Talk Elections

Just look at his budgetary records: http://www.omb.gov

There's a lot more to being liberal or conservative than just spending.  Even if he is 'liberal' to those of us who are truly right-wing, he's a lot better than the alternative.

Bu$h is a liberal, no doubt.  I've been screaming this from the top of every building in San Francisco and they all think I'm nuts.  But, it doesn't really matter, does it?

I just got back from safeway where all reds were on sale for 20% off!  It's going to be another unproductive weekend.

On the way out, there were about 10 people with petitions spanning the range of topics from stem cell research to DNA testing by cops to two local schools closing.  I signed 'em all.  California loves populism.  So do I.

My country tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.

You just think you have a liberal now.  Wait to you get a load of the judges appointed to the federal courts by John Kerry.  Now there's a liberal.

I wouldn't call Bush a liberal.  Socially he's extremely conservative.  Economically he's irresponsible.  He cuts taxes and raises the budget.  That is just plain irresponsible.

Hey agcat,
I will say I'm into constructionist justices; whether I agree with them or not is another issue.  Right on.

All judges in my view should be moderates in the mould of the likes of Earl Warren... Warren Christopher would have been an ace Supreme court judge! the thing is Bush just appoints arch-conservatives to the bench and that upsets the balance... did Clinton actually appoint any real liberals to the bench? I would see Kerry appointing Moderates as even with a dem senate and congress moderate dems would only allow moderates while in the likely scenario of both houses being GOP there’s no way any body except moderates will get appointed... could Breaux be a contender?

How is he extremely conservative socially? He is less so than Reagan or his father. Just because he disagrees with gay marraige? So does 75% of the country, and 60% wants amendment to ban it, so theres nothing extreme about that. He disagrees with abortion. So does over 50% of the country. He disagrees with Affirmative action. So does 50% of the country. How is any of that extreme?

Earl Warren was working for the Republican party. Didn't you see the Oliver Stone movie "JFK"? He covered it up when the Republicans had Kennedy assassinated. :)

Bush traded Sammy Sosa away.

I don't know much about Bush's record in Texas but his political philosophy would be best described as, survival or strategery. Those are the dangerous philosophies he tries to follow.

I think Bush's group didn't officially get the Rangers until the year after he was traded. Oh well, I don't like the Rangers anyway

I do have my disagreements with Bush and I would say that he is liberal on some issues, such as government spending.  I wouldn't call him 'extremely conservative' socially.  Not even close.  He is right of center.  I just think that it is halarious that the libs are running around saying that he is extremely conservative.  It shows how monsterously bias they are.  I wouldn't even verture to say that Kerry is 'extremely liberal' on anything, because chances are, he will have a different stance on the issues tomorrow (sorry, had to take that dig).  Bush looks pretty pro-immigration to me.  He isn't chaining women to the kitchen sink.  So then it comes down to three issues, well four I suppose, and this is were liberals show there true colors.

1) Bush is pro-tradition families

Liberal translation- Bush is extreme

2) Bush is anti-abortion

Liberal translation- Bush is extreme

3) Bush is pro-civil union but against gay marriage

Liberal translation- Bush is extreme

4) Bush dosn't believe in abortion on demand

Liberal translation- Bush is extreme

Are we noticing a pattern here.  Liberals won't admit that there views are liberal.  Instead, 'they are moderate and conservatives are extreme.  Nader's not extreme, he's liberal'.  
I'm not saying this about all of you Dems out there, quite the contrary, there are some very fair minded Dems on this forum, but this seem s to be what I take away from discussions with most of you.

Bush is not advocating to adopt civil unions, and is not a liberal on  that issue. He is against gun control and for capital punishment (didn't he argue that Jesus supported capital punishment) and therefore can never be called a liberal. But if someone runs a smear campaign against him calling him a liberal, it is fine by me.

WOW... you totally missed my point.  My point was not that Bush was a liberal on THOSE issues, just that just because he is a conservative doesn't make him extreme like Wakie was atempting to assert.

Clinton was for capitol punishment, and Dean is against gun control

Dean or Clinton were not liberals.

Dean is a social liberal and a fiscal conservative.
Clinton is a social liberal-leaning moderate and a fiscal conservative.

But, Dean is a liberal, as he comes across as a liberal.
Clinton isn't a liberal, he came from the center-right.

What issue has Dean been a social liberal on? Maybe abortion but thats about it.

The term liberal is relative. It's differant for differant people. Clinton presented himself as a moderate. Dean presented himself as being ultra-liberal, whether he is or isnt is another story. I think they are both liberal. You think Bush is conservative. Its not a set in stone thing. All politicians form the two major parties are liberals. Its just to what degree they are liberal. However thats by American standards of what the term liberal means. To me, liberalism is based on government control. the bigger and more powerful the government, the more conservative it is. I consider myself a liberal in that I believe in absolute limited government. I am a year away from being able to vote, but I'm sure I will vote Libertarian in small local elections, because they are true liberals

Death penalty, AA, civil unions. etc.

cough , cough .... civil unions ... cough .... first in the nation ... cough ... cough

Sorry, what was i saying ;)

That's apparently close the definition of liberal in Sweden, as was pointed out in another thread.  I once offered to accept and use that definition, but there were guffaws.  I offered a more logical one.  Lots of moaning over that too.  It reminds us of the fact that in any debate the first point of order is to define all terms.   Your definition is fine, and if it holds, then bush is both quite liberal and quite conservative, like the rest of us.

Television footage of Kerry campaigning today (in San Antonio and Houston for the largest slate of delegates remaining) showed Kerry offering several alternative definitions as well.  "If it's liberal to support no child left behind, and not just with lip-service, then I'm a liberal.  If it's liberal to ... then I'm a liberal."  Ad nauseum.

But, staying on topic, our definition was succinctly implied by Rightwingnut's original question.  By his implied definition (one of my favorites) Bush's agenda is liberal.  And both Dean and Clinton are more conservative.  Kerry is also a liberal.

What's more important than fiscal discipline?

And if the Republicans can't control spending when they control the whole gov't, do they lose credibility on the fiscal discipline issue?

Well, on many of the issues others, and you, have touched on here Bush falls on the "conservative side" of the fence.

Bush is ...
*so against gay marriage he proposed a Constituitional Amendment
*so against affirmative action that his administration challenged U of Michigan's policies
*so against gun control that he is against backrgound checks for private gun sales
*VERY MUCH for the death penalty (he was Gov Death, remember?)
*promotes abstinence only sex ed (not abstinence first, abstinence ONLY)
*funds "faith-based charities" which could then use the money to promote their own religions
*appointed to the Federal Bench a Judge who suggested that segregation was a good thing
*is against stem-cell research (heck, even Nancy Reagan is FOR stem cell research!)

Heck, I challenge you to find a social position in which Bush IS NOT conservative on.  If you are conservative (or liberal) on EVERY social issue, then you can be called extremely socially conservative (or liberal).

So I stand by my statement that Bush is extremely socially conservative.

He was criticized for not supporting it earlier and only did so after Gavin Newsom decided that he was above the law.  (See Bob Novak's Dec. 2003 criticism of Bush for not agreeing to the amendment idea - http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20031201.shtml)


He's no where near as "extreme" as he should be on that issue.  He should challenge it further until government discrimination on the basis of race ends permanently.



Point taken.



He wasn't killing mental patients like Clinton was.



Again, the "base" (the 10% of our party that thinks they are the majority) thinks he's actually weak on that.



You mean not fighting charities who are actually helping people just because they were started by a religious interest?  No offense here... but how many athiest charities are there?



That's bullsh**t but he might as well... you people accuse his appointees of being racist even though they risked their lives for supporting civil rights.  With Democrats in the Senate, white southerners need not apply for judgeships.



He supported Frist's MODERATE position on the issue and was roundly criticized by the "base" for doing so.

I think a lot of Republicans are making the mistake of thinking that the 'center' should be defined as some sort of median or mean point of the American electorate. I don't think it should, it should be made with the idelogical pronciples of the 2 sides as a strating point. This means that Republicans are clearly more extreme since they seem much closer to their ideal society, both in real life and in their rethorics. Dems are further from it, thus less extreme.

 
I take it your taking the piss... sorry been in the uk too long!... ignore Stone his movies flawed... but entertaining... JFK was a somebody shot by a no body and some people think its shocking that someone so consequential could be shot and killed by some one so inconsequential... sad really... but no Earl Warren was arguably the greatest chief justice in US history... and model that many in the justice system would do well to emulate and of course Attikus Finch or Gregory Peck which ever…

I agree with that sentiment. One of the key reasons for conspiracy theories is the need for meaning behind events that humans have in a secular society. It used to be the punishment of God, now it's a big conspiracy.

No.  The center is in your head.  You can put it anywhere you want.  I always do.  And besides, that misses the entire point of the debate.  It is not one of intensity, or magnitude, or placement of a fulcrum along an arbitrary scale.  The debate is about what arbitrary scale to use.  

Bush is a liberal (as is Kerry) by virtue of the fact that they're big spenders.  That's all.  This isn't complicated.

I'll try again.  You buy a car.  It's expensive, so you buy comprehensive and collision insurance along with the state-mandated 40/20 PIP.  okay.  You wreck the car.  Dammit.  You have a 500 dollar deductible and the car has about 1700 dollars worth of damage.  So you ask for a 2200 dollar estimate from the body shop.  See how that works?  You see where I'm going with this.  You wanted a liberal estimate.  Or maybe  you want to apply sunlotion liberally on your back if you burn easily.  Or maybe you'd like a liberal amount of peanut butter on your bread (Bush likes JIF, by the way).  Conversely, if you're trying to sell your plan to install cable TV and carpeting in the state pen (after all, it's probably boring and lonely in there sometimes) you go to the voters with an underestimate hoping that, once they say yes, you can hit 'em with the real bill later.  Or if you want your wife (or mom or slut-of-the-month or whatever) to buy you something pretty, you give them a conservative estimate of the cost.  

Liberal, in this case meaning free or out-of-control, was implied by the question and by the link.  Any of you bother to look?  Conservative, then, finds it definition by contrast.  Quod erat demonstrandum.

htmldon, point by point here's my reply.

Gay Marriage -- Shouldn't the appropriate action of the government be to challenge it in the courts?  If necessary escalating it up to the Supreme Court?  And then, and only then, pushing for a Constituitional Amendment if it is defeated in the Supreme Court.

Affirmative Action, Abstinence Only, Stem Cell Research -- He takes up firm conservative positions on these.  You say some feel he isn't "conservative enough" but realistically no matter what the issue there will always be someone who says everyone who isn't as extreme as them is no good.

Death Penalty -- What "mental patients" are you claiming Clinton had executed?  If I remember correctly the only federal executions during the 90's were the Oklahoma City bombers.  Bush, on the other hand, executed a mentally retarded man in Texas.

Faith Based Charities -- While I personally am ok with the funding of these, I know that some people are uneasy with it.  But, to contradict what you said, there are several non-religious high profile charities ... March of Dimes, Ronald McDonald House, The United Way, etc.

Bush's Judges -- Well, personally I dislike the process the Democrats have used to block the nominations.  And I dislike Bush's use of recess appointments.  But sadly these are the games our politicians play.

I can live with the William Pryor appointment.  I disagree with him, but I can live with it.  Pickering, on the other hand, should not be elevated so high.

As a law student in 1959, Pickering wrote an article suggesting a way for Mississippi to strengthen its law against interracial marriage.  Soon after his law school graduation, he formed a three-person law partnership with a man who ran for governor as a "total segregationist."  Later, as a legislator serving in the all-white Mississippi state Senate, he voted against several measures intended to expand electoral opportunities for African- Americans.  He also voted to continue funding for the Sovereignty Commission, a notorious state-funded agency founded to fight desegregation in Mississippi and to spy on civil rights and union activists.

Another Bush nominee, Priscilla Owen shouldn't even be on the bench.  But we can get into her later.

As for your statement that "white southerners need not apply for judgeships" ... that is pure nonsense.  Explain how SC's Dennis Shedd, NC's Allyson Duncan, KY's Michael McConnell, TX's Ed Prado, and AL's William Steele all were confirmed then?

OK, but that's not really idelogical terms, but fair enough. I was really making another point though...

I know.  Just being an asshole.   ;)

I recognized the pattern. ;)

Warren?! A moderate? WTF?

He's the model of everything wrong with the United States judiciary!

Why is it that 99.999% of the country, basically anyone who does not work in the Senate, has no clue why these judicial nominees are being blocked? All people know is that 1) they include an oversample of women and minorities and 2) they were chosen by president Bush. This is exactly what the GOP wants the country to know, there hasn't been an argument coming from the other side- and the vote is next week.

The Democrats have screwed up once again. They should have run ads inserting the details of the nominees' past into the public spotlight. That would at least make the nation aware of the issues at hand. Instead, they've allowed the GOP senators to toe the line with absolutely no pressure at all.

So, how about that Bush guy, opebo? :)

Too bad RightWingNut is gone. I agree with him on most things.

That's about the sum of it

Dave