posted on October 18, 2004 01:57:18 PM new
....or in Bear's case Bush, the liperal
It's interesting how easily people toss the world "liberal" around these days. I ran into one of the best examples of all in email just about an hour after I had written the Rambling Gleaner that followed the last of the presidential debates in Tempe, Ariz.
I had squirted in a little section on how difficult life can be for the working poor in America and suggested a couple of lines for a good song that might be recorded by a favored group, the Dixie Chicks, for example, or one of those big-hat country western singing guys.
As is the case with almost all emails that contain references to putting something unpleasant in someplace bad, this one had no name. But the author was assured that I was most certainly a liberal because I had mentioned the Dixie Chicks favorably.
So that's what being a liberal is all about! The Dixie Chicks. Finally a definition!
No wonder President Bush is so eager to paste the liberal stigma on John Kerry. He certainly doesn't want the Dixie Chicks singing at the White House, not after what they had to say about him while they were on tour in England last year.
Can we really be this stupid?
I don't think so, but I do think it would be very interesting at this point to see what everyone thinks of the word liberal. There's a message board here for you to send along what you think the word means.
As a political label, I believe it just doesn't work any more and is roughly as ineffective as the word "conservative." Both of them are outmoded, loosely used and probably meaningless for any purpose other than to stir up a collection of people who are just too dumb to know, first, what they really mean, and second, how they are misused.
There may well be no true liberals or true conservatives anymore.
Here is the political definition of liberal, straight from Webster's New World:
"...tolerant of views differing from one's own; broad-minded; specifically, not orthodox...of democratic or republican forms of government, as distinguished from monarchies, aristocracies, etc...favoring political reforms tending toward democracy and personal freedom for the individual; progressive..."
It does go on and on.
But it doesn't take a lot of analysis to conclude that by this measure--the measure of what the word actually means-- that the most liberal person running for president this time around isn't John Kerry, who of late has never been any thing more than an ideologically Democratic senator with ambitions, but, surprise of surprises is...
...President Bush.
What could be more liberal than "favoring political reforms" in Iraq that tend "toward democracy and personal freedom for the individual?" What could be more liberal than trying to reform an entire system of education with a "No Child Left Behind" program? What could be more liberal than experimenting with tax policies to encourage economic growth? How about putting faith-based initiatives into a government that has traditionally, and conservatively, shunned most agendas connected to religion?
This of course, will lead a lot of people who don't understand the words "liberal" and "conservative" to send more of their "Give me some of that stuff you're smoking" emails. But the fact of it is, all I am ingesting is information from the dictionary, which everyone should try once in a while, just to keep things straight in their head.
Other Bush characteristics seem to fall into the liberal category, too.
It's most certainly not a conservative thing to run up a deficit this vast in such a short period of time. In fact, one might argue from a purely intellectual perspective that President Bush is the second great tax-and-spend Republican to come along, with Ronald Reagan being the first. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, was a conservative advocate of shrinking government and whittling away at deficits until they had disappeared.
In our ignorance of political history and culture, though, it's easy for a candidate to duck that liberal label by pasting it as firmly as he can on his opponent.
I can't quite figure out when the word liberal became demonized, but it has been a little bullet fired from the Republican arsenal in just about every campaign I have followed for the past couple of decades. It beats me as to why, but I think at some point during President Reagan's first campaign he tangled it up with the Rockefeller Republicans (who were really liberal for Republicans) and came away knowing the strategy of pasting "liberal" on an enemy actually worked.
Somehow I feel the object lesson in all of this stretches not back to Reagan, who wasn't a mean-spirited man after all, but to a darker character in American political history, Joseph McCarthy, the Wisconsin Senator who pasted the label "communist" on just about everyone who disagreed with him.
That was strategic, too, just as the modern Republican use of the word "liberal," as though it were a slander, was strategic. Someplace on a bookshelf at home there is a studious Cold War tome that notes that Tail Gunner Joe of Wisconsin had a couple of choices for campaign themes during one tough race. He could either make the St. Lawrence Seaway his issue, or Communism. The choice was obvious.
If things had gone differently, maybe modern political candidates would be struggling over charges of St. Lawrence Seaway appeasement and Canadian encroachment than over labels like liberal and conservative, which are, I suspect, equally useless except as bait for people who don't understand what they mean.
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
----------------------------------
"Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
[ edited by logansdad on Oct 18, 2004 01:58 PM ]
posted on October 18, 2004 02:48:59 PM new
Interesting opinion, logans. It's true the words have lost most of their meaning. Look at how the definition of a conservative has changed over time. There's one thing I'd quibble with though. Bush isn't a "tax and spend" liberal. He's worse than that, he's a "borrow and spend" liberal.
____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
posted on October 18, 2004 05:27:38 PM new
This has been my largest arguement regarding this President. He has accomplished zero his entire Presidency besides rolling back laws that protect American citizens so that his buddies can make a few more million while watching the debt spiral out of control. There is nothing compassionate or conservative about it.
posted on October 18, 2004 05:48:11 PM new
profe, I know what you mean. Bush has called Kerry an extreme liberal but if you think of all the thins Bush has done during his term you can definitely call Bush a liberal.
Where are the comments from all the die hard Republicans? Do they have anything that can dispute these charges?
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on October 18, 2004 06:20:32 PM new
So much said in that opinion piece is laughable. So much untruth in it.
Yea, American's are to believe the decifit has increased the way it has for absolutly NO reason. WRONG!! It's increased because this President has spent money where it needed to be spent.
on education
on re-building our military
on veterans benefits
on social programs
on added medicare benefits
on giving the projected 'surplus' back to those who over-paid it.
on two wars to fight terrorism
these and much more are the reasons our deficit increased....although it was $100B less in 2003 than expected to be.
And the dems complain about all this extra spending....when they only wanted MORE spent on almost EACH AND EVERY program that President Bush DID give higher funding to.
And are they NOW mortified about the $2.5 trillion in EXTRA spending kerry's wanting to spend? Heck no...just complain about how bad it already is...but don't ever mention their concern it's going to be MUCH worse should kerry get elected. MUCH WORSE....increase in taxes FOR ALL....not just the top income earners.
Imo, anyone who supports kerry and his promised/planned spending spree hes already promised...has absolutely NO room to complain about this administrations spending. It's always been normal for t dems....they just can't believe a republican is following in their normal footsteps.
posted on October 18, 2004 06:25:08 PM newBush has called Kerry an extreme liberal.
Everybody who pays attention to how kerry has voted not only KNOWS he's a liberal he has earned the distinction of being the Senate's #1 liberal....with edwards being their #4. kerry's left of Ted Kennedy and that's saying something. Out of 100 Senators....that makes what a liberal is REAL clear too all.
No way to deny how kerry's voted....liberal all the way. And he has almost NO accomplishments in his 20 year Senate record to speak proudly of either. He's a joke....but he's all the anti-Bush people have.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"And they, the interrogator went through all of these statements from John Kerry. He starts pounding on the table. 'See here, this naval officer, he admits that you are a criminal.'" Excerpt from "Stolen Honor"
- James H. Warner Former Vietnam POW
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I will never submit America's national security to an international test. The use of troops to defend America must never be subject to a veto by countries like France. The President's job is not to take an international poll -- the President's job is to defend America." --President George W. Bush
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Re-elect President Bush
posted on October 18, 2004 08:16:30 PM new
Linda, I'll bet you the deficit on the following:
1. You can't delineate or provide any list of figures which supports the $2.5 trillion dollar claim Bush likes to make against Kerry's plans. How could you, when you consistently claim he has no plan?
2. You can't tell me what portion of the deficit is caused by the President's additional funding of education, veterans benefits, social programs, and added medicare benefits as compared to what portion of it comes from military and war related spending.
For full credit, please submit your rationale in your own words.
____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
posted on October 18, 2004 08:43:36 PM new
Many ILL bush supporters on this board are only Parrots of the Bush/Cheney GANG'S lie machine. I for one can't believe 95% of the stuff they post. Most can't think for themselves they are only Parrots that copy and paste replies. Its sad these people are so confused.
posted on October 19, 2004 06:06:36 AM newIt's increased because this President has spent money where it needed to be spent.
Wow what a crock. The president had to spend the money.
Tell that to all the future generations that will be forced to pay off his huge deficit.
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on October 19, 2004 06:17:32 AM new
LOL profe - Good try...but I'm not taking the bait. Reason being is for months I've asked dems to explain to ME just where all this extra money for programs kerry's either proposing to increase or start new is going to come from.
Know how many answers I've received? None, nada...not one.
The figures for kerry's spending spree has been estimated by MANY groups, including taxpayer groups, who have wanted to have an estimate on how much kerry plans to spend. Something HE has been UNWILLING to give us, although he has PROMISED to do so almost a year ago. A google search on different titles will clearly show anyone interested how large the gap is between what kerry's going to spend and what HE says he can cut to help pay for it all. The numbers don't add up...not even close. Try...googling: kerry's numbers don't add up
But check out what factcheck.org says about how his numbers are not working, check out what the National Taxpayers Union says, check out the report kerry approved of from clintons people...another one form Thorpe - an independent analyses..check out the Lewin Grp., a policy firm that specializes in health and human services....and there are hundreds more. They ALL come to the same conclusion....kerry's numbers DON'T add up.
There will either be tax increases for all, not just the two top tax brackets, ALL, or there will be enormous amounts added the the deficit the dems are already screaming about. Whose line items they wanted MORE spent on.
--------------
Also we need to remember the largest, by far, program kerry is promising is health care for 1/2 the uninsured. The cost gap on that alone is estimated to be close to a trillion dollars. And remember that's only 1/2...that will be doubled when we do what can't be avoided...insure the OTHER HALF. But kerry's words keep saying ALL Americans will be insured.....nope, just 1/2 of the uninsured.
But this is just the beginning of the liberals plans to start us down the sliding slope into Nation Health care like the clinton's tried to get passed.
On top of that kerry proposed to extend Medicare buy-in's to those age 55-64...that's projected to increase our Medicare committment by ANOTHER 65%. And remember too, that health care for that age group costs about twice what it does for the lower age groups. Take a look back to the study done by the GAO in 1998 when clinton was proposing something similar. There you will see that they projected the cost to be between $300-$400.00 PER PERSON - PER YEAR...and there are approx. 25 MILLION people in that age group.
Then on top of all this BS [being promises he can't pay for and has already starting backing off of...in answer to how he's going to pay for it all....paraphrasing here] 'I might have to reconsider and some promises may have to be put aside'.
Yea, right...FALSE PROMISES to all the different groups to get their votes. FALSE PROMISES.
-----
And last, but not least, [my rant is almost over ], kerry's still lying about President Bush's "surprises": that President Bush is starting a draft in January AND scaring our elderly by saying President Bush is going to cut their Social Security benefits 30-45%.
Typical lying that the dems do during EACH election cycle....just being threatened again
He's a phoney....a typical politican who not only is missing a backbone but will say ANYTHING to get elected....even when he knows he's lying.
Edited to add: That the amount projected of increase in our taxes, under a kerry administration is anywhere from $2,009.00 - $2,829 per household - per year. NOT just cancelling the tax cuts given to the top TWO tax rate payers. This is in addition to that.
[ edited by Linda_K on Oct 19, 2004 06:48 AM ]
posted on October 19, 2004 06:31:10 AM new
Not a 'crock' at all, logansdad. The truth.
The president had to spend the money.
On two wars, HomeLand Security, getting our military out of the terrible shape the clinton administration left it in.
And then there's all those increases he's made in the programs that the only reason the dems were screaming about them is they felt he wasn't spending enough on them. Like the Medicare bill, like NCLB, Veterans health care, education, Pell Grants, other educational items....like all the other social programs the Bush administration added funding to and the dems only wanted MORE spent on.
Then we have the spending on 'pork barrel' items....and guess who's the KING of pork barrel spending? The oldest Democrat in the Senate....[b]Byrd (Democrat). He has a long history of being the BIGGEST pork barrel 'taker' of all....has taken the 'prize' and has earned the name KING of pork barrel spending.
It's always been normal for t dems....they just can't believe a republican is following in their normal footsteps.
Excerpt from "Stolen Honor"
], kerry's still lying about President Bush's "surprises": that President Bush is starting a draft in January AND scaring our elderly by saying President Bush is going to cut their Social Security benefits 30-45%.
