My Blue Heaven...
Ha! Remember the "red maps" of the US that have been so prevalently displayed on rightist websites since the Bush/Cheney 2004 "landslide" of a less-than-2%-margin of victory?
Well, since then, it looks like we've got the blues... as in, blue = disapproval with Bush administration policies:
Incidentally, heaven is usually protrayed as blue, and hell as red. Go figure.
Well, since then, it looks like we've got the blues... as in, blue = disapproval with Bush administration policies:
Incidentally, heaven is usually protrayed as blue, and hell as red. Go figure.
posted by SheaNC at 8:39 PM
7 Comments:
There's an assumption in your blueing of American: Red states will flip to the Democratic/Liberal side. Won't happen. The biggest problem with Bush is the liberalism in his domestic policies, not Iraq. Granted, the liberal spin on whether we are winning in Iraq doesn't help, but Bush's failures will not drive the masses to the party of welfare, gay marriage and abortion.
I am, however, concerned about whether the Republicans will anoint a true conservative candidate with personality. If it's some dope like Gary Bauer (who likely won't even run) or a liberal like Guiliani, what's the point in voting Republican? We will either waste a vote on a conservative who can't win, or casting a knee-jerk "Republican" vote when we'll actually be worse off with a liberal Republican than wit a "real" Democrat.
I suspect that your camp will probably take the White House in 2008 for all the above reasons. Jeb Bush in '2012! Yahoo!!
Shea,
I think what we are seeing is the results of a Republican administration and congress who has not been very republican. They were not voted in to be moderate or liberal and that is what has gotten them into problems. 2008 will be interesting!
-Jack
I hear this "Bush is a liberal" line a lot these days, and you guys are so totally off the mark on that one. I think you are trying to rationalize the direction the republican party has taken ever since the "spend and spend" days of Reagan.
You seem to define liberalism simply spending money. But, just because the republicans spend money hand over fist doesn't make them liberals. Bush is certainly not a liberal. The fact that he shows nothing but contempt for liberal values is proof of that. He's not a liberal, he's just a neocon stooge.
"The biggest problem with Bush is the liberalism in his domestic policies, not Iraq."
I really wish that was the case. Why would Bush's biggest issue be Iraq? After all everything is going so well there.
Shea, give me any liberal issue out there and I will indicate where Bush stands. Except for what the kooks come up with he has continued every leftist policy since his father and President Clinton. I predicted this before he even took office.
Environmental policy: Almost a mirror image of Clintons
Social Spending policy: More than Clinton
Taxation policy: Made some necessary tax cuts (the country would have collapsed economically without them) but they were about 1/2 what they should have been, and since most federal tax relief has been replaced by fees, local taxation and regulatory fees.
Trade policy: Has initiated more than one protectionist policy (tarrifs and quotas) which has affected our trade relationships with Europe, China, and Canada.
I could go on. Actually all day, but its Thanksgiving and the turkey smells good.
If you can, indicate where Bush has proven himself "conservative"?
-Jack
Well, first of all, I was writing that Bush was not a conservative before it was cool 8^)
Also, I must again remind you that Clinton is not the litmus test for liberalism. He was conservative on some issues, liberal on others, and as I have pointed out, there are many areas where he marched in lockstep with conservatives. Don't fall into that trap of defining liberal and democrat as synonymous, or conservative and republican as synonymous. They are most definitely not.
In fact, if you are going to define all policies that come from democrats as "liberal", then you are shooting down your own contention that Bush is liberal, because by that logic everything he does is conservative because he is republican. Do you see? Just because something comes from a democrat or republican president does not make it liberal or conservative.
As for the listed items:
Environmental policy: I disagree; all the data I find says the Bush presidency has been the most damaging to the environment in modern times, including rolling back previous environmental laws.
Social spending: Oh, please, you're joking, right? You call warfare and tax breaks for the rich social spending? Cutting spending on social programs, veterans' health care, etc., is not liberal policy. Shifting the burden of fiscal support of the country from the richest few to the already over-burdened working class is not liberal policy. Taking away overtime pay is not liberal policy. Privatizing social security is not liberal policy. And so on and so on...
Taxation: Huge tax breaks for the rich and for big business is not a liberal policy. Shifting the burden of fiscal support of the country from the richest few to the already over-burdened working class is not liberal policy. But hey, guess what? "Conservatives" are learning that "States' Rights" actually means "States have to take on a greater share of the fiscal burden so state taxes, etc., will go UP". Ha!
Trade policy: Liberal trade policy is, in ideological terms, free trade. Liberals only place the condition on trade that companies not abuse workers or the environment. Again, don't define all trade policies you don't like as "liberal".
Again I must say, you are trying to distance yourself from Bush by claiming he is a liberal. He is a lot of things, but not liberal.
I have said for a long time that he is not conservative, but really, he is anything but liberal, no matter what the "oh-no-I-now-realize-I-voted-for-the-wrong-guy" crowd would like to think. Liberal and conservative are not the only choices out there.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home