So it'd be better to lose come Nov. ??? Brilliant.
Posted by: tim at July 12, 2010 03:32 PM (vb4Ci)
Tim, the point is not to lose. It's to"adopt a principled platform that mainly cuts
entitlements and other federal spending. They
[Republicans] should do that
whether or not it is a winning formula for 2010. If they win on that
platform, they have a mandate to cut which will head off the disaster.
If, as I expect, the public is not ready for that, let the Democrats
keep control of the Congress. Federal spending is a runaway train. Let
it fly the Democrat flag as it runs off a cliff if the American people
will not support fiscally responsible Republican Party."
Simply winning isn't enough. Being the other brand only gets you so far.
Posted by: Amritas at July 12, 2010 09:45 PM (hBtE2)
The Democratic Party in its current state is a threat not only to the American economy, but to the civil liberties of all Americans and to the democratic process itself. We cannot afford to have a Dem-controlled Congress combined with a Dem-controlled White House for another two years.
Posted by: david foster at July 15, 2010 06:40 AM (Gis4X)
Members of the Democratic Party were elected by "the democratic process." There is no guarantee that what the majority wants is good for them - or for us. Many Americans do not understand economics and do not care about "civil liberties." They just want "freebies" that we pay for. So they vote Democratic. Willingly. Happily. Obama, Pelosi, et al. did not just walk into Washington and take over. They won elections because Americans want socialism. Conservatives focus their frustration on Washington partly because they cannot face the hard reality that their fellow Americans in fifty states - not just a handful of Alinsky and Ayers types, but millions and millions of regular people - are socialists. Just as 9/11 did not open the eyes of Americans blind to jihad, the fall of the USSR did not open the eyes of Americans blinded by the glare of the red star. 69 million Americans voted for Obama.
Not 69 radicals from Berkeley, not 690 tenured professors of Victim Studies, but 69 million people, including co-workers, neighbors, friends, family, and yes, even Republicans and libertarians voted for the One. And many will vote for him again. Or for some other redistributive candidate. They empower those who would ruin their country. They feel no regrets. They feel only the bliss of superiority over bitter gun-clingers ... and our cash in their pockets. Can they ever be converted to capitalism? We must face the possibility - the probability
- that they cannot. What then?
Posted by: Amritas at July 15, 2010 02:30 PM (5a7nS)
Amritas, remember that many of those 69 million people are still totally dependent on the old media for their news and analysis. I am constantly amazed when talking with people who are not blog readers about *how much they just don't know.* Seems to me our odds of survival would be a lot better if we could break the stranglehold that TV and Hollywood film has on the minds of so many people. (It's very odd, by the way, to see university professors and subliterate entertainers on the same side of so many issues)
Also, I think Obama's economic views, although heavily influenced by socialism, differ from it in important ways. Under socialism, the government actually *runs* factories, oil drilling platforms, etc, and hence can be held accountable for their performance. Accountability is something that is utterly alien to this man: he would much rather have authority to badger and complain but have someone else actually be responsible. Really closer to economic fascism or "corporatism" than to socialism per se.
Posted by: david foster at July 15, 2010 02:46 PM (Gis4X)
| Add Comment