Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by g5man, Nov 4, 2003.
Does he make sense?
i've really never understood why he's a democrat.
he is correct that the democratic party leadership is a mess. he understates what was done in response to the '93 WTC bombing and other attacks.
Neither have I. However, despite his political affiliation he must feel that he truly represents the values and convictions of most Georgians.
Miller is popular in Georgia, so I guess it's legit to say he represents folks who also vote for Republicans.
He's correct about the leftward drift of the Democratic Party over the last four or so decades. What people today call "conservative" is really what was considered moderate or middle of the road, back before LBJ.
The leftward drift is more at the national and state level than at the local level, however. A lot of fairly moderate or somewhat conservative folks still call themselves Democrats "on account of that's what my daddy was, and my granddaddy was..."
'Rat, not long before LBJ the conservatives in the Democratic party wore white sheets on the weekends. Thank goodness the Democrats have moved left since then.
Absolutely there is no debate there; moving left away from that ideology was the correct action. However moving left today is a different story. The country is in the middle and leaning right especially after Sept 11.
Those leaning hard left are seen as pioneers of freedom and concerned for the masses by only a fraction of the electorate. Those in the middle are insuring that left or the Democratic Party loses more and more of its ability to further its agenda. Those hard left interest groups are pulling the party down. Unless the party changes directions quickly (according the Zell it is too late) those on the left will become further marginalized and weak.
It might feel good to be surround by those who are like-minded in the primaries, Internet organizations or college campuses but the future will be a bitter pill to swallow. Suddenly they will realize that the influence the group assumed it had is no longer there, as its representatives (Democratic office holders) can no longer cater to them since they no longer hold office. I believe that his book is trying to awaken the national party to these facts.
Actually the DLC made similar arguments some time back when it warned the party that its influence on the national and state today is the weakest since the 1940s.
"'Rat, not long before LBJ the conservatives in the Democratic party wore white sheets on the weekends."
Nuthin' like definin' a few million by the behavior of a few thousand...
OT: why are you suddenly a newbie? or is this the first i've noticed?
Darned if I know, zim. Glad you noticed, I guess, 'cause it's not something I pay much attention to...
Digressing to the tease about the Klan, for a moment: I got out of the Army in 1958 and went off to FSU for to become an inginear. One Saturday PM, I and my date came on to the main downtown street from a movie, and Lo! And Behold! The Klan was parading.
Rather sparse crowd of onlookers on the sidwalk. As the doofi* strutted past, I couldn't help myself, and commented in a rather Drill Sergeant manner, "Hey, look! Form-fitting head-gear!" Sad to say, they kept on marching. It drew some laughs, anyway.
* Doofi is the plural of doofus.
Are you trying to tell me all those conservative dixiecrats were not all klan members? Point taken, 'Rat. Actually, I knew that because my dad's folks were dixiecrats from Arkansas - So. Missouri area and they all hated the klan. Just wanted to point out most of us think that movement away from those politics was a very good thing.
Oh, and the reason you are a newbie again is that they don't count post in the political threads anymore. I lost over 300 myself.
Isn't the Washington Times owned by the Moonies?
Anyway it's horrible that the people are so brainwashed these days that they don't even realize that so many of the things they would fight for have been brought about by liberals over the protests of the conservatives.
Child labor protections.
Feel free to add to the list, I'm a little tired right now from working too much.
Those of you who would like to live without any social safety net, no protections in the workplace, no protections against unscrupulous companies should continue to back the current neo-conservative regime in the white house...or move to Liberia.
From my own experience with neo-nazi skinheads, my favorite story is from the day I ran across several of them spreading their hate literature in downtown Tempe Arizona. They were standing around giving their "sieg heil" salute, so when I walked by I gave them the one-finger salute and chanted along with them "Seek Help, Seek Help" Got a small crowd to join in too.
Other actions were taken later, but I can't claim responsibility for those... they were probably not terribly legal.
Back on topic (I never could figure out if OT meant On Topic, or Off Topic) Zell Miller is a DINO.
Getting back on topic, I just watched Zell's interview on CNN.
This man despite his age seems pretty sharp. Judy asked what the difference is between interests groups that influence the Democrats and that of Republicans.
He responded that Democrats are being led by interests groups while organizations such as the NRA do not dictated every policy that the Republicans control.
He is predicting a close race next year.
SPG, you list a lot of things that, on the surface, are indeed good for society. Had they stayed as originally intended, all well and good. Trouble is, most of them have not, and the costs have escalated beyond reason. One example is Medicaid.
And, as I've said before, what's happened to Social Security has made it into the world's largest Ponzi Scheme.
At any rate, one reason for much of the conservative opposition was the predictive views of exactly what has happened to their ongoing costs. From what I read, the "bang for the buck" seems to decline with time--which is part of why we're in such economic doodoo.
Rat well said.
that's one take on the New Deal and the Great Society programs. Another might be that along with public education we have built the most educated and productive work force in our history that has led to the strongest economy the world has ever known. Those programs gave working people the ability to buy into an American dream that included for the first time people who weren't rich. All in all I like my version better.
Oh, and why is it that when we talk about the cost of government it is always around social programs instead of the subsidy of corporate america or the runaway military budget?
Well if we look at it that way Europe should be years ahead of us since everything there is pretty much socialized.
This country has become the greatest because its people have more freedom and less taxes than anyother country in the world.
One could also look at the fact that our strong military is what makes us a great country. Overall we still spend less out of the overal budget on defense when compared to social programs.
In Ohio for example the population has increased by .05% in 10 years while the state budget increased by 70%. This is what I call out of control spending. And Ohio does not have to pay for its military.
So, 'Rat, who paid for that college education of yours? Was it the Dept. of Defense by any chance through an amazing program called the GI bill? Isn't it true that the GI bill ended up being the greatest social and financial equalizer the US has ever known?
Didn't Bill start a program called AmeriCorps that gw basically killed? Now this program which didn't cost that much had the opportunity to do the same thing as the GI bill but instead of having to go kill people in other countries, all one would have to do is help people in this country. The amazing thing about it is its grassroots organization.
Just like the huge percentage of American troops that are not white, so is a large percentage of AmeriCorps volunteers.
My little rant, but education is no longer for those off the farm but for those just off the back nine at the country club. Some programs do work and the GI bill was and is one of them. Too bad gw isn't interested in socio-economic promotion for poor Americans.
Hate to burst your bubble, but many European countries do have a higher standard of living than we do.
Which is it? Do we pay less taxes than any other country in the world or are we overtaxed?
Lastly, I've no problem with an adequate defense. I do have a problem with wasting precious resources in nonsense like the latest incarnation of "Star Wars" or the quest for Empire.
In many ways Europe is light years ahead of us and its mix of social welfarism and private initiative has produced a healthy, highly educated population. The US lags behind Europe in many, many ways.
Our freedoms are fewer than you think when compared to many of the industrialized countries in the world and our taxes are much greater than you realize. Unfounded generalizations such as yours provide Americans with a false sense of security that is in the process of biting us in the ass right now. Please provide some links showing us those lowest taxes and highest level of freedoms.
Miltary prowess is once again a poor indicator of a great country. Rome, Germany, France, The Netherlands, Great Britain, Spain and Portugal amongst others once had great military machines. Switzerland doesn't yet has one of the highest standards of living in the world. It is also home to a multiethnic population (German, French, Italian).
What was the reason for that tax increase? Underfunded congressional mandates like the no child left behind program, perhaps? Or is it possible that Ohio's population is growing older and uses more public services? Perhaps it's the increase in crime prevention programs and incarceration rates? It's one thing to give raw stats, it's another to back them up with justification.
Zell Miller is the only Democrat that stands for something. He can see that the left has gone very looney. I respect this man.
The left just wants to turn us into Europe.
g5man, as a percentage of all federal spending, the military is way, way behind the social. (Supporting military spending at what some call a high level doesn't mean support for wasteful methods in procurement, of course.)
Ugg, you've never seen me post anything at all saying that all federal programs were bad, or even that a majority were. My objections, throughout all my posts, have been that some were duplicative, have been mis-managed, or have gone too far beyond the original Congressional mandate. Now, overall, I do maintain that the majority have become too costly for us to continue funding at present levels.