Veteran Minnesota Republican backing Kerry

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

http://ap.brainerddispatch.com/pstories/state/mn/20040622/2252519.shtml

[12th Doctor]

(shrug)  Ed Koch is backing Bush.

[Alfie]

http://ap.brainerddispatch.com/pstories/state/mn/20040622/2252519.shtml

Good article.  And of course, he is right:

""This is really just a very personal feeling on my part that the current administration simply did not represent the direction of the country that I would like to go," said Stringer, 69, a former chief of staff to Gov. Arne Carlson.

Stringer, a lawyer in the Minneapolis law firm of Briggs & Morgan, cited Bush's policies on issues ranging from Iraq to the environment.

"There's hardly anything that this current administration has done that I would stand up and salute, including tax cuts and right down the line," Stringer said."

Expect more and more defections.  This Bush/Ceney "Ship of Fools" in sinking, and fast.


- igwt

[??????????]

http://ap.brainerddispatch.com/pstories/state/mn/20040622/2252519.shtml

Good article.  And of course, he is right:

""This is really just a very personal feeling on my part that the current administration simply did not represent the direction of the country that I would like to go," said Stringer, 69, a former chief of staff to Gov. Arne Carlson.

Stringer, a lawyer in the Minneapolis law firm of Briggs & Morgan, cited Bush's policies on issues ranging from Iraq to the environment.

"There's hardly anything that this current administration has done that I would stand up and salute, including tax cuts and right down the line," Stringer said."

Expect more and more defections.  This Bush/Ceney "Ship of Fools" in sinking, and fast.


- igwt

Another nobody endorsement.

[The Duke]

Why was this guy a Republican in the first place if he isn't a hawk or a tax-cutter?

[Alfie]

Why was this guy a Republican in the first place if he isn't a hawk or a tax-cutter?

Despite evidence to the contrary, not all Pugs are idiots.

- Alfie

[The Duke]

Why was this guy a Republican in the first place if he isn't a hawk or a tax-cutter?

Despite evidence to the contrary, not all Pugs are idiots.

- Alfie

I would expect somone calling themself a Republican to share at least SOME of the values of his Party.

[??????????]

Why was this guy a Republican in the first place if he isn't a hawk or a tax-cutter?

Despite evidence to the contrary, not all Pugs are idiots.

- Alfie

I would expect somone calling themself a Republican to share at least SOME of the values of his Party.

Ford, ignore this troll. He's really not worth it.

[Ben.]

Why was this guy a Republican in the first place if he isn't a hawk or a tax-cutter?

In all fairness you don’t need to be a Hawk and a tax cutter to be a Republican, a large number of republicans (not nearly a majority) are inclined towards isolationism and are keen to balance the budget first and cut taxes second in their commitment to creating a “small government”.

Like the Democratic Party the Republican Party is a coalition, with Southern Conservatives, Western and Northern Libertarians, Midwestern Populist and a vast majority of them highly patriotic. The Democrats on the other hand are a more disparate group, Ethnic Minorities, Costal Liberals, Southern and Midwestern Populists, Organised Labour and Environmentalists.

But I must admit this guy seems to be pretty much a libertarian Republican, but then again that is true of a great many Republicans in states like WI, IA and MN and also NH, VT and ME, but it should also be remembered that MN, WI and IA are all slowly trending towards the GOP and that while this guy is unimportant it’s a reminder that while, say Reagan was able to bring together the Western (Libertarian) and Southern (Populist) wings of the GOP Bush finds it very easy to antagonise the social moderates and budget Hawks that form the Western wing of the GOP and this element within the party will probably grow as the attitudes in states like MN begin to move gradually rightwards.                  

[CARLHAYDEN]

Ben,

With all due respect I must disagree with the specifics of the individual cited in this thread.

He is more a John Lindsay (haha) pseudorepublican.

Libertarian oriented conservatives want LESS government and are a little unhappy that Bush has grown the government.

The Minnesota character supports Kerry, who would grow the government even more than Bush.  He is NOT libertarian oriented in any way whatsoever.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

actually considering that the size of the federal government decreased under Clinton and increased under Bush that's not neccesarily true.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Wrong.

First, the "decrease" in employees occured in the Defense department, not other departments.

Second, federal expenditures did NOT decrease.

Third, mandates on the states increased under Clinton (a way of having your cake and eating it too).

[Alfie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/b]

Oh.  Those qualities.  Pug qualities.  Yeah, let me look at my readout on ths chump...  let's see.. just a minute... HANG ON! ......

Okay, here's his rap sheet:  "wife beater, drunk, dresses in underwear of the female pursuasion, stepped over his own mother to win election, cocaine addict, friend of Saddam, slept in Lincoln bedroom (WITH Hillary!), divorced wife while she was on death bed --  WAIT!  scratch that -- that's Newt's rap sheet... let's see... that's about all I got on the guy.


- Alfie

[MarkDel]

Wrong.

First, the "decrease" in employees occured in the Defense department, not other departments.

Second, federal expenditures did NOT decrease.

Third, mandates on the states increased under Clinton (a way of having your cake and eating it too).

Carl,

Forget about it, guys like Better Red are not interested in facts, only spewing something they heard from their favorite left wing pundit. The stats say you're 100% correct on this one.

[Alfie]

Wrong.

First, the "decrease" in employees occured in the Defense department, not other departments.

Second, federal expenditures did NOT decrease.

Third, mandates on the states increased under Clinton (a way of having your cake and eating it too).

You and BRTD are both right, sort of.  A-76'ing (outsourcing of government employee's work to contractors) was put in place during Regan's last term, but it really took off with Clinton/Gore.  I can't recall the exact numbers, but under the "National Performance Review" (aka "Reinventing Government -- as if inventing it weren't sufficient cause for being shot on sight), Clinton claimed to have reduced the size of the federal workforce by 250,000.  Technically true, but he failed to mention that at least as many -- probably more -- contractors were hired to do the work previously done by feds, and at higher cost.

As to the DoD side of the government, true also: the largest reductions in the federal workforce occured within DoD.  However, I don't know how many contractors were hired.  

I will say, and it is now clear, that A-76 certainly helped the Bush/Scummy Rummy crew get a boatload of contractor dirtbags to act as interrogrators in Iraq.  Anything for a buck.


"Another meaningless post brought to you by..."
- Alfie

[The Duke]

Wrong.

First, the "decrease" in employees occured in the Defense department, not other departments.

Second, federal expenditures did NOT decrease.

Third, mandates on the states increased under Clinton (a way of having your cake and eating it too).

You and BRTD are both right, sort of.  A-76'ing (outsourcing of government employee's work to contractors) was put in place during Regan's last term, but it really took off with Clinton/Gore.  I can't recall the exact numbers, but under the "National Performance Review" (aka "Reinventing Government -- as if inventing it weren't sufficient cause for being shot on sight), Clinton claimed to have reduced the size of the federal workforce by 250,000.  Technically true, but he failed to mention that at least as many -- probably more -- contractors were hired to do the work previously done by feds, and at higher cost.

As to the DoD side of the government, true also: the largest reductions in the federal workforce occured within DoD.  However, I don't know how many contractors were hired.  

I will say, and it is now clear, that A-76 certainly helped the Bush/Scummy Rummy crew get a boatload of contractor dirtbags to act as interrogrators in Iraq.  Anything for a buck.


"Another meaningless post brought to you by..."
- Alfie

Cuts in DoD personnel was not a result of outsourcing labor to private companies.  There was a real and significant reduction in the force structure (8 Army Division, 4 Carrier Battle Groups, 250 Warships, and 12 Air Wings of the USAF were eliminated), and this totaled a cut of about 700,000 active duty military personnel.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Thank for you correcting the misrepresentation of my earlier post.