Compassionate conservatism?

[Oblivion437]

Originally posted by Gab: Personally I hate this asshole who's a complete mockery to the Democrats! The fact is if you support Bush, you're conservative. Instead of being remembered as an honorable Governor of Georgia, he's going to be remembered as a traitor and for this angry, hateful and outragous speach against John Kerry. The only good thing that I can say about Miller is that he's finally retiring.

I support Bush from time to time, does that make me Conservative? Obviously not. A Libertarian can agree with a Conservative or Liberal extremist half the time. The other half, they're ready for the fisticuffs, hickory cane beatings and brickbat tossings. So it's not a fact...

The thing is, the Democratic Republican party of the South was once highly Conservative in nature. That Miller is a Conservative (along with the likes of Toby Keith, a fellow Southerner) while being a Democrat shouldn't confound you. Knowing that the Southern Democrat Party later ran on a Pro-Slavery ticket shouldn't confound you either. That this same party was the principle backer of Jim Crow laws, especially banning blacks from possessing firearms...Well, you get the picture.

Certainly the Democrats are willing to call him a racist for having worked for Lestor Maddox, even though the guilt-by-association charge they're levelling is pretty much bullshit.

He doesn't 'betray' anyone. He's a registered Democrat yes, but his loyalties to the DNC and the Poodle come second to his loyalties to the nation. Furthermore, while Bush may have his own tarnished record, at least we know what the hell he's going to do. Running on a bad platform or disagreeable platform is in some ways better than running on an ever-moving platform that merely shouts "I disagree!" without actually saying what you agree with, what you'll do...There's no good reason to elect Kerry, in my opinion...

Even if you're a hard-line Liberal, think of this, in 2008, who will the Republicans run? They're completely out of good candidacy.

[Felix The Assassin]

Originally posted by Chewbacca:

Article from last winter!:

Before George W. Bush's political operatives started pounding on John Kerry for voting against certain weapons systems during his years in the Senate, they should have taken a look at this quotation: After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. … The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office. The speaker was President George H.W. Bush, the current president's father, in his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, 1992. They should also have looked up some testimony by Dick Cheney, the first President Bush's secretary of defense (and now vice president), three days later, boasting of similar slashings before the Senate Armed Services Committee: Overall, since I've been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That's the peace dividend. … And now we're adding to that another $50 billion … of so-called peace dividend. Cheney proceeded to lay into the then-Democratically controlled Congress for refusing to cut more weapons systems. Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements. … You've directed me to buy more M-1s, F-14s, and F-16s—all great systems … but we have enough of them.

The key here is peace dividens. The cold war has ended, we have completed DS, and the lib want more money. This was the start of the reduction, this is just a scartch of the surface compared to the follow on 8 years under clinton.

The Republican operatives might also have noticed Gen. Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at the same hearings, testifying about plans to cut Army divisions by one-third, Navy aircraft carriers by one-fifth, and active armed forces by half a million men and women, to say noting of "major reductions" in fighter wings and strategic bombers. Granted, these reductions were made in the wake of the Soviet Union's dissolution and the Cold War's demise. But that's just the point: Proposed cuts must be examined in context. A vote against a particular weapons system doesn't necessarily indicate indifference toward national defense.

Again the start, Army divisions by one-third. Who dropped Army divisions again? clinton, by how much? Again by one-third. Under GHWB, we went from 18 to 12 divisions, under clinton we went from 12 to 10, with the 10 losing an active BDE each, thats another 2.5 divisions, AND every combat battalion losing ONE Company each! that's one BN per BDE. Check the voting record for these years, and these cuts. No surprises there how he voted.

Looking at the weapons that the RNC says Kerry voted to cut, a good case could be made, certainly at the time, that some of them (the B-2 bomber and President Reagan's "Star Wars" missile-defense program) should have been cut. As for the others (the M-1 tank and the F-14, F-15, and F-16 fighter planes, among others), Kerry didn't really vote to cut them. The claim about these votes was made in the Republican National Committee "Research Briefing" of Feb. 22. The report lists 13 weapons systems that Kerry voted to cut—the ones cited above, as well as Patriot air-defense missiles, Tomahawk cruise missiles, and AH64 Apache helicopters, among others. It is instructive, however, to look at the footnotes. Almost all of them cite Kerry's vote on Senate bill S. 3189 (CQ Vote No. 273) on Oct. 15, 1990. Do a Google search, and you will learn that S. 3189 was the Fiscal Year 1991 Defense Appropriations Act, and CQ Vote No. 273 was a vote on the entire bill. There was no vote on those weapons systems specifically.

You make the point clear. He doesn't know what he really wants. No need to do a google, I'll give you the link to his voting record.
http://vote-smart.org/voting_categor...6a8d1c94eb8a5e

On a couple of the weapons, the RNC report cites H.R. 5803 and H.R. 2126. Look those up. They turn out to be votes on the House-Senate conference committee reports for the defense appropriations bills in October 1990 (the same year as S. 3189) and September 1995. In other words, Kerry was one of 16 senators (including five Republicans) to vote against a defense appropriations bill 14 years ago. He was also one of an unspecified number of senators to vote against a conference report on a defense bill nine years ago. The RNC takes these facts and extrapolates from them that he voted against a dozen weapons systems that were in those bills. The Republicans could have claimed, with equal logic, that Kerry voted to abolish the entire U.S. armed forces, but that might have raised suspicions. Claiming that he opposed a list of specific weapons systems has an air of plausibility. On close examination, though, it reeks of rank dishonesty.

Clear as Mud!

Another bit of dishonesty is RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie's claim, at a news conference today, that in 1995, Kerry voted to cut $1.5 billion from the intelligence budget. John Pike, who runs the invaluable globalsecurity.org Web site, told me what that cut was about: The Air Force's National Reconnaissance Office had appropriated that much money to operate a spy satellite that, as things turned out, it never launched. So the Senate passed an amendment rescinding the money—not to cancel a program, but to get a refund on a program that the NRO had canceled. Kerry voted for the amendment, as did a majority of his colleagues.

More money, or cash back is always good.

An examination of Kerry's real voting record during his 20 years in the Senate indicates that he did vote to restrict or cut certain weapons systems. From 1989-92, he supported amendments to halt production of the B-2 stealth bomber. (In 1992, George H.W. Bush halted it himself.) It is true that the B-2 came in handy during the recent war in Iraq—but for reasons having nothing to do with its original rationale. The B-2 came into being as an airplane that would drop nuclear bombs on the Soviet Union. The program was very controversial at the time. It was extremely expensive. Its stealth technology had serious technical bugs. More to the point, a grand debate was raging in defense circles at the time over whether, in an age of intercontinental ballistic missiles and long-range cruise missiles, the United States needed any new bomber that would fly into the Soviet Union's heavily defended airspace. The debate was not just between hawks and doves; advocates and critics could be found among both. In the latest war, B-2s—modified to carry conventional munitions—were among the planes that dropped smart bombs on Iraq. But that was like hopping in the Lincoln stretch limo to drop Grandma off at church. As for the other stealth plane used in both Iraq wars—the F-117, which was designed for non-nuclear missions—there is no indication that Kerry ever opposed it.

Correct, maybe, possibly. However: Whiteman AFB, Mo., is the B-2's only operational base. The first aircraft, Spirit of Missouri, was delivered Dec. 17, 1993. Again check his voting record.

The RNC doesn't mention it, but Kerry also supported amendments to limit (but not kill) funding for President Reagan's fanciful (and eventually much-altered) "Star Wars" missile-defense system. Kerry sponsored amendments to ban tests of anti-satellite weapons, as long as the Soviet Union also refrained from testing. In retrospect, trying to limit the vulnerability of satellites was a very good idea since many of our smart bombs are guided to their targets by signals from satellites. Kerry also voted for amendments to restrict the deployment of the MX missile (Reagan changed its deployment plan several times, and Bush finally stopped the program altogether) and to ban the production of nerve-gas weapons. At the same time, in 1991, Kerry opposed an amendment to impose an arbitrary 2 percent cut in the military budget. In 1992, he opposed an amendment to cut Pentagon intelligence programs by $1 billion. In 1994, he voted against a motion to cut $30.5 billion from the defense budget over the next five years and to redistribute the money to programs for education and the disabled. That same year, he opposed an amendment to postpone construction of a new aircraft carrier. In 1996, he opposed a motion to cut six F-18 jet fighters from the budget. In 1999, he voted against a motion to terminate the Trident II missile. (Interestingly, the F-18 and Trident II are among the weapons systems that the RNC claims Kerry opposed.)

He was young. Then he had a little experience. Then the liberal clinton years. Check his record.

Are there votes in Kerry's 20-year record as a senator that might look embarrassing in retrospect? Probably. But these are not the ones.

Find out for yourself, and don't use google. Go straight to the source.
http://vote-smart.org/voting_categor...6a8d1c94eb8a5e

[Oblivion437]

That site is excelente Felix...

[Gab]

Originally posted by Felix The Assassin: Nope, your are wrong Gab. He will always be remembered as "The last Good Democrat" He just fully understands that a flip-flop leader cannot overcome the current adversities of the world. I don't full yagree with all of Ws plan, but I know he has the intestinal fortitude to do what needs to be done. And thanks to Timber, I have been able to voice my opionion, and share with others a way to avoid some of his plans on the environment. If the voice is strong enough, it will be heard.

Nope Felix, you are wrong. He will only be remembered that way by Republicans. The fact is he's a "rat bastard traitor". His own pathetic, scary and inaccurate speach about Kerry even got some of the Republicans uneasy.

There's not much point of being part of a party in opposition if you're going to support the guy already in power and opposed to your party's politics. Most Democrats want him out of their party. Heck, Miller even sits in the Republican Cacus.

Bush flip-flops himself. Chewie has already given you some examples that you have yet to respond to.

[ 09-05-2004, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: Gab ]

[Oblivion437]

First, Gab, don't speak for everyone. I'm going to be frank, you look an like an overbearing, pompous asshole when you do that. Maybe you're not, but you're certainly acting like it.

Miller will go down in the minds of many as one of the "last good Democrats" for sticking true to the founders' views. Also, to call his speech pathetic and inaccurate is both wrong and an insult to speech givers everywhere. It was a damn solid speech, and he delivered it well.

Miller sits in the Republican caucus because he's a Conservative, and so are they. They agree on issues. One's loyalty as a representative is to one's constituency before one's party.

Besides that, Miller's been a Democrat longer than you'd think. He's been a Democrat, registered so, since before it was hip to be liberal, and the DNC decided being hip was above being solid. The whole thing started in the post-civil war Democrat party backlash, where to win votes they used lots of demagoguery.

To say the least, Kerry hasn't distinguished himself as anything other than non-distinguishable, another empty gray suit with a pretty face and nice words to sell. No actual position to sit on. It's not like Miller doesn't usually agree with the DNC, no doubt, while Conservative in some ways, he does advocate some liberal platforms, such as Social Security.

[Gab]

Originally posted by Oblivion437: quote: Originally posted by Gab: Personally I hate this asshole who's a complete mockery to the Democrats! The fact is if you support Bush, you're conservative. Instead of being remembered as an honorable Governor of Georgia, he's going to be remembered as a traitor and for this angry, hateful and outragous speach against John Kerry. The only good thing that I can say about Miller is that he's finally retiring.

I support Bush from time to time, does that make me Conservative? Obviously not. A Libertarian can agree with a Conservative or Liberal extremist half the time. The other half, they're ready for the fisticuffs, hickory cane beatings and brickbat tossings. So it's not a fact...

The thing is, the Democratic Republican party of the South was once highly Conservative in nature. That Miller is a Conservative (along with the likes of Toby Keith, a fellow Southerner) while being a Democrat shouldn't confound you. Knowing that the Southern Democrat Party later ran on a Pro-Slavery ticket shouldn't confound you either. That this same party was the principle backer of Jim Crow laws, especially banning blacks from possessing firearms...Well, you get the picture.

Certainly the Democrats are willing to call him a racist for having worked for Lestor Maddox, even though the guilt-by-association charge they're levelling is pretty much bullshit.

He doesn't 'betray' anyone. He's a registered Democrat yes, but his loyalties to the DNC and the Poodle come second to his loyalties to the nation. Furthermore, while Bush may have his own tarnished record, at least we know what the hell he's going to do. Running on a bad platform or disagreeable platform is in some ways better than running on an ever-moving platform that merely shouts "I disagree!" without actually saying what you agree with, what you'll do...There's no good reason to elect Kerry, in my opinion...

Even if you're a hard-line Liberal, think of this, in 2008, who will the Republicans run? They're completely out of good candidacy. [/QUOTE]I mean for President! You're supporting that Libertarian guy (can't remember his name) for president. Since you defend Bush most of the time, I acually get the impression that you like most of his policies.

Correct me if I'm wrong (you're the one who's probably an expert in Libertarian idealogy), but aren't the Libertarians mostly conservative (at least economically) because they're against any government involvement? Just what do they agree with the Liberals on?

As for Kerry's agenda? Well, he's got something Bush hasn't got: a plan for the economy, getting rid of the deficit, jobs, healthcare and the enviroment. Bush is just talking about winning the War on Terror and keeping America safe because he's got no plan for other issues.

As for who the Republicans will run in 2008? I wish it was as good as you're trying to make it sound, but they'll probbaly find someone like Bill Frist or Colin Powell. If they amend the constitution, they could even run Arnold Schwarzenegger.

[Oblivion437]

Actually, they can't run Schwarzenegger. He's foreign-born.

Yes I do support Badnarik, but you ask what we agree with Liberals on?

Well, this the part where I start picking a fight with George Bush:

We think not only that Gay marriage should be legal, but that the government should keep its hands off the marriage institution totally.

We believe in a literal interpretation of the Constitution, right down to the second ammendment.

Imagine a set of policies that basically says, if what you're doing isn't hurting anyone else, the government doesn't care. That's basically Libertarianism in a nutshell.

Check out http://www.lp.org for a solid example of Libertarian positions.

A lot of it borders on Anarchism, that's true, but we do hold ourselves back from that particular step.

[John D Harris]

Chewie please explain how G.H.B. being against or for something changes Kerry's record in the slightest? Does G.H.B. being against a weapon system automatcily change Kerry's vote against it into a vote for it? How does that work?
So I'm still waiting for a single thing Miller said that was wrong about Kerry's voting record! Does G.H.B.'s wrong turn Kerry's wrong into a right? If so then G.H.B. is a mircle worker, for I have seen so many people claim that two wrongs don't make a right, is that still true?

[Oblivion437]

Guess not...

[ 09-05-2004, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: Oblivion437 ]

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by John D Harris: Chewie please explain how G.H.B. being against or for something changes Kerry's record in the slightest? Does G.H.B. being against a weapon system automatcily change Kerry's vote against it into a vote for it? How does that work?

Huh? Why should I explain this exactly?

So I'm still waiting for a single thing Miller said that was wrong about Kerry's voting record!

If your going to join the "deny the facts of Kerry's record" bandwagon then I guess you'll be waiting indefinitely.

Does G.H.B.'s wrong turn Kerry's wrong into a right? If so then G.H.B. is a mircle worker, for I have seen so many people claim that two wrongs don't make a right, is that still true?

Wrong?

What is wrong is Miller's been exposed as:

A.unstable
B.unstatesmen-like
C.traitor to his own party.
D. misleading about Kerry's voting record and position on National Defense

All of the above is what is wrong.