Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
jstan
climber
|
|
Have not seen this transcript on ST. A mainline Republican:
http://www.clipsandcomment.com/2008/10/19/transcript-colin-powell-on-meet-the-press-endorses-barack-obama-october-19/
EXCERPT OF INTERVIEW
MR. BROKAW: General Powell, actually you gave a campaign contribution to Senator McCain. You have met twice at least with Barack Obama. Are you prepared to make a public declaration of which of these two candidates that you’re prepared to support?
GEN. POWELL: Yes, but let me lead into it this way. I know both of these individuals very well now. I’ve known John for 25 years as your setup said. And I’ve gotten to know Mr. Obama quite well over the past two years. Both of them are distinguished Americans who are patriotic, who are dedicated to the welfare of our country. Either one of them, I think, would be a good president. I have said to Mr. McCain that I admire all he has done. I have some concerns about the direction that the party has taken in recent years. It has moved more to the right than I would like to see it, but that’s a choice the party makes. And I’ve said to Mr. Obama, “You have to pass a test of do you have enough experience, and do you bring the judgment to the table that would give us confidence that you would be a good president.”
And I’ve watched him over the past two years, frankly, and I’ve had this conversation with him. I have especially watched over the last six of seven weeks as both of them have really taken a final exam with respect to this economic crisis that we are in and coming out of the conventions. And I must say that I’ve gotten a good measure of both. In the case of Mr. McCain, I found that he was a little unsure as to deal with the economic problems that we were having and almost every day there was a different approach to the problem. And that concerned me, sensing that he didn’t have a complete grasp of the economic problems that we had. And I was also concerned at the selection of Governor Palin. She’s a very distinguished woman, and she’s to be admired; but at the same time, now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don’t believe she’s ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president. And so that raised some question in my mind as to the judgment that Senator McCain made.
On the Obama side, I watched Mr. Obama and I watched him during this seven-week period. And he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems like this and picking a vice president that, I think, is ready to be president on day one. And also, in not just jumping in and changing every day, but showing intellectual vigor. I think that he has a, a definitive way of doing business that would serve us well. I also believe that on the Republican side over the last seven weeks, the approach of the Republican Party and Mr. McCain has become narrower and narrower. Mr. Obama, at the same time, has given us a more inclusive, broader reach into the needs and aspirations of our people. He’s crossing lines–ethnic lines, racial lines, generational lines. He’s thinking about all villages have values, all towns have values, not just small towns have values.
And I’ve also been disappointed, frankly, by some of the approaches that Senator McCain has taken recently, or his campaign ads, on issues that are not really central to the problems that the American people are worried about. This Bill Ayers situation that’s been going on for weeks became something of a central point of the campaign. But Mr. McCain says that he’s a washed-out terrorist. Well, then, why do we keep talking about him? And why do we have these robocalls going on around the country trying to suggest that, because of this very, very limited relationship that Senator Obama has had with Mr. Ayers, somehow, Mr. Obama is tainted. What they’re trying to connect him to is some kind of terrorist feelings. And I think that’s inappropriate.
Now, I understand what politics is all about. I know how you can go after one another, and that’s good. But I think this goes too far. And I think it has made the McCain campaign look a little narrow. It’s not what the American people are looking for. And I look at these kinds of approaches to the campaign and they trouble me. And the party has moved even further to the right, and Governor Palin has indicated a further rightward shift. I would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, but that’s what we’d be looking at in a McCain administration. I’m also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, “Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.” Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he’s a Christian. He’s always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer’s no, that’s not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, “He’s a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists.” This is not the way we should be doing it in America.
I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son’s grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards–Purple Heart, Bronze Star–showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn’t have a Christian cross, it didn’t have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way. And John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I’m troubled about the fact that, within the party, we have these kinds of expressions.
So, when I look at all of this and I think back to my Army career, we’ve got two individuals, either one of them could be a good president. But which is the president that we need now? Which is the individual that serves the needs of the nation for the next period of time? And I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities–and we have to take that into account–as well as his substance–he has both style and substance–he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president. I think he is a transformational figure. He is a new generation coming into the world–onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I’ll be voting for Senator Barack Obama.
MR. BROKAW: Will you be campaigning for him as well?
GEN. POWELL: I don’t plan to. Two weeks left, let them go at each other in the finest tradition. But I will be voting for him.
MR. BROKAW: I can already anticipate some of the reaction to this. Let’s begin with the charge that John McCain has continued to make against Barack Obama. You sit there, as a man who served in Vietnam, you commanded a battalion of 101st, you were chairman of the Joint Chiefs, you were a national security adviser and secretary of state. There is nothing in Barack Obama’s history that nearly paralyze any–parallels any of the experiences that you’ve had. And while he has performed impressively in the context of the campaign, there’s a vast difference between sitting in the Oval Office and making tough decisions and doing well in a campaign.
GEN. POWELL: And he knows that. And I have watched him over the last two years as he has educated himself, as he has become very familiar with these issues. He speaks authoritatively. He speaks with great insight into the challenges we’re facing of a military and political and economic nature. And he is surrounding himself, I’m confident, with people who’ll be able to give him the expertise that he, at the moment, does not have. And so I have watched an individual who has intellectual vigor and who dives deeply into issues and approaches issues with a very, very steady hand. And so I’m confident that he will be ready to take on these challenges on January 21st.
MR. BROKAW: And you are fully aware that there will be some–how many, no one can say for sure–but there will be some who will say this is an African-American, distinguished American, supporting another African-American because of race.
GEN. POWELL: If I had only had that in mind, I could have done this six, eight, 10 months ago. I really have been going back and forth between somebody I have the highest respect and regard for, John McCain, and somebody I was getting to know, Barack Obama. And it was only in the last couple of months that I settled on this. And I can’t deny that it will be a historic event for an African-American to become president. And should that happen, all Americans should be proud–not just African-Americans, but all Americans–that we have reached this point in our national history where such a thing could happen. It will also not only electrify our country, I think it’ll electrify the world.
MR. BROKAW: You have some differences with Barack Obama. He has said that once he takes office, he wants to begin removing American troops from Iraq. Here’s what you had to say about that: “I have found in my many years of service, to set arbitrary dates that don’t coincide with the situation on the ground or what actually is happening tends not to be a useful strategy. … Arbitrary deadlines that are snatched out of the air and are based on some lunar calculation is not the way to run a military or a strategic operation of this type.” That was on February 10th of this year on CNN. Now that you have Barack Obama’s ear in a new fashion, will you say to him, “Drop your idea of setting a deadline of some kind to pull the troops out of Iraq”?
GEN. POWELL: First of all, I think that’s a great line, and thanks for pulling it up. And I believe that. But as I watch what’s happening right now, the United States is negotiating the–an agreement with the Iraqi government that will call for most major combat operations to cease by next June and for American forces to start withdrawing to their bases. And that agreement will also provide for all American troops to be gone by 2011, but conditioned on the situation as it exists at that time. So there already is a timeline that’s being developed between the Iraqis and the United States government. So I think whoever becomes the president, whether it’s John McCain or whether it’s Barack Obama, we’re going to see a continued drawdown. And when, you know, which day so many troops come out or what units come out, that’ll be determined by the commanders and the new president. But I think we are on a glide path to reducing our presence in Iraq over the next couple of years. Increasingly, this problem’s going to be solved by the Iraqis. They’re going to make the political decisions, their security forces are going to take over, and they’re going to have to create an environment of reconciliation where all the people can come together and make Iraq a much, much better place.
MR. BROKAW: Let me go back to something that you raised just a moment ago, and that’s William Ayers, a former member of the Weathermen who’s now active in school issues in Illinois. He had some past association with Barack Obama. Wouldn’t it have been more helpful for William Ayers to, on his own, to have renounced his own past? Here was a man who was a part of the most radical group that existed in America at a time when you were serving in Vietnam, targeting the Pentagon, the Capitol. He wrote a book about it that came out on 2001, on September 11th that said, “We didn’t bomb enough.”
GEN. POWELL: It’s despicable, and I have no truck for William Ayers. I think what he did was despicable, and to continue to talk about it in 2001 is also despicable. But to suggest that because Mr. Barack Obama had some contacts of a very casual nature–they sat on a educational board–over time is somehow connected to his thinking or his actions, I think, is a, a terrible stretch. It’s demagoguery.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Norton, I understand that, which is one of the reasons why they are struggling today. But Bluering basically opened this thread up for suggestions, so if they are going to change and be successful, they need to account for this.
One of the good things that Bush tried to do to actually increase the appeal of his party was supporting a moderate immigration bill. I also think he genuinely holds moderate views on the issue. Bush did pretty well with Latinos and saw an opening to increase GOP appeal among this demographic. But in 2005, the GOP decided to take a hard line approach to immigration. Obama easily defeated McCain among Latino voters.
They must broaden their appeal if they wish to ever prevail.
Not that I really care because I am not a conservative.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
Bluering's op is about solutions, not restating the problem- this has been done ad nauseum on ST and throughout the country. If you really have enough animosity towards the GOP that you really don't care, that is understandable. I, too have had great disagreement with their policies and direction for many years, but rational, solution-oriented threads like this help increase my understanding of others who I disagree with. Let's focus the comments in that direction, please.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
Apogee:
I did not post that because it deals with a now dead issue. i posted it because it shows the organized thinking of an old mainline republican as he explains how he chose among alternatives.
Sorry for not making that more clear.
|
|
klinefelter
Boulder climber
Bishop, CA
|
|
Bluering, I just wish other conservatives had the same candor and humility that O'Rourke does. Unfortunately, the idiots that most conservatives listen to, absorbing their talking points like brainless sponges, are less reasonable. Get ready for the, uhh, Obama Recession? Gimme a f#@king break.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2008 - 08:47pm PT
|
From the Daily Kos, this article on Constructive Criticism for Conservatives seems well written, and appropriate for this thread on Restoring Conservatism.
Constructive Criticism for Conservatives
by Erasmussimo
Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 05:28:41 PM PST
OK, you got clobbered. You've lost the White House and Congress. For at least the next two years, you're going to be on the outside looking in. You might be able to block some of the most egregious leftward moves, but for the most part you're going to have to stand on the sidelines and watch as the Democrats get their turn to run things.
Although I object to some parts of your political philosophy, I believe that our democracy is better when there is robust political competition between the two parties. With that in mind, I'd like to describe what I think is the single most fundamental mistake that you as a group have been making for at least the last eight years: you have lost your internal skepticism and compromised your dedication to rationalism.
By internal skepticism, I mean the nagging uncertainty that checks you before you make a decision: "Am I really sure that this is right?" A good thinker is always most skeptical of what he wants to believe, always trying to beat up his favorite beliefs to insure that they're correct. And over the last eight years I have seen repeated cases of conservatives giving short shrift to their internal skepticism.
Erasmussimo's diary :: ::
Let's start with the most obvious case: creationism. Now, I realize that creationism is not quite a signature of the conservative movement -- but I think we'd have to agree that the vast majority of creationists are conservatives, and very few creationists are liberal. Although there are plenty of rational conservatives who reject creationism just as forcefully as liberals, there remain a large number of "closet creationists" in the conservative movement. They're the most extreme example of "wishful belief": they believe something despite the overwhelming evidence against it. Now, I myself don't think that this is terribly important; if you want to reject evolution for creationism, that's your business and I really don't care. But the embrace of creationism is an indication of a willingness to reject even a modicum of rationalism. I urge Republicans to tell creationists, "We appreciate your support, but we cannot accept your beliefs as a part of our political philosophy, because we believe in rationalism." I realize that this will cost you votes -- but I argue that the overall attitude of anti-rationalism costs you even more votes.
Here's another example of anti-rationalism in the conservative movement: the rejection of the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming. Let's face it, folks: the opposition to the AGW hypothesis is an anti-rational conspiracy theory. The huge weight of scientific evidence falls in favor of the AGW hypothesis. Recognizing this, both Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain, who surely can't be called liberals, have grudgingly accepted the AGW hypothesis. Your best and your brightest accept AGW; why do you encourage the anti-rationalists who reject it? Again, your best option here is to insist that the Republican party endorses rationalism and embraces the AGW hypothesis.
The effects of anti-rationalism and a rejection of internal skepticism can be disastrous. Consider, for example, Mr. Bush's handling of the Iraq War. He went into the war loudly declaring that Iraq possessed WMD. Why? Because he had intelligence to support that belief. Yet we now know that his Administration actively promoted intelligence that supported their preconception, and minimized intelligence that called their preconception into question. Had Mr. Bush surrounded himself with skeptical minds who challenged assumptions, it is likely that he would have concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the claim of WMD in Iraq and not proceeded with the invasion -- and America would be a lot better off today.
Another example is the handling of the occupation. The Bush Administration chose to believe that the Iraqi people would welcome us with open arms and we would not need a large occupation force -- despite warnings from the Pentagon. Generals who expressed doubts about the chances of success with only 150,000 men were replaced with generals beaming with optimism. Optimism is a nice thing -- but when it's misplaced, it just leads to disaster. Had Mr. Bush heeded the warnings of the brass early in the occupation, we would already be out of Iraq, and it would be a happier place than it now is.
I realize that you will disagree with me about some of these details. I don't want to try to convince you that the invasion of Iraq was wrong. My point here is that, had Mr. Bush been more skeptical, more willing to listen to people saying things he didn't want to hear, America would be better off and the Republican brand would not be so tarnished.
There are a great many minor examples of inadequate skepticism or flat out anti-rationalism among conservatives. How about the claims floating around that Mr. Obama is a Muslim? That's a flat lie, and all the reasonable conservatives rejected it -- but the lie kept circulating through the conservative movement. Mentions of it kept popping up over and over -- and the rational conservatives, who should have put a stop to that nonsense, went along with it.
Or let's consider the many suggestions that Mr. Obama is a communist or a Marxist. Those are patently ridiculous, but the rumors just wouldn't go away. Even the suggestion that he is a socialist is absurd -- his talk of increasing the progressivity of the income tax would merely revert American tax policy to where it was in the 1950s -- and no, America was not a socialist country in the 1950s. Although Mr. McCain never bandied about that trash-talk, his running mate did, and conservative discussions were rife with accusations that Mr. Obama is a socialist. Where were the rational conservatives who should have ridiculed such talk? They were nowhere to be found. I know they're out there -- I've spoken with many of them. But they seemed to feel that the anti-rationalists were too powerful and too important to be offended.
You may well defend yourself with the observation that there were plenty of left-wingers who smeared Mr. McCain in much the same way. I disagree. Yes, of course, there was plenty of trash-talk coming out of the left as well as the right -- but the leftist criticisms of Mr. McCain were much more reserved. I heard plenty of accusations from the right that Mr. Obama is a socialist, but I heard damn few accusations from the left that Mr. McCain is a fascist. Mr. Obama's patriotism or "Americanism" was denigrated on a daily basis, where just about everybody on the left bent over backwards to recognize Mr. McCain's heroism in captivity. I'm sure that we'll always disagree on the magnitude of these matters, but I think it fair to claim that the more wild-eyed accusations came from the right.
Consider how Republican optimism led to the current financial crisis. I realize that there are many, many factors that got us into this hole, and many of those factors were out of control of the government. But two factors stand out as contributing to the disaster. The first is the huge deficit that Mr. Bush saddled us with. This was a very indirect factor and a small one -- but it definitely contributed. Much more important was the overly optimistic approach to financial regulation. It was Republicans who stymied every effort to tighten up the regulatory system, and the lack of regulation was a major factor in the financial disaster. Again, the mistake was a failure of internal skepticism -- a sunny belief that large financial institutions would do "the right thing" without government intervention. And that lack of skepticism proved to be disastrous.
Again, I don't want to offend you here -- if you refuse to believe some of my points, that's fine. But there is a definite pattern here for your consideration. The conservative movement has been infiltrated by anti-rationalism, and that attitude will poison your movement. You have a core of about 25% of the American public that is fiercely loyal to the conservative cause, and some portion of that group is ferociously anti-rational. But the fact remains that a far larger number of Americans are pretty rational. They really do listen to the facts. When people on your side claimed that Mr. Obama is a socialist, many Americans concluded that your side is crazy.
Another symptom of anti-rationalism in the Republican Party is the rejection of education and intellectualism. Just look at the educational credentials of Mr. Bush, Mr. McCain, and Ms. Palin. Compare them with the educational credentials of Mr. Clinton (a Rhodes scholar), or Mr. Obama. I don't expect you to agree with me on this point, but Mr. Obama and Mr. Clinton are both obviously (to me) more intelligent than Mr. Bush, Mr. McCain, or Ms Palin. Why is it that your party seems so enamored of such dumb people? I know that there are brilliant conservatives -- how come you don't give leadership positions to them? Some of your denigrations of Mr. Obama -- that he's "elitist", "not like us", and "merely eloquent" -- were, in my opinion, spin words for "smart". And the frequent approving comments that Mr. Bush, Mr. McCain, and Ms. Palin were people you'd like to have a beer with are, in my opinion, ways to spin the fact that they're obviously pretty dumb.
I realize that you have a tough dilemma here. The anti-rationalists in your ranks have plenty of passion, energy, dedication, and discipline. They're powerful. But they are also taking you down a path to ruin. You cannot command the respect of the American people with a political philosophy that is fundamentally anti-rational. As you reconsider your political philosophy, you will be forced to choose between the anti-rationalists (personified by Ms. Palin) and the rationalists, who at present have no leading representative. If Ms. Palin's partisans take control of the Republican Party, then it will suffer a crushing defeat in 2012 and your party will be politically impotent until at least 2016. If you start rebuilding your party on rationalist foundations, you'll need to convince those anti-rationalists to abandon some of their wilder beliefs. You may lose their passion and energy for a time. But at least you will have a future.
I apologize if I have offended you. I acknowledge that you will reject many of my points. But again, I implore you to look at the big picture. Right now, the Democrats have a lock on the rationalism angle. Until you can meet and defeat them on that field of battle, you will continue to lose.
|
|
tom woods
Gym climber
Bishop, CA
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2008 - 09:10pm PT
|
Problem is the Republican Party needs the social conservatives. Fiscals and small government types aren't enough to win. They need the social conservatives. It's a numbers game.
Tom
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2008 - 09:14pm PT
|
Demographics are a huge challenge for the Republicans, in terms of stitching together a sustainable party. The make-up of the US has changed significantly, and in some ways the election was a result of that.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 10, 2008 - 09:33pm PT
|
"Demographics are a huge challenge for the Republicans, in terms of stitching together a sustainable party. "
That's why they should quit pandering to certain groups and run with a traditional conservative platform, which is overwhelmngly popular with most working people. Quit the nuanced headnods to the NRA, churches, NASCAR, whatever. Run a message and a platform, not a photo-op.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Nov 11, 2008 - 10:58am PT
|
bluering that might be the smartest thing you've ever said.
Also....
The Gingrinch might be back!
And just in time for Christmans! But has is heart grown any bigger? Word is he'll be running for President in 2012 most likely. Apparently Republicans think they need to get back to the roots of reign of negativity and divisiveness. We'll see but I had hoped that they were smarter than this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/us/politics/11repubs.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
“We need to be honest about the level of failure for the past eight years and why Republican government didn’t succeed,” said Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, who has played an increasingly assertive role in the debate over the party’s future. “Otherwise, we’ll get back in power again and do the same things again.”
|
|
Binks
Social climber
|
|
|
Nov 11, 2008 - 11:35am PT
|
Conservatism and Liberalism are BOTH dead. May neither one ever rise again.
Obama is something entirely different, a true independent. That is the best thing about him. In 2016, after he finishes his second term what we thought of Democrat and Republican will have completely ceased to exist.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 11, 2008 - 11:59am PT
|
"Obama is something entirely different, a true independent. "
WTF??? He's clearly one of the most liberal senators and he hasn't even done anything yet, just a bunch of rhetoric. A true independant...whatever.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Nov 11, 2008 - 12:00pm PT
|
bluering- Just curious but can you actually point to any of the MOST LIBERAL things he has done as Senator? Or are you just parroting the now stale Republican election propaganda? You know the election is over right? Screaming MOST LIBERAL doesn't really accomplish your goal of "restoring conservatism."
In any case Obama ran on a bipartisan platform. "True independent" or not I think we're going to see a lot of common sense action from him.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Nov 11, 2008 - 12:18pm PT
|
Obama is not "liberal" enough for me. He should have come out in favor of a constitutional amendment to legalize same sex marriage. Physician assisted suicide for terminal conditions should also be made legal in every state.
You can't get "liberal" enough for me.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Nov 11, 2008 - 12:31pm PT
|
Seems to me, right now we have exactly what we most need to have. One, perhaps two parties that really don't have a plate loaded with beliefs for us to accept.
There really are not many people left who are confused as to what we don't want. George has given us a great gift. We don't want what we have had for the past eight years.
So it's fantastic! In the near term it is up to each of us, all by ourselves, to decide what we do want.
P.S.
Great thread.
|
|
Binks
Social climber
|
|
|
Nov 11, 2008 - 12:34pm PT
|
Bluering, Obama is no liberal. I think you've forgotten what left wing liberalism really is. You need to drive around Berkeley more often. Obama is not even close to that crap and never will be. He is more conservative than GW Bush ever was in fiscal matters and will be a centrist socially.
McCain was more or less centrist, but picking Palin was equivalent to the idea of Obama picking someone from Earth First! to be VP. The whackos are solidly on board on the Conservative side, where they have been given true power. This is why you folks wrecked the country. Whatever the "true conservative" philosophy might be, the actual results have been radicalism and disaster.
I had this discussion with my brother who votes on one issue: abortion. He kept saying "it's the philosophy, the philosophy is sound". Who the hell cares about the philosophy when the actual results put the country in the toilet. It's not "the philosophy", it's the actual reality, the actual results that count. And you can't get good results with lies, treachery, and mudslinging as the means. The ends do not justify the means, they do not even create the means in the case of the conservative movement.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
|
Nov 11, 2008 - 12:52pm PT
|
" It's not "the philosophy"
In the sense that part of their philosophy is trickle down economics they do have a failed philosophy. They believe that if you keep the money in the hands of the wealthy, that they will create jobs. Yet the wealthy have never been wealthier then they are right now and where are the jobs. Trickle down theory does not work.
|
|
GOclimb
Trad climber
Boston, MA
|
|
|
Nov 11, 2008 - 12:55pm PT
|
I am a liberal, and yet I support Bluering's efforts 100%.
Why? Because I would *love* to see the Republican party fight for the values that are described in this thread as conservative.
Dirtineye said it best: "Real conservatives and real liberals actually have a lot in common. they both want to make our country better, they just differ on HOW.
The Rethuglican neo-cons were serious thugs who had a totally different agenda-- to plunder the country and the gov for themselves and their rich friends. "
It is not my fight to reform the Republican party. That fight belongs to Bluering and his compatriots. But I wish them well - the country will be far, far better off if they succeed.
By the way - that doesn't mean I'm off the hook! Back when I lived in MA, I called and wrote to my senator - Kennedy, and told him I'd never vote for him again if he voted NIMBY against the offshore wind farm. He backed down.
So kudos to you, Blue!
GO
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!