The timid Democrats
Wednesday May 31, 2006
The Democrats aren't sure what to do next. Some say the party should hang back and let the Republicans hang themselves -- in other words, run simply on "Had enough?" Others say the party should press forward with a bold...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
The Supreme Crunchy: " the party should press forward with a bold agenda "
And what, pray tell, will that "bold agenda" be? Seriously, I am wondering what you think they're going to come up with.
Here are my guesses:
(1) Abortion rights, forever and indissoluable.
(2) Homosexual marriage, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum.
(3) Higher taxes (no surprises here).
(4) Mo' freebies for the official "victim classes".
(4) Reinstate "Equal time", to rid the Earth of the scourge of "talk radio".
(5) Demilitarization, to keep France Happy at all costs.
(6) "Luke, use the United Nations!"
Of course, I can be wrong on these guesses, but I am interested in hearing your take on it.>
"when the public faces of your party are Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean and Hillary Rodham Clinton, you've got a long way to go to sell any agenda."
As opposed to John McCain, Rick Santorum, and Tom DeLay?
Democrats have a message problem, but fortunately so do Republicans. Republicans are so splintered, they can't even figure out which was is up and who to toss money at. Do they listen to the theocratic wing, the neocons, or the wealthy capitalists?>
1. Universal health insurance for all Americans.
2. Real lobby reform.
3. Gun laws that make sense.
4. Taxes to get us out of the hole the GOP has dug. Paying for things that you purchase is the mature and responsible way for adults to behave.
5. Diplomacy and working with other nations to verify intelligence before you bomb countries and spend years and billions nation building.
6. Reorganize FEMA and other agencies that are in a shamble.
7. Never sell war to the American people by feeding them scary information that's possibly not true.
8. Never get even with people who tell the truth by vindictively outing agents.
9. Equal rights to all citizens and not treating homosexuals as second class citizens.
10. Reproductive health between a women and her physician.>
Let's translate watsy for regular folk:
1. Goverment control of health insurance "womb to the tomb".
2. Corrupt government legalized.
3. Register all firearms.
4. Taxes. Spend. Taxes. Spend...
5. Even more wars, only this time they are in Africa.
6. More agencies - now unionized!
7. Wars: with blue helmets.
8. Use agencies like the IRS to pound political opposition.
9. Homosexuals will marry in every state via federal law.
10. The evil of partial birth abortion enforced and soon: why not kill 'em even after we cut the cord? It's my choice!
It's funny; I'm pretty liberal on many of these issues, crunchy type (like subsidized health care, anti-war, etc.) but hearing watsy tell it makes my skin crawl.
Oh, and didn't you forget no oil drilling? Sorry, it would go: no more raping the enviornment so rich people can drive SUV's...>
Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean and Hillary Rodham Clinton.... I have problems with the first two and respect the third. Any day of the week - and I stress any day - they are better than George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Sen. Frist, Rick Santorum, Ralph Reed, etc.>
Wow, David. That's so negative. Are regular folks really that negative?
I'm not a policy writer and don't have the governmental expertise to give you a detailed outline of how it should look. But I'm certainly not saying that the Democratic Party should stick with the Republican Party's way of doing things and make it worse.
I have hope that bad things can be turned around.
I understand that Massachusettes has developed universal state health insurance. Maybe something like what they've developed, but on a federal scale. Or, maybe encourage each state to develop a plan to eliminate the problem.
Gun control- registering guns is a good thing. Doing background checks is good. I read an article about how people who shouldn't have guns in the inner city get them and solutions such as limiting people to buying one gun/month would help to reduce(not eliminate) the problem. Don't you think that being permitted to buy one gun/month is pretty reasonable? And what about the machine gun legislation that the Republicans permitted to expire. Do you really think that every day citizens should be allowed to buy machine guns?
I would hate for the Democratic party to be the party of war. So, no, invading Africa is not what I have in mind. Heck, I don't see how to get our men out of Iraq. I think that our country would be better off if the Republicans gave up on this idea of throwing bombs to encourage people not to think about hurting us. I, certainly, don't want the Democrats to adopt that>
And doesn't tax spend seem to be a little more mature than borrow and spend?
But, no. I'm thinking that someone, someday, could get real. How about stopping the earmarks on all of the bills to cut the pork spending. Like that bridge that they're building in Alaska. What was that? Federal spending of half a billion so that people can drive to some little island that houses less than a couple hundred people.
What I'm thinking is that the Democrats could be socially moderate to socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Kind of like Clinton.>
Watsy, you forgot one: reinstitution of the "warrant" requirement.>
None of these choices sound very appealing, especially if Democrats continue to support abortion on demand and tax-payer funded abortion. I can't get over Clinton's vetoes of the partial birth abortion ban. I can't trust a party can't see the evil of taking a baby, that could survive outside the womb, partially birthing it, stabbing the back of its head with scissors, and sucking its brains out.
Maybe Peggy Noonan is correct in that the time is right for a new politically party. ">http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110008453>
I think Dean has made clear that he doesn't want a positive national agenda going into the election. Pelosi and some others seem to desire it. I think Dean is right. Unfortunately with elections you are put in the position of voting against ideas more often than you are put in the position of voting for ideas. Unrestrained conservatism in its current form is quite frankly dangerous. The train is already leaving the station for conservatives eager to invade Iran. We have seen the dollar lose 40% of its value versus the Euro over the past 5 years. Overall, conservatives have shown themselves unserious in dealing with budgetary, taxing, and spending issues. I'm all for cutting taxes, but it's just idiocy doing so when spending is rising over 8% a year.>
I think that many Democrats would support some limitations on abortion. I don't like it when I hear Republicans say that Democrats support abortion on demand because it makes it sound like their aren't restrictions in place at present. Personally, I don't like the idea of the government(people) making my health care decisions for me in a general and generic sort of way by making blanket legislation without exceptions. That's why Bill Clinton vetoed that legislation. Have you ever noticed that Republicans never write abortion legislation that allow for reasonable exceptions? Wonder why that is. It seems to pass when reasonable legislation is written.
I support strict fetal rights(after 10 weeks- that's when an embryo becomes a fetus). I don't support government interference in obtaining the morning after pill and sticking their hands into the FDA.
I agree that it's time for more political parties.
You're right, anonymous. I forgot about warrants. People in high places have historically not done well with a position of power and maintaining integrity. The Democrats need to develop a plan to deal with terrorism while respecting the laws of the nation. I think that they can do both.>
It seems that something funky is happening with the posts. I wrote the last post-not anonymous.>
I'm Watsy. I wrote the last two posts. Let's stop blaming "anonymous.">
Watsy,
What restrictions are there on abortions at present?>
I don't know if you'll check back on this, cs. But the restrictions vary from state to state. Most states don't permit abortion once the fetus is viable. Somewhere around the 22nd week? Many states have parental notification laws. Some states have spousal notification laws. Many states have a waiting period and also educational requirement(part of informed consent).>
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.