantee another couple generations of Democratic dominance. The trauma of 1932 is deeply ingrained in the Republican psyche. 1964 rubbed salt in the wounds. If they alienate the foaming wingnuts, they will lose election after election. Hell, even now the GOP can barely scrape together 50.1% for their President in wartime. Either the GOP remains the party of Schiavo-rage or the GOP goes back to permanent minority status. Hell of a choice.
The German term for this is Schicksalsgemeinschaft. Roughly translated, “community of fate.”
Al Maviva
>>>Al Maviva, what disturbs you so much about applying Constitutional protections against torture to suspected terrorists or insurgents?
First off, it doesn’t disturb me, I merely think it’s incredibly stupid and ill-advised. What makes you cry whenever I comment?
Second, the suggestion discussed at Red State, that I stressed *if* it was true, was to incorporate the Bill of Rights protections for criminals to captured AQ fighters. This is quite different than prohibitions on torture, which are already extant in Federal law through Congress’ statutory incorportion of the Convention Against Torture Treaty (CAT). That’s what I said would be dumb and inadvisable. Not prohibitions on torture per se.
There are several reasons it would be dumb and inadvisable. First, it would compel the treatment of AQ as U.S. citizens apprehended in the act of committing a crime. Along with imposing a search warrant requirement and rights to be represented and advised by attorneys during questioning, it would effectively prevent battlefield interrogation. Second, and worse, this would impose a requirement of speedy trial in a federal court. The trial of persons captured on the battlefield, assuming they are in a protected class, is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions except in the case of “war crimes” or “enemy prisoner of war misconduct,” two limited categories of crimes that are quite distinct from waging war on the battlefield even as an illegal combatant. The choice presented to the government would be to ignore the Constitution’s guarantees of speedy trial, legal representation, etc. (thereby obeying the Geneva Conventions) or to grant a speedy trial and flout an unambiguous requirement of the Conventions.
Third, I’ve never seen it written that *no* information is forthcoming from from captured AQ. I’ve read that high level AQ have given quite a bit of information that is useful over a long period of time, while low level AQ tend to have useful information that is time and geographic scope limited. The presence or lack of intelligence value of particular detainees is not the problem.
Fourth, the real problem is what you do with somebody captured on the battlefield, who is possessed of an irrational hatred of you, who will certainly return to try to kill you the next day if released. Let them go on bail, per their due process rights under the 5th Amendment and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure? So far, I haven’t heard any good solutions to this problem from the left.
Fifth, once you start granting EPW and Enemy Combatants a free hand to wander into court, you get abuse of the legal system, and concerted attempts to hamstring the military campaign via the courts. The Gitmo detainees currently have 200 court cases pending in the federal court system, including one lovely case to compel by writ of mandamus federal court judges to sit in on every interrogation of captured AQ conducted by the military. Are you really prepared to tie down the court system with people whose sole goal is to figure out how to use the court system to hamstring the court system and the military?
Sixth and finally, the rationale for taking prisoners is that they will have some useful information, and it doesn’t hinder the war effort to minimize the loss of human life even in battle, and to accept the risk posed by attempting to capture them. Force the troops to have a warrant before they enter a house on the battlefield, read the miranda warning as they are attempting to subdue and capture the AQ fighter, and then wait for a lawyer to show up so that they can politely ask if there is an AQ presence on the next block, and most troops will probably just call for fire and flatten the house.
That’s the disaster that would be precipitated by the proposal as described by that RedStater – again *if* the description was accurate.
aop
The USSR would have collapsed when it did even if Liberace had been president.
Tractarian
Yup.
Even Howard Dean ran on a fiscally conservative platform.
Otto Man
Funny, I seem to remember a guy named Gorbachev in charge of the USSR when it finally collapsed from its own internal flaws and economic crises.
Mac Buckets
That’s just the inability to get the GOP message out, for whatever reasons you may believe. Non-defense discretionary spending is up over 30% under Bush, and certainly education and Medicare programs have done their level best to bust this budget, and those affect Joe Regular more than most. Even the Labor Department has gotten a huge increase in funding, and most conservatives would see that department abolished.
And, btw, these deficits aren’t records by economy-adjusted standards. Not to say they aren’t bad, but a little perspective is never a bad thing.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Unforunately the massive defense spending contributed nothing to the downfall of communism and if anything actually prolonged it’s rule.
The so-called defense spending of then–like most “defense” spending nowadays–was completely wasteful.
Vlad
McCain lost me even longer ago, when he was part of the Keating Five.
don surber
Forgive me for asking this but what is torture? If it is that Lynndie England thing, then by all means “torture”
We are at war. There are no Miranda rights
don surber
“Unforunately the massive defense spending contributed nothing to the downfall of communism and if anything actually prolonged it’s rule.”
Keep telling yourself that. Oh and the atomic bombs had nothing to do with the Japanese surrender.
Krista
Now I find that very odd. The GOP has no lack of voice, and no lack of supporters with loud voices. Do you genuinely believe that the only problem with their fiscal policies is that they haven’t been able to sell them to the public?
We’ve been focusing on the spending aspect of it, but what about the government intrusiveness into private life…what do you make of that?
Mac Buckets
Gorbachev himself acknowledged that Reagan played a major part in the ending of the Cold War, as do many of the old Eastern bloc diplomats. But that’s all beside the point, which was about public perception of strength, and Reagan will always be the Fall of Communism President.
Mac Buckets
I never said that was the only problem, I said that the only reason the public would think that a large chunk of the increase in spending hasn’t been intended for their benefit is ignorance of the budget — either because Bush hasn’t put the message out there, or because no one is interested in reporting it, on the right or the left.
Kind of a broad question…can you narrow it down to a couple issues?
Red Square State
Gorbachev himself acknowledged that Reagan played a major part in the ending of the Cold War,
Care to provide a link for this statement? I remember reading Gorby saying the Gipper/Arms race had nothing to do with the collapse of the USSR.
Krista
Or, it could be that the budget pays lip service to the public’s needs but doesn’t effect any real change. Just a thought. :)
In regards to government intrusiveness into private life, I’m referring specifically to contraception, and the fact that this government, through their policies, has made it possible for too many women to be denied contraception – either through funding cuts to family planning programs, or via tacit approval of pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions. I’m certain there are other examples of intrusiveness that others here could provide, but I’ve not studied them as closely.
jg
Reagan had a lot to do with it but not in the way most of the public thinks, which is part of the problem. Republican support seems in part based on bluster and bullshit. Reagan didn’t scare them into collpsing but most people think he did. He didn’t bankrupt them in an arms race but most people think he did. The truth is far more complicated than that.
Jack Roy
Vlad,
Funny story about McCain and Keating—I don’t know to what extent this is true, but I’m a Democrat who believes it, so I think that counts for something, but it used to be whispered that McCain was included not out of his own palpable guilt but just so the group of named Senators (previously four Democrats, including the other Arizona Senator, Dennis Deconcini), would be nominally bipartisan. Not that it was entirely a frame-up—or, hell, I could be totally wrong. But food for thought.
neil
I think it’s funny when Democrats complain about Bush not being a REAL conservative with regards to spending. They used to hate real conservatives–I guess it’s difficult for some to understand how they Must Hate Bush while also hating that he’s not the kind of Republican they used to hate. It’s almost the reverse situation to when Clinton insituted welfare reform–but I didn’t hear the GOP complaining about how they wished Clinton would be a REAL Democrat and fling the dosh about.
I have to assume you’re being wilfully obtuse, Mac Buckets, or else you’re going for the Black-and-White Thinker of the Year award (I warn you, the competition is stiff this year).
To understand, first shed your prejudiced view of Democrats as simple caricatures whose only goal is to see the Federal government spend as many dollars as possible. All that time they were talking about increased spending, it turns out that they actually cared what the money was to be spent on — not just that it be spent. Fancy that!
Second, realize that just because Bush is not the same as the people they used to dislike doesn’t mean that they should thus like him more. In this multi-dimensional world, you can be different and worse _at the same time_. Bear with me here, I know it’s hard to believe, but there’s more.
Now to your proposed analogy, Clinton is to welfare reform as Bush is to spending. You may have already guessed that the reason this analogy is crap is because abolishing welfare is something that Republicans consider innately good, whereas spending is not something that Democrats consider innately good. How about this for a comparison: what if, instead of his welfare phase-out plan, Clinton instead phased out welfare by turning welfare recipients into hamburger meat to feed to needy families. I’m going to assume that you would not be in favor of this plan, and I’m also not going to say “But why? You should be happy, the welfare rolls are shrinking!”
Steve S
It’s quite more complicated that that. The massive defense spending did have something to do with it, in that the Soviets finally realized they could not keep up with us. On the other hand, the massive defense spending was also responsible for the death of US industry, and as such has placed us in an economically perilous position. So it had long term damage to our own nation on top of whatever benefit it might have had with the collapse of the Soviet Union. So it’s a mixed message, at best.
As to the issue of GOP and fiscal responsibility. I think ape was right in that their new policy is anti-Democrats. They are willing to embrace Democratic ideas if for nothing else than to mute potentional criticism.
It’s kind of funny in a way. Clinton tried to push the idea of the Third Way into Democratic politics and largely failed because the party would not adopt his positioning. Karl Rove has succeeded with the Republicans.
Steve S
Republicans would have Reagan take credit for all the voices of opposition within Russia. My girlfriend is a Russian immigrant, so I get a healthy dose of Russian history in my diet.
Reagan is not as bad as some people think, nor as great as others think. I supported him as President. The mistake that most Republicans today make is not understanding that Reagan often bluffed. They think his bluffs should be taken seriously.
SDI as an example… Reagan knew it was not feasible, but he used it as a bargaining chip against the Russians.
Perry Como
You can extraordinarily rendition a ham sandwich.
DougJ
Poor little John John was tortured for five years, so now he wants us to coddle the terrorists. Boo hoo.
Mac Buckets
The world’s most partisan blogger is a “source” now? Wow. I think that stretches the limits of the word “source” to the absolute breaking point. Thanks for the laugh, though. I did enjoy his hard-hitting news story “Bill Clinton: Eight Great Years.” Like I always say, if Mike Hersh says it, it must be true!
docG
From the Washington Post – Gorbachev on Reagan’s Influence
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32927-2004Jun10.html
Mac Buckets
I’m certain that more women have more access to more options for birth control now than in any time in American history.
Cyrus
This is just speaking for myself, and in addition I was 10 when George the First was voted out of office so this is all safely hypothetical for me, but I’ve never hated real conservatives. Disagreed with them, but respected them. And I don’t think I’m too unusual in this. Also, I think you’re wrong to treat “fiscally conservative” and “fiscally responsible” as the same thing, which they aren’t. Right now the choice is between the “tax and spend” party and the “borrow and spend” party. They’re both big government, but one and only one of them can be called responsible. If one gets used as a shorthand for the other, well, people are sloppy with language. If Bush were being fiscally responsible by cutting spending to match taxes, I wouldn’t be happy with it, but it would be worlds better than what we have now.
Mac Buckets
Then your problem is with the asker of the question. Her question was about level of spending, not individual programs. By the way, I think your “they cared” position is naive and incorrect on its face.
But you can’t bitch about the thing that makes the guy you hate more like yourself, or you run the risk of looking like a knee-jerk hypocrite.
I may never stop laughing at that assertion. I’d propose about 60 years of American history as a rebuttal.
Speaking of black-and-white thinking…
Sherard
Man, are people REALLY this stupid ?
Whoa! Newsflash!!!!
Like that doesn’t describe every politician in the history of the world. And it sure doesn’t stop with politicians.
Mac Buckets
But he also said:
“I think that as far as history is concerned — and he has already gone off into history — he is a man who made an enormous contribution to creating the conditions for ending the Cold War — perhaps even the decisive contribution,” Gorbachev said.
Steve
That might be true. If it is, it sure ain’t due to the conservative movement. It’s very clear today which side wants to limit Plan B, give pharmacists the right to refuse to sell birth control, keep cervical cancer vaccines off the market because they might make sex less dangerous and therefore more attractive to adolescents – not to mention rolling back the Supreme Court cases that say you have the right to use birth control even if the state says otherwise.
If the individual right to use birth control is in good shape today, it’s only due to decades of fighting by liberal politicians and interest groups. The argument that conservatives have been losing the battle is an odd retort to the point that they are on the wrong side of it.
Kimmitt
Proof positive that we genuinely do live in parallel universes. Out of curiousity, who won the Boer War in your timeline? For some reason, a lot of them diverge somewhere around then.
Remfin
That is Gorbachev basically saying the people who wrote the histories are full of crap, not that he’s agreeing with them
Mac Buckets
Wait — in your universe, Democrats have voted against a spending increase in the last 60 years? Because in ours, the only time they complain about a proposed spending program is when they’re saying it isn’t big enough. Boer War, you say?
Mac Buckets
My retort was in response to Krista’s assertion that “this government, through their policies, has made it possible for too many women to be denied contraception.” I was just saying that, while we have a few real crises out there, lack of birth control options is an invented one.
The Disenfranchised Voter
I knew you would make an fucking issue out of this. You’re obivously totally clueless as to why I posted the source. I even thought about coming back and explaining it before you took it the wrong way–which you did.
I merely provided that source as an explanation as to why the defense spending polcies didn’t help. I was by no means saying he is the final say on the matter. I linked to him because I don’t believe in plagiarism.
His explanation was the reason I posted it, because his explanation makes sense and is supported by the facts.
Go find another red herring to take issue with.
The Disenfranchised Voter
*an=a
*obviously
*policies
Otto Man
Really?
The first part rings true. Republicans have stood against social welfare from the earliest days of the New Deal. Social Security, health care, housing, unemployment insurance, minimum wages and maximum hours, etc. etc. Eisenhower’s HEW Secretary even opposed free polio vaccines for American children because that would lead to “socialized medicine.”
The second part seems on solid ground, too. The last two Democratic presidents called for extensive budget cuts at the federal level, while the last three Republicans have led the country to new heights of unprecedented spending and budget deficits.
But please, keep laughing. You’re going to need a sense of humor in the coming years.
Steve S
What was that line from the 2004 campaign? something about voting for it before voting against it.
You forgot that now?
Steve S
docG – That’s an accurate assessment of the Cold War.
I suspect that historians will probably note Reagan as the turning point of US economic collapse. The deficit issue is something we cannot ignore, and I’ve been saying this for 20 years now.
As more and more boomers retire, things are going to go from bad to worse.
bago
McCain is #1 a slimy politician. The whole S&L thing plus the McCain Feingold act alone proves that. Also the cozying up to Bush when he was in power. However he does have a sliver of integrity, and that has to do with torture. After getting bamboo shoots up your fingernails lobbyists arent quite as persuasive. I wouldn’t trust him on too many other issues, but this issue he speaks with personal experience.
Personally I’d love to see a debate where Bush proclaims “We do not torture” and the opponent offers to not torture him in the same ways the CIA does.
If we don;t torture then you won’t mind this waterboarding. Come on, live TV. If it’s not torture what to do you have to be afraid of?
Put up or shut up.
If you can’t meet that deadline, you’re bullshitting.
Mac Buckets
Not true. The budget has grown by about $250B per four-year period since Carter took over up until Dubya, who has grown the budget by about $500B in his first four budgets. There’s never been a budget less the previous year’s, so I have no idea where you get the idea than Carter or Clinton called for “extensive budget cuts.” Don’t buy any political hype out of DC about “budget cuts” — it’s almost always a parlor trick.
As far as Congressional spending, the latter-1970’s Democrat-controlled Congresses were the biggest peace-time supplemental spenders ever, and the lowest supplemental spenders ever were the Contract with America Republicans, who actually cut previously-planned expenditures in 1995 and 1996 to offset Clinton’s supplemental requests, so they ended up with spending surplusses.
Again, it’s a hard-sell that Democrats are for less spending when they never vote against spending unless they are arguing that the Republican programs still doesn’t spend enough.
Kimmitt
That’s not terribly meaningful in the absence of information of inflation and/or population growth…
Anyways, from the CBO:
Spending in:
1976 372
1980 591
1984 851
1988 1065
1992 1381
1996 1560
2000 1789
2004 2292
Changes:
1976 baseline
1980 219
1984 260
1988 214
1992 317
1996 179
2000 219
2004 503
I don’t see the pattern you’re seeing — the smallest increase came under a Dem President who had a Dem Congress for at least half of what you’re talking about. And these aren’t even inflation-adjusted dollars; if you look at percentages of GDP, the pattern is even more stark. You just cannot trust Republicans with money these days.
Please understand that you’re talking about a period which took place while I was in diapers. Things change, especially over multiple decades. For example, the Democratic Party in the 1920s was avowedly segregationist, and yet that fact has little to do with current voting patterns.