the politicians: good, bad, and ugly

this is where we are now. republicans have become fat and lazy with incumbency. democrats have pandered to the unhinged. so…whose party has more hope of a quick recovery? my vote goes to the republicans. it’s easier to recover from what ails the republicans than it is for the democrats to extricate themselves from their love affair with their passionate left-wing contingent.both sides are out of touch with what their average members believe.

the democrats are not accurately represented by codepink, daily kos and DU, and the average moonbat hippie socialist. i’m guessing that the average democrat probably isn’t happy about the fact that howard dean is in charge and speaking for their party. none of the democrats who want to be president in ’08 have shown the ability to lead their party back to becoming a legitimate alternative to the republicans. take this to the bank: they will never achieve that goal until they get rid of howard dean and appeal to their non-moonbat base.

now to the republicans. they are a deeply flawed party at this point. they have become comfortable with the status quo and they need a wake-up call. hopefully this can take place without a massive voter revolt against them in the ’06 primaries. these are some of the issues the republicans need to address and make central to their campaigns. spending must be cut as well as taxes. border security must be dealt with. if they took any money from abramoff, they must take responsibility for that decision, and return any unethical donations. being accountable to the voters who elected them is something both parties need to work on if they want to keep their jobs.

i think it’s more likely that the republicans can get past their current struggles as long as they don’t take the democrats for granted. as for the democrats, i wish them a whole lot of luck. they have to replace howard dean, gag hillary, reid and kennedy, and stop pandering to kos and his ideological twins. i almost forgot something important: get a plan that doesn’t just consist of opposing the president’s policies that would also present a positive view of america. that’s a tall order.

11 thoughts on “the politicians: good, bad, and ugly

  1. “itΒ’s easier to recover from what ails the republicans than it is for the democrats to extricate themselves from their love affair with their passionate left-wing contingent.”

    You are kidding, right?
    The Goppers’ “love affair” seems to be with payoffs and general Police State aspirations-they’re never too busy stealing to not have the time to watch what you’re doing in the bedroom or listen to who you’re talking to.

    Give me the frigging liberals any day of the week.

  2. Jolly Roger,

    Let’s not kid ourselves here. Both Republicans AND Democrats take money from lobbyists. Does it really matter than the Republicans may have taken more money from them? It would still be wrong if those gifts and perks directly influenced policy decisions. It doesn’t matter whether the person was a Republican or a Democrat.

    As far as the police state, I have to disagree about that. Cultural conservatives have strong opinions about things like abortion and gay marriage, but I don’t think that supporting their views on these issues means that we want the government to control every aspect of our lives. I suppose reasonable people could (and do) disagree about the legality or the necessity of bypassing FISA, but to me it’s all about results. Are there attacks we have thwarted by listening in on these phone calls? That’s an important question to ask. In addition to that, it’s not clear to me whether any specific individual’s civil rights were violated in the process of doing this wiretapping. The discussions about this have been purely hypothetical at this point.

    I do think that we need to be careful that the government does not infringe on the civil liberties that we enjoy as Americans. I just don’t agree that the actions of the Bush administration prove that America is becoming a police state.

  3. I think you know I’m one of the first to slam my party when they cater to the left wing. There’s a lot within party ranks I don’t agree with. But I will have to bring up the same quote that Jolly does, for different reasons, because I think you omit what actually is ailing the Republican Party and that being corruption.

    Sure the Republicans love out of control spending and lobbyist money, but the real ailment to the party is the fact that the entire Republican leadership is either indicted and awaiting trial or under federal investigation awaiting indictment.

    I do think the Republicans stand a better shot in the midterms than the Dems for a number of reasons, however. One is because the Dems are not organized. They are like an animal with 6 heads all trying to take the lead. The main reason though is the gerrymandered maps. They entirely favor the Repubs. And because of the maps, I think, the Repubs will not lose either of their majorities in the house or senate.

    I think at worst the Repubs will lose one senate seat and break even in the house. At best the Repubs will lose one senate seat and gain one or two in the house.

    Though I do contend corruption is the cancer in the Republican party with one of its symptons being the out of control spending sprees. For the Dems, I think they are just out of touch with reality and are clueless as how to even get corrupt.

    All my thoughts of course, and that might be the most partisan I’ve sounded in quite some time. Well, back to work…

  4. MJ,

    I guess you missed the part where I mentioned Abramoff. πŸ˜› I will grant you this much…that I probably didn’t give the corruption angle as much “ink” as it deserved. I still think my overall point is correct, even with a stronger emphasis on corruption. We shall see what happens with all these indictments, because I don’t think all of them are legitimate. The prosecutor working on the DeLay affair is a known political hack with more than enough motivation to bring him down. If there are legitimate abuses of power and position, fine, let’s throw the book at ’em. But I’m not sure this is true in every single indictment.

    I love that line about the animal with six heads. LOL on that. Your analysis of the Democrats is absolutely correct. I agree totally with what you said there.

    I wish that THIS wasn’t the post you chose to comment on, since I was mostly just posting some random rant I came up with. Oh well.

  5. I’m sorry, which post is it that you would like for me to comment on? I prefer picking my battles, though πŸ™‚

    I think if any of the indictments is factual it is the DeLay indictment. The prosecutor on the DeLay indictment is no more of a political hack than the prosecutor who worked on the Clinton investigation. I’ll gladly agree that the DeLay indictment is every bit as political as the Starr Report. I get confused when people blame politics because in Washington everything is political.

    But I do agree with you that the Republicans will fare better in November than the Dems.

  6. It’s pretty obvious to me that some of the charges brought against DeLay were suspect. I will have to look at that again to get specific about it, but that is my understanding of what happened in TX. I don’t have any particular fondness for Tom DeLay. So I have no ulterior motive in questioning the whole process involved with his indictment.

    I’m biased against Clinton. Bet you never would have figured that out. But I’m not sure exactly what we accomplished by appointing a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton. Of course it was politically motivated. I’m just not sure that Ken Starr was as much of a political hack as the prosecutor in the DeLay indictment. I am willing to change my mind on this, if I hear a good opposing argument.

    I’m not a conspiracy theorist. You know that. That said, I am convinced that some bad stuff went on behind the scenes at the Clinton White House, and we will probably never know even half of it.

  7. if the best the Dems can put up is Hillary the Republicans can have at least another 4 years. dick needs to resign for health reasons next year (or die so it wouldn’t look like a conspiracy) so Condi would have a good launching pad.

  8. Susdaddy,

    I wouldn’t be so quick to underestimate Hillary. She’s still a threat, and the Republicans shouldn’t take her for granted. I’m not sure that Condi could beat Hillary, regardless of what Dick Morris says. I’m also not convinced that Condi is conservative on social issues. This will have to be looked at carefully before we consider her a serious contender. It’s also not 100% that she is even running. If she was conservative on social issues, then I would love to see her as the Republican nominee. That’s just something we really can’t say for sure. I’m not sure how much Cheney resigning would help a potential Condi candidacy. I also don’t think it’s necessary for Cheney to resign.

  9. I think you’re right. Both parties seem to be off track, but I think it will be the Republicans that will get their act together first. More and more are distancing themselves from President Bush, and as long as that continues for the 2006 and 2008 elections, hopefully all will go well.

  10. Charlie,

    Whether it’s the right thing to do or not, it is the politically smart thing to do for the Republicans at least with Bush’s unfavorability rating being where it is. In an ideal world, I would like the Republicans who are speaking out against Bush’s policies to do so on principle, not because those policies are unpopular. I’m not sure that this is true of all his Republican opposition and suspect that it has more to do with political calculation than deep-rooted beliefs.

Comments are closed.