The Republican party, at least rhetorically, has always been the party of limited government. But at least they always seemed to believe in SOME government. I mean, think about it here. Teddy Roosevelt helped start the National Parks Service. Eisenhower financed the Interstate Highway System. Nixon tried to institute a universal health-care plan. The first George Bush extended the Clean Air Act and helped to spearhead the Americans with Disabilities Act. Gerry Ford granted amnesty to Vietnam era draft dodgers. Etc................................................................................................Contrast the record of these men with what the present day Republican party is saying. It's frigging night and day, people. At least from what I can gather, the latter doesn't seem to believe in government, PERIOD!................................................................................................So, is this a strategy that will work (politically and/or substantively)? I don't know, but if history is any indication, I'd have to say no. This, in that whenever a political party over-reads its mandate and goes too far in its policies, they tend to get booted out of office. Just ask the Democrats in 1946, or the Republicans in 2006 (the Republicans also lost heavily in 1974 - but that was probably more due to Watergate). If I were a betting man, I'd probably have to go with the Democrats gaining in 2012.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Will: If I were a betting man, I'd probably have to go with the Democrats gaining in 2012.
I really hope you're right about that.
The first bush extended the clean air act? Honestly, I don't know anything about that. But I do know that the SECOND bush did the opposite. The Sierra Club says, "Bush Chips Away at Clean Air Act".
According to an article on their website, "the Bush administration is engaged in the most serious effort to roll back the Clean Air Act since its enactment".
You know me. I'm pessimistic no matter who gets in. Well, except for maybe Bloomberg.
That and if Chuck Hagel decides to go against the Obama administration and run.
Hagel, Bloomberg, and keep Obama on as Ambassador to the UN.
From Wikipedia:
In Bev Harris' book Black Box Voting... Hagel is accused of having covered up his involvement with American Information Systems, Inc., the voting machine company. ...Hagel omitted mention of AIS from the required US Senate financial disclosure forms.
...Hagel hid his ties to ES&S by calling his investment of up to $5 million in the ES&S parent company an "excepted investment fund". ...senators are required to list the underlying assets for companies they invest in, unless the company is "excepted". To be "excepted", the McCarthy Group must be publicly traded (it is not) and very widely traded (it is not).
Harris [says] Hagel's landslide victories in 1996 and 2002 may have been due to vote tampering. Harris writes, "Hagel defeated popular Democratic Gov. Ben Nelson, who had led in the polls... becoming the first Republican to win a Senate seat in Nebraska in 24 years... ...Hagel's job, until 2 weeks before he announced his run for the Senate, was running the voting machine company whose machines would count his votes".
From Wikipedia:
Bloomberg has previously been accused of sexually harassing women under his employment, which he has denied. In 1997, a former Bloomberg L.P. employee who became pregnant while employed filed a lawsuit accusing Bloomberg of saying "Kill it!" and "great, No. 16", [in] reference to the number of pregnant women in the company.
In 9/2007 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a class-action lawsuit against Bloomberg's company on behalf of... a group of women who worked at Bloomberg's company between 2002 & 2007. [An article on the subject] said the plaintiffs "now total 72, out of about 500 women who took maternity leave during that time, a high percentage, according to the agency".
Other things Bloomberg might be criticized for...
As mayor, Bloomberg lobbied the CEO of Goldman Sachs to establish its headquarters across from Ground Zero by promising $1.65 billion in tax breaks.
Bloomberg is a staunch advocate of free trade and is strongly opposed to protectionism, stating, "The things that we have to worry about is this protectionist movement that has reared its head again in this country.
Bloomberg opposes a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, and criticizes those who favor one.
Bloomberg is a supporter of the USA PATRIOT Act.
Bloomberg supports the strict drug laws of New York City. He has stated that he smoked marijuana in the past, and was quoted in a 2001 interview as saying "You bet I did. I enjoyed it". [But later he said] that he regrets the remark and does not believe that marijuana should be decriminalized.
WD said: "As mayor, Bloomberg lobbied the CEO of Goldman Sachs to establish its headquarters across from Ground Zero by promising $1.65 billion in tax breaks."
Unlike with the other things, I would not criticize him for this. After all, it involved giving $0 to Goldman-Sachs.
I don't disagree with him either on his support of free and fair trade. After all, such decisions should be left to each person, and not the State. So if you hate Chinese people or hate Mexicans, feel free to personally boycott their products.
WD said by promising $1.65 billion in tax breaks."
DM said After all, it involved giving $0 to Goldman-Sachs.
IF you GIVE a 1.65 BILLION dollar tax break the rest of the tax payers pay it for them.
The cognitive dissonance of DM continues.
Why don't you dig up some dirt on a Democrat once in a while, wd; the fact that Hillary made a $100,000 on her very first commodity trade (the odds of which are a million to one, according a prominent Math journal), the fact that Obama (despite being in the Senate only 4 years) was the #2 recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie, the fact that Barney Frank was having an affair with somebody at Fannie Mae at the exact same time that he was painting all of these rosy scenarios. I mean, my God, wd. Bloomberg has been a damn good mayor of New York and pretty much everybody recognizes that. Why do you always have to be such a flaming partisan stooge all of the time?
Gee, a rich guy getting sued. How original.
Post a Comment