Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think it's shocking how LITTLE the GOP-controlled government got done between 2002 and 2006. This was a period of exclusive GOP control of government. Democrats were out of power - the Republican party controlled the executive branch and both houses of Congress. I was, at the least, hoping to see some reform in the area of social security, or perhaps some tax code simplification.
But what did we ACTUALLY get? NOTHING. We got the Terry Schiavo mess, we got more wrangling over Iraq, we got plenty of recriminations, but when it came down to it, the Republicans were massively impotent to do anything at all with their power.
And so, after a while, they lost that power. The real question is, why? Why did they squander their opportunity so badly? That utter abdication of their own potential still makes me mad. Bill Frist, Tom DeLay, Dennis Hastert, etc. - these men were total incompetents. Congress had crap leadership exactly when strong leadership was required.
Was he and others republicans were put in office by to fix the problems or to create more?
Well they weren't put into office they were elected to office by the voters. I understand this is still highly disputed and won't make assertions to the validity of the 04 elections, because I simply don't know. I do know that roughly half the people who voted did vote for Bush.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tablemtn
And so, after a while, they lost that power. The real question is, why? Why did they squander their opportunity so badly? That utter abdication of their own potential still makes me mad. Bill Frist, Tom DeLay, Dennis Hastert, etc. - these men were total incompetents. Congress had crap leadership exactly when strong leadership was required.
Durn good question and I suspect there are a variety of reasons as to the why. When you do have a single party in the House, the Senate, the Executive, and now in the judiciary, you get a free pass to palookaville. The sky is the limit when it comes to playing shannagins, corruption, and the distortion of the truth, after all, who is going to tell them no? If elected to the White House and in control of congress, will democrats act more responsibly, that is to be seen I guess. Note, it should not surprise anyone that people who are willing to do anything to achieve power are just as equally willing to do anything with it, once they have it.
One of the reasons for success of the Republican party has been its authoritarian collectivism. This desire to remain in lockstep with the party regardless of even reality. (As Bush recently mentioned about this administration creating its own reality in the NY Times) I personally changed my party affiliation in 2002 because of this mindset as in my humble opinion it no longer represented conservatism as I grew up knowing it.
During a recent discussion, I heard a friend mention that she though the reason the Democratic party seemed so inept or reluctant to form a consolidated front against the Bush administration was because getting liberals to agree was like herding cats. I think there is some truth to that as many liberals are very individualistic in their views and getting a consensus in the democratic party seems almost impossible. I point to the latest example being that most people in America and nearly all of the democratic base want to end the war in Iraq as soon as possible, yet for the most part the democratic candidates are not willing to listen to their own base. (Congressional approval is at 18%)
But there's surely plenty of people in this forum who would gladly stand in line to vote for President for a third time if only he could run a third time because he is against abortion and same sex marriage. After all, hese two topics get people out to vote more than any other.
Location: In an illegal immigrant free part of the country.
2,096 posts, read 1,469,038 times
Reputation: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie
But there's surely plenty of people in this forum who would gladly stand in line to vote for President for a third time if only he could run a third time because he is against abortion and same sex marriage. After all, hese two topics get people out to vote more than any other.
I would not vote for Bush again or anyone else that would support abortion or same sex marrige. Bush never got my vote the second time around.
But there's surely plenty of people in this forum who would gladly stand in line to vote for President for a third time if only he could run a third time because he is against abortion and same sex marriage. After all, hese two topics get people out to vote more than any other.
Stillwater, single issue voting on subjects such as those you listed above, while important, have always baffled me. I am sure there are a group of people out there who would vote for George Bush again even if here were standing in the middle of Times square, wearing a diaper, with a bottle of whiskey in one hand, an assault rifle in the other shooting babies in incubators all while using the Declaration of Independence as a way to light his Cuban cigar and crying, "no stem cell research".
I am of the belief that politics and media use these type of flame issues to keep people busy bickering in order to detract interest from more weighty problems at the time or at least it sure seems that way.
Location: In an illegal immigrant free part of the country.
2,096 posts, read 1,469,038 times
Reputation: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper
Stillwater, single issue voting on subjects such as those you listed above, while important, have always baffled me. I am sure there are a group of people out there who would vote for George Bush again even if here were standing in the middle of Times square, wearing a diaper, with a bottle of whiskey in one hand, an assault rifle in the other shooting babies in incubators all while using the Declaration of Independence as a way to light his Cuban cigar and crying, "no stem cell research".
I am of the belief that politics and media use these type of flame issues to keep people busy bickering in order to detract interest from more weighty problems at the time or at least it sure seems that way.
No,,,, not all, but it’s a good start that this republican administration and congress could have done something positive with one or more of them.
as a Republican who generally votes that way I agree on this to a point.What the party said they would do,they did it differently.Basically they talked about how Dems generally misuse government(and that's true) but when in their hands the temptation was too much for them also.
And then there is Ron Paul who is in the Repub party actually acting like a Republican should and he is blacksheeped by the others.
Citigirl, my use of ab absurdum as well as ad nausum was a reference to a previous statement of former President Bush during the first Iraq war. I didn't "think this up" I only repeated a previous example.
One instance of an Iraq war lie. -
“The pictured girl told the world under tears that she saw how Saddam Hussein's soldiers took babies out of their incubators and let them die on the cold floor. In November 1990 Bush41 told this lie to the soldiers and it was repeated in the media daily. In truth she hadn't been in Kuwait at the time. The girl was in fact the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador in Washington, USA.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionking
as a Republican who generally votes that way I agree on this to a point.What the party said they would do,they did it differently.Basically they talked about how Dems generally misuse government(and that's true) but when in their hands the temptation was too much for them also.
And then there is Ron Paul who is in the Repub party actually acting like a Republican should and he is blacksheeped by the others.
Lionking, power is much like the lure of easy wealth and many a great man have succumbed. Takes great moral fiber, integrity and conviction to do what is right as opposed to what is popular.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper
Stillwater, single issue voting on subjects such as those you listed above, while important, have always baffled me. I am sure there are a group of people out there who would vote for George Bush again even if here were standing in the middle of Times square, wearing a diaper, with a bottle of whiskey in one hand, an assault rifle in the other shooting babies in incubators all while using the Declaration of Independence as a way to light his Cuban cigar and crying, "no stem cell research".
Wouldn't make me vote for him but I would like to bum a cigar
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
