Another reason to vote against republicans

[waccamatt]

So you're saying you find the Republicans to be more moderate than the Democrats? The US doesn't know what a liberal political party is.

This is true; the Green Party is the closest to a left-leaning party in the U.S. The Democratic Party is just barely left of center and the Republican Party is to the far right.

[Snowguy716]

Here's where Politicalcompass.org places the 2004 presidential candidates on the compass... right being fiscal conservative, left being liberal.. and you get Authoritarian (social 'conservative') and "social libertarian).

[runawayjim]

Here's where Politicalcompass.org places the 2004 presidential candidates on the compass... right being fiscal conservative, left being liberal.. and you get Authoritarian (social 'conservative') and "social libertarian).

funny how badnarick was the libertarian candidate, yet falls pretty far from libertarian on there.

and how people called kerry so "left"

[Gusterfell]

and how people called kerry so "left"

Knowing he could never win on the issues, Bush's entire run for reelection was a smear campaign against Kerry, and sadly half the population of ths country was too ignorant to see beyond such blatant propaganda. None of what was said against Kerry was remotely true, as was testified to by practically everyone in a position to know the truth (including many Republicans).

No Dennis Kucinich? I'd be interested to see where he falls on the scale.

[Clobber]

i actually agree about prison. i also don't think federal prison (where the likes of former providence mayor buddy cianci is residing currently) should be like a day camp. my issue with the prison system and why it sucks is more the overcrowding than anything else, which is why i don't think people arrested for recreational drug use should be put in prison just for using the drugs. but to go along with de-criminalization of drugs, they shoudln't allow addicts to claim insanity or prevent employers from terminating their positions just because they're "in rehab". get most of those people out of jail and you have a lot more room in prison. let the others duke it out and if they get killed, there's the death penalty (like andrea yates for example... she'd be an easy target in prison, kind of like jeffrey dahmer was).

I agree on the overcrowding. It all comes down to priorities. Priorities over whom to imprison, whom to execute (if you're pro that), and what services to provide the prisoners at taxpayers' expense. The bottom line is we have limited resources. We have to accept that and the government should govern with that as a priority in mind.

[Clobber]

Clobber, on the surface I agree with you about prison air conditioning, but remember prisons are a powderkeg to begin with and Correctional Officers (who don't make alot to begin with) have to work in that horrible environment. I would be willing to bet that prisons with air conditioning have fewer problems than those without. Anyone that's ever been around me on a stifling hot day would certainly agree with that, lol.

My big issue is this: A/C is not a right that all citizens are entitled to at least under current laws. Whether you (not you waccamatt, but the rhetorical "you") agree with what the law *should* be or not, that's the reality today. Given that reality, we need to prioritize what we provide prisoners. Do we give them more than we give the struggling law-abiding citizen? Do they deserve privileges and protections that a law-abiding citizen has to struggle to earn? IMO, no. Make them work for their privileges, give something back to society in exchange for society picking up the tab for their parasitic subsistence.

You're probably right about the A/C correlation with behavior at prisons. There should be some kind of balance though where they minimize the drain off of the public coffers, however. I would like to see every prison become in essence a factory with walls and security guards, becoming self-sufficient. Create your own energy (windmills, solar panels, etc), farm stuff (with necessary supervision). Screw the tvs, the cable, the work out rooms, if they don't create enough to break even. Watch out with the sharp objects, the monitoring and planning has to be in place to minimize dangers. Crooks can be clever.

I can't believe how much money goes into each prisoner at Supermax. They should produce something in return.

Knowing he could never win on the issues, Bush's entire run for reelection was a smear campaign against Kerry, and sadly half the population of ths country was too ignorant to see beyond such blatant propaganda. None of what was said against Kerry was remotely true, as was testified to by practically everyone in a position to know the truth (including many Republicans).

No Dennis Kucinich? I'd be interested to see where he falls on the scale.

I guess Kerry was y'all's Bob Dole.

[Clobber]

To abolish prison air conditioning would be inhumane. The human body is not suited to the kinds of summer temperatures as seen in Kansas, for instance.

In the 1980s Castro threw HIV poz people in dirt-floored prisons with no A.C., or even decent standards of hygeine, etc.

Abolishing A.C. in prison reminds me of Castro's meanness.

What's inhumane and despicable imo is prisoners receiving more rights than the poorest of law-abiding citizens. As long as we are a society of limited resources (and that will be indefinitely), we must prioritize. The poorest of law-abiding citizens should receive not just more rights (law-breakers inherently lose many of theirs, justifiably so), but privileges, such as A/C (which whether you agree with it or not is not a "right" per se today, unlike education and health care). Today, we have to choose. So far, I think we made the wrong choice. The inhumane, and more heartless choice. Compassion means nothing if it's not extended to the struggling law-abiding citizen first. Or it means something, but something bad and hypocritical. IMO.

[Clobber]

To me, a true liberal party would be one that champions individual liberty.. basically staying out of your personal life... but one that recognizes that corporate excess needs to be reigned in and also recognizing that government can be a force for good.

Basically the Republican party today is run by a bunch of amoral corrupt power-grabbing money-horders that have blown corruption WAY beyond anything the democrats EVER did in their FORTY years of power in the house of representatives.

Give the democrats 40 years, and the house will get corrupt.. but the Republicans have shown us one thing... they can get it twice as corrupt, twice as authoritarian, and twice as out of touch with the American public in 1/4 the time.

It's time to dump Gingrich/DeLay/Boehner/Bush/Cheney/Rove style politics. It'll be a while before I ever vote for a republican on the national level... unless they're damned good.

Are you saying a true "liberal" party should conserve/restrain intrusion of government into the lives of private citizens? Or is it conditional conservation?

How would you balance government being a force for good with the inherently corruptibility of power? Or balance the "force for good" against individual liberty? Perhaps if you use purely a reward system, you can encourage certain behaviors; but the way the government is set up, attempting to demonstrate (in vain) the "force for good" inherently requires compromising individual liberty by promoting dependence on government, which I think most of us agree is not good. Sounds almost like the faith many on the religious "right" have in the centralized church. Personally, I don't see how anyone can have much faith in entities that feed on power over others, and promote dependence. I'm open to other ideas, though.

didn't mean to put you in particular on the spot. sorry.

[Snowguy716]

You will be dependent on your government no matter how gung-ho libertarian you are. When you call 911 because you think you're having a heart attack.. or your house catches on fire.. or your kids want to goto school, or if you want to drive on a road...

I would rather have the government, an entity that is elected and held in check by the people, be responsible for providing these services than a private corporation that offers much less public input.

Power does corrupt.. and that is why power should be spread around into low concentrations.

The way I see it:

Conservatives (todays conservatives) look at politics/power on a vertical axis. Those higher up shall make the rules and you should report to them, and the people below should be following you.

Liberals (at least me) see politics/power on a horizontal level.. where everybody has the same amount of power to instigate change and have input int he political process so that we can come to compromise together for the good of our country.

I have very little faith in the federal government. I believe change and progress is made at the local level and federal government should only govern things that are truly federal (like interstate highways, federal police, etc.). The federal government should also deal with matters like civil rights to ensure that every American is treated equally. Now school funding and health care would be better left to the states and multi-state projects if states so chose to organize that way.

Call me a left-wing libertarian...

[Charlotte_native]

You will be dependent on your government no matter how gung-ho libertarian you are. When you call 911 because you think you're having a heart attack.. or your house catches on fire.. or your kids want to goto school, or if you want to drive on a road...

I've always wondered how people that scream for smaller government plan on paying for just these type of things. Obviously the services between wealthier and poorer parts of an area would be completely disproportionate if all services were private. Realistically the rich get better services anyway. I'm sure plenty of "conservatives" would state that this is only fair in a free market society, but what will they scream for when they have to pay for more protection because the poor got poorer and everyone knows a person will do what it takes to survive <--- again, just being realistic.

The government MUST provide services in our type of society. Those services MUST be paid for (taxes). Unless everyone agrees to trade services with each other, grow their own food, quit travelling up and down interstate highways, and drop out of world affairs, this is just how it is.

Privatizing everything always comes up, but check out the number of corporate rip-offs in Iraq and in the military. These are done by private companies with government contracts...doesn't look like a better system or a savings to me.

[monsoon]

You won't ever see an article like this in our media. Scary stuff.

[runawayjim]

You won't ever see an article like this in our media. Scary stuff.

we certainly don't need the religious right dictating what goes on in our government... that makes me sick.

[Charlotte_native]

we certainly don't need the religious right dictating what goes on in our government... that makes me sick.

I don't want any religion controlling our government. It is amazing the evengelicals don't think enough is being on their behalf. How much do they want/need??

[Clobber]

You will be dependent on your government no matter how gung-ho libertarian you are. When you call 911 because you think you're having a heart attack.. or your house catches on fire.. or your kids want to goto school, or if you want to drive on a road...

I would rather have the government, an entity that is elected and held in check by the people, be responsible for providing these services than a private corporation that offers much less public input.

Power does corrupt.. and that is why power should be spread around into low concentrations.

The way I see it:

Conservatives (todays conservatives) look at politics/power on a vertical axis. Those higher up shall make the rules and you should report to them, and the people below should be following you.

Liberals (at least me) see politics/power on a horizontal level.. where everybody has the same amount of power to instigate change and have input int he political process so that we can come to compromise together for the good of our country.

I have very little faith in the federal government. I believe change and progress is made at the local level and federal government should only govern things that are truly federal (like interstate highways, federal police, etc.). The federal government should also deal with matters like civil rights to ensure that every American is treated equally. Now school funding and health care would be better left to the states and multi-state projects if states so chose to organize that way.

Call me a left-wing libertarian...

The issue with me is a minimalist national government, power-wise. I don't know if I understand what you mean by how someone looks at power or sees power horizontally or vertically. Could you clarify?

If liberals see power on the horizontal level, do you mean that's their ideal? Or is that how they see it as it exists (regardless of who's in control)? Do you see my confusion? Same goes with the conservatives. Do you honestly believe that a conservative voter views the vertical axis as how it *should* be or how it is now? It looks like you have an idealized vision of how liberals view things and a (hate to say it but) a demonized or at least extremely cynical view of how conservatives view things. Or, perhaps a more accurate way to view it is to break it down by issue. I don't think either view is accurate across the board.

A lot of problems I have with liberals I'm starting to see some from Republicans in the beltway. At least the past few years. in my view, many Republicans are turning liberal when it comes to how they view government's exercise of power. And I know many conservative voters disdain that. They seek a government that governs with restraint (politicians such as Fred Thompson promoted that kind of ideal). I totally agree on the general relationship between the federal and local level, but I think that's a true conservative view of governing. Spare me the politicians with messiah complexes trying to tell me when I should feel offended, and trying to become lords over fiefdoms with dependent serfs. I think the Christian right is in danger of pushing the Republicans further into this mold. I think most Democrats, at least the politicians, are firmly entrenched there (Gephardt, Pelosi, Sharpton, etc). But I'm getting to the point where I don't trust politicians in general whether they be Dem or GOP. You really have to question whether becoming part of the beltway fraternity inherently requires hypocrisy to get elected, especially when you consider the normal gap between the extremists that tend to vote in primaries and the moderate views that dominate the general population. In order to win both, you have to espouse opposite viewpoints on many issues. And then when called out, use your slickness to weasel out of it.

[Gusterfell]

Same goes with the conservatives. Do you honestly believe that a conservative voter views the vertical axis as how it *should* be or how it is now?

Yes. Conservatives, at least in GW Bush's America, believe in following the leaders. The president is in charge, and he does what is right for the country, and what is right for the people. To question him is to support the enemy, whoever he says they are.

Are you saying that hasn't been the attitude of the American right since 2000?

On the other hand, power on a horizontal plane, in other words every American having an equal say, is the liberal ideal and has been since the nation was founded.

[Charlotteman]

^^^That was an interesting graff.

I was always so amazed how the Republicans got away with calling John Kerry a liberal! John Kerry is NOT A LIBERAL! He is a moderate, and even then he is on the right on a lot of things.

George W. Bush is not a conservative. He is a RADICAL.

[Clobber]

I've always wondered how people that scream for smaller government plan on paying for just these type of things. Obviously the services between wealthier and poorer parts of an area would be completely disproportionate if all services were private. Realistically the rich get better services anyway. I'm sure plenty of "conservatives" would state that this is only fair in a free market society, but what will they scream for when they have to pay for more protection because the poor got poorer and everyone knows a person will do what it takes to survive <--- again, just being realistic.

The government MUST provide services in our type of society. Those services MUST be paid for (taxes). Unless everyone agrees to trade services with each other, grow their own food, quit travelling up and down interstate highways, and drop out of world affairs, this is just how it is.

Privatizing everything always comes up, but check out the number of corporate rip-offs in Iraq and in the military. These are done by private companies with government contracts...doesn't look like a better system or a savings to me.

You prioritize what you must provide and at which level of government, and reduce expenses, minimizing taxes. The same folks screaming for smaller government also scream for more responsibility from both parties when it comes to expenditures. If you don't want to reign in frivolous pork spending, I can see your question. But it takes responsibility and priorities on the government side -- restraint when it comes to looking at the taxpayers' (i.e. SHAREHOLDERS) money. Some look at the taxpayers' money as the government's. I disagree. The government has a fiduciary duty to spend it responsibly, and in this day and age, that requires priorities. Privatization should be an option, but I don't think anyone is arguing that there be no public services at all. Not even 90% of conservatives.

Those that "scream" for smaller government aren't screaming for no government, and they all realize *some* taxes are required. So let's correct the erroneous presumption that they irrationally believe that no services are justified or that services can be provided for free. And let's avoid the hyperbolic counterargument then that one can't object to any service at all just because one acknowledges that some services are necessary. It's entirely consistent to seek restrained, prioritized services, responsible spending, and minimized taxes.

The issue is what should the priorities be, and what kind of services should be enacted, and by whom, to address those services.

And the poor aren't predestined to a life of crime, imo. Take it from someone who's come from that background. Life isn't supposed to be easy, and there are many circumstances out of one's control. In fact, life is effin unfair. No one has ever promised me or anyone else a fair result, and I never viewed it as an entitlement. There's a limit though to what government should accept responsibility for, a limit where trespassing beyond that hinders the progress you're trying to promote.

[Clobber]

Yes. Conservatives, at least in GW Bush's America, believe in following the leaders. The president is in charge, and he does what is right for the country, and what is right for the people. To question him is to support the enemy, whoever he says they are.

Are you saying that hasn't been the attitude of the American right since 2000?

On the other hand, power on a horizontal plane, in other words every American having an equal say, is the liberal ideal and has been since the nation was founded.

Are we talking politicians or voters? And the second aspect, the liberal ideal, I think that's crap. Maybe that's what they tell themselves to help them sleep better at night. Or maybe I'm mainly talking about the liberal politicians. They certainly aren't interested in allowing every American citizen to have an equal say. Maybe it depends on what an "equal say" means. Does equal allow for inequality on a contingent basis?

In general, I think you're making incredible generalizations that don't reflect what is going on with in the GOP -- if you don't see the simmering disenchantment with different aspects of the Christian right's agenda, you're blind.

[Gusterfell]

Are we talking politicians or voters? And the second aspect, the liberal ideal, I think that's crap. Maybe that's what they tell themselves to help them sleep better at night. Or maybe I'm mainly talking about the liberal politicians. They certainly aren't interested in allowing every American citizen to have an equal say. Maybe it depends on what an "equal say" means. Does equal allow for inequality on a contingent basis?

There are very, very few liberal politicians in American politics. As I said before, this country has no major left-wing party, and as someone else elaborated, the Democrats are only slightly left of center. Could you please elaborate on what you mean by an "equal say?" I've certainly never heard of anyone on the left calling for restrictions on free speech or expression. From the right, however, we're still getting statements like "a vote for Lamont is a vote for another 9/11" (just today in CT).

In general, I think you're making incredible generalizations that don't reflect what is going on with in the GOP -- if you don't see the simmering disenchantment with different aspects of the Christian right's agenda, you're blind.

I see it, but it is a recent development, and disenchanted Republicans are just beginning to say exactly the same things they vilified the left for saying a few short years ago.

[Charlotte_native]

The issue is what should the priorities be, and what kind of services should be enacted, and by whom, to address those services.

My problem with "conservatives" who want less taxes only want it for things they themselves don't want. For instance the North Carolina coast, big rich peoples homes got destroyed with the last hurricane that hit us a few years ago. Most of them were wealthy "conservative" owners of these second homes. Their hands came right out for government handouts and bailouts to rebuilt their vacation homes and a bridge that served only a few homes (the cost of the bridge, millions). Those same folks decry "pork" and higher taxes. Hypocrites. What about the government contractors such as Halliburton -- run by "conservatives" who milk off the very government they claim to want smaller.

No one wants pork. It is insane to claim that a "liberal" or "conservative" wants anything like that, but they all want it for their own constituents no matter who they claim to follow.

My statement was simple -- we can't have it both ways -- keep our way of life WITH lower taxes. Something has to give somewhere. You can't run all over the world fighting wars, continuing entitlements, adding new federal agencies, AND leave taxes like they are. That is simple stupidity that makes individuals go bankrupt. If W wants to keep taxes low, he needs to cut, and cut where it saves the most. They usually cut little tiny agency budgets so they can claim they did something but leave the big bloated agencies (military, pork in every state, etc) just like it was to begin with. No one is willing to sacrifice.

And lets talk about labels. Since when was not wanting to fight a war "liberal"? What is liberal about it other than being told it is by someone that is "conservative"? Is it conservative to fight terror? These labels might apply to abortion, religion, marriage, but they have no place in foreign policy. As for fiscal policy they fit, but not with the parties they are currently aligned with.

I think Democrats and Republicans both suck. Equally and hard. Politicians suck. But right now it is a Republican that is "leading" us quite poorly and can't seem to get the taste of foot out of his mouth. About the only thing he has done really well is alienate us from most of the world. For that reason I want him and the band of bitterness in his cabinet gone.

[ironchapman]

In response to the general idea of this topic (Another Reason to Vote Against Republicans):

I myself wouldn't mind seeing some Republicans voted out. Now if only I could trust the Democrats with that power.

[Snowguy716]

Here's my idea on campaign finance reform that would shake things up a bit:

Each candidate gets a fixed small amount of money from teh government to declare their candidacy and to get their word out.

Then, each citizen or registered voter is entitled to a maximum $50 donation that goes to the party of the person's choice. The party then divides that money between its candidates based on the population of the district/entity that the race covers. This way, Senate campaigns would get more money than House campaigns.

Non-individuals such as businesses, corporations, organizations, are not allowed to make donations to the campaign and are only allowed to donate money to cover the costs associated with individual volunteers (for example, if Joe Schmoe decided to volunteer for Party A, Coporation 1 could make a small donation that ensure that Joe Schmoe got a meal or something while he was out knocking on doors).

To close a potential loophole, all money donated by corporations to cover volunteer expenses would be spread evenly, to prevent coporations from flooding campaigns with volunteers and then paying for them, effectively "donating" money to the campgaign.

Basically, we need to end the corruption that surrounds campaigns and we need to stop the tragedy that the candidate with the most money wins....

In Minnesota's current gubernatorial election, the DFL candidate, Mike Hatch, has pledged to abide by campaign public finance rules under Minnesota law which allows donors to donate $50 and receive a rebate back from the state. This means he can't raise more than $2.5 million for the campaign.

He's currently running a barebones campaign to save his money for the fall when he can release his money on television ads and debates, etc.

Tim Pawlenty, the incumbent, and non-public finance candidate is spending taxpayer money to fly around the state and talk up initiatives for college students and health care that he has recently unveiled. He says it's not campaigning because he is talking about initiatives for hte next legislative session... he hasn't ever come up with initiatives in August before.. especially 7 months before hte session begins... and 3 months before his election.

This kind of stuff needs to stop.. no matter the party.

[MadVlad]

Skimming through the whole thread, I must say there are a lot of interesting points of view here. As for the Republican vs Democrat thing, both parties are pretty much corrupt at this point. I tend to be moderate, so I am Republican leaning, but I am not happy with the way the party is going. The Democratic party has gotten way to liberal for my tastes. We need a third party honestly. Maybe the liberterians can gain some strength from this.

I'm with you 100%...

[ironchapman]

The biggest problem with our parties today is that they are so one sided. You have the Republicans who are conservative and the Democrats who are liberal. Anyone who does not conform to their set of views is usually shunned by their party (the Lieberman race in CT is a prime example of this, as is the branding of socially liberal Republicans like Arlen Specter and Olympia Snowe RINO's).

[waccamatt]

The biggest problem with our parties today is that they are so one sided. You have the Republicans who are conservative and the Democrats who are liberal. Anyone who does not conform to their set of views is usually shunned by their party (the Lieberman race in CT is a prime example of this, as is the branding of socially liberal Republicans like Arlen Specter and Olympia Snowe RINO's).

I just don't see where the Democratic Party is so liberal. I put the Democratic Party squarely in the middle, on average, and the Republican Party on the far right. The Green Party is the more liberal choice in this country. If I didn't feel that a Green vote is a vote for the Republican Party, I would vote Green. The country is what's too far to the right.