What This Election Revealed To Me

reply to post by Enigma Publius


Um that's actually exactly what it means, Left or right of center means to hold onto a majority of issues on one side, especially major ones like the economy and foreign policy. But on minor issues such as gay rights and abortion follow the other side of the political spectrum.

What do you think a 5% drop in registered republicans and 3% increase means with the political barometer, 40(dems) 32(rep)? With 28% going to independents being left of center is what this country exactly is.

Originally posted by nyk537 Obama stood up for something. He had principles that he stuck with the entire time and fought for.

The problem with the Republican party for last two decades is that they have not been doing that. They have been trying to appear more and more like Democrats themselves. They don't stand for anything and just try to shift with popular opinion, and people can see right through that.

I find it so strange how people can be watching the same events unfold and yet see it so differently. Kind of cool actually.

See, my perspective is quite opposite and I was surprised to read this post. I am not saying you are wrong, it just goes to show how we view things through our goggles of ideals, values, beliefs, upbringing, lifestyles, etc.

What this election showed me is that the republicans are become INCREASINGLY tyrannical in their stances on the issues. Now, I am not anti John McCain wholly, but anyone who understands anything about politics and elections knows that there is a republican base running the show from behind the scenes and that basically the candidate running is a mouthpiece for them.

This was evident when toward the end, John McCain was becoming increasingly, er.. weird, for lack of a better term. I think the guy has his faults, but over all, I think he wanted good things for the country; however, he was prodded into bringing Palin on board who is, in essence, a "dubbya" double (although perhaps more hardcore).

(for those not aware, Palin was NOT McCain's choice)

That speaks volumes about the republican base running the show. Unlike your assessment that they are fickle, I find the republican base becoming more self righteous, greedy, tyrannical, aggressive, and hungry for war.

On the other side, the democrats are becoming more and more centrists in an effort to appeal and *crosses fingers* hopefully appease more of the general public. I find a lot of their ideas to be leaning toward socialism, but not so much as to turn away the more liberal conservatives. This CAN be a good thing, but it can also be a bad thing if it is all show. Time will tell.

Whatever the perspective, for better or worse, the democrats did speak out and win over those who otherwise typically may not associate with either side.

I am honestly more comfortable with Obama in office, despite his leanings toward socialism (which, like I have stated in prior threads, in this type of society, there are elements of socialism that need to be implemented for the sake of all... but it can be a dangerous undertaking simply because it conditions ppl to rely more and more on their gov't *again crosses fingers for the best*). I think between the two, the lesser of the two evils made it into office. And in fact, I do honestly believe that if ppl would quit being so judgemental and realize that each and everyone of us takes stances that SOMEONE out there will disagree with, you will see a man (Obama) that ISN'T evil, but does want what is best for this country...even if his idea of best differs from yours.

Having said that about Obama, had McCain won and croaked fairly quickly (which he IS old and has- and perhaps still is- battled a serious illness), then the conservative base would have found their puppet in Palin which is what I tend to think the point was in pushing for her to be picked as VP. That to me was more terrifying than having someone who may have elements of socialism in his plan, but who truly is for the people. The republican base is set FIRMLY in their plan for war, oil, money, and themselves.


We have seen the destructive principles (if we can call them principles ) of the republicans and how it has impacted, not only this country, but the world as a whole negatively. Now the democrats have the turn to show that they can implement the right touch of socialism without taking away the core values that this country was founded on. My guess is that it will work okay in the first term, but by the end of the 2nd term (bc most likely they will be given a 2nd term), we will find the noose tightening.

So here is my hope... that after this, we will have the intelligence as a country to see the faults of the either/or system and elect someone in 8 years like Ron Paul. HE most likely will not be up for running then if he still alive, but surely there is always someone like him that is willing to step up in the way he has. Of course, the only way to ensure this will happen is by parents taking the time to educate their children to watch the events unfolding and teach them about the values this country was founded on so that they can see how we have strayed so far from them. The schools will not teach them these things, so it really IS up to us, the parents.

Anyway, kind of went astray there, but that is what this election revealed to me. I am glad that you shared OP. Like I said, I find it so interesting how perspectives can be so different when viewing the same events and love hearing them all.


[edit on 7-11-2008 by justamomma]

Practically speaking with a nation of 50 states and territories and 350 million people with a global reach and impact... a small government is a pipe dream.

If Grover Norquist got his dream of reducing government down to 16% of what it is now... it would be a disaster both socially and economically.

It just does not work... now an effective government that is another story...

... but the notion of a small government does not make my or anyone else I know heart swoon.

Originally posted by grover
... but the notion of a small government does not make my or anyone else I know heart swoon.

That's all well and good, but the notion of bigger government does not make I or anyone else I know heart swoon.

Obviously we could go back and forth like this all day and not get anywhere, and that's fine. It's part of what makes this country so great.

I think we could agree though, that at the end of the day, as long as we have someone who has the countries best interest at heart, we will be in good shape.

Wait wait wait I just found something I find hilarious. en.wikipedia.org...
Anyone notice what happened after Carter? Democrats decreased debt while republicans increased it. With Bush senior being the worst compared to the GDP. Wait what's that Liberals and Democrats are such big spenders and blah blah blah. At least they try to pay they go, unlike some political parties.

reply to post by djpaec


Also look at the disclaimer on your source...

The elected representatives of the United States share responsibility for making the decisions which bring about changes in the national debt. All spending bills start in the House of Representatives. It should be noted that oftentimes, the sitting President faces an opposition Congress.

But I'm sure it's all the Republicans fault isn't it?

Originally posted by nyk537

Originally posted by grover
... but the notion of a small government does not make my or anyone else I know heart swoon.

That's all well and good, but the notion of bigger government does not make I or anyone else I know heart swoon.

Y'all bring up an interesting point that actually goes to the very heart of what has gone wrong in this country.

The intent of the founding fathers, who had great wisdom to forsee what they seemingly could not know, was not what we see now. What they set up, had it been followed properly, would be the ideal system for us that would have appealed to the both of you..

It was meant that every state would be somewhat its own country. The governments of each state would be decided on by the ppl of that state and the rulings that dealt with our individual lives would be a task left up to the states being governed by the people. This was the only way a country of our potential size could be governed by the people through smaller governments.

The goal of the country's ONE over all government had nothing to do with our individual lives, but was meant to be the glue that held the states together and would be in charge of the country's national defense. The state as a whole would speak for the people of its individual state when dealing with national issues.

Now, the state governments are becoming more and more the spokesman of the federal government to the people. We have gotten things flipped and that is why, should we continue in this new system (because this is not the system that was set up), we will continue to lose our voice and yes, the government will have to grow in order to keep up with an ever growing and culturally diverse population.

Could we have followed the plan laid out by those wise men who set up the system we seemed to have abandoned, the country's government would simply be there to protect and hold together the country and therefore would not need to have quite so many roles. The states governments would also not need to grow because they would be there to represent only the ppl in that particular state.

What the election revealed to me is that when you are following an unpopular administration of a different political party and have 90% of the media on your side and you make a LOT of campaign promises and talk about feel good topics like Hope and Change and outspend your opponent by 2:1 you stand a pretty good chance to win vs anyone.

reply to post by jjkenobi


...and yet they still didn't run away with it like everyone thought they would.

That's my point.

reply to post by nyk537

No the republicans were actually very instrumental in the balanced budget. However soon as they had complete control power went to there heads.

Although ideological differences continued, Congress and the White House achieved a budget surplus of $69 billion in 1998. The surplus occurred three years after another partial government shutdown in December 1995 that lasted 21 days. The budget surplus increased to $122.7 billion in 1999 and $230 billion in 2000. Economists projected that the United States could pay off its debts by 2013 if the budget surpluses continued. Those surpluses, however, ended during the administration of President george w. bush. The Bush administration announced a record $304 billion deficit in 2003 and projected that the deficit in 2004 would be about $307 billion.

Democrats didn't run away with the election? Are you kidding? do I have to say it again?

Wait wait... who was it 4 years ago who clamed mandate with a 51 48.7 difference? And only a 35 electoral vote margin, and 3 million popular vote difference. Hmm Obama has a almost 8 million popular vote margin, and a 190 electoral vote lead.

Hmm the last 3 elections that the popular vote difference was 8 million was 1980 and 1996... so elections didn't runaway with the vote then for Reagan and Clinton respective do tell?

[edit on 7-11-2008 by djpaec]

reply to post by djpaec


And? You seem to have conflicting points here.

Regardless, anyone with absolute power becomes corrupt. As the extremely tired and overused line goes...

And don't try to use Bush as an example, because Bush was a liberal who ran for the Republican party. He's subscribes to the new age liberal wannabe neoconservative garbage.

Bad example.

[edit on 7-11-2008 by nyk537]

Um... well what you call Liberal Conservatives have been in control of the Republican Party for the past 28 years. I hope they cast them aside and start anew with this Republican Civil War brewing.

reply to post by djpaec


That's the point I've been making for this entire thread now.

Welcome aboard.

If you think bush minor and the Republicans in control of congress were liberal I would hate to see what you consider conservative.

Nixon and Nelson Rockefeller were what you called liberal Republicans and actually so would Goldwater... towards the end he was harshly critical of the current batch of Republicans and their meddling in social issues.

reply to post by grover


How did Bush not govern liberally?

What do you consider to be Conservative?

here's 3 conservative stances I can think of off the top fo my head. Increased DOD spending. Let the assault weapons ban drop. Tax cuts.

reply to post by nyk537


No bush minor was anything but liberal and as the transition goes forward he and his team are still planning to gut a whole slew of environmental and business regulations that will be a windfall for business and a disaster for consumers.

For me a true conservative would be one that is open to change just so long as we go about it judicially and cautiously.

For me a true Republican is one who is pro business for sure but of the older style Main street businessman not just corporate business lobbyists who have sold this country out as much as any traitor.

As far as I can tell the people who have taken over the Republican party as it stands are nihilists... social reactionaries on one side and corporate raiders on the other.

reply to post by grover


Agreed.

So that doesn't make Bush a Conservative either. You've made it sound like Conservatism is a bad thing, yet this post makes it seem otherwise.

Having read that, I'm a little confused as to how you say getting a true Conservative to run would be a bad thing.

reply to post by nyk537


I will agree with you on this the people who control the Republican party are not conservatives but they are not liberal either. Paul Krugman has described them as movement conservatives... and they are more than anything ideologically driven... either social reactionaries or as I have called them, corporate raiders. And as they have taken over the party they have systematically forced out or silenced the more moderate and liberal Republicans. In this they are very much like a mafia or gang.

When I lived in New England we had a type of politician up there whom Olympia Snowe is a prime example of... they can best be described as let us take care of our home and our own but lets be prudent about it politicians. And we had them in both the Republican and Democratic parties. And generally speaking they had a strong independent streak.

Consequently they had and have far greater support all the way across the board than someone who is staunchly one way or the other.

I have no use for fanatics of any stripe.

[edit on 7-11-2008 by grover]

What it revealed to me was the republican party didn't fix any of the problems left by Clinton and others. There's no way America is gonna stand for it and chose a different route. I'm a true believer in conservatism but it wasn't in the Bush administration at all. There was more spending, more government, more of everything but conservatism.

Change is what America wanted and they voted for it. I voted McCain but know that he's not conservative either so what can we do? Obama has the Captain's chair and the democrats have Washington so here we go for four years of change. This election also revealed to me that America is jealous of the rich and want what they got without earning it. Spread the wealth by taxing the successful is not the way to make America great. These four years will be a lesson to learn and a chance for conservatives to come back strong.