Back then I was more of a libertarian.

However, I know what you mean, emeraldv. I have many "conservative" friends that I am very close to and none of them will denounce Bush -- at least not publicly.

I just don't get it either -- Bush and the current regime does not stand for "conservative" ideals at all.

I would also include Newt Gingrich in your praises of Reagan.  When Newt led the Republican legislature out of the woods in 1994 (a journey which actually began several years earlier under Reagan), I cheered and cheered. At first I thought is was going to be a wonderful thing, but then of course they faulted. Partly due to lack of governing experience, partly due to the Democrats fighting back (which was something fairly new for the governing party to contend with).

For decades the Republican minority was content to sit in the background and be happy with whatever bones (or golf game) the Dems through at them. But of course the Democrats wanted their power back and it seemed to me that they were willing to do most anything to accomplish just that. Some will say the tenor of the politics changed a little earlier, during Bork. There’s some truth to that, but it took full steam in the 90’s. I believe that most of the Republican's problem is that too many of the older ones are still too shy to stand up for their core beliefs and too many of the younger ones have thought themselves forced to adopt the ways of their opposition.

The press has not helped here either. In this tabloid era, they seem most concerned with 1) fueling the flames regardless of the truth and 2) helping the Democrats return to power. There’s plenty of blame to go around in all three corners, but still for 5 election cycles the Republicans have made gains. There’s something to be said for that. But just how do we hold there feet to the fire? In many regards they have turned into the Democrats. I just wish they would quit spending so much of MY money (and my obligations).

I think the best way is term limits. It is something that the Newt followers tried (remember the Contract With America?). But this was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, so a Constitutional Amendment is now needed.

As for the past 4 years, the debate rages on. Bush has embarked on a very bold path (Buchanan would have rolled up the draw bridge years ago).  It’s success (or failure) won’t be known for several (or many) years. And it will probably take someone with a different tenor but equal determination to finish the job (your starter is rarely the same as your closer). Of course his detractors claim failure now (especially this crowd). Ok, so they bent the discussion of the facts to the end they desired. What President (or politician) hasn’t? Look at FDR. I truly believe that he is NOT looking to build a legacy, unlike his predecessor. I truly believe that Bush believes in what he is doing and is NOT on an evangelical crusade.

I would be close to agreeing. GWB, while better than the viable alternatives, still spends too much damn money and I believe does not understand the concept of smaller government.

Add to that the bone-head moves on the Schivo case.

More of a Libertarian myself, unfortunately I have to make a choice of trying to keep the Republicans away from my morals or the Democrats away from my money, and I work hard for my money...

i salute you ev for breaking with the conservatives-turned fasciCONS! i wish more people would re-reCoN their weltanschau in light of the current situation.

as a former "liberal," i got moved to outright un-americanism..... so worry not, even after you become a Democrat, if for reason other that the lack of any viable alternative, there will be room for you to continue to move towards the left.....

but it really isn't about left and right. what we're witnessing is a massive systemic collapse, severely exasparated by the neoCONS, but one that was inevitable after the end of the coldwar-era. a new global system has come into existence, and humanity is challenged by it to adapt to it, and, hopefully, use it to ameliorate and eradicate the causes of instability in the world. These causes of global instability include economic exploitation, domination by the money-elite, proliferation of weapons (instead of humanitarian aide), corrupt politicians at home and aboard, etc., etc.

what is needed is a new paradigm for the 21st century, based on fairness, respect for all beings, even the poor, and self-restraint and ethical and moral reeducation of those who have power/money

...and yes, you are the only one.

I think that may have been he reason you weren't invited. Too bad too, we had an open bar and strippers doing karaoke.

-- Modified on 6/23/2005 3:44:01 PM