New conservative movement?

[Lobotomy Boy]

If a goofball like Jesse Ventura can "steal" an election in a state as solidly Democratic as Minnesota was in 1998, imagine what a solid third-party candidate could steal.

I'm not real excited about the potential replacement for Dayton. Maybe this would be a good slot for a third-party candidate. Maybe Sue Jeffers should abandon her quest for governer and go after the Senate. I like her, but don't think she will have much of a chance against Pawlenty.

 

[seeker_two]

Puppy: The biggest reason I vote Constitution Party is that I LIKE THE PLATFORM they support. Of all the political parties (R, D, & third-party), they are closest to what I believe in--conservative policy, strict interpretation of the Constitution, and severely limited federal government--and they hold their candidates to the platform.

Suprisingly, much of their platform is what Reagan supported back in the '80's (and that both Bushes worked hard to disassemble as soon as they got power). It worked then, and I believe it will work now.

If the Republicans want my vote back, they know where they have to go to get it.

And, if you like the platform, I welcome you to join me there. If not, find a party platform you like and support it--but PLEASE STAND FOR SOMETHING. If all you want to do on Election Day is vote for a "winner", skip the polls and go to the horse track...

 

[XMP]

Effect of Hilary

Don't get me wrong, I'd hate for Hilary to become president. But if she did maybe it would at least arouse gun owners from their appalling apathy. There are more than 70 million US gun owners and less than 3 million are NRA members. Imagine what a force these gun owners could be if they sent a collective message to the Republican party. We might even have a national "Vermont Carry" law, the right the Constitution guarentees.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Puppy,

allow me to be clear about Hillary.

I do not support any of her politics, and would be afraid of her in the White House. I would be much less afraid of her if the Republicans controlled at least one house of the Congress.

If my choice was McCain or Giuliani with a Republican congress, or Hillary with a Republican Congress, I would prefer Hillary.

 

[RealGun]

What's with all of the third party political recruitment posts?

They have become so incessant that they have become almost like McDonalds commercials on television (all of them are the same and you have to endure one every 15 minutes).

One person's mantra is another person's propaganda.

 

[Sinsaba]

I could be wrong but I think it is already too late. I can't imagine anything the Republican party would do that would redeem them in my eyes. On the other hand, I can't think of anything the Democrats can do that would redeem them in my eyes. You see, the problem to me seems to be that once politicians get to Washington they forget just what their job is. Their job is to represent the people of the United States. Their job is to carry out the will of the people of the United States. Their job is to defend the Constitution of the US. They generally seem to feel that their job is to get reelected so they can do what they think is best and vote accordingly.

If enough of us vote 3rd party in November (I plan to), the Dems will get Congress. A number of them have already said that they will start impeachment proceedings against Bush if they get in, I assume we can trust them to do that much. If succeed or not, I think all of the above will give the Republicans a clear message as to the displeasure of the people that normally vote for them. Since it seems that this is all that politicians are interested in there might be a positive swing in the direction of their thinking.

I don't know if they will turn things around enough to get elected in '08. If they do, I think they will be more effective for having been spanked by their base. If they don't woe be unto us. The repercussions of having the Democrats in power are hard to imagine. We lose the war on terror (I can only begin to imagine how many innocent civilians will die in this country if that happens), we lose our culture to the flood of people from the south whose only desire is to take whatever they can get from this country, take it home to Mexico, and live rich. In essence, we lose the American way of life.

However, if we can't change the way the Republicans are acting Is say in the same seriousness that I said above "woe be unto us". I can't see the people of this country having any kind of life unless conservative (I didn't say or mean Republican) principals are followed.

The stakes are too high not to spank the Republican politicians. I might be wrong in these beliefs, but I'm not uncertain about them.

 

[Henry Bowman]

After the mid term ('06) elections, we may see Newt Gingrich show up and forma another "Conrect With America"-type coalition. A package Pres/Congress that agree to a certain adgenda. I think that is the Republicans best chance in '08. Not Newt, specifically. But a deal like he led in 1994.

 

[RealGun]

If they do, I think they will be more effective for having been spanked by their base.

I think when it comes down to actually voting, that "base" who helps finance campaigns is not all that unhappy. Their investments are doing well. "It's the economy, stupid." The problem will be with the rest of the electorate who think they are voting someone off a reality show, clueless about real issues except what they have been told to think by the press.

 

[XMP]

I think when it comes down to actually voting, that "base" who helps finance campaigns is not all that unhappy. Their investments are doing well. "It's the economy, stupid."

Anyone who thinks their investments are doing well, doesn't grasp what is happening to the purchasing power of their dollars, for which the current Republican party is just as responsible, if not more so, than the previous Democratic regimes.

We could defend our borders for a lot less than we are spending on the war on terrorism (which is the rightful mission of an army in a democratic republic). As far as Iraq, we could have accomplished almost everything necessary with a few good scout/sniper teams without further gutting our own economic future.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

As far as Iraq, we could have accomplished almost everything necessary with a few good scout/sniper teams without further gutting our own economic future.

That assumes that our goal was to accomplish what the Administration said it wanted to accomplish. Given how much the history of why we went to war has been revised since the war began, you have to wonder what our real goals were. First it was WMDs. Now apparently we are supposed to foget about WMDs and accept that we went to war so we could fight terrorism over there instead of over here. Who knows what the next reason for going to war will be? It doesn't really matter; given how fluid the Administration has been with the truth in the past, it doesn't seem a good bet to believe their excuses in the future.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

I probably shouldn't be in this conversation, because I'm not a conservative. But you might be interested in some things I have to say. I have voted third party for years out of disgust with the Democrats. I'm very aware that it was left-of-center 3rd party voters that gave the election to Bush last time. I often hear from friends that wonder if I feel guilty about helping elect the worst president ever. My answer is "No." The corporate DLC RIEBN Clinton mafia needed to be taught a lesson and I was glad to do so. I will continue to do so as long as we get their ilk from the party.

Both major parties are tag-teaming us out of all of our liberties. The Dems are a little more quick to take away 2A rights, while the Reps are a bit quicker on everything else. Not that there aren't decent people in either party. If they give me a decent candidate, they'll get my vote.

 

[RealGun]

Anyone who thinks their investments are doing well, doesn't grasp what is happening to the purchasing power of their dollars, for which the current Republican party is just as responsible, if not more so, than the previous Democratic regimes. - XMP

Purchasing power is better than ever thanks to cheap foreign labor. Inflation rates have been very mild for years now, somewhat less so lately.

We could defend our borders for a lot less than we are spending on the war on terrorism (which is the rightful mission of an army in a democratic republic).

Both are worthy goals, so I don't see your point.

As far as Iraq, we could have accomplished almost everything necessary with a few good scout/sniper teams without further gutting our own economic future.

We don't assassinate leaders of foreign countries.

The war in Iraq is mostly about creating a favorable environment for international trade, both in that country and the entire region. I am not sure about Afghanistan, since they don't seem to offer more than poppy seeds or maybe a place for a strategic military base.

In case you hadn't noticed, every time the economy is in the doldrums, somebody starts a war, or maybe I should say a "military action".

 

[dmallind]

Yes, normal equities/funds investors must be positively gaga over their 2.2% COMPOUND 5 and a half year return under shrubbie especially compared to that disgraceful 319% in the comparable section of Clinton's term. (measured by using DJIA - I'd use NASDAQ but you'd accuse me of cheating as it looks many TIMES worse)

Or are you assuming that you can pass off a slow recovery form the plummetting economic decline Bush precipitated as a dynamic gain from its own nadir? So if I steal 1/3 of your money and then hand it back to you very slowly over a few years you'd call that unparalleled generosity on my part? That's all this regime has done for investors in general markets.

Now of course gold speculators who either got lucky or knew that our disastrous borrowing, to fund crusades in the Middle East, Voodoo economics part deux and runaway Federal spending including a manifold increase in pork barrel earmarks, would collapse the dollar and make everybody go nuts looking for a cash substitute with some kind of future value did very well indeed.

 

[RealGun]

Yes, normal equities/funds investors must be positively gaga over their 2.2% COMPOUND 5 and a half year return under shrubbie especially compared to that disgraceful 319% in the comparable section of Clinton's term. (measured by using DJIA - I'd use NASDAQ but you'd accuse me of cheating as it looks many TIMES worse)

That seems a shabby argument, considering that what really happened is the tech stock bubble burst, post Y2K, accelerated by 9/11. Bush was handed a recession in the making. Since the post 9/11 bottom out, my own funds have increased by 50%, although I should say "recovered". And those funds are very conservative with not particularly good performance compared to the market as a whole. A fair measure would be the rate of recovery from the recession and post 9/11 decline. If the Bush administration presides over a period of confident investment, it is doing something right, not wrong.

 

[dmallind]

Ermm. The tech bubble burst a year or more before Clinton left office. The DJIA isn't that heavy into tech stocks, and it was declining rapidly before 9/11 - down over 1250 points from when GWB inherited it. That overused excuse is both outdated and incorrect.

Notice the recovery AFTER 9/11 followed by a far more serious decline caused simply by economic mismanagement

 

[RealGun]

The market peaked in the spring of 2000, after the election. I know, because that was the high point for the supposedly diversified value of my retirement funds. Turns out that they were very heavy into techs like everyone else. Oops. The value dropped dramatically after 9/11. In any case, the tech stocks were certainly not the only game but were the ones that were way over valued.

It was you that wanted to focus on the Dow. My comments have not been bound by that.

 

[RealGun]

I believe the bottom in you graph plot corresponds to the war in Iraq. It goes on to portray the recovery nicely. Presiding over a strong or at least resilient economy is something you simply cannot take away from George Bush.

 

[gunsmith]

puppy

Look neither one of them (McCain nor Giuliani) are my first choices either, as they are much more moderate than I am, but they are not openly hostile (ie: vehemently opposed) to conservative values.

Thats the funniest joke I've heard all day, you got any others?

 

[dmallind]

I believe the bottom in you graph plot corresponds to the war in Iraq. It goes on to portray the recovery nicely. Presiding over a strong or at least resilient economy is something you simply cannot take away from George Bush.

Nope - the bottom is before March 2003. There was no major conflict going on during the worst of the decline. Afghanistan was already at least militarily and centrally under control and there was no invasion of Iraq yet.

And sure I'll grant your last sentence if and only if you acknoweldge that Clinton's results were, wuite literally by this measure, 150 times better.

Bottom line is the major indices have been slightly down to VERY slightly up under Bush, but all at least tripled in Clinton's tenure.

Now if you don't want me to focus on the Dow should we look at unemployment rates and their respective changes? Budget deficits? gas prices? Inflation? Balance of payments? Exactly WHAT meaningful economic indicator has done even a significant fraction as well under Bush as opposed to Clinton?

Now sure in this forum people for the most part may prefer Bush's social policies, foreign policy, response to terrorism - all those things. Most of them are subjective and most can be argued either way but macroeconomically? There is no cogent argument possible that Bush has been anything but a major downgrade for the US economy compared to his predecessor.

 

[dmallind]

The market peaked in the spring of 2000, after the election

I think the first clause is correct from memory, but what election was that?

 

[RealGun]

My election year reference was incorrect, but I was recalling the peak as after the 2000 election.

I never compared Bush to Clinton because one presided over a quite different part of the cycle than the other, and Clinton did not have a 9/11. I never said my Republican is better than your Democrat. I only meant to defend the economic recovery as fact, which I believe is due very much to Bush's homeland security response, tax cuts, and the exuberance brought on by a business-friendly GOP administration and Congress. I know better than to give any President complete credit or blame for what happens in the stock market.

 

[JN01]

Even if by some MIRACLE a third party candidate was elected President, it would accomplish nothing. Any agenda he had in mind would have to be passed by a Republican/Democrat Congress. It's the office of the President, not the Emperor (although apparently the Pres gets sole credit/blame for the economy no matter what he does or doesn't do).

Vote third party or stay home to "send a message", but in order for it to be effective, the person to whom you are sending it has to give a crap about what you think. If 10% of eligible voters decide the election rather than the usual 25%, the SOBs will just play toward that 10% and write off the rest.

I like the concept of a third party ascending, but it seems the deck is so overwhelmingly stacked against it.

 

[dmallind]

AGAIN the drop came before 9/11 and then dropped again AFTER the recovery from the rather short lived economic effects thereof. That excuse has no basis in fact whatsoever for any kind of long term impact on the economy, either in the sense of GDP growth or market indices. Continuing to use that refrain demostrates either an inability to see facts even when I print out the charts for you or a dishonest debating tactic using already debunked claims.

And nope - just checked - DJIA was at it's highest in early 2000 - actually a bit before Spring so my recollection is wrong too. Jan 14th.

 

[dmallind]

Assuming that's at least in part directed at me JN01 please note I am simply using Bush as shorthand for the COMPLETELY Republican government he has presided over. Didn't the right wing say it was really the Rep Congress that gave us the 90s great years (even though the economy and budgets improved under Clinton with a Dem Congress too)? So who is to blame for the collapse and resulting 2.2% 5yr returns done entirely under Republicans,. when Congress has not radically altered one WH fiscal prposal and GWB has not vetoed one single bill?

Presidents cannot really MAKE economic success happen singlehandedly, and yes Clinton was helped by a lot of people - some of them Republicans. They can however screw it up almost singlehandedly, but here too Bush had help to be honest - but very little indeed from Democrats, who are excluded from any power at all in this administration and recent congresses, and are as such in no way to get the blame or credit as you may prefer.

Clinton managed to steer an economy that improved every year, with both Dem and Rep Congresses, measured both in budget deficit/surplus, GDP, and stock gains for all but the last year, which really was mostly for the tech bubble.

Bush.....has not done quite as well.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

Or are you assuming that you can pass off a slow recovery form the plummetting economic decline Bush precipitated as a dynamic gain from its own nadir?

Worked for Reagan...