Dick Cheney is just about the only honest-to-goodness Republican these days, it seems.

Every other member of the party is a "true conservative" who totally stood up to what the Bush administration was doing over the last eight years. They all stand for "Reagan conservatism," not what today's Republican party has come to stand for.

Whatever. Where were all these people a couple years ago? I remember the Republican Party of 2004 being pretty freaking unified.

In fact, I remember The Soap Box Republicans of '04 being pretty freaking unified, too (with like, two(?) exceptions). Now I can't help but marvel at all the independent spirits that have suddenly graced the board. Were the honest-to-goodness Republicans so shamed in '08 that they passed their user names on to their more-ideologically pure roommates, or are is there another explanation?

5/19/2009 8:10:42 PM

Troll much?

5/19/2009 8:33:00 PM

I fail to see how it's trolling.

It's a legitimate point. No one's claiming ownership for the Bush administration.

5/19/2009 9:22:13 PM

I supported Bush over Gore in 2000. I'll admit, that was a mistake.

By 2004 I was just kind of a right-leaning, libertarian minded contrarian, content to argue with whiny liberals but not supporting Bush.

By 2008 I was supporting Obama and glad to see the old-guard republicans get swept from power. Does it mean that I'm a democrat? Well, no. It just means that I have been disillusioned and no longer have a party.

5/19/2009 9:39:54 PM

Quote :

"I supported Bush over Gore in 2000. I'll admit, that was a mistake. By 2004 I was just kind of a right-leaning, libertarian minded contrarian, content to argue with whiny liberals but not supporting Bush. By 2008 I was supporting Obama and glad to see the old-guard republicans get swept from power. Does it mean that I'm a democrat? Well, no. It just means that I have been disillusioned and no longer have a party."

5/19/2009 10:46:29 PM

^ & ^^ are examples of consistency.

I'm referring to the people who were rank and while through the election, and are pretending that they weren't now that all defenses of Bush have become untenable.

5/19/2009 10:54:12 PM

What happened to the fiscally responsible 2004 Democrats? "Bush is sinking us in debt and will bankrupt the nation!!" And don't blame the recession, because we are forecasting deficits far bigger than Bush's going out to 2015+.

A lot happens in 4 years. This thread is disingenuous at best and sloppy partisanship at worst.

PS* I never voted for Bush. I voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004.

[Edited on May 19, 2009 at 11:08 PM. Reason : ``]

5/19/2009 11:04:45 PM

I don't think "fiscally responsible" tells the whole story--a lot of it is that they were using that as part of their excuse matrix for arguing against spending money on things they didn't like.

I mean, fiscally responsible Republicans are VERY few and far between, these days. Fiscally responsible Democrats? They are essentially nonexistant, and have been for many decades.


I just can't understand how I am completely politically homeless. i'm about as sensible and pragmatic as you'll find--it's not like I'm out on the lunatic fringe.

[Edited on May 19, 2009 at 11:19 PM. Reason : ]

5/19/2009 11:15:51 PM

Quote :

"excuse matrix for arguing against spending money on things they didn't like."

Basically.

I can't recall anyone saying that Bush was going to bankrupt the nation. Only that he was spending too much. "Too much" is relative, of course. I don't like the increased spending all that much, but at least we're paying for things that are worth paying for. You can easily spend too much on unnecessary wars and poorly-crafted drug plans. Investing too much into the economy/future is more difficult.


And it's not like we pulled any "John Kerry is a Democrat, I'm a true liberal" stuff back if '04. We took ownership for our suckage.

[Edited on May 19, 2009 at 11:27 PM. Reason : ]

5/19/2009 11:25:08 PM

Quote :

" I just can't understand how I am completely politically homeless. i'm about as sensible and pragmatic as you'll find--it's not like I'm out on the lunatic fringe."

If there is no legislation to be bought, who can pay for it?

5/19/2009 11:25:20 PM

^

^^ True. On the other hand, though, Kerry wasn't fundamentally at odds with "true liberal" principles...he was just a poor choice for the party to run as a Presidential candidate. Bush is very much at odds with what the GOP supposedly stands for, at least historically (I would argue that the entire party has severely lost its way--W. Bush wasn't just an anomaly).

I'm hoping that the droves of people doing everything that they can to differentiate themselves from the last 10 years of GOP politics are doing it out of frustration/anger at being ignored/suppressed as a silent majority rather than out of political expedience after witnessing the rightful slaughter of the GOP in the last 2 elections.

[Edited on May 19, 2009 at 11:39 PM. Reason : ]

5/19/2009 11:39:04 PM

Quote :

"I'm hoping that the droves of people doing everything that they can to differentiate themselves from the last 10 years of GOP politics are doing it out of frustration/anger at being ignored/suppressed as a silent majority rather than out of political expedience after witnessing the rightful slaughter of the GOP in the last 2 elections."

That's the heart of the matter. I can't help but think that the Republicans who waited until 11/5/08 to voice their frustration aren't entirely genuine, though. The fact that they're focusing on fiscal responsibility and states' rights, specifically, is just laughable.

I can think of only two scenarios to explain these people: they were a silent majority doing the politically expedient thing 2001-2009, or they were being genuine back then, and are doing the politically expedient thing 2009-~. Either way, they are/were full of crap.

5/19/2009 11:54:35 PM

Right. I'm crossing my fingers that the majority of them were full of crap.

5/19/2009 11:58:08 PM

Quote :

"I just can't understand how I am completely politically homeless"

Sounds like me. In principle I agree more with the republican message. What is spoken out loud and what is acted upon are completely different though. Further the issues i disagree with on the "mainstream" GOP agenda are issues that weigh in magnitude more deeply than the issue i disagree with for the dems. If I did not have to worry about the christian values and neo-Imperalist ambitions of certain elements who seem to be/were in control of the Republican party than i would have no qualms voting for the -R president in 2012. I voted -R for governor last election.

I would rather have a dem president whose tuk me monies from 30% to 32%, makes me waits for my gunzzz 3 days, and tuk my gas guzzler SUV after spreading the Al Gore global warming liberal conspiracy

than

a republican president who in the name of "national security" has no problem wiping his ass with the constitution to wire tap my phones, likes to fight the "evil" turrists utilizing "enhanced interrogation" techniques which basically makes us no better than the people we are fighting (also more reason for them to want to attack us), likes to preach "free capitalism" less gov't in the economy as a way to really just mold economic policy to benefit certain 'choice' corporations, bitches about social welfare with free loaders living of the system but has no problem signing the bill to bail out irresponsible corporations, is concerned about queers marrying when the wars we started and economy are going in the shitter (previous years), or wants to carry the torch of the pro-life anti-choice christian morals crowd.

[Edited on May 20, 2009 at 12:06 AM. Reason : k]

5/20/2009 12:05:06 AM

not to excuse the Bush administration's disregard for the Constitution, but the Democrats are certainly no better. I mean, the "living document" thing is central to all of the things they support.

also, your "pro-life anti-choice christian morals crowd" statement is just silly. While I don't fall firmly into either camp, being against abortion certainly isn't some draconian crusade against "choice", and it doesn't really even boil down to Christian morals (I would be best described as an agnostic*, I suppose, and I lean towards the pro-life side**). It boils down to at what point you define the beginning of human life. Some people use religion to help answer that question, but it is by no means a religious question, per se.


*I suppose that I am an agnostic, strictly speaking. However, agnostic is a fairly loaded word. While I don't really believe in God, I have no disbelief in God, either. I am strictly undecided. I'm not hostile towards religion--rather, I'm hostile towards those have a knee-jerk hostility to religion.

** I'm OK with very, very early term abortions (like RU-486 when you've only been pregnant a couple of weeks). I'm not comfortable with surgical abortions, and I'm absolutely against anything after the first trimester. I think the cutoff should be well before that.

5/20/2009 12:22:14 AM

Quote :

"Dick Cheney is just about the only honest-to-goodness Republican these days, it seems."

well i hope he keeps his media blitz up...and i consider myself a democrat...there is nothing more i crave than cheney keeping his name in the news

5/20/2009 12:45:29 AM

Quote :

"i'm about as sensible and pragmatic as you'll find--it's not like I'm out on the lunatic fringe."

What's the idiom for this... something like "common sense is an uncommon virtue"?

Regardless of the specific wording, it's true.

5/20/2009 2:19:09 AM

I'd like to see cheney in the butt hutt

5/20/2009 8:22:47 AM

Quote :

"there is nothing more i crave than cheney keeping his name in the news....I'd like to see cheney in the butt hutt"

I find it interesting that so much rage and emotion is aimed at Cheney and others for speaking their minds lately. Democrats own the White House and Congress- they are in pretty much total power.

If the country is embracing more gov't control of our lives, why even pay any attention to republicans or conservatives? Ignore them! Just continue your legislative agenda of taxing soda pop...the more of the liberal agenda you pass, the more Americans will love the democrats and bigger gov't.

Right?

[Edited on May 20, 2009 at 10:11 AM. Reason : .]

5/20/2009 10:11:01 AM

Common sense isn't all that common.

5/20/2009 10:11:51 AM

^^bigger gov't, yet cheney is the one who decided to add a fourth branch on his watch.

5/21/2009 11:10:48 PM

I've always been a conservative Libertarian and just today at work I was arguing with a couple of co-workers about politics (guys that had always been hardcore GOP line-walkers). In the last 4 years they have become kool-aid drinkin' Libertarians to the extreme. I'm not sure there is going to be any serious non-DNC presence in US politics until the NeoCon/Libertarian split settles down... or the Dems just fuck everything up again.

5/21/2009 11:32:36 PM

I'd vote for a kool aid drinkin libertarian to balance out the liberal agenda way before
I vote for a NeoCon that supports....

Quote :

"cheney is the one who decided to add a fourth branch on his watch"

unfortunately it seems that somehow the old neo-con guard Limbaugh, Cheney, Palin crowd has manage to convolute the GOP struggles into shaping them as the "New GOP" which is reality the exact shit that has been getting the boot since 2006 from capital hill.

5/21/2009 11:46:50 PM

The GOP needs to admit that there has never been a set of "historical principles" in the GOP. Like all parties, they've realigned over and over. To say that the "Reagan GOP" or, as TSB god Ron Paul says, the "libertarian/Taft/Ron Paul GOP" is the TRUE heir to the Republican values is about as dishonest as when people try to pin opposition to the Civil Rights Act on Democrats despite the fact that the current Dems have about as much in common with guys like Sam Ervin and George Wallace circa 1962 as they do with Ronald Reagan.

Right now the GOP is some strange American version of conservatism. They're all for reverting back to old policies, but those old policies for their time weren't particularly successful in restoring the old order or moving progress slowly in adherence to societal norms ala Edmund Burke. Crap like the Laffer Curve and huge favors to corporations in tax favors and subsidies and an economic policy skewed towards supply-side aren't exactly good at preserving any old order. You see this in the disrupting of families, which you can blame on the culture all you want, but ultimately it's economic conditions and lack of mobility (either on the part of the negligent individual or the apathetic society) that make people resign themselves to such a shitty lifestyle.

Protectionism like the Paleocons or some left-wingers propose might have made sense in another era, but it hurts producers in the developing world when we engage in it. The "free trade" we have is hardly free, if it was trade agreements would be a page long, not 3,000 pages. This is the "free trade" the GOP supports and to call it "free" and not "corporate trade" is a crock.

I guess what I'm getting at is there is no definition for "conservative" and "liberal" anymore in America. Basically you can use those labels however the fuck you want.

5/22/2009 1:40:48 PM

Quote :

"Asked if he agreed with Cheney's contention that Limbaugh was better for the Republican Party than Powell, Rove said: "Yes, if I had to pick between the two.""

5/24/2009 2:36:37 PM

^^

5/24/2009 2:43:32 PM

^ eh, not really, not the way people want them to be so they can post that picture and look all anti-establishment

5/26/2009 2:21:22 PM

I still don't understand why you care about republicans. They're basically powerless to stop the liberal agenda.

If the democrats do the super-great job of getting us out of the recession and moving everyone to prosperity...that they have promised- we'll be so happy that democrats will rule for ages.

Why worry. Democrats have all the right answers. gov't health care, business regulation & takeover, cap and trade, deficit spending on a biblical proportion, national security, compulsory volunteerism. They have the total package!

We are all going to love Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and Barney Franks by the end of the frist term...

Right?

5/26/2009 6:49:37 PM