Many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were populists but also Libertarians. The Libertarian approach to governing the United States did not work. However now we're getting to the point where the government is too large and too oppressive. The founding fathers would be having a **** fit knowing that the nation that was meant to be free today is anything but. The Libertarians will never grow large because it consists mainly of polygamists, those who want all drugs legalized (regardless if they harm others who don't use them), government conspiracy nut jobs (the ones that wear tinfoil on their heads to avoid having their thoughts analyzed by the CIA), and of course, the party is so poorly organized that its tough to unify.
George W. Bush is not a conservative. He's for insane amounts of spending; that's not conservative. He's for putting more power in the federal government and not the State. Again, thats not conservative. He also has absolutely no diplomacy abilities; which is why almost everyone in the world hates him. He is disappointing to me. He's left a big red mark on American History that we'll probably never recover from. Even if 9/11 were not to happen, its unlikely he'd balance the budget. Bush talks about making sure children have a strong future yet he borrows money in the trillions while slashing taxes. I don't know if he realizes it but the national debt (soon to enter at least $10 trillion+)
is a concern for children and for everyone. So why is he neglecting the national debt? Eventually, the countries we borrow from want to get paid back and thats where we get screwed.
Gannon is conservative and ruffling the feathers of Liberals. What else is new? Liberals had a stranglehold on the media until Fox News arrived in 1996 and a little before that with conservative talk radio. Then the liberals have this deer in the headlights syndrome. They just somehow can't comprehend that there's another political force from the other side. Its alien to them. So they're only defense is to call conservatives names and call anything that doesn't agree with them "extreme right wing." I've heard Fox News been referred to as that. I know its biased towards the right but slightly. However this is just too unknown for liberals. Whats funny is that Fox News and conservative outlets are rapidly gaining popularity while liberals are losing strength. MSNBC is a joke. CNN is rapidly losing ratings to the point where Bill O'Reilly by and far dominates the 8pm EST time.
The Democrats are way further left - than the Republicans are right.
Exactly. Democrats are sliding further and further to the left than Republicans are to the right. Democrats may as well rename themselves Socialists because thats what they are. Although not all Democrats are socialist but its like a teeter totter. The Socialist Left side is weighing down the Moderate Left side. You'd think because Clinton was a moderate that they'd go for that angle but it evades them. I guess when you have George Soros (frequently known as the socialist billionaire) giving them money and telling them that he owns them, you probably have no choice but to go further to the left.
As for the comments on Dean, Dean's job is to get money. Thats it. He lost the running for President because nobody liked him. If he keeps talking, he continues to slash the party at its knees, giving the Republicans a monopoly on the elections of 2006 and 2008. He better learn how to keep his trap shut to the public and work hard on the inside. If not, its going to be very hard for Democrats to get a good foothold. Also it reduces the chance that Hillary will get nominated but I'm almost sure of it that she is going to run.
but would rather put all of their efforts into pointing out the failings of the republicans
Thats why Democrats lost so much power in 2004. They have no real message of their own, just that Bush sucks and they hate the GOP. Then they act shocked that they lost. The Democrats don't like privatized Social Security because its a member of the GOP thats spearheading it. Democrats want to be the champion of the people but when the "other party" does something beneficial for people, they throw a **** fit. Its not that they disapprove of it, they're just pissed that they weren't the first one's to bring the issue and seriously plan to reform it. Thats all.
The dems and repubs have essentially swapped rolls in the late 19th century or so
Around 1872 if my memory serves me correctly. The Democrats became liberal to counter Ulysses S. Grant and have taken that route ever since. Although there were a few liberal Republicans from time to time like Rutherford Hayes and Theodore Roosevelt. Neocons started with Ronald Reagan though and Socialist Democrats began with George McGovern but Johnson was pretty liberal himself (such as the failed war on poverty). So the polarization is relatively new.
Buchanan was on the TV yesterday, arguing very eloquently that you can't export democracy from the barrel of a gun. He's massively against this war.
True conservatives are against this war. I'm one of them. I think we should just get the hell out of the Middle East and pull out out of Europe but probably stay in South Korea due to stability reasons. The Bush democracy spreading plan is a big joke because remember, Middle East dicators were selected by voting. They don't want freedom, they want Islam. They like voting but Iraqis voted for a party that is Iran's butt buddy. I give them a few years before another Saddam emerges but teaming up with Iran. Maybe I'm wrong; hopefully I'm wrong.
Ever heard of Richard Mellon Schaife
I knew of him. He probably won't talk to the media because the media is overwhelmingly liberal and would just twist his words around. Its been done before.
