What is Digg?70 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+31> Where did the Republican Revolution Go Astray?
...well, it started when the stole the election in 2000. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+28"nuclear bomb"?
Whose nuclear bomb? Not Iraq's, they don't have any and never did. Not Iran's, they're at least a decade away from developing one. Maybe you mean Kim Jong Il in North Korea, the guy Bush ignored completely, allowed to develop his nuclear program without insisting on inspections, and whose subordinate, Rumsfeld, helped gain increased nuclear abilities a few years ago? The guy Bush is doing nothing to prevent making more nuclear warheads, while talking about diplomacy - the same diplomacy he rejected in his rush to foment war against Iraq?
You're living in fear. You're a disgrace to this country. All you can talk about is the boogeyman with the nuclear bomb - trying to stir up fear, uncertainty and doubt without a shred of evidence. And all the while you still support an administration that has done nothing to secure the ports or inspections of cargo containers, and who have left the borders wide open. Do you even have an ounce of integrity or intellect?
You're just an empty shill. Only a person with ***** for brains would believe the stuff you say. - lopla, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17The thing that gets me with this new form of 'conservative' is the outright fear. I have never seen a collective of people living in complete fear like this until now. It must be very stressful to cower in fear so much. safer safer safer, we could get hit we could get hit we could get it 911 911 911 we could die die die i am so scared please make me safe please make me safe please make me safe do whatever it takes do whatever it takes blah blah.. Personally I think the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, wise words. It is my desire to protect my constitution at all costs which in turn protects the American way of life. If I have to choose between being 'safer' or protecting my constitution and dying, then I choose dying and I choose without hesitation. God Bless America. To those cowering in fear, shame on you.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18First of all, downmodding seems to be pretty much automatic. I think there's a bunch of people going through thread after thread digging all comments down one or a few steps, although I don't know what their game is.
Secondly, as a previous republican myself, I just got to say that I agree with you. I supported Reagan, I supported GWB senior, although with less enthusiasm... But I *can not* support GWB II. The rise of GWB II was when the religious right took control of the GOP, which in turn led to moral/faith based argumentation and laws, in turn leading to hypocricy and corruption.
I'm a right-wing, rationalist, pragmatist, libertarian, atheist - how could I possibly agree what is now a repressive fundamentalist religious party?
I've said it before: I didn't desert the GOP, the GOP deserted me. - atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -7/+20ahem... "Sadam has WMD".. does this ring a bell? Don't accuse me of forgeting 9/11. Can you argue without ad hominem?
(it would also be nice to learn to use the "reply" feature of digg) - jonathantneal, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13True Republicans didn't vote with the Party, they voted with the Idea, and the Idea made the Party.
There WAS a time when my fellow Republicans and myself really believed that both sides were truly, worthy adversaries. We also believed that, on the important issues, they would battle it out like the titans they try so hard to be, and that one way or another one side would convince the other what was right, and that it would go on like this, and that in the end it would make American the Best Place To Be in the World.
I think the party we elected forgot about that. They forgot about the job we wanted. I mean, wouldn't that be a great job? Wouldn't YOU want to be remembered as a great contributor to society? Even if you're some power hungry ego, wouldn't you want to be remembered as being Great? A Great in the Greatest Nation.
Whatever happens happens, but I'll still be a damned albeit hated Republican, because I still believe in the Idea. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
H. L. Mencken
Remember: Only we can protect you from the evil terrorists. Those other guys? Soft. - elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I gave up hope for society, when I was having a lighthearted discussion with my grandmother and she said, when talking about the NSA stuff, "Wouldn't you rather be ALIVE?"
What's worse is that her demographic is the democraphic that votes the most. THAT is why we are in such a sad state. - DocDEB, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Absolute power corrupts absolutely. That and money. Money and Power. Power and Money. They are synonymous in Congress. How do we stop the never ending cycle? First take away the money. No political contributions from PACS, corporations etc. Let them earn their contributions one voter at a time. Second take away the main reason for the money infusion -- Power. How? Term limits for all. No more lifetimes in Congress. Pick a limit for Senators and Representatives and stick to it. The President is limited to two terms. Something similar should apply to Congress. This would take away the individual power games played by the "Public-servants-for-life." This would take away the incentives for money infusions from the special interests. Talk about sacred cows -- this is one that needs to be butchered.
- cliffzdude, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10The truth is so simple it seems evasive, however "Keep It Simple Stupid" applies here. The Republican Party's basic principles that got it into power were smaller, leaner government, more local power with less federal power, a free and open economy, and low tax burden.
I've said for a very long time that when the Presidency and both houses of Congress are of the same party they get drunk on power, and that is what we've seen with Republicans of late. Without anybody to keep them in check, they were free to go crazy on the pork. They got greedy, and the land grab for funds for their local "bridge to nowhere" became the status quo. You want to spend on "X"? Fine, instead of bargaining you DOWN I'll just ask for more and we'll both say yes. Damn, this is so easy?
Free wheeling, ***** those who voted us in we're powerful and we love it.
Too much power is the bottom line, they lost the soul that got them elected. I'm a fighting Republican, and as much as I despise Pelosi I am ***** PISSED OFF at the current Republicans who got into office promising us a smaller leaner government. Instead they have spent money like drunken sailors. Said "***** you" to those who want a strong border.
Well this November we Reagan Republicans get to say ***** YOU Washington.
The only sad thing is Democrats spending moderately spend more than Republicans out of control. Change just one House of Congress to the "D" category, and the Republicans will be forced to go back to their roots, they'll HAVE to go back to their roots to battle it out. That makes me feel great. Balance its called, and I want it back . - duke, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Dick Armey is a damn fool with a warped perception. Here's the deal.
After the Democrats got handed their britches during the Reagan years and beyond, they started getting moderate. Because moderates joined conservatives in voting Republican on economic principles alone. Moderates put up with the Religious Right grandstanding, provided that they got their economic agenda. Bush Sr. kicked butt in the first Iraq war with both hands tied behind his back and virtually no American lives lost, so our military self-image was redeemed. But Bush I (like Bush II and Ford) was portrayed as bumbling, and there were a number of video clips and sound bites to support that portrayal.
When Clinton got elected, the vision paid off when the economy skyrocketed. It doesn't matter what caused it - it happened while Clinton was in office. America, which had been in the red during most everyone's lifetime, had a budget surplus. Things were looking up for Democrats until Monica Lewinsky.
Enter Bush II, a bolder image of his father - known because we knew his dad. America was brutally attacked by terrorists, and suddenly we were at war. People couldn't vote Republican in fast enough. Emboldened by this unearned popularity, Republicans started pushing the fringe agendas - promoting white bread values and fighting abortion, stem cells, gay rights, and social programs, while making tax cuts we couldn't afford. The economy started to fail, perceived largely to result from the expense of a directionless military engagement, and we went from a rare budget surplus to the biggest debt in the nation's history, Eventually gasoline prices tripled, which brought the message very close to home. The moderates, who once put up with the Republican fringe element as a harmless bedfellow in order to gain economic health, saw the pointlessness of that strategy. With the failing economy, increased burdens of terrorism at airports, failed intelligence over WMDs and increased bullying over wing nut issues, moderates have gotten damn sick of Republicans.
They did it to themselves, alright - Armey's right there. But Armey suggests that Republicans be more obnoxious and less moderate, which is entirely wrong, IMHO. Republicans are no longer perceived by moderates as having any expertise with regard to the economy. To the contrary, they are seen as bumbling fools and bullies who squandered America's strength and goodwill with their utter incompetence and senseless bullying over personal issues in areas where the government should not be involved. My two cents. - javip, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10I'd be willing to bet that if I was to grab a random person off the street, give him drugs, and put him in office.. he would do a better job than the republican monkeys have done over the last 8 years
- transfire, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Unfortunately there can be no REAL AMERICAN LEADER b/c there is so much division in America right now that no one can agree (except that we all agree that something has to change). The Golden generation is has a old-fashion view of the world, the Boomers have all but given up and don't pay attention to politics anymore (and when they do they only bitch and moan, but still keep sucking up to the "man"), Generation-X is suffering from an 80's psychosis, and the younger generations are completely self-absorbed living in Britney-land. On top of this, many of those who do care are falling prey to the trappings of religious evangelicalism. So is it any wonder that corruption is the rule of the day? And to lay the final hair to the camel's back, those few honest statesmen who are left they have very little clue about how to actually fix things --they tend to apply more and more band-aids, while the infected wound spreads unabated.
T. - deanlowe, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Republicans want to spend like liberals and tax like conservatives. They're just buying votes with both those tactics.
- farther, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Theft of government means that you actually weren't elected, and so you no longer have a responsibility to the people. Next election, you'll just steal their votes again. Thanks Diebold!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The culture of corruption baby, culture of corruption!
- diggreader1963, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7The Republican party is collapsing because much of it is corrupt. People like Tom DeLay, Bob Ney, Duke Cunningham, Jack Abramoff, David Safavian, Michael Browne and many others get into politics because they know how to use the system to enrich themselves or their friends.
Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld are corrupt in other ways. They attempt to hide the truth from the American public, or distort the truth, and voters see that. On issues like WMD they cherry-picked the intelligence, then they misled us on how much the Iraq war would cost, then they tried to blur the line between Iraq and 9/11, then they blurred the line on whether WMD's were found, then they misled us on how well the Iraq war was going (to win the 2004 election). They secretly set up a plan to use warrantless wiretaps (it took the press to uncover that), they tried to discredit Joe Wilson by outing his wife, they lied in Bush's 2003 state of the union address (the famous "16 words"). The bottom-line: the more voters learn the truth, the less likely they are to vote GOP. - farther, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The question to your grandmother would have to be, "wouldn't you rather be FREE?" Because it's the forefathers of America who believed in freedom from absolute monarchy and the rule of a foreign power, and gave their lives for it. And that belief was echoed in those who fought in World War II against a power that scorned individual freedom. But now, nobody cares about freedom. The Republicans launch useless wars to take away the freedom of other nations, and people of the past generation blindly follow them into a new fascist state because they thought that their sacrifice against Hitler was good enough. Wrong.
The fight for freedom never ends, and will never end: it is covered with blood when it is earned, and it is covered with blood when it is taken away. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8"remove the electoral college & the districts, and have direct vote."
I agree with removing districts and making all representatives "at-large" candidates...but removing the electoral college is tantamount to telling the whole midwest "your state doesn't matter when it comes to the Presidential election". Each state is to be given equal representation...and that DEFINITELY means equal voting representation.
Now, the only thing that gets me about the Electoral College is that members can essentially ignore the will of the people and cast the state's votes however they want. THAT privelidge should be taken away, but the basic idea (electoral votes based on population) should stay.
If you completely disband the EC, candidates would completely ignore smaller states and only campaign in high-population centers like NYC, LA, SF, Houston, Dallas, Chicago, Miami, etc. Anyone living rurally would be out in the cold.
Tell me, HOW is that "fair and equal for all people"? - Aggaman, on 10/12/2007, -9/+15I don't understand.
If you get behind all the talk and look at what they actually do, Republicans are remarkably consistent and have achieved many of their goals. As is plainly evident, their aims are to line the pockets of the rich at everyone else's expense. "Limited government" doesn't mean limited government per se, it means a government shorn of the ability to benefit the poor at the expense of the rich.
Of course a Republican government is going to spend money on the military and corporate welfare. That helps rich people: the sort of people who fund their election campaigns. Of course Republicans are going to spend social programs into insolvency, because those don't help rich people, and once they are insolvent, it will be the perfect time to eliminate them.
Of course this means "freedom from government intrusion" for everyone. But it really means "freedom from intrusion" per se for rich people. It certainly doesn't mean "freedom from corporate intrusion" for regular people. I don't have much power over what the government does, but that is a ***** of a lot more than I'll have over ***** Ltd once the power of government is reduced.
If you are in the bottom 75% when it comes to wealth, the whole point of Republicanism is to ***** you over directly, or remove barriers to rich people and corporations ***** you over. You can invent any excuse you like, but in the end you're bent over a chair with your pants round your ankles.
Of course they have been successful. - jytsai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5You will never be able to "take away the money". Lobbyists will always find a way to somehow benefit legislatures so that the bills they are pushing will get through. It's their job, after all - they'll find a way.
The real path to decreasing influence is for all legislation passed to have bills passed automatically expire after a certain # of years. That way all the stupid amendments that get inserted to essential legislation (i.e. budget bills) and the asshattery that gets passed because one party has control of everything will die off automatically, rather than be enshrined in the books forever. - salinemist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Someone correct me, but the mid-terms haven't been held yet - exactly *how* have the dems benefited?
- x1479, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4We are hearing this a lot more these days. Traditional Republicans like Andrew Sullivan or John Dean who do not like big government conservatism. Spending is a huge reason. And what do you expect when you have one party in charge of everything? Both parties have their own special interests and when one party controls everything the lobbying group that paid for that party to get there is going to get everything they want through the House, Senate, and signed by the President. If you had someone on the other side somewhere in that process it would be a lot harder for one radical group to get their radical stuff pushed through.
The source of the problem is multifaceted. But the media is a huge part of the problem. In order to appear fair and balanced they have allowed political talking points, the modern day GOPs in particular since they are the master of this type of stuff, to be aired non stop without any type of factual or intellectual honesty challenges.
The classic example was in the VP debates when Dick Cheney said he had never seen John Edwards in the Senate yet liberal bloggers found photos of the two together in the Senate the next day. One GOP in the office said wasn't that awesome how Cheney slammed Edwards. When I mentioned it was a lie and photos were produced the guy said "doesn't matter - it was kick ass".
This is what we have come to. Media that really lets this type of dishonesty slide and then an authoritarian type personality, like Republican John Dean describes in his new boo, that just doesn't care about such morality if it harms the party or leadership. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9People who are afraid of the truth want to bury it.
- JazonBladen, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8I'm disgusted that neither side can just agree to make the country better. The issue is that neither side /cares/ what happens to the country, they just want to get into office. That's all that really matters to politicians, especially in this day and age.
- demonsnake69, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Maybe the repubs took a page from Milton: "It's better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven." I guess all the power got to them and now they're doing whatever they can to keep it. Who cares about the American people when its much more fun to have absolute control.
- uncertain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think it's a little one-sided to castigate only the Republican politicians for taking their base for granted.
The only solution I see is to vote all incumbents out of office until a gaggle of first-termers gets the message. I've missed voting only once or twice in 40 years, but both parties are so bad I'm skipping voting this time. I'd vote for third party candidates, but I don't think they have a chance yet. Maybe if things keep getting worse, down the road enough people will see both parties' candidates are only interested in getting re-elected and collecting taxes to pay government employees, and 3rd party candidates will have a chance. - ArianeB, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Here Here,
Dick Armey has finally joined other "true conservatives" like William F Buckley, Pat Buchanon, John Dean, Lou Dobbs and many many others who realize that what Bush & Co have been calling conservatism, is not conservatism. I've been saying this since before 9/11.
I'm somewhat of a radical moderate, I do not think it is a coincidence that in recent years, the best years politically and economically have been the years when one party ruled the legislative branch and the other ruled the executive. Thats why I'm voting democrat this year. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The Republican Party went astray the day they claimed God was on their side. Talk about blasphemy.
- there, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4
Republican party got infected with Randroids via neocons.
Far right ideology of elitism and big military at expense of "we the people" doesn't work. It ends up in corrupt government every time since it can't comprehend the concept of greed. - atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -10/+12When Republican voters stopped demanding responsibility from the people they elected, that's when politicians went astray. Sure, honest people were fooled by terrorist scare, by "Democrats ruining the country" scare, and thus they kept hostage by their own party -- what's good for us is that there are Independents that don't vote for a party no matter what and they will be the ones that will save this country.
- DocDEB, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Azur2, I agree unequivocally with doing away with the electoral college. It is an idea that made some sense 200+ years ago but it has no reason for being now. I would however keep two Senators from each state and Representatives apportioned to each state on the basis of population. Theoretically the Representatives are to be the local representatives of The People and the Senators are to represent the interests of The States.
- williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Purge the neocons, reveal 9/11 as the false-flag op it was, and put the perps on the gallows.
That'll fix it. And there are millions of real Republicans ready for that change. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2He's got a bunch of either sockpuppets or friends.
- vvargoal, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Polls my friend. Dems have double digit leads in many contentious races. If the election were held today, the dems would take the house and maybe the senate. The republicans just have to pray that something amazing happens to turn their fortunes in the next week.
- etnu, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9Do you even know what the "idea" is anymore, though? The GOP began the shift from being a party promoting self-reliance and personal freedom and into the party of big government and theology over 20 years ago.
The system is broken. Its' only a matter of time before it collapses. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2For me, this pretty much sums it up:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19590 - rmah, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2texpundit wrote, "but removing the electoral college is tantamount to telling the whole midwest "your state doesn't matter when it comes to the Presidential election". Each state is to be given equal representation...and that DEFINITELY means equal voting representation."
I disagree. Each *citizen* should be given equal representation. I really don't see why a person residing in a state with a population far far less than my city should be given 10x the power that I do when choosing the President. State representation is through the Senate. That, IMO, is more than enough. The Electoral College needs to be put down. - dgendreau, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Even if they are dragging the rest of the country with them?
- infopro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Excellent analysis! :)
- dortdruben, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ AllofMP3:
I think you mean, "no matter what party HE or SHE is a member of." Just keepin' it real! :) - KicktheDonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't recall the US Constitution saying ANYTHING about the SCOTUS getting to decide an election...
- dortdruben, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I think it's definitely time for third parties. ***** the Dems, ***** the Repubs. They're both *****, and it's because they're the only ones. I for one am voting Independent this time around. If enough people do, maybe our politicians will actually start giving a ***** about us and accomplish something.
- farther, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hmmm... Right to Bear Arms? Check. Right for Diebold and Other Friendly Firms to Decide Electoral Outcome? Seems to be missing.
- KicktheDonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"The first inalienable right is the right to life... then liberty."
I don't think they were listed in order of preference... Otherwise, the Preamble to the United States Declaration of Independence would have gone something like this:
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident: that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that, in the order of preference, are limited to: Life, Liberty, then the Pursuit of Happiness."
Doesn't quite have a ring to it, does it? - UtopianComplex, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Here is one that I am sure will be controversial but worth looking into none the less.
Make state representatives, instead of voted by districts which in many cases is more about strategic redistricting than actually accurate representation, a proportional system of some sort. Democrats, Republicans and other parties that meet some minimum qualification are voted for with line ups of who gets first seat second and so on chosen in a primary like election, and then the seats are distributed based on percentage of votes to representatives.
The disadvantages of this are great for sure, the biggest and hardest to cope with being that it gets rid of voting for individual candidates, but at this point I think the disadvantages of the current system are larger, and opening up the house to potential third parties I think would force politicians to be more honest and straightforward about what they are doing because major parties would have complaining on both sides.
Something along these lines of making the part of government that is supposed to have the most direct connection to the people, actually have differing viewpoints, and having a realistic amount of Texas Democrats or Californian republicans represented seems like a good idea to me. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5While you're at reforming the system:
1) remove the electoral college & the districts, and have direct vote.
2) all votes weighed equal, seats of congress distributed according to population size. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Oh yeah, thansk for the Terry Schiavo thing, that really healped
- philonous, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Confessions of a fool. The Reagan Administration was still a primitive administration that operated on outdated principles. The corruption of the military-industrial complex reached epic lows under Reagan, and it plunged even further under W.
Armey and the other "revolutionaries" were just as dedicated to destroying the American country and government as the current cabal of "neocons" that slavishly follows W's asinine edicts.
Armey's remorse is utterly meaningless. He is just as incompetent as the people he trashes. This story is not newsworthy. -
Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is