Are you happy with the state of your party?

[AkSaber]

Overall I'm happy. But I just feel that they should be doing more, like fixing the federal deficit or the Mexican border, and spending less and more responsibly.

[Smash255]

After barley winning re-election because of his stance against the confederate flag in Georrgia as Govenor ( I believe it was 94, but I could be wrong)  Miller vowed that he wouldm't allow the GOP to get to the right of him again.  Starting then he started a rightward shift which sped up into absurd levels in his last term.  At first he just moved right socially, byut then he went even further right socially & moved right economically as well

[angus]

Domestic Policy

One of the fundamental purposes of government is to promote the public good where the marketplace does not work to that end. Therefore, the government will assist lower and middle-class Americans to achieve basic American goals (like higher education, home ownership, investment and retirement) by providing incentives (not entitlements) to those, who (as Clinton said) “work hard and play by the rules”.
              - in the areas of land use, suburban and rural development, environmental pollution, urban planning, preservation, and housing, and open public spaces: ballot proposals and legislative consensus at the national, regional and local level should have a larger role in determining policy, and financial incentives (rather than regulations) should be primarily used in implementing it.


Foreign Policy

America is still the best example to the world of what a democratic and diverse society looks like in terms of opportunity, tolerance, and basic inalienable rights. Our foreign interest should be to promote world political stability and opportunity for the poor by opposing tyranny and supporting true democratic political movements that support religious and ethnic tolerance and freedom of markets and the press. We should achieve our foreign policy goals through alliance and diplomacy when possible, but should pursue our goals unilaterally and through military strength when necessary.
             - our military must grow, and its members accorded respect in the society at large. It must therefore be invested with the best selection process, training, equipment and discipline.

Really, policies like these are a pre-Vietnam American attitude associated with classic post-industrial liberalism, and articulated by the great 20th century Democratic Presidents: Wilson, FDR, Truman, and Kennedy.

I'd support that (mostly).  I agree that this is the best example of a widely diverse people living in harmony the universe has ever known, and that our military might and military technology should be second to none, and that we must generally be responsible stewards of the ecology (though a mix of federal and local control is necessary in some cases).  I especially like the conspicuous (intentional?) absence of "wedge-issue policy"  Both parties would be wise to get out of the business of "social" issues.

"all scientists are pawns of the military.  you might as well have a choice in which one."
  --Albert Einstein (upon defection from Germany to the USA)

Goddamned right, albert! 

[Rob]

I already posted here, but I didn't give my opinion on the thread topic. Both parties are horrible; I'm currently leaning toward the Democrats, however, since they're not in power.

[Democratic Hawk]

As a member of the Labour Party I am rather happy .

Ditto

Dave

[DanielX]

Not really. The Republicans are too dominated by southern populists, who don't give a damn about the economy and run on social issues only. Doesn't anyone remember Reagan, who actually held non-defense spending down in the eighties? How about Barry 'I don't care if our soldiers are straight, as long as they shoot straight' Goldwater? 

[Rob]

Not really. The Republicans are too dominated by southern populists, who don't give a damn about the economy and run on social issues only. Doesn't anyone remember Reagan, who actually held non-defense spending down in the eighties? How about Barry 'I don't care if our soldiers are straight, as long as they shoot straight' Goldwater? 

I completely agree. The economic illiterates of the fundamentalist bloc have succeeded in making the GOP lurch to the left on economics and right on social issues. W. is the ideal man for those "populists", but true conservatives are going to have to look elsewhere.

[Colin]

Not really. The Republicans are too dominated by southern populists, who don't give a damn about the economy and run on social issues only. Doesn't anyone remember Reagan, who actually held non-defense spending down in the eighties? How about Barry 'I don't care if our soldiers are straight, as long as they shoot straight' Goldwater? 

I completely agree. The economic illiterates of the fundamentalist bloc have succeeded in making the GOP lurch to the left on economics and right on social issues. W. is the ideal man for those "populists", but true conservatives are going to have to look elsewhere.

I have to agree with both of you here.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Not really. The Republicans are too dominated by southern populists, who don't give a damn about the economy and run on social issues only. Doesn't anyone remember Reagan, who actually held non-defense spending down in the eighties? How about Barry 'I don't care if our soldiers are straight, as long as they shoot straight' Goldwater? 

I completely agree. The economic illiterates of the fundamentalist bloc have succeeded in making the GOP lurch to the left on economics and right on social issues. W. is the ideal man for those "populists", but true conservatives are going to have to look elsewhere.

Left on economic issues? I don't think so. Every single Republican Senator voted for the bankruptcy bill.