Redstate

Stands for Democratic Leadership Council, not Democrat Leadership Coalition.

In re: the substance of the article.  I think you would be wise to remember that it was this type of internal debate that created the modern conservative movement and eventually yielded significant Republican victories.

Ronald Reagan wasn't the angry, bitter standard berer of a profane group of semi-educated malcontents.

He didn't talk of tearing down the Republican party and building it back up in his image.  He wasn't going to 'crash the gate.'  He didn't accuse people of stupidity when they disagreed, and didn't level charges of corruption and fraud whe he lost.

He worked within the system, ran for office the old-fashioned way, and when he lost, he accepted it, and responed by working harder to persuade.  So when he finally won, he was able to work with his political opponents within the party, and get a lot done for a guy who had a hostile House of Representatives all 8 years of his Presidency.

See Frank Meyer's "Principles & Heresies" columns for extensive discussion/analysis of this internal debate among conservatives (and some strong criticism by Meyer of other conservatives including Russell Kirk).

This sounds like the plot for a bad made-for-tv movie. But I can't wait to see how it ends!

By the time Reagan came to power this debate was well into adulthood.  Thus, Reagan was the aftermath of the Republican "civil war"--to borrow the initial post's terms.

I'm not saying Howard Dean is Barry Goldwater, or that Nancy Pelosi is Richard Weaver, but I am saying that this discussion of the pending doom of the Democratic Party, based on their internal debate, is slightly immature.

Republicans will fare no worse than breaking even in the 06 elections.  That and the coming crisis with Iran will cause the Democratic Party to fracture into at least two distince parties, one liberal, one center-left.

After the 06 elections, the Democratic party as we know it will cease to exist.

Let's face it, it's not as if the kind of liberalism touted by the Kossacks and DUers is ever going to be coming back into vogue here.  The downfall of liberalism in America is not at all unrelated to the decline of socialism worldwide.  Leftism hasn't exactly had the best of times the past couple decades.

But conservatism was in its infancy back in the 1964 era when Goldwater and Reagan gave popular voice to the thoughts of Buckley, Kirk, Hayek, Friedman, etal.

The political center has shifted right these past decades.  The dilemma for Democrats is that they feel pressure to move with it to preserve electoral relevance, but pressure from the ideological purists to keep fighting the losing fight for true leftist principles.

I don't know who will win the struggle for the Democratic Party's soul.  But I do know that nothing that happens will lead to some kind of resurgence of Johnsonian largesse.

It's friggin' bankrupting us -- and people have caught on.

Look at the Presidential primaries...

1952. Eisenhower (liberal) defeats Taft (conservative)
      
1956. Eisenhower (liberal) wins easily
      
1960. Nixon (liberal) wins easily
      
1964. Goldwater (conservative) defeats Nixon (liberal)
      
1968. Nixon (liberal) defeats Rockefeller (liberal), with Reagan (conservative) an also-ran
      
1972. Nixon (liberal) defeats McCloskey (liberal), with Ashbrook (conservative) an also-ran
      
1976. Ford (liberal) defeats Reagan (conservative)
      
1980. Reagan (conservative) defeats Bush (liberal)

So of the 8 primaries in the stretch, Reagan represented the conservatives 3 times, and was a major speaker for a fourth (1964 convention).

When Reagan wasn't involved, conservatives weren't even consistently represented.  68 and 72 were largely contested between liberals, while 56 and 60 saw no major conservative fight at all.

Discussion within the conservative community aren't the same as the fight for the Republican party.

Whilst conservatives debated amongst themselves, honed their positions and their logic, liberals ('Rockefeller Republicans') largely ran the Republican party.

The comparison with the Dean Democrats just doesn't hold.  I see no debate whatsoever, nor any willingness to accept decades of electoral defeat.  I don't even see any willingness to persuade; the Dean Democrats have this illusion that the people really do believe them, but only the evil Bush/Scalia/Diebold/terrorism/DLC/Christianity keeps them from winning.

Reagan, Buckley, and the rest of the conservatives saw the need to persuade, and the years of internal debate helped that.    So I guess that book does bring up a good point: Moulitsas and company are trying to skip a step, the years of persuasion and refinement, and jump straight to 1980 (or even straight to 1994 and the realignment that came after the shift) and victory.

the R's will break even or pick up.  The biggest move will likely be in the Senate - not in numbers but in impact.

The worse things get in Iran, the worse things will be for D's.  Especially if things continue to improve in Iraq and the Iraqis are able to effectively take over a major part of the mission.

On the other hand, the D's will be in their current state of flux at least through '08.  Hillary has too much money to not be a force, even if she doesn't get the nomination.  The D's will remain at war with themselves until the party finds replacements for the LoonyLiberalLions - Kennedy, Durbin, Kerry and most of the House leadership.  Even if they lose Reid and Pelosi, they don't have a public face who can make a reasoned case for the party.  They don't have program, just an empty Nordstroms bag.

I'm looking for hard factual information that Dems took money from Abramoff. I mean, exact proof, not just "they said"...is this possible. I appreciate the help.

I'm not saying Reagan wasn't important.  Instead, I'm saying that Reagan's rise to power was the direct consequence of the Republican's infighting.  In fact, your summary of the primaries leading to 1980 serves as direct proof that there was some sort of debate going on--a fact that almost any historical account confirms.  

So, while it may be hard to imagine right now, it is entirely possible that the Democrats could reinvent themselves and put forward their own Reagan in the next decade or so.  I doubt it will happen, but should the Democrats shift dramatically in the direction of the DLC, I could envision a situation where Republicans are quickly left in the minority.

Was Nixon really the liberal in the race in 1960?  Like Dole in 1976, I believe Nixon was still regarded then as a right-winger.

There probably is some conflict between the extreme left wing of the Democrat party, represented by Dean, Pelosi, Cindy Sheehan, and the Kos bloggers; and the moderate wing, represented by Senators Reid, Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Gov. Bill Richardson and Mark Warner, and former President Bill Clinton.

If the left wing controls the Democrat party, they get at most 35% of the vote in general elections (much as Goldwater did in 1964). If the DLC wins control and runs on such a moderate platform (social liberals, but military strength and balanced budgets), the Democrats could win elections, by "triangulating" moderates with diehard leftists, who would never vote for the GOP.

This could erupt into a family feud--will Hillary run toward the radical left, where her heart is, or toward the center-left, where her husband is? These days, it doesn't seem like the former Bill Clinton / Al Gore team are speaking to each other--Gore is making anti-American speeches in Saudi Arabia, while Bill is working with Bush 41 for tsunami and Katrina aid.

The question is, what can WE do to push this debate to the forefront, since the MSM will likely keep it quiet? Can we soundly criticize the radical leftists for their misguided ideas, let them scream and bloviate back, and turn the moderate voters toward the GOP? As for the moderate Democrats, we can always heap praise on them when they do something with us, and try to invite them into our party, if their party leaves them. After all, even Ronald Reagan used to be a Democrat, as were Strom Thurmond, Phil Gramm, and Ben Nighthorse Campbell.  

To paraphrase John Kerry: Bring. It. On. Oh, by the way, which side is he on?

the internet - then yes it is quite possible you will find the "exact proof" you are looking for.

Nothing irks me more than people who want the knowledge but won't bother to do the homework!

Your comment 'By the time Reagan cae to power, the debate was already in its adulthood' seemed to imply that Reagan swept in at the end of a debate, and took the Presidency.  That's what I was trying to refute with the primary listing.  I'm attempting to show that Reagan was there for the long haul, from at least 64 onward.  Not just running for office, but making speeches, writing essays, and refining his positions.  Finding what ideas work, and what means of expression persuade people.

I see no hint that Howard Dean is ready to spend 12 years fighting for his party's nomination (12 years from 1968 first Reagan run to victory), or that Markos Moulitsas is ready to spend 25 years waiting (25 years from 1955 founding of National Review to 1980 Reagan victory).

I'm not saying it couldn't happen.  Every major political movement in America happened this way.  I'm just saying that the Dean Democrats aren't following this model.  There's no patience, there's no persuasion, and there's no internal debate.

When he was Eisenhower's VP, and was the liberal against both Goldwater and Reagan, I'm inclined to suspect he stayed in the same relative portion of the party his whole career.

But, by the time I was born, Nixon had already resigned from office, so I'm far, far, far from speaking with any firsthand knowledge of the times.

This is all history to me, no different really from reading about the buildup to the Civil War.

However, I don't anticipate Howard Dean to be the answer to Democratic woes any more than William F. Buckley expected the John Birch Society to solve Republican woes.  In time, however, the Democrats may find their voice and find a Reagan.  Let's hope they don't, and let's hope Howard Dean remains the closest thing to an idea that they can claim.

No doubt about it. And, as a professed liberal, it is hard for me to get excited about any of the leading contenders, and I have nothing but contempt for the leadership of the Democratic party.

But I think what's going in American politics in general, but far more visibly for the Democrats, is a realization that old liberal/conservative dichotomies are increasingly irrelevant in our political universe. That is, the battle won't be between a far left and a center left (or if it is, you guys win, one way or another) but rather an articulation of something different in response to the trauma of failure on the left.

Look at the "what is conservativism" debates on this site. I think political success has held together a group of people who don't all think alike. But in American political discourse, neither liberal nor conservative represent anything like a coherent political philosophy--this is not to say that there aren't conservatives with such a philosophy, but there is no philosophically monolithic conservative movement. More importantly, the various strains of conservativism are largely the product of decades of philosophical analysis and argument.

Liberals are in much worse shape--to an extent, it is because of the demise of socialism, but also the utter nonsense of identity politics, and an unhealthy amount of nostalgia for some mythic liberal past. If there is going to be a revival of liberalism, it will have to be something that responds to the hopes and anxieties of the American people. At this point, I don't see anyone offering that.

Reagan was actually part of the conversation well before 64. I can't remember which book I read, but it was a compilation of drafts for some of his speeches, going back to the days he was touring the US for his radio show. The development was consistent across time. Reagan was fond of saying, he didn't move away from the Democratic party, the Democratic party moved away from him. Zell Miller seems to agree, even if he was "born a Democrat."

...pay attention to the policies. Nixon was proud to say "We're all Keynsians now," and whether or not it was regarded that way at the time, that is a liberal position. So are price and wage controls, no matter how much Pat Buchanan defends them as conservative policies that worked. So yes, Nixon was a liberal, even if he was labelled a right-wing nutcase.

This is a standard leftist tactic: redefine the words so you can use them to your advantage. Best example is the Nazi party in Germany. The leftist propagandists managed to get us to use the short term Nazi, which obscures the Socialist part of their original name. Having achieved that, they proceeded to call the right wing, because they were to the right of the communists. Now, Nazi is synomomous with right-wing fanatic, yet any real far right-wing lunatic fringe type would be more likely to shoot a Nazi on sight than regard them a politically close ally.

Full disclosure: I was born after 64, so know, I don't have a clear recollection of Nixon either, although I do have a hazy memory of boring impeachment proceedings monopolizing my after school tv time when I was in school.

...you continue to think of conservatism as an ideology instead of a methodology. The conservative postion isn't about a theoretical framework which holds everything together, even though conservatives will attempt to construct such frameworks wherever possible. Conservatives look to historical experience, personal observation, and knowledge of human strengths and weaknesses to construct policies which WORK. The experimental data is more important than the theoretical frameworks. Fortunately for conservatives, the historical American impluse is to go for what works, even if you don't necessarily understand why it works, or if the method conflicts with your theoretical/philosophical understanding of the world.

Aren't you really just describing pragmatism? Don't at least some conservatives base their political views on a set of values that are not subject to empirical falsification? Obviously, no anti-empirical political view can endure very long. But if we take an issue like abortion, it seems to me that opposition to its legalization has a lot to do with the value of human life.

One is that government does not solve problems, it spends money.  You may want to lump that in with "stuff that works" commentary, but I don't think it fits.  The reason is that spending money works - it gets politicians reelected.  

The second is that conservatives & libertarians tend to take a view of the Constitution that is much more restrictive that the "living document" folks on the left.  

If the government cant do anything, then why is our military so great? How did we go into space with a government run agency?  Here is the truth:  If the people running our government dont believe that government is a force for the good of mankind, THEY SHOULD BE FIRED.  If they spend and waste money, THEY SHOULD BE FIRED.  As the american people begin to realize this, there will be a lot of wretching all over the political spectrum in this country but primarily in the republican ranks over the next 10 years. They will be fired or change colors like a chameleon.  

By what catalyst will the majority of Americans become big government types over the next ten years?  Even the most successfull Democrat of our lifetime declared the age of big government to be over.  Has socialism been building up its bench lately, and getting ready to have a breakout year?

Also, I agree that government can be a force for the good of mankind.  However, this doesn't mean it has to redistribute income to justify its existence.

"How did we go into space with a government run agency?"

Badly.  Fitfully.  Without an overriding long-term or strategy.  Inefficiently.  Sloppily.  Expensively - both in money, and later, in lives.  Mercurially.  Clumsily.  And, for the longest time (which may still be going on), rather pointlessly.

I don't know whether either private and/or military exploration/exploitation of space would have been any better - but God knows that they would have to have worked hard to be worse.

Moe

PS: Please note that I am not necessarily disagreeing with your larger point - my own pet example of something that government didn't screw up too badly is the Interstate highway system - but the space program thing couldn't be passed by without comment.  :)

By subcontracting to the private sector.

I think the relative value of human life is merely part of the campaign of pro-life. It's generally taken for granted that human life has value.

The issue usually turns on whether or not a fetus actually is human life. Opposition to legalization is best seen then, as opposition to the idea that the fetus is not human life.

Not many people are arguing that they just favor killing babies, they are arguing that fetuses are not babies at all. Arguably, this dispute could one day be settled by empirical science.

was built by contractors, not the government itself. They are sucessful when they decide on a task, and turn it over to private experts.  When the government tries to do something without private involvement-the IRS, the Post Office-the result is gross inefficiencies that get glossed over by the economies of scale.

Even the military has weapons design done by outsiders.  And the great advantage of the American military has been individual initiative at the small unit level-as any player of the old Avalon Hill wargames would tell you.

I agree that the interstate system is better than most government programs (and besides, it's even mentioned in the Constitution as a valid federal issue -- "post roads"), but the government even does this poorly.

How many times have they built the highway, then had to tear down and build the bridge again a few years later because they didn't have the foresight to build it in a way that it could be widened later without starting over from scratch?  In my locale, they are getting ready to tear up part of the interestate that was just finished less than 2 years ago, because they used bad specs.

Bottom line, the government is almost always the least efficient way to get things done.

And I haven't been able to find anything here. Can you point me in a direction or do you just hang around here to make snide comments?  Did someone hit you as a child?

...not screwed up too badly.  :)

you're re-defining labels. The Nazis were "right-wing". They just weren't right-wing in the same sense that you are beholden to. There are different aspects of Left and Right. It's not one dimensional. You need to blend levels of conformity and control in many different areas.  And in America, quite frankly, the general consensus of Left and Right are different than in other parts of the world.

The Nazis were a culturally and socially conservative and traditionalist (Right) party.

They combined this with "Authoritarian" or totalitarian (as opposed to Libertarian-style) rule. The result was Fascism. Fascism combines many aspects conservatism and nationalism in the extreme conservative sense (jingoism) with a strong streak of economic socialism. But the socialism involves a marriage of government and industrial elitist interests. Porsche (the man), for example, won many contracts from Hitler, including the first VW, much to jealousy of other captains of industry. It was still a capitalistic economy. This is a form of socialism in the elitist, right-wing sense and by Mussolini's definition, IS fascism which he said was the marriage of government and private corporate interests and policy.

Yes, I'll grant you, the "authoritarian" aspect gets falsely re-labeled as right-wing. Authoritarian or totalitarian can manifest itself

anywhere along the Left-Right economic, cultural or social or nationalistic spectrum. But it can and does look different in different cases.

Take the USSR: Authortarian, Communist (far, faaaar economic Left), culturally and socially eradicated the status quo and norms of Russia in a reactionary neo-liberal sense and with an authoritarian, state-run iron fist. But  this kind of authoritarianism was Left-Wing: It was not an iron fist for the cultural and social preservation of Russia, it was for the equality of people (at least in theory)...this contrasted with the Right-Wing authoritarianism of the Nazis where under the guise of a form captialism, the party played the extreme conservative card of intense jingoistic national pride in the name of preserving and re-instating Germany's national, cultural and social glory...in a very authoritarian Right Wing style. This is why Hitler and Stalin were such bitter ideological rivals...different ends but by the similar means. So different yet so alike.

here

and misrepresent the argument.

You ask about the military, another poster points to NASA and yet another to the interstate highway system.

These are the exceptions that prove the rule.

The US Military.  First of all, it does not do all things well.  It's procurement system, primarily because of Congressional interference, is a nightmare.  It is inefficient and could likely be done in private sector at substantially less cost and new products could be produced substantially quicker.  Remember the zillion dollar hammers and toilet seats?

They are very good at war fighting.  That's because war fighting has a start and an end.  The job is defined and it's performance can be measured in real terms.  In between you have a very detailed war plan that usually collapses right after the first shot and victory is dependent on individual and unit initiative.  (Think private sector.)

NASA.  Did a great job in the '60's.  Got the job done because they had a job that was defined and could be measured in real terms.  Since Apollo, it's another government boondoggle without a mission.

Interstate Highway System.  Guess what, a start and an end.  Well defined job.  Now, like NASA, it's a boondoggle.

The whole point of conservatism is that government should not be the "force for good" in our society.  The P E O P L E should be.  The idea that government is a force for good brought us things like the welfare state, an education system that - by any reasonable measure - is failing, social security, medicare and a raft of programs that have either bankrupt segments of the population or will bankrupt the country.

Did someone hit you as a child?

Consider this your One Bite™. Put your Pointy Stick™ away and play nice, or buzz off. No skin off our teeth either way.

Did a great job in the '60's.  Got the job done because they had a job that was defined and could be measured in real terms.  Since Apollo, it's another government boondoggle without a mission.

You mean current mission is not to become the UN of space? I thought they were moving along pretty well on that task.

right out of my mouth. As I scroll down reading, I'm always amazed at how differently "conservatives" and "liberals" define themselves and then eachother.

I've seen liberals define themselves in much the same way. BTW, I agree 110% with your view of the increasing irrelevance of Left/Right labels. Indentity politics has a way of muddling one's view of events and ideas.

I, for myself, like Dean....not the public media product Dean but the real Dean. Not because he's liberal, because he isn't the liberal strawman his opponnents would like him to be but rather because he's against the status quo. I don't like the status quo in either party.

What many hear delight in describing as a Democratic demise and internal meltdown is really soul-searching and fight for what the party's focus and priorities should be. This is not liberal vs. more liberal. It's about tweaking the status quo vs. a clean makeover.

It's not unlike the battle for House Majority Leader battle between a clean fresh face that represented what people really want politicians to be about (Shadegg). RS was clearly in his corner and even though he didn't win, Blunt was better than the status quo guy that everyone here despised. This kind of shake-up or the attempt at least is good for people and good for politics... and to hell with partisan strategy and positioning...which is the only reason this really matters here.

I wish the true, clean pure-bred conservatives like Shadegg and the 40 or so that voted for him could muscle away power from the big-government corrupt, DC status quo conservatism that has prevailed lately.

when Nixon resigned, so I was not aware of much that he did while he was doing it. But I do remember him instituting wage and price freezes (during the 1973 oil embargo, I think), an awfully heavy handed, anti-free market, big-government kind of thing to do.

I like how you carefully emphasized and re-emphasized the social aspects of National Socialism, while completely neglecting to mention the state intervention in the economy that was part of the program.

The only difference between the regimes of Stalin and Hitler, was that Stalin's Communism drew lines between 'classes' while Hitler's National Socialism drew lines between 'races'.

You also neglect the extreme patriotism of Stalinism, right on up to his calling WWII the Great Patriotic War.

Hitler's "National Socialism" vs. Stalin's "Socialism in One Country" sounds exactly the same to me.  Hitler was truly a leftist, and if he appeared on the world stage today, the left would love him.  Hollywood would fall all over him.

Hitler planned to destroy the churches and to crush capitalism when the war was over.  Fortunately this socialist lost in 1945.

I was not careful. I'm showing that there's a lot more to hitler than simply "socialism". He was still a conservative in his own right and a fascist conservative at that.

My point is that Hitler was somewhat of a socialist but he was still an extreme conservative in other areas.

what I said and you know it. You can't just melt down all that information I posted and turn it into a strawman.

As for the rest, that's all biased conjecture and I wholeheartedly disagree.

He's stating that he believes government can be a positive for force and has been one in the past.

Size isn't the issue. A government can be big corrupt and ineffectual but it can also be small, lean, clean and pro-active in bringing postive results to its citizens.

"Big Government" means nothing IMO and again he never said anyhow.

You mention "conservatism and nationalism in the extreme conservative sense", but how does that not apply equally well to the USSR? The differences between the USSR and Nazi Germany were not all that great. They were certainly not on opposite sides of the spectrum.

The era of big government is over

Which side is he on?

He's examining the nuances!

...that fascism rejects several key tenets of communism: the inevitability of history (the Great Leader is supposed to be able will things to fit his desires) and the transcendence of class over national origins (German workers were to be Germans first and workers... umm, about seventh or so) comes to mind most easily.  It's always been my impression that the Nazis went with National Socialism to rope in the idiots who thought that Communism sounded good as long as it didn't have a Russian accent.  They certainly went to some trouble later to shoot the people that took the Socialist bit seriously.

Mind you, give me a choice between saving a Stalinist and a Nazi and I'd decide on the porterhouse and mixed vegetables, with a nice but not pretentious merlot.

I asked a legit question and got a snide remark. What are you going to say to THAT guy? Nothing? Then why should I care what you say? Are you going to ban me? That makes sense. I don't remember using profanity, I don't remember doing anything out of the ordinary but I got a smart aleck comment on my first post which I answered. You tell me then, how you saying what you said makes sense. I'm listening.

Governed by esoterica like the Life is Not Fair Principle.

Wanna keep testing the aether?

There needs to be an apostrophe at the end of "Democrats", since the word is being used as a plural possessive.

Now you're just trying to rile up trouble.

Hitler was a collectivist to the core.  He was a radical.  He fought hard to immanentize the eschaton.  He was a big believer in big government.  He supported racial quotas.  He hated Christianity.

Sheesh, even on trivial matters like opposing smoking he wasn't much like today's conservatives. In no way was the man fitting of the label conservative.

Is it?

Blam.

Communism and National Socialism aren't identical, but in terms of practical domestic policy issues, National Socialism is statist and collectivist similar to how Communism is.

Sure, in one case, the big industries were owned by Nazi sympathizers (and plenty were made into formal SS officers), and in the other case, they were run (but not formally owned) by Communist Party bigshots, but the practical effective difference between the two is small.

Someone in 1950 might have said that conservatism would never again come into fashion.

He could put a colon after Democrats.

Those of us suffering from exhaustion might be inclined to make rude jokes involving punctuation.

When Clinton took office with 43% of the vote (I love how to the MSM, that was a mandate but Bush's 52% he needs to heal the division of the country), anyway, he was very liberal.  Hillary's Healthcare plan, tax increases, no welfare reform (which he campaigned on), etc.  Only in '94 after the revolution gutted the Democrats did Clinton's liberal agenda end.  He could not be a liberal without the Congress, but with the Congress, he was very liberal.  Even then though, Clinton continued to veto Welfare reform with the "mend it, don't end it" theme, only the '96 election forced him to sign it into law.

Don't believe the CNN and MSM calls of Clinton as a moderate.

Yes, a Republican congress in 1994-2000  changed a few things, but Clinton could still have fought them off if he was a true far left democrat. THe Republican majority was not big enough for it to force Clinton to sign welfare reform, NAFTA, etc. Clinton decided to triangulate because he wanted to. Was there a little push from the republican majority? Yes. However, the majority wasn't that much of a dominant force to force Clinton into areas he didn't want to be in.  

Ultimately, it doesn't matter what the reasoning was behind his decisions. Clinton still signed NAFTA and all of those other moderate bills.  This shows that Clinton wasn't beholden to the far left.

And another thing, look at the electoral map in 1996 where Clinton won a clear mandate.  Clinton won states like Montana, Louisiana, Kentucky, and a lot of other states that no far left Democrat presidential candidate  could win.

Clinton = evil, yes.  But leftist or liberal?  No, not really.

I too ignore the MSM.  But any political scientist will tell you that Bill Clinton was no liberal.

1.  He was a founder of the DLC, a group designed to take the party to the center at the expense of the hard left.
   
2.  You mention Hillary Care.  Hillary was (is) definitly liberal.  Bill didn't fight for Hillary's plan, knowing it was crap.
   
3.  At best Clinton was an opportunist, going which ever way the polls went.
   
4.  You may recall the Dick Morris "triangulation" theme.  No liberal (or conservative for that matter) triangulates.  It is selling principle out to win votes and polls.
   
5.  Clinton spoke on the need for welfare reform, and was hostile to affirmative action before his election.  He couldn't pursue those agendas with a dem congress.  (He famously got into it with Jesse Jackson before the convention, telling Jackson that he was no longer running the show).

Now if you are saying liberal as compared to many republicans I could agree.  But on a base spectrum, no way.  

The military is supposed to be one of the few functions of government.  That is perhaps why it does so well.

NASA on the other hand continues to be a wreck.  It would certainly be better if the space program was privatized.

Thanks for making the conservative arguments so well.

...the guy you responded to, not Clinton.

Doesn't matter.  You are right either way in my book.  : )

Now that's a pleasant blast from the past!

should be privatized.  Think of life without a "highway bill".  Think of life without earmarks.

Morris said Clinton's immediate reaction to the law to prevent courts from forcing states to accept gay marriages from other states was

"of course Ill sign that.

The far left HATED clinton and one of the reasons they are so kooky and far out now is because of holding their tongue under Bill.

Bill satisfied them by vetoing the partial birth abortion bill

after he lost the congress and brought Dick Morris in for guidance.  But left unchecked by the congress, Clinton definitely would have pursued a liberal agenda.  I'm not saying he was or is Kerry, Kennedy, Dean or one of the far leftists but he certainly was fairly liberal.

"If the people running our government dont believe that government is a force for the good of mankind, THEY SHOULD BE FIRED."

Yikes!  So much for no difference between Liberal/Conservative.

Well aren't you  the great and all powerful OZ...

Really now Mr. Wolf, I would have thought that someone with the power to ban writers to "The pile" would have a bit more emotional maturity than you show here. THey guy made a point, and had a mildly snarky remark. No profanity-no meaningful insult...NO wonder this place is such an echo chamber for righties hopefully anticipating the death of the Democratic party.

minor difference:Ideas. Scroll through Kos, all you'll see is rage at this and criticism at that and a smattering of self-congratulatory posts on how great the netroots is and how they're going to win big in '06. Not a smidgen of an idea that could improve peoples lives to be found anywhere. So they might be having a debate, but without positive ideas, the result will be "Meet the new Dems-same as the old Dems".

said Phelander was banned after posting a ridiculous and untrue story about the President.  

When the posting rules were pointed out to him, he threw a tantrum and screamed "don't throw those rules at me" because " those rules are only a G*** piece of paper."

I would tell you how I found out the truth about this but I dont "burn" my sources either.

but I don't think that Kos could elevate the liberal cause through education and persuasion.Liberal ideas are often inherently illogical and demonstrably false. His only hope is to appeal to emotion and "feelings".

He was on each side before he was against it.

An admitted Kossack using his third ever post here to poke Leon with Pointy Sticks™, immediately after Leon bans someone for wielding Pointy Sticks™ in response to his One Bite™ warning.

I'm gonna pop some popcorn, sit back, and watch.

Pragmatism=The elevation of practicality at the expense of values.

Conservatism=Using means that work in order to accomplish said values, no compromising of principles necessary.

For being a reincarnation of calv, teacherbill, and taking notes - all of whom have been banned. This is a violation of the terms of service. Further violations will result in your IP being blackholed.

If anyone else is interested, BooBooKitty's explanation is as good as any. When you take a healthy dose of no-value-added, and combine it with a batch of Pointy Sticks™, you get someone who's just not worth keeping around.

income by it's very existence.

"L" label on most politicians is difficult because of the KKRP (Kennedy, Kerry, Reid, Pelosi) wing of the Democratic Party.  They are so far off in the woods that an old fashioned FDR kinda liberal is a moderate.

"The Nazis were a culturally and socially conservative and traditionalist (Right) party."

The Nazis were quite progressive in eugenics, abortion, selective human breeding (Lebensborn), and the embrace of paganism, among other things.  I would hesitiate to to call them "culturally and socially conservative", when the reality is that they were trying to radically change almost every aspect of German society behind a thin veneer of faux traditionalism.

"Fascism combines many aspects conservatism and nationalism in the extreme conservative sense (jingoism)..."

 "...the party played the extreme conservative card of intense jingoistic national pride..."

The definition of "jingoism" says nothing about political ideology.  Americans in WWII were jingoistic, and our government and people at that time could could be describes as nationalistic, but not conservative. Just because fascism has proceeded from reactionary  or nationalistic impulses in many cases does not necessarily mean that conservatism is fundamental to its inception.  Witness China today.  It is arguable that the more progressive forces in Chinese government have helped to plant the seeds of Fascism there.  

... to play fetch for internet-impaired trolls.  After you have been posting here for awhile, nascent trollery becomes obvious and irritating.  Best to kick 'em back under the bridge before they get over the railing.