Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Conservatives on why the GOP should lose in 2006

  1. Oct 31, 2006 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0610.forum.html

    On CNN's series, "Broken Government", the godfather of conservatism, William F. Buckley, describes Bush's escapade in Iraq as "looney".

    The party needs to be reclaimed by moderates. As far as I'm concerned, presently they are the party of right-wing extremists; and in some cases, IMO, enemies of the Constitution. Speaking here most generally as a conservative, Bush - the actions and opinions of he and his adminstration - would top that list for me.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 31, 2006 #2

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    :rofl: The GOP is certainly polarized.

    The erudite William F. Buckley and GWBush are at opposite ends of the intellectual spectrum. :biggrin:
     
  4. Nov 1, 2006 #3
    That's for sure:rofl: :rofl:
     
  5. Nov 3, 2006 #4

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/12/neocons200612
     
  6. Nov 4, 2006 #5

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Interesting article, Ivan.

    So it would appear that Woorward's book "State of Denial" is on the mark.

    The current situation in Iraq was predicatable - but Bush et al wouldn't listen.

    The Bush presidency is a "failed presidency."

    Bush wanted to be like Reagan, and he is. Empty rhetoric and dishonesty.

    That's like an arsonist saying I didn't make that huge fire, I just made a little one and the wind did the rest.

    Or David Frum (one of Bush's speechwriters) -
    i.e. empty rhetoric

    At least Bill Clinton wrote some/much of his speeches.

    I am left wondering about Rumsfeld. I agree with him on the transformation of the military, but not on how he implemented it. I don't understand why he has done what he did with regard to Iraq (Woodward - "State of Denial"). Rumsfeld has been hugely successful, but how come he screwed up as Sec. of Defense? Five houses and lots of money. Why didn't he just stay home and enjoy his wealth, and leave the rest of us alone. Is it about power and ego? He very much wanted to be president of US - and maybe he is just taking advantage of his position as SecDef, the closest he will get?
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2006
  7. Nov 4, 2006 #6

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    (emphasis added)
    Perhaps the Bush administration has never been as united as it seemed? Rumsfeld would have made a great peace time Secretary of Defense. A lot of his failure as a war time SecDef is because hard decisions never have to be made.

    You want military transformation? You got it.
    How will this war impact military transformation? Um, you want military transformation, you got it. We'll do both.

    You want tax cuts? You got it.
    How will this war impact our tax cuts? Um, you want tax cuts, you got it. We'll do both.

    These guys have never made a hard decision. Whatever they wish would happen, they assume will happen. The reason for that is because there isn't someone at the top of the chain demanding a little team discipline; no requirement that the members of 'the team' adhere to at least some semblance of reality.

    And as far as Perle's comment about not blaming him: it's more like saying, "I think we need some light in here if we're going to find that gas leak" - that's not the same as saying, "Here, I'll light this match so we can see what we're doing." There is a difference. He saying he asked for more light; not asked someone to light a match.
     
  8. Nov 4, 2006 #7

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Not sure I understand the statement. Does one mean Perle's not accepting some responsibility? Perle was "chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee," and he could have asked/insisted, "What the heck is going on?", "Why is Bremer or so-and-so doing . . . . ?". Perle had access to Rice, Wolfowitz, Powell, . . . . Nobody, including Perle, questioned thoroughly enough and got it to the president? If they did, then they were ignored. Then they should have gone to congress, which is supposed to provide oversight - not that this congress has been doing so.

    Bush et al have mucked things up in Iraq and they have killed a lot of innocent people in the process. And that's what much of the world sees.

    What good reputation the US enjoyed in the world has been trashed by the current administration.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2006
  9. Nov 4, 2006 #8
    The thing that this brings to mind is that those who questioned anything were not invited back to the next meeting. Most who were in a position to have done something seemed to be inthralled with gaining points from Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld.

    Now Perle is trying to back pedal.
     
  10. Nov 4, 2006 #9

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That's the impression I got.

    I imagine that if the democrats regain the House, and certainly Senate and House, there will probably be a surge of backpedalling - and finger pointing.

    And more denial at the White House.
     
  11. Nov 4, 2006 #10

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec06/sb_11-03.html

    :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil:
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2006
  12. Nov 4, 2006 #11

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That's an interesting piece from the News Hour.

    Tom Friedman's column was an apparent endorsement of the Democrats. Friedman apparently exploited a loophole in a policy that prohibits/discourages political endorsements. I think the editor can make endorsements however.

    It does seem that the election will be decided on how people feel about the stewardship or lack thereof of Bush, particularly with respect to the war in Iraq.
     
  13. Nov 4, 2006 #12
    And just when you thought he could go no lower.....

    Here is Tom Toles take.

    :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2006
  14. Nov 4, 2006 #13
    Will Karl Rove's promised October surprize come just two days before the elections?

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/18/opinion/main2101605.shtml

    When Saddam recieves his guilty verdict, a lot of conservatives are going to be jubilant because it gives them a degree of vindication for the war. On the other hand that is when all hell is expected to break loose in Iraq.
     
  15. Nov 5, 2006 #14

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I think it is a foregone conclusion in most of the world, certainly in the US, that Saddam Hussein is guilty of many crimes against the Iraqi, particularly the Shia and Kurds. I don't think that a guilty verdict is so significant with regard to the elections - maybe to some who ignore the reality of the situation in Iraq and the Bush administration's botched program.

    At least some of the original supporters/promoters are expressing their anger that Bush put US troops in harm's way unnecessarily and avoidably. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have put themselves ahead of the country and the US troops, and that shouldn't be.
     
  16. Nov 5, 2006 #15

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/02/60minutes/main2145860.shtml
     
  17. Nov 6, 2006 #16

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I hope Jeff Flake ascends in the party. We need more political representatives like him.

    Hopefully Flake and others will reform the rules that require 'any' appropriation to be defined and who sponsors them, or it does get in. We must have accountability, and this must be codified.

    Also from the Constitution (Section. 9):
    Some/most earmarks may be unconstitional if they favor one port over others and there is not accounting. Unfortunately, the consitution is worded such as to allow for loopholes.
     
  18. Nov 6, 2006 #17

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    From Meet the Press
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2014
  19. Nov 9, 2006 #18

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/worst_congress_ever/page/7

    Further down the page and over to the next page
    This was last week by the way
    Add to this the lack of oversight -
    http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/worst_congress_ever/page/5
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2006
  20. Nov 13, 2006 #19

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Conservatives on the Couch
    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2638882&page=1
    Dazed and Confused, Republicans (and Others) Are Finding Talk Radio a Cathartic Experience; Is Rush the New Dr. Phil? :rofl:

    By ROBERT GARCIA (ABC News)
    I'll agree with Rush on the last couple of statements.

    But then one could ask - "Why didnt' the voters to this 2 years ago?" The politicians just voted out are the same ones in office two years ago. :rolleyes:
     
  21. Nov 14, 2006 #20
    Things are not as they appear. Ask yourself "why" did Bush/Rove allow his presidency to sink the Republican's in Congress? Why did Rove seem to roll over in the three months leading up to the election?

    Also - the White House had to know about Mark Foley. Why didn't the White House tell him to stop. Foley went on for 1-2 years. Unlike Rove not to intervene. Perhaps it was the White House that ratted him out!
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Conservatives on why the GOP should lose in 2006
  1. Rebuilding the GOP (Replies: 55)

  2. Scary New GOP Poll (Replies: 41)

Loading...