Jason C,
I apologize for my delayed response – I have been traveling and only have periodic access to the internet.
I hesitate to respond, as I think we’ve moved considerably beyond the topic of this thread. However, your last post was obviously quite thoughtful, so I will respond likewise.
“The requirement that they be consulted and persuaded before an agenda is implimented as policy, isn't stupid either.”
I couldn’t agree more. They were. I remember the debates of 2000. We, the American people, were consulted. Bush told us, “That’s the difference in philosophy between my opponent and me. He trusts government. I trust you.” Yes, we said! We like that idea. You’ve persuaded us. So, we elected him. Then, he gave us a 31.5% increase in non-defense domestic discretionary spending. Then, he decided to give us the largest expansion of an entitlement program since LBJ. He further federalized education. Sure, he trusts us, but the right to keep and bear arms might be too much for us. Oh, and what he said about trusting us with our own money during elections (Campaign Finance Reform), he didn’t really mean that. Oh yeah, and he doesn’t really trust us to talk on the phone, use the internet, or anything else like that without the possibility of government intrusion. The American people just can’t be trusted. After all, one of them might be a terrorist.
What I’m trying to say is that he consulted us and persuaded us about his agenda. But then, he completely changed his agenda. I’m criticizing him for that. That doesn’t make me “monarchial or dictatorial.” The fact that you even suggest such a thing is offensive and entirely out-of-line.
“Our system is set up to require compromise.”
I agree. But there is a difference between compromising and selling out. Bush campaigned on a smaller government. If say, he then kept the government the same size or reduced it only slightly, that would be compromise. But he didn’t, he increased its size in a way not seen for decades. That isn’t compromising, that’s selling out. I have the right to be angry.
“It is OK for you to state the principles you'd like to see enacted. But it is silly and naive of you to think your concern for ideological purity in causes you agree with is the route to political success.”
The LA Times (I know, I know, but just hear me out) poll in 2000 found that Americans prefer “smaller government with few services” to “larger government with many services” by 59 to 26 percent. I want you to find ANY poll that shows that much of a margin of support for Bush’s recent handling of the war on terrorism. Every poll on Iraq has shown that support for Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq is shaky, at best.
\
I know you don’t trust polls. But here is what you are doing: you are telling my that I am “silly and naïve” for arguing that the War in Iraq is not a very strong issue and that Bush would be better off if he had some domestic accomplishments to brag of. You say that I have no reason to believe this, yet I provide solid evidence in polls. Your response: forget the polls (they’re biased) my way is better because I said it is and because the American people are smart and wouldn’t vote for Kerry. Seriously, YOU have the nerve to tell me I’m naïve and ideological?
“Practicing pols know how to get votes. It is their job. ”
Wrong! Every ‘practicing pol’ takes an oath before they hold their office. That is, you could say, their job description. I don’t believe any of those oaths say, “I do solemly swear that I will get all the votes I can…” Nope, but it does say something about faithfully executing the office and upholding the constitution. Obviously, they have to get elected first, but their job is to uphold the constitution. I know what you’re trying to say, but I had to correct your error.
“Practicing pols know how to get votes. It is their job. You don't have useful advice to give them on the subject.”
But so many of them fail at getting votes. History tells us that the ones that fail are not the ones that faithfully uphold their promises and stick to their beliefs, but, in fact, it is those that sell out. People elected Bush because of what he said he would do. If he does what he said he would do (which we obviously liked), we will like him, and consequently reelect him. If he doesn’t do what he said he would do, he risks us not liking him. One example that comes to mind would be “read my lips” Bush Sr. If we had been on this board back then, I might have said, “Bush (Sr.) betrayed me by raising taxes. Too bad he sold out. That will hurt him at the ballot box.” And you might have said, “The American people aren’t stupid enough to vote for someone as spineless as Clinton. Bush will win, because he compromised. You’re too ideological. You couldn’t get 5% of the vote. Bush (Sr.) in an experienced politician, etc…”
“The American people aren't stupid. They didn't climb to the top of the world power system, wrecking communism and fascism and authoritarian empires along the way, by being stupid.”
Are you saying that they were smart to vote for Clinton two elections in a row?
Go back to how this started. You said that the American people would never elect Kerry, because ‘the American people know [that he is spineless].’ I’ve always thought that Clinton was spineless. Why didn’t the American people ‘know that’ and vote against him? Were they right to vote for Clinton? Did the fact that they voted for Clinton help us to ‘climb to the top of the world power system’? NO! Voting for Clinton was stupid. Those that voted for Clinton were acting stupidly. Many Americans voted for Clinton. Therefore, simple logic will tell us that many Americans are stupid. Those stupid Americans haven’t gone anywhere, and if (as they did with Clinton), all those stupid people again vote stupidly, Kerry could easily be elected, regardless of his spinelessness. Do I want this to happen? Of course not! I’m just saying that you are being naïve and overly optimistic to say that Kerry could never be elected because the American people ‘aren’t stupid.’
So, I know what you’re going to say. No, I’m not suggesting that we kill all the stupid people or stop them from voting. I’m not “monarchial and dictatorial.” All I’m saying is that the war in Iraq isn’t Bush’s strongest issue. We know that people like the idea of smaller government, because he campaigned on that and won in 2000. All I’m saying is that Bush would be better off at the ballot box if he had some good domestic accomplishments to brag of, but since he decided to sell-out, he will be in a much more difficult position come November, because, yes, there are many Americans stupid enough to vote for Kerry.
And you are flat wrong in your statements about what Bush campaigned on in 2000. He said he'd support a drug benefit for medicare recipients, raise federal funding for education, raise defense spending, and cut taxes. He also said he'd bomb any detected WMD sites in Iraq and support an overthrow of Saddam.
You reiterate that the American people are stupid, and your proof is that you have disagreed with them. That's cogent. It obviously needs no argument that you are their superior. Obviously Bush would be well advised to do whatever you say, because you are his better and wiser, just as you are better and wiser than his bosses.
In fact, it is a deep impenetrable mystery why you aren't already running the country in his place. Why, you'd just explain that you are for a smaller government, which polls support, and every would smack their foreheads in unison and say, "gee, he'd take an oath, what were we thinking? We coulda had a limited republic under First Citizen for Life GSC. Who wants all these freebies taken from the rich?"
Then the clouds would part, and a great white hand would come down and carry you aloft over congress, intoning, "thou shalt not tax and spend. Thou shalt make no graven regulations. Thou shalt not bother your constituents, but shall leave them to my all-sighted preaching." Then the lion would lie down with the lamb, and socialism would be but a memory; manna would rain, taxes would be paid by 3 foreigners and a single remaining liberal kept around for display purposes; all foreign enemies would realize how invincibly popular you are and not dare to cut off a single additional American head, and all the enlightened minds of conservatism present and future would humbly bow before your shrine, exclaiming as one, "just don't sell out, and victory for all that is right and true shall always follow automatically by divine providence."
Amen.
Meanwhile that idjit W has only won elections and cut taxes a measly trillion dollars and ended a recession and won 2 wars, and geez he had 3 and a half whole years to do it in, too. Numbskull should go to school at your feet, clearly.