About my republicanism...

[Buck Laser]

Some of you seem to have gotten quite angry that I am a republican, simply because I hold liberal views on a great many issues. I'm sorry that you've been offended, but that's just the way things are. And to illustrate that I am neither alone, nor particularly unusual, here's a link to an interview with a pro civil liberties republican.

http://buzzflash.com/articles/interviews/065

[lily]

Eh, Buck........if you don't toe the line, you are not part of the party. What some don't realize and maybe it's because of their age is neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are what they used to be. I get it all the time because I'm regestered as an Independent.

[BoogyMan]

Eh, Buck........if you don't toe the line, you are not part of the party. What some don't realize and maybe it's because of their age is neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are what they used to be. I get it all the time because I'm regestered as an Independent.


I see this from the left as well as the right. Ask Joe Lieberman what happens when you don't toe the line of the left-wing agenda, it happens in BOTH parties.

Buck, I don't believe that I have commented on your republican party affiliation. I have seen liberally minded republicans before and it never crossed my mind that you might be any different. Your views are radically different than mine, but there are many of those same ideological divisions among the democrats now as well so you are not alltogether the anomaly that some would represent you as being.

[wonder cow]

What difference does it make Buck’s party affiliation? He puts forth reasonable, logic based arguments on his positions. I agree with him on some things, and on other things I disagree, but I would never judge his comments based on his party.

We don’t need to associate so tightly our identity and egos with some kind of misplaced loyalty to a party, of all things. I have, for most of my life, voted for and supported mostly Dems. But this has always been for practical policy considerations and most of the time what I viewed as a choice between the lesser of two evils.

If the Democratic party folds tomorrow, fine with me. It would be an opportunity for our country to try something different.

<----- LOOK MY POST COUNT IS A CONSPIRACY

[underdawg]

I don't tow the line with the Democratic party either. I tend to be more fiscally conservative, but it is the social issues that puts me in the Democratic party.

[lawless168]

Yeah, I'm registered as a Republican, and should be independent.

[preservanation]

WC:What difference does it make Buck’s party affiliation? He puts forth reasonable, logic based arguments on his positions. I agree with him on some things, and on other things I disagree, but I would never judge his comments based on his party.
If BL can't even be honest about his party affiliation, it calls into question his integrity on others.

[Labrocca]

If BL can't even be honest about his party affiliation, it calls into question his integrity on others.


I feel that the "affiliation" is meant to be part idealogy and part values. I don't think Buck has much in common with todays GOP. He may have at one point but he should face it...the Republican party he loved 30 years ago doesn't exist today. I really have never seen Buck say anything nice about the GOP party and has gone along with the attacks even. Not that a person can't criticize his party but there does come a point where if you disagree that much then maybe it's time to switch your party which it appears Buck has done. I also have dropped by GOP tag. The sites party affiliation is meant to give new members a sense of where a persons ideology is. It's not perfect because obviously some of us are political mutts (can you believe muttparty.com is taken!)

Anyways..I was probably the most vocal about Bucks tag but I got over...of course weeks later he goes and changes it anyways. Go figure. :)

[bobbylien]

Damn it Buck! We needed you on our side!

[PatrickHenry]

I could be a Republican if Ron Paul was the presidential nominee.

[Buck Laser]

Damn it Buck! We needed you on our side!

Yeah, I know. Too many of the younger members of the Forum are so uptight that they can't deal with ambiguity. Labrocca was really steamed until I got him to realize that it is indeed possible to be a liberal and a republican at the same time. Of course, the Preservanation types can't handle something like that at all, but I don't worry about them because they'll get weeded out one way or another.

When Labrocca said he was fed up with the republican party, I decided to relieve him of his anxieties and let myself be called a democrat. I still believe an intelligent republican presidential aspirant could build a winning coalition with a strong progessive social agenda coupled with a determination to end the gummint's feudal ties to corporate money. As I said, I'm a Teddy Roosevelt republican, but they just ain't making his kind no more. And more's the pity. So I'm now a democrat because I quit being an ideologue and decided in favor of pragmatism a LONG time ago. But Bobby, I'm still on the same side as you--against invincible stupidity!:P

[Labrocca]

Labrocca was really steamed until I got him to realize that it is indeed possible to be a liberal and a republican at the same time.

I don't agree that a republican can also be a liberal in the current political atmosphere. What I can believe is that you are a stubborn old guy with a LOT more years than me. Who was I to tell you anything? hehe...

I am a Teddy Roosevelt republican

Do you think if TR was around today he would be on a GOP or Dem ticket though? Isn't that really a good question? If you look at the past the GOP and Dem have switched views a number of times...heck it was the GOP behind Lincoln that freed that slaves but today it's the Dems that are considered the minority party. Things over time have a way of twisting and flipping for some reason.

[NortheastCynic]

I agree, Lab. Teddy Roosevelt, today, would be a member of the Dennis Kucinich wing of the Democratic Party, in my view. But, as for the issue at hand, liberal Republicans do exist, not in your ilk, but in the form of neoconservatives, who descended from socialists and Troskyites. True conservative Republicans [Goldwater types], however, are extinct in Washington D.C.

-NC

[preservanation]

Damn it Buck! We needed you on our side!

You can have him!:D

[Stoner]

What I can believe is that you are a stubborn old guy with a LOT more years than me.

I'll add to that. Most of us already know the deal. For those who do not...Bucky is a liberal. Period. He lists his affiliation as Republican so people will think he's bipartisan when he goes off on his bashing of the president and our country. People sometimes think it carries more weight if you bash Bush and are a Republican as well.

Apparantly Bucky didn't feel he was getting enough attention in regards to his affiliation...hence why he started an entire thread.

Don't be fooled. He is the exact mold of all the other libs out there. There is nothing Republican about him. Just another lib.

[preservanation]

From everything I've read from him, I would have to agree, he's a lib.

I've never even heard the most hardcore Goldwater types sound anything like this guy.

Your assessment is spot on stoner, I hear it all the time on call in shows, especially CSpan's Journal. Same stuff,.."I'm a conservative republican who supports Justice Ginsberg, and think Bush is a war criminal".
It's an obvious covert attempt to dishonestly sway public opinion. Truly pitiful

[wonder cow]

What are you guys saying? That the Republican tent is too small for Buck?

That would be about right. Kick old men into the street. (jking Buck)

[preservanation]

IMO, Buck is a covert agent.
Licenced to ill.

[Stoner]

Licenced to ill.


Great fucking album!

She's crafty...

[preservanation]

Just my type

[Labrocca]

She gets around...

[Buck Laser]

From everything I've read from him, I would have to agree, he's a lib.

I've never even heard the most hardcore Goldwater types sound anything like this guy.

Your assessment is spot on stoner, I hear it all the time on call in shows, especially CSpan's Journal. Same stuff,.."I'm a conservative republican who supports Justice Ginsberg, and think Bush is a war criminal".
It's an obvious covert attempt to dishonestly sway public opinion. Truly pitiful

My God, preserves! You think Goldwater represented "old" republicanism? As I pointed out before, my ideal for republican ideas is Theodore Roosevelt. You, like Clay Barham, need to learn some real history, not the crap that the noise machine pours out.

Anyway, I've changed my listing to democrat since so many people never seem to have heard of liberal republicans--and the various fools and doofuses running for the republican nomination couldn't find each other's assholes with a map and a big flashlight.

[preservanation]

Boy, that was easy!
Kinda proves our point.

[wonder cow]

and the various fools and doofuses running for the republican nomination couldn't find each other's assholes with a map and a big flashlight.

HaHa!!

Kinda proves our point.

Not really preservanation. Buck is right about the parties changing. Don't forget that Regan was a Democrat for at least half his life and voted for FDR 4 times.

[preservanation]

That's right! I forgot about the Dems filibustering desegregation and supporting Jim Crow, and electing a Former Ku Klux Klan Grand Klugal to the Senate...oh, wait "Sheets" Byrd is still there, ever mind. I guess some things never change.

[wonder cow]

That's right! I forgot about the Dems filibustering desegregation and supporting Jim Crow, and electing a Former Ku Klux Klan Grand Klugal to the Senate...oh, wait "Sheets" Byrd is still there, ever mind. I guess some things never change.

Exactly! Parties change. The change you speak of is the split in the Democratic party over desegregation and civil rights. The Dixicrats left the Democratic party and joined the Republican party due in large part to Kennedy and Johnson’s support for civil rights.

It was an epic struggle in the Democratic party with George Wallace and Strom Thurmond and the like on one side and the Kennedys and Johnson and the like on the other side.

Not long after the 1964 civil rights act, Thurmond and many others switched parties and the "solid south" started to devolve from solid support for Democrats to solid support for Republicans.

And all this neo-con nonsense will eventually fade away also and the GOP will come back around to more mainstream views.

The dialectical view of American politics is entertaining, considering how very little real difference exists between the two parties.

Of course, political hack wads would debate that statement, but they're all very much like a troop of chimps spinning in their own shit and slinging bananas at each other.

[preservanation]

WC: And all this neo-con nonsense will eventually fade away also and the GOP will come back around to more mainstream views.
Like those of Reagan and JFK?
Sure hope so!

[preservanation]

She's craaafty...
---------------------------------------------------------------
"No.. Sleep... til Brooklin!"

(sorry)

[wonder cow]

Like those of Reagan and JFK?

We can hope for a little from both.

[wonder cow]

By the way on the BB:

3MTA3

on the wing. word.

Also:

Riding cross the land, kicking up sand, sheriff's posse on my tail cause I'm in demand...

[underdawg]

The meanings of parties changes all the time look at Ross Perot's party. Jesse Ventura once belonged to that party until the party got hyjacked by Pat Buchanan. Jesse couldn't be further apart from Pat politically.

[preservanation]

About this you are correct.
Conservatism is an ideology, the GOP is a political party, similarly with any party including the Dems.
Parties change, Ideologies do not. That's one of the problems I see with some Republicans trying to redefine "conservatism". One can have any views they want, but don't call it conservatism if it is not. Call it something else. If we let this stuff stand it won't be long until Hillary is a conservative and Reagan was a screaming lib.
When asked, I describe myself as a conservative first, who tends to vote the Republican ticket. The later might change, but the former will not.

Kinda like someone who works as a dog-catcher for 10 yrs, becomes a garbageman, but still wants to be referred to as a dog-catcher.

[bobbylien]

Plain Republican/Democrat affiliation doesn't work on a forum where people should be posting more than their gut reaction to a thread. Peoples views vary far too widely to classify everyone into 2 or even 5 groups and people will always be confused when they see a Republican or Democrat going against party policy.

[Big Dave]

Goldwater Republicans are rare because Goldwater got roundly thrashed in the election of 1964.

The GOP got up, dusted itself off and looked at what went wrong and changed.

Reagan's "Big Tent" philosophy made a home for all the Scoop Jackson Democrats purged out in in 1972.

I might point out that although they celebrate a Jefferson-Jackson Day, neither Thomas Jefferson nor Andrew Jackson would recognize the Democratic party of today. Parties change with the times.

[preservanation]

Hi, Big Dave. Agreed

I would argue that even JFK would be drummed out of today's Dem party in a NY minute.

[Big Dave]

The spirit of Henry Wallace totally controls the Democratic Party.

Could you imagine Truman or FDR in today's Democratic Party?

[Buck Laser]

The spirit of Henry Wallace totally controls the Democratic Party.

Could you imagine Truman or FDR in today's Democratic Party?

Absolutely. Truman wouldn't countenance Dubya's dumbass moves in foreign policy. He would also have a workable Universal Health Care system in place and working already. Since FDR laid the groundwork for most of the social programs today, I think he'd fit right in.

If you're thinking of things like segregation, you have to take into account what the US was like in the middle thirties. And it was Truman who moved unilaterally and positively to desegregate the military--I think that was in 1947, several years before Brown v Board.

What did you really have in mind when you asked if HST and FDR would fit?

[Big Dave]

Buck Laser asked:
“What did you really have in mind when you asked if HST and FDR would fit?”

Big Dave’s response:
What I really had in mind was that FDR and HST were both very strong advocates of forward defense – fighting in bad guy land rather than the US. FDR in particular moved heaven and earth to get the US into World War II. Ac ording the Samuel Elliot Morisson, FDR ordered the USS Texas – a very obsolete battleship – into the Atlantic when the Bismarck was running amok in hopes of getting a fight started and the US into the war. Fortunately for the Texas, FDR missed by 500 miles or so. FDR managed to get an oil embargo slapped on Japan and basically picked the war with them. FDR ordered the firebombing of Tokyo and other cities, unrestricted submarine warfare against Japan. In general, FDR waged a very Jacksonian war against Germany and Japan. HST ordered two Japanese cities nuked. HST ordered the US into Korea. We are still there, fifty-six years later. HST was a strong early advocate of the State of Israel.

Today’s Democratic Party is not the Jacksonian Party that FDR and HST came from. Today’s Democrats advocate retreat and a very passive stance toward threats to the US. Today’s Democrats have turned against Israel for some reason. The last of the party that FDR/HST knew was Scoop Jackson, and he was purged out in 1972. It has been Henry Wallace’s vision in charge for thirty years.

[Buck Laser]

Buck Laser asked:
“What did you really have in mind when you asked if HST and FDR would fit?”

Big Dave’s response:
<snippage>
Today’s Democratic Party is not the Jacksonian Party that FDR and HST came from. Today’s Democrats advocate retreat and a very passive stance toward threats to the US. Today’s Democrats have turned against Israel for some reason. The last of the party that FDR/HST knew was Scoop Jackson, and he was purged out in 1972. It has been Henry Wallace’s vision in charge for thirty years.

I can't even begin to address all the ways in which you're wrong, Dave. The world is completely and totally different today from the middle of the twentieth century, and comparisons of Roosevelt & Truman's foreign policies to what we have today is utterly fruitless.

History will look on Dubya's foreign policy as the most totally screwed up mess in American history. He took a world where the US had a real measure of support and sympathy from most nations, and turned it into a place where the US is the laughing stock of the world. How, may I ask, could the desire of democrats in congress, an increasing number of republicans, and ever-growing list of generals, and about 75% of the American public to end this incredibly stupid adventure be something Truman or Roosevelt would abhor?

Your assessment of today's political situation is nothing more than a rehash of the standard right-wing line, though I've never come across anyone with the chutzpah to suggest that Truman or FDR would approve of what that god damned drunken cowboy in the white house is doing.

And just for the record, Truman was the first president in the 20th century to push for a civil rights bill and for universal health care. My God, sixty years have passed, and the republicans are still fighting both!

[ECW]

FDR and Truman both called themselves Liberals. Scoop Jackson never did and never would. He was no more part of the FDR/Truman genre than George Wallace was. I watched Scoop sit on his hands in 72 and never once spoke out positively for the Democrats and against Richard Nixon during the whole election. Any departing from the Democratic Party that Scoop did in 1972 was entirely voluntary on Scoop's part and did not come from anything that the McGovern people ever did to him. He was welcome in any and all circles but chose not to participate. Take that bogus theory and stick it in the dumpster with all the other neocon revisionist history we've seen on this board lately.

[NortheastCynic]

I would hardly classify FDR as a "liberal" under any definition of the word. Liberals, whether traditional [as in libertarians such as myself] or left-liberals [new liberalism] would not support the rounding up and concentration of various American citizens based on their heritage. Liberals [in the original (and true) meaning of the word) support limited gov't in all aspects of human life. Even new liberals would find his positions on human rights and transparent government to be reprehensible. FDR was a conservative [in the original sense of the word, meaning undemocratic and authoritarian] or essentially an authoritarian. He has characteristics of both modern Republicans and modern Democrats.

-NC

[Labrocca]

FDR is an interesting character. Overall I think he is painted favorably as a President by history but I wonder how much criticism he recieved as President. His New Deal programs certainly couldn't have been popular with the rich and the war was eventually won but I believe there was critics arguing it's Europe and we should stay out of it.

Found this on wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Franklin_D._Roosevelt

Interesting to read and history certainly has a way of reading favorably for many Presidents that were considered terrible at their present. Certainly that includes Reagan whom now many consider one of our greatest presidents.

[preservanation]

Hillary is FDR times 10.

[ECW]

I would hardly classify FDR as a "liberal" under any definition of the word. Liberals, whether traditional [as in libertarians such as myself] or left-liberals [new liberalism] would not support the rounding up and concentration of various American citizens based on their heritage. Liberals [in the original (and true) meaning of the word) support limited gov't in all aspects of human life. Even new liberals would find his positions on human rights and transparent government to be reprehensible. FDR was a conservative [in the original sense of the word, meaning undemocratic and authoritarian] or essentially an authoritarian. He has characteristics of both modern Republicans and modern Democrats.

-NC


FDR's decision to round up Japanese Americans was influenced by by the racism that was pervasive during those years. Roosevelt had many great qualities and had many virtues but his racism, particularly towards the Japanese, is well-documented. Germans and Italians were also rounded up during the war but their treatment was not as harsh as was the treatment of the Japanese at FDR's hands.

This did not, however, stop him from calling himself a Liberal based on other views he held and other positions he advocated. People are like that, you know.[hr]
Hillary is FDR times 10.


Man, I hope she is. We'll know how good that statement is come January 2009. I can hardly wait.

[preservanation]

Man, I hope she is. We'll know how good that statement is come January 2009. I can hardly wait.
Don't start doing the happy-pee dance quite yet, Skippy.
We've got a ways to go.

My prediction that Hill will get the nomination through hook or crook, but lose the big enchilada to a more-than-a -little-right-of-center Republican.

[ECW]

Yeah, and you all thought you would hang on to the House and Senate last time, too. America is tired of neocon liars running our good name and reputation into the ground. A "more-than-a-little-right-of-center Republican" ain't happening.

[wonder cow]

Don't forget folks that above all FDR was a pragmatist shaped by his times.

FDR was struggling with a massive market failure induced depression and was pretty much stabbing in the dark.

The new deal was more about throwing people a bone and giving folks a little hope.

About all he could do in this situation.

And yes, FDR screwed up in similar ways to Lincoln before him, assuming too much power, etc. But I would hardly call him authoritarian.

[preservanation]

Yeah, and you all thought you would hang on to the House and Senate last time, too. America is tired of neocon liars running our good name and reputation into the ground. A "more-than-a-little-right-of-center Republican" ain't happening.

I think this nation might be ready for a hard line conservative in 08.
Or at least much more conservative than Bush.
I might be as pleasantly surprised as you might be horrified at the outcome of this next election.

[ECW]

Yeah, and you all thought you would hang on to the House and Senate last time, too. America is tired of neocon liars running our good name and reputation into the ground. A "more-than-a-little-right-of-center Republican" ain't happening.

I think this nation might be ready for a hard line conservative in 08.
Or at least much more conservative than Bush.
I might be as pleasantly surprised as you might be horrified at the outcome of this next election.


Who do you have in mind? The hardline conservatives don't have any public support and the rest of the GOP field flip-flops more than a model on the beach getting a tan does.

[preservanation]

I holding out for Newt,
but I think Thomson has a good chance and has the conservative bona fides.[hr][b]Gingrich mocked Republican presidential candidates for subjecting themselves to a May debate hosted by Chris Matthews of MSNBC's "Hardball."

"You're watching an utterly irrelevant, shallow television celebrity dominate everybody who claimed they want to lead the most powerful nation in the world," he said.

Gingrich ridiculed "the idea of 10 or 11 people standing passively at microphones," and said he refused to "shrink to the level of 40-second answers, standing like a trained seal, waiting for someone to throw me a fish."

He added: "These are not debates, these are auditions. By definition, the psychology of an audition reduces the person auditioning and raises the status, for example, of Chris Matthews."

Pressed by The Examiner about whether his political baggage renders him unelectable, Gingrich compared himself to a famous French statesman. "This is like going to De Gaulle when he was at Colombey-les-Deux-Eglises during the Fourth Republic and saying, 'Don't you want to rush in and join the pygmies?'" he said.

"I have no interest in the current political process. I have no interest in trying to figure out how I can go out and raise money under John McCain's insane censorship rules so I can show up to do seven minutes and twenty seconds at some debate." Still, he said he might enter the race before the deadlines to "start filing petitions.[/quote]
http://www.examiner.com/a-842080~Newt_goes_nuclear__May_enter_race_to_foil_p ygmies.html

[Pookie]

Being conservative or Republican or whatever you choose to call yourself is heartening. I hope you will continue to take a stand on issues that matter to you and make your voice heard. This is why we call our government a democracy. All folks need to take a stand, no matter what side of the political fence they're on.
I encourage each and every one of you to do so.
Purrs,

[ECW]

thread killer

[qedtanya]

I could be a Republican if Ron Paul was the presidential nominee.


Are you helping spread the word? That's the only way he will become the presidential nominee. We're really trying! (Yes, I am for Ron Paul!) If you are, great! I find that pointing out his views on the war, the Dept. of Education (I'm a teacher and this is really important to me), and his views on medicine (he wants us to be able to go where ever we want to get them - incudling Canada and Mexico) really help when talking to others.

In San Antonio this weekend, we are having a fundraiser/rally for him and I can't wait to spread more of his message!

[firefox]

Works for me. Have any of you guys seen the "Ron Paul" branded Liberty Dollars yet? They are copper, silver, or gold I think.

[preservanation]

What about Dunky Hunter? Tancredo?

If Fred collapses like Rudy will, and McCain did, it opens up a slot for a proved conservative, and no, not Paul.

Visionary ideology, flawless policy, pure genious and super-sized charisma aside, Ron Paul will never garnish enough support to get the GOP nomination.
Sorry.

runewtrun

[tony mitra]

I have often pondered what it means in America, to be a republican these days. Or what, for that matter, it means to be a Democrat.

Being more used to the Parliamentary form of democracy, I found it quite strange that an elected head of state, i.e. the President, gets a mandate to run the country for four full years, even if he gets increasingly unpopular by the rest of the elected officials (Senators and House Representatives) and the public. To remove him from office, one needs to go through a tortuous, time consuming and often impossible task of impeachment, which itself may last a year or more.

In the Parliamentary system, the leader, in this case the Prime Minister, needs to have the support of the house and the congress every single day of his tenure. If he loses confidence of the majority, he is gone that very day. If the party in power loses majority support, the Government collapses, and a fresh election is called even if only half the term is still remaining.

But thats Parliamentary system. Here, a Democrat and a Republican seems to be at loggerheads on issues that are more related to social issues of Government spending, taxation, private against Government role in taking care of the population, and issues of foreign policy, and little to do with Republicanism or Democratic reforms.

I could understand Federalism against Republicanism, whereas the "United States" still acted largely as a conglomeration of independent states (Federalism) where each state more or less took all major decisions themselves on issues relating to their Government, and authority is divided between the member states and the central Federal Government. Republicanism, on the contrary, wanted more power to be centralized by the Federal Government, with less power in the hands of the states.

From what I understand USA to be now, is maximum power is not only concentrated in the hands of the Federal Government, but the Executive branch has accumulated disproportionate power over the judiciary and the legislature, both of which seem to be kind of tagging along with the Chief Executive.

Also, no matter what was the case two hundred years ago at the birth of the nation, I cannot understand what "representative" function the electoral college does, where by the whole state goes one way, even if the vote count within the state was 51-49.

Sure, they had a reason for it 200 years ago. But at that time, they tried their very best to prevent any branch of Government, and especially the central Government, from becoming all too powerful, which it apparently has become today.

Don't get me wrong, but the American Government does seem to be a very different beast from the outside, than say the Canadian, the British, the Australian Government. It is almost unthinkable for a Prime Minister of those countries to have that much power.

This is not an indictment of America, just a debate on the evolution of what we consider democratic systems - which takes different forms in different nations, all under the general umbrella of representative democracy.

------------
Having said that, I have become a fan of Mr. Ron Paul. And also Dennis Kucinich.
One is a Republican and another, a Democrat. I am even considering sending them an email, from Canada, asking them to consider joining hands and coming over to Canada if they cannot win elections there, to become naturalized Canadians and shake up the local Government.

The world could do with some more folks like that. A pity that they appear so much on the fringes in American politics - just my opinion.

Cheers.

[BoogyMan]

Great post Tony! Well reasoned and a great read.