Clueless, is still Blue!

[Freebird_AL]

ZELL MILLER: I Tried To Tell You . . .

 

America's faith in freedom has been reaffirmed. With the re-election of President Bush, America recommitted itself once again to expanding freedom and promoting liberty. Only the 1864 re-election of Abraham Lincoln, the 1944 re-election of Franklin Roosevelt and the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan rival this victory as milestones in the preservation of our security by the advancement of freedom.

 

This election validated not just freedom, but also the faith our Founding Fathers placed in average folks to navigate the course of this great nation. By weighing the greatest issues at the gravest times and choosing our path, ordinary people have again accomplished extraordinary things. With courage and caution, rather than fear and timidity, the voters chose a path to ensure others would enjoy the same freedom to set their own path.

 

This election outcome should have been implausible, if not impossible. With a litany of complaints — bad economy, bad deficit, bad foreign war, bad gas prices — amplified by a national media that discarded any pretense of neutrality, a national opposition party should have won this election.

 

But the Democratic Party is no longer a national party. As difficult as the challenges are — both real and fabricated — Democrats offered no solution that was either believable or acceptable to vast regions of America.

 

Tax increases to grow the economy are not a solution that is believable or acceptable. Democratic promises of fiscal responsibility are unbelievable in the face of massive new spending promises. A foreign policy based on the strength of "allies" such as France is unacceptable. A strong national defense policy is just not believable coming from a candidate who built a career as an anti-war veteran, an anti-military candidate and an anti-action senator.

 

Democratic Party policies haven't sold in large sections of America in decades, and the only success of Democrats in presidential elections for 40 years was when they pitched themselves as pro-growth, low-tax, strong-defense, fiscally responsible, values-oriented candidates.

 

Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton hummed the tune but never really sang the song, and that's why Democrat prospects have gone south in the South. In 1980, the South had 20 Democrats and just six Republicans in the Senate. As recently as 1994, the Senate had 17 Democrats and nine Republicans from the South.

 

A decade later, the number had reversed to 17 Republicans and nine Democrats. With this election, it is 22 Republicans and just four Democrats from the South.

 

When will national Democrats sober up and admit that that dog won't hunt? Secular socialism, heavy taxes, big spending, weak defense, limitless lawsuits and heavy regulation — that pack of beagles hasn't caught a rabbit in the South or Midwest in years.

 

The most recent failed nominee for president stands as proof that the national Democratic Party will continue to dwindle. The South has gone from just one-fourth of the Electoral College in 1960 to almost a third today.

 

To put this in perspective, that gain is equal to all the electoral votes in Ohio. Yet there was not a single Southern state where John Kerry had any real chance. Would anyone like to place bets on the electoral strength of the South by 2012? Maybe they should tax stupidity.

 

When you write off centrist and conservative policies that reflect the will of people in the South and Midwest, you write off the South and Midwest. Democrats have never learned from the second or third or fifth kick of a mule. They continue to change only the makeup on, rather than makeup of, the Democrat Party.

 

And so we have a realignment election. For the first time, in an "us vs. them" election and in the toughest of situations, Republicans have been re-elected to the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives.

 

Confronting an opposition that can win a divided electorate in the worst of times and that has a growing electoral base, the national Democratic Party has a choice: continue down this path toward irrelevance or reverse course. As the last Truman Democrat, I hope my party makes the right choice but know I will not be allowed to be part of it. Such is the price you pay when you love your nation more than your party.

 

And so while I retire with little hope for the near-term viability of the party I've spent my life building, I retire with a quiet satisfaction that after witnessing the struggle of democracy over communism and fascism, the fear I once held that America might not rise to meet this new challenge of terrorism has vanished like a fog under the radiance of a new dawn. While the threat is still real, the shadow looming across a promising future is gone.

 

And the credit for that goes to one man. Like the last lion of England, Winston Churchill, George W. Bush has stood alone and risked all to give the world a new, clearer path to the advancement of freedom.

 

Abraham Lincoln, in his second annual message to Congress, stated: "In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom for the free — honorable alike in what we give and what we preserve. We shall nobly save or meanly lose the last, best hope of earth."

 

George Bush has injected into a region of enslavement an incurable dose of freedom, and thus nobly saved that "last, best hope of earth" — free men.

[Lars]

[graupel]

http://seattle.craigslist.org/about/best/bos/47780164.html

[Freebird_AL]

http://seattle.craigslist.org/about/best/bos/47780164.html

 

Yep, another Clueless “Useful Idiot Looser” lost in depression. His handler seems to have deserted him in his time of need, “Where’s that Damn Prozac”

[Camilo]

When will national Democrats sober up and admit that that dog won't hunt? Secular socialism, heavy taxes, big spending, weak defense, limitless lawsuits and heavy regulation — that pack of beagles hasn't caught a rabbit in the South or Midwest in years.

I repeat my question asked earlier: Why are farmers republicans? Why did 8 out of the top 10 farm subsidy receiving states vote republican? I don't know who wouldn't consider farm subsidies socialism. France does the same thing . Now that we have more right wingers on board here at cc.com, can one of you help me answer this question? It seems like a pretty strong ideological contradiction.

[scott_harpell]

Camilio, it is not that simple. Most of this started at the turn of the century with the corn subsidies. This baisically made it impossible for a farmer to make a profit every year. Since the government wanted cheap food, they provided money for surplus to drive the prices down. This turns into a huge cycle that has resulted in the eradication of small farms accross the country. The problems with surplus continues today. My roomates grandpa is getting less per bushel than he did 30 years ago.

[Freebird_AL]

Why are farmers Republicans?

 

It’s got all to do with Collective Socialism and Common ownership, verses Personal Liberty and the Individual's Right of Ownership.

 

Plain enuf fer you?

[AlpineK]

You guys are missing the point.

 

Farmers and ranchers recieve masive payments to not farm. Yet at the same time they typically hate paying taxes and vote republican.

 

If they were really into the free market and all they wouldn't take the money and try and find a business where they could make a living without government handouts.

[catbirdseat]

I'll answer the question. The government hands out large sums of taxpayer money to big corporations such as Agri-business and defense contractors. That is "capitalism". If it gives out money to individuals, particularly the poor, that is "socialism"

[Camilo]

Scott, spell my name right dammit! Freebird, I'm not quite following what you're saying so I think you might need to spell it out for me. Sorry, I was a science major. I'm not trying to be an asshole and ask rhetorical questions, I'm seriously curious about this. Thanks for the answers so far, but I'm afraid I need a little more.

[scott_harpell]

You guys are missing the point.

 

Farmers and ranchers recieve masive payments to not farm. Yet at the same time they typically hate paying taxes and vote republican.

 

If they were really into the free market and all they wouldn't take the money and try and find a business where they could make a living without government handouts.

 

What are you gonna eat then? You don't see that this is a necessity based upon the poor legislation of the past. It si a stupid trend that we keep up (because there is no alternative) that will lead to the end of the notion of the "American Farmer."

[Freebird_AL]

You guys are missing the point.

 

Farmers and ranchers recieve masive payments to not farm. Yet at the same time they typically hate paying taxes and vote republican.

 

If they were really into the free market and all they wouldn't take the money and try and find a business where they could make a living without government handouts.

 

Me think’s your still missing the point as in “Clueless, is still Blue!”

 

Farm Subsidies has existed no matter what the congressional makeup has been, or what party has occupied the White House.

 

Forget what your Socialist Liberal Handlers have told you as to the reason for their late demise. Farmers vote Republican because they are Independent Individuals that believe that it is their right to own, manage, and produce on their “Own land”, and it is not their Social Responsibility to share ownership for the Common Good.

 

Do you think we should all share our personal property or even our home to some unfortunate?

[catbirdseat]

That is a very quaint notion you have of the independent "family farmers". Guess what, today most acreage is in the hands of large corporations. The largest subsidies, even on a per acre basis, go consistently to the largest corporations.

[scott_harpell]

That is a very quaint notion you have of the independent "family farmers". Guess what, today most acreage is in the hands of large corporations. The largest subsidies, even on a per acre basis, go consistently to the largest corporations.

 

Read up on why that is CBS. It goes straight to the old surplus idea. There is a reason that you can supersize your MacMeal for so cheap. It is all corn. Look on the labels. Everything is made from corn; even chicken mcnuggets. You can't blame this on a party. It has been going on for the last near 100 years.

[Freebird_AL]

But Corporations don’t vote, family farmers do! Still Clueless??????????

[Alpinfox]

[catbirdseat]

But Corporations buy votes, family farmers don't! Still Clueless??????????

Exactly.

[foraker]

Actually, it turns out that most of those government subsidies go to the large agribusinesses, and not to small family farms. So much for free market economics.

[Lars]

i wonder if you guys complaining about government subsidies have ever actually seen a farm?

(pictures in books dont count)

[Camilo]

i wonder if you guys complaining about government subsidies have ever actually seen a farm?

(pictures in books dont count)

I have. Family-owned wheat farming land outside of the Dalles run by my dad's cousins. I was hunting on it last month. I'm not seeing your point. . . are you talking about giant mega-production farms?

[scott_harpell]

i wonder if you guys complaining about government subsidies have ever actually seen a farm?

(pictures in books dont count)

 

I worked on one all through H.S. but I am not on ethat is complaining.

[marylou]

Lots of conservatives like to get handouts from the goverment while opposing them for other people.

 

For example, every conservative person I know supports school vouchers, which basically make taxpayers pay for kids to go to private school.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Lots of conservatives like to get handouts from the goverment while opposing them for other people.

 

For example, every conservative person I know supports school vouchers, which basically make taxpayers pay for kids to go to private school.

 

School vouchers are not a handout but a reclamation of money confiscated from taxpayers by the government - at least for those of us who have been paying property taxes. And these taxes are raised arbitrarily by the government from year to year according to their whim (property value assessments), irrespective of whether a home owner has more income or not. One more step towards enslavement...

[catbirdseat]

Property taxes are a tax on WEALTH, not income. You don't want income taxed either. You don't want to pay any taxes.

[scott_harpell]

Lots of conservatives like to get handouts from the goverment while opposing them for other people.

 

For example, every conservative person I know supports school vouchers, which basically make taxpayers pay for kids to go to private school.

 

How many conservatives do you know?