Posted on 09/26/2005 5:34:31 PM PDT by mwfsu84
"Time to give the constitution party a chance."
That would be throwing away your vote.
regardless of issues many here have with Bush II or the GOP, there isn't much choice otherwise....period.
the left is more focused and has the will we often lack
anyone runs to a 3rd party and we'll be worse off than now
as sure as daylight
Your points are very well-taken.
The sober truth may not be entertaining or emotionally satisfying, but it needs to be told. Lots of FReepers need to read this sort of thing, often. In other words, they need this dose of reality.
Thanks.
Why do threads like this one make my spidey sense tingle?
I mean, if I wanted to troll over at Scumbag Underground, I would probably start a thread entitled, "As Disappointed As You Might Be With The Democratic Party, What Is The Alternative?"
I have many reasons to vote Republican, and right now my number one reason is staying alive. Liberals cannot be trusted with our security
Yes, if we want to put the argument in one or two sentences -- and sometimes we must -- you've got it.
Well said, sir or ma'am!
I think it's fine to complain.
We have to make changes from within...the multi-farty system ends up looking like Germany....or worse...Israel
Folks are just disappointed that so many GOPers lack the spine they'd like to see.
I don't understand....we are at a GOP highwater mark to date ...in a quite a long time yet we have moderated markedly
were the Dems in our position....they would be pushing their agenda down our throats..or at least trying like all hell
we are the majority but it still feels like we are on defense
i realize a lot of that is the old media
Do you think Mike Brown's background prepared him for the job as head of FEMA?
Politicians are always trying to get to over 50 percent support. Democrats start from the left and move toward the center. They hope to get just to the right of center so they have 50 plus percent of the votes. Republicans start from the right and try to get over 50 percent support. They must get some support to the left of center.
What the right fails to realize is they are just a bit more than a third of the voters. The right must have flunked math. They firmly believe that 36 percent of the voters can cast 51 percent of the votes.
The only way to move the nation to the right is to move the center to the right.
The right looks for a leader who will lead them to right wing heavan. They never get it. Leaders are not the problem .. the voters are the problem. Until they find a way to get more people to vote for conservatives they will not get many conservatives elected.
The right and the left firmly believe that if they just got their message out a majority of people would buy their views.
They don't understand that nearly every voter has heard both messages. Their problem is about 28 percent of the voters do not buy either message. That never stops the right and left from trying to get their message out. They just don't understand that to get elected and change anything one has to have majority support.
Thus to the left the Democrat is never left enough and to the right the Republican is never right enough.
Considering that FEMA is an organization that relies on its head to provide direction, motivation, and leadership... Yes, I do think Brown's background was sufficient to lead that organization.
FEMA is made up of people who know how to do their jobs. What they need is not a micromanaging head, but a clear and motivating leader. The head of FEMA implements the policies of the President.
I've spoken with enough FEMA employees to have an idea of the organization.
But answer me this, did Brown do a competent job of handling past natural disasters during the time that he occupied the post? That alone should answer your question.
FEMA did a grand job in the Florida hurricanes of 2004. Maybe because Jeb Bush knew how to expedite assistance properly?
So you agree with me that local preparedness and the lack of it were the primary contributors of delays and incompetence in the Federal response to Hurricane Katrina, and that Brown cannot be held responsible for the local failures that impeded his departments response.
Focusing on his credentials is irrelevant because he held the job and did a competent job... a better job than his Clinton appointed predecessors. This record vindicates the fact that Bush knew what he was doing when he appointed Brown to the post.
I do agree that cronyism is a problem and that there are infinitely more qualified persons in the world who have the resumés and the experience to take the job and hit the ground running. I don't dispute that. But the purpose of the positions is to provide the president with the power to enact his policy across the board in every department through his appointees.
We saw the effects of what happens when you have bad policies when we look at how Clinton's appointees implemented a lot of questionable, irrelevant political correctness in the CIA, FBI, and the Pentagon. They implemented the policies of the sitting President. Poor policies, regardless of the competency of the leadership, leads to dysfunctional organizations. In recent history we can see how the poor disaster preparedness policies of Governor Blanco (LA) led directly to a dysfunctional local response to the disaster. Regardless of whether or not Blanco had been a competent leader, her policies were contradictory to proper preparation, and her incompetence came through when it came to admitting she had made an error. She made sure that the Federal response was unable to respond properly because she controlled the information and the power to restrict the Federal governments involvement.
Former FEMA director Brown was never the problem, and his track record, when compared to others who have held the post, was exemplary. Blaming him because he didn't have the "background" or "experience" is an irrelevant point that only had relevancy when he was appointed to the post, not several years after he's done a good job. It is time to give Brown a certificate that says he now has the experience and the background to work in disaster response management, not to denigrate a man who served this country in a capacity that many of us never will.
Then they can do any stupid damn thing they want to, can't they? Your vote is a given, no matter what. They can tax and tax, spend and spend, waste and waste - you'll keep saying "that's fine."
Well, screw that. I don't vote for Big Government politicians, no matter what party they use to steal from us. To hell with sleazy, greedy, power-mad weasels like that.
If the choice is bad, or worse - don't vote. Or vote Libertarian. Or Constitution.
Why reward crappy politicians, as you propose to do? How much does Bush have to piss away before you get mad and say "NO!"?
As Disappointed As You Might Be With The GOP, What Is The Alternative?
http://www.JimGilchrist.com
Time for a wake-up call.
Your sentiments are very understandable. However, President Bush is an excellent Wu Li Master in re politics, IMHO. His position, as you cite, has continued to make him a target and focus point of his opponents. His opponents play the game of MSM 'Kingmaker" - Claiming credit whether due or not, and big "talks" on how one will fight fight fight. This is how the left plays.
Bush Admin knows this well. The left are "glory hogs". By perpetually dancing in and out of the "spotlight", the left has maintained their focus upon the man, President Bush, personally. He is defying their secular humanist version of "God" by not taking those positions you wished he would.
In other words, President Bush is very good at taking the bull by the horns.
Be of good cheer! :)
There are PLENTY of outlets covering and supporting the WOT progress in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you suggest the Bush Admin by decree or fiat order the MSM to "cover" those sites?
People have the freedom in America to search out truth. They do not have to rely upon the MSM and their webbed allies.
John Edwards proposes a divided America -- the Two Americas. Whereas President Bush, in his first innaugral address basically posed this question to Americans: What do you believe about your country? And are you willing to make those beliefs real?
Feminists talk about "choice" but only within the narrowest confines possible.
President Bush's version of "choice" is massive!
Yes, you are quite right.
Back in the 90s, there was this period of time when this matter was made clearer and obvious -- a window, so to speak -- it parsed very clearly for a time before it was obscured and "distracted from" once again.
The moment had to do with all the various 3rd party political groups... and the issue of marriage.
I was lucky to catch this phwam. Basically, we do have two parties -- Democrats and Republicans; and then in re marriage: that which is between a man and a woman.
At this time, there were the usual peripheral columns parsing that Dems were the party of females and Repubs were the party of males.
So, I made up my mind to stay connected to the 3rd party political groups; but clearly to stay on focus with regard to "supporting" a Democrat and Republican Parties "forum".
Since that time, MoveOn and other radical liberal groups have been working hard to seize control of the Democratic party in order to make "gay marriage" the major tent peg of the Democratic party.
Repubs saw this too, and simply moved out of liberal way to not at all "stop" this activity.
And why? lol...
As the Democrats get more and more taken over by their radical supporters, this then makes the Republican party the party of males and females -- the marriage party.
As the Dems lose more of their constituent base, the "political door" gets opened to a genuine and newer opposition party (perhaps it will be the Constitution Party, it certainly won't be Greenies or Libertarians (as they currently stand) ).
And this is why we see folks like Hillary attempting to move towards center, hoping, they can ride the wave of whatever that newer opposition party will become. It's quite fetching to observe this, from my chair. As it is clear to me that Party Democrats yet have no idea what or who that newer opposition group will be.
At this pinpoint of time, Dems can only assert they are for abortion and for gay marriage. That's about it. Repubs worried? Not! lol.
As Party Heads in Dem scan the horizon looking to see WHAT party will be replacing the Dems.. they are not looking to coalesce the new group, but rather the ride the wave on herd.
And this is why there is so much disarray. There's a party out there looking for a leader to lead them, and then there's Dem Big Heads looking not to lead; but to capitalize upon whatever a newer group has cobbled together.
Cat chasing its tail. Or rather, tailspin.
Sorry, I think your defense of Mike Brown is bending way too far over backwards. I think there were screw ups at all levels, from city to the feds. Everybody did a bad job. from the President all the way down to the mayor of New Orleans. I hope they can all learn from their mistakes.
When Reagan took office the total Federal Expenditures was 590 billion dollars. When Reagan left office the Federal Expenditures were 1,051 Billion dollars.
Your posted figures and fancy graphs failed to include entitlement spending. The number left out of your graphs was for Reagans Last year was 400 Billion dollars worth of social entitlement spending. You got graphs that left that number out. If you want to play with number try this atempt to lie with numbers. Social entitlements in fiscal 1988 would have been 80 percent of the Budget in 1981.
Do you think we don't remember Reagan claiming in the 1984 debates that he had not cut social spending. I lead my next morning's newscasts with that story. Reagan in his debate with Mondale claimed he had only cut the rate of increase in spending. Reagan bragged in the 1984 debates with Mondale that he had increased social net spending every year for the last 4 years.
Thus if a third party on the right forms it splits the right and the left wins. As the left implements its agenda the right gets scared and outraged. It unites and then wins elections.
If the left gets split the Republicans win. When they implement their agenda the Democrats get scared and outraged... they get back together and win elections.
The system was designed by Democrats and Republicans to perpetuate the Democrat and Republican parties. It is designed to see that all other parties fail. And guess what? It works exactly as designed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.