After nearly eight (horrifying) years of emperor George W. Bush, what do you think of him now? How many times did you vote for him, and how do you feel about the choices you made? Also if he were a choice for the 2008 election along with McOld and Obama, would you vote for the emperor yet again?
I wish people would stop associating presidencies with parties. What party a president has gone with usually turns out to be a "close enough" choice, more made for votes than what they believe in. They talk the talk during election time, but they often stray very far from their party's platform when it comes time to execute. Let me grab a few examples out of the history books.
War:
LBJ, a democrat, was the one who massively escalated the Vietnam War. To be honest, I really understand that we had to do something in Vietnam. Help them out somehow. It was a question of degrees, though. LBJ decided to multiply our forces there by a factor of about 20. Make what you will of that, but Democrat has historically not been the anti-war party. In fact, their record is one of escalation.
It was Nixon who got us out of Vietnam, a Republican. Vietnamization was a farce. He knew it meant the fall of South Vietnam, but he did it because it was politically expedient and won him an election. That sound familiar?
George Bush Sr. was widely derided for not "finishing the job" and invading Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein, though this criticism was soon forgotten. If you want to watch the press battering him over it, there's a video out there of Defense Secretary Cheney (the same one) defending the decision at a press conference, talking about how entering Iraq would be entering a quagmire. Again forgotten. It was under Bush Sr. and Cheney's watch that we tried extensive diplomacy first, and failing that, executed a very short, surgical war that massacred Iraq's forces but largely spared its civilian population. Yes, the bombing campaign of that time was actually quite restricted and had very few civilian casualties.
Civil Rights:
Republicans were long the party of the minorities and especially black voters. It was only FDR who started to change this, and LBJ who solidified it. The "why" here is actually pretty complex, having more to do with WW2 than the New Deal or the Civil Rights Movement.
You know all the Southern politicians from 1860-1960 who passed law after law oppressing blacks, made sure there was no justice done to those who committed crimes against them, and would have had no problem saying the "N word" to hatefully describe one? 99% Democrats.
The reason the Solid South is no more is largely because southern Democrats of the time hated the civil rights movement. They walked out of the convention when civil rights became a party plank. In general, many non-Southern democrats didn't help it much either, since they were too afraid of losing the Solid South. Yeah, it was a Democrat majority in both houses of Congress for those years, but take a look at the vote records on the major civil rights legislation, in terms of what percentage of Republicans supported civil rights compared to the percentage of Democrats. Republicans almost universally supported it, with the Democrats having to fight for each vote to get it through.
I'm not going to go into the repeated, deliberate attempts to destroy Native American culture by forcing their kids into schools where they were abused, all physically and many sexually, deprived of contact with their parents, and forbidden from learning their language and customs. Yeah, the abuse was well-known, but nobody cared. Democrat governments that did it. Republican government that apologized.
Supporting dictators for the sake of getting wartime allies:
Every president has done this. In terms of who they picked, Lil Bush's choices are far better than those of any Democrat during the Cold War. Bush at least pressured Musharraf to make concessions in power, and even if he didn't, Musharraf looks like Jesus compared to some of the people that the Democrats put into power. Saddam Hussein = Kennedy, and Hussein was probably the best of the lot, in terms of how few genocidal atrocities he committed compared to the others. You heard me right.
Trampling on the Constitution in times of crisis:
Japanese internment. FDR. End of story. I'm not going to go back any further. Again, Democrat government that did it. Republican government that apologized.
Welfare and Foreign Aid:
Which politician earned his initial fame as one of the greatest food aid men of all time, both for his work while working privately and for his time with government? Herbert Hoover. He didn't sit idly by when the Depression hit, either. Yeah, his policies didn't work, but he didn't twiddle his thumbs.
Immigration:
Out of all the Republican politicians in Washington DC today, which one has the most pro-immigration stance? Lets think for a moment. Is it those in the legislature who pander to their constituencies by voting down anything which supports immigration, legal or not? Or is it our president? Yep, he's really with his party there.
Which party was it that railed against Vietnamese immigration in the 70's just for the sake of currying political favor? Just to refresh your memory, this was about the time when millions of former South Vietnamese were being forced into "reeducation camps". Ask John McCain what "reeducation" is like. Yep, the Democrat. And it was a president of which party who went against public opinion to get a law passed which allowed these people into our country? Right, a Republican.
I'm independent. I'm not saying all this to bash or support any party, just to show that there are no set rules. Anybody who thinks party has much of an influence on a president on a non-election year is either delusional or ignorant.
Anyhow, you Republicans need to see the light, too. Almost all of the ideals that are "Republican" today have been championed by the Democrats instead of you guys at some time or another during the last fifty years. Basically, the two parties trade certain constituencies as time passes, and their values change to appease them. There is no persistent ideology that lasts longer than a decade or two, and you'd have to be stupid to think there is.
- Moveon.org , george soros (who the hell is he? a foreigner) has taken over the modern day democrat party.
joseph lieberman is also an independent (not by choice) a lifelong liberal and all it took was one issue to put him under the moveon bus.
scary stuff that moveon.org thing is- at least big business, who dems say have republicans in their pocket- are transparent.
big business of course, pays americans wages,pensions and takes care of them when sick.
big business looks out for americans. it also needs to look out for its bottom line or else it wont be able to take care of americans any longer.
if that includes exploiting $1 a day chinese workers, so be it. world economy is a fact. unavoidable.
american workers need to be reeducated. manufacturing for american jobs is non competitory(is that a word?) uncompetitory is not, but sounds better.
what the hell can america export to the world?
tech. higher tech. medicines. america has to be about big business and less manufacturing. need to reeducate or, more aptly educate, to a much higher degree.
Comments
I wish people would stop associating presidencies with parties. What party a president has gone with usually turns out to be a "close enough" choice, more made for votes than what they believe in. They talk the talk during election time, but they often stray very far from their party's platform when it comes time to execute. Let me grab a few examples out of the history books.
War:
LBJ, a democrat, was the one who massively escalated the Vietnam War. To be honest, I really understand that we had to do something in Vietnam. Help them out somehow. It was a question of degrees, though. LBJ decided to multiply our forces there by a factor of about 20. Make what you will of that, but Democrat has historically not been the anti-war party. In fact, their record is one of escalation.
It was Nixon who got us out of Vietnam, a Republican. Vietnamization was a farce. He knew it meant the fall of South Vietnam, but he did it because it was politically expedient and won him an election. That sound familiar?
George Bush Sr. was widely derided for not "finishing the job" and invading Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein, though this criticism was soon forgotten. If you want to watch the press battering him over it, there's a video out there of Defense Secretary Cheney (the same one) defending the decision at a press conference, talking about how entering Iraq would be entering a quagmire. Again forgotten. It was under Bush Sr. and Cheney's watch that we tried extensive diplomacy first, and failing that, executed a very short, surgical war that massacred Iraq's forces but largely spared its civilian population. Yes, the bombing campaign of that time was actually quite restricted and had very few civilian casualties.
Civil Rights:
Republicans were long the party of the minorities and especially black voters. It was only FDR who started to change this, and LBJ who solidified it. The "why" here is actually pretty complex, having more to do with WW2 than the New Deal or the Civil Rights Movement.
You know all the Southern politicians from 1860-1960 who passed law after law oppressing blacks, made sure there was no justice done to those who committed crimes against them, and would have had no problem saying the "N word" to hatefully describe one? 99% Democrats.
The reason the Solid South is no more is largely because southern Democrats of the time hated the civil rights movement. They walked out of the convention when civil rights became a party plank. In general, many non-Southern democrats didn't help it much either, since they were too afraid of losing the Solid South. Yeah, it was a Democrat majority in both houses of Congress for those years, but take a look at the vote records on the major civil rights legislation, in terms of what percentage of Republicans supported civil rights compared to the percentage of Democrats. Republicans almost universally supported it, with the Democrats having to fight for each vote to get it through.
I'm not going to go into the repeated, deliberate attempts to destroy Native American culture by forcing their kids into schools where they were abused, all physically and many sexually, deprived of contact with their parents, and forbidden from learning their language and customs. Yeah, the abuse was well-known, but nobody cared. Democrat governments that did it. Republican government that apologized.
Supporting dictators for the sake of getting wartime allies:
Every president has done this. In terms of who they picked, Lil Bush's choices are far better than those of any Democrat during the Cold War. Bush at least pressured Musharraf to make concessions in power, and even if he didn't, Musharraf looks like Jesus compared to some of the people that the Democrats put into power. Saddam Hussein = Kennedy, and Hussein was probably the best of the lot, in terms of how few genocidal atrocities he committed compared to the others. You heard me right.
Trampling on the Constitution in times of crisis:
Japanese internment. FDR. End of story. I'm not going to go back any further. Again, Democrat government that did it. Republican government that apologized.
Welfare and Foreign Aid:
Which politician earned his initial fame as one of the greatest food aid men of all time, both for his work while working privately and for his time with government? Herbert Hoover. He didn't sit idly by when the Depression hit, either. Yeah, his policies didn't work, but he didn't twiddle his thumbs.
Immigration:
Out of all the Republican politicians in Washington DC today, which one has the most pro-immigration stance? Lets think for a moment. Is it those in the legislature who pander to their constituencies by voting down anything which supports immigration, legal or not? Or is it our president? Yep, he's really with his party there.
Which party was it that railed against Vietnamese immigration in the 70's just for the sake of currying political favor? Just to refresh your memory, this was about the time when millions of former South Vietnamese were being forced into "reeducation camps". Ask John McCain what "reeducation" is like. Yep, the Democrat. And it was a president of which party who went against public opinion to get a law passed which allowed these people into our country? Right, a Republican.
I'm independent. I'm not saying all this to bash or support any party, just to show that there are no set rules. Anybody who thinks party has much of an influence on a president on a non-election year is either delusional or ignorant.
Anyhow, you Republicans need to see the light, too. Almost all of the ideals that are "Republican" today have been championed by the Democrats instead of you guys at some time or another during the last fifty years. Basically, the two parties trade certain constituencies as time passes, and their values change to appease them. There is no persistent ideology that lasts longer than a decade or two, and you'd have to be stupid to think there is.
- Moveon.org , george soros (who the hell is he? a foreigner) has taken over the modern day democrat party.
joseph lieberman is also an independent (not by choice) a lifelong liberal and all it took was one issue to put him under the moveon bus.
scary stuff that moveon.org thing is- at least big business, who dems say have republicans in their pocket- are transparent.
big business of course, pays americans wages,pensions and takes care of them when sick.
big business looks out for americans. it also needs to look out for its bottom line or else it wont be able to take care of americans any longer.
if that includes exploiting $1 a day chinese workers, so be it. world economy is a fact. unavoidable.
american workers need to be reeducated. manufacturing for american jobs is non competitory(is that a word?) uncompetitory is not, but sounds better.
what the hell can america export to the world?
tech. higher tech. medicines. america has to be about big business and less manufacturing. need to reeducate or, more aptly educate, to a much higher degree.
the HOW is, the WHO.
-I will subtlety invade your psyche-