Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorubet
Last time I looked, none of them were advocating proposed laws or new Constitutional Amendments by virtue of their power as an elected member of Congress or the Administrative branch.
Last time I checked, both McCain and Jindal were. To be more specific, although it is a given that both sides are pursuing their agendas - as is their right and sometimes their obligation - I think that the American political world is currently experiencing a backlash against what is perceived (rightly or wrongly) as the Fundamentalist Christian Republican Right seeking to impose a wide range of beliefs upon the electorate, and that the recent democratic victories are a repudiation of that dynamic.
I think that the country swung too much to the left in the 70s and that the pendulum swung back toward the right, too far to the right by mid-2000, and that we are, generally, swinging back toward the middle again.
|
Yep... you got me there Gator. Only right-wing nuts abuse their power. Leftists always fall in line, roll over, and behave like good little boys and girls.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorubet
To the extent that it is my personal belief that the electorate is indeed in that kind of a mood, it is also my personal belief that moderates and independents will not be happy with a Rick Santorum clone like Jindal. I think that Jindal would hurt McCain for the reason that the country is tired of social conservative/neo-con philosophy.
|
Why didn't you just say so in the beginning? Fair enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorubet
I may be wrong. But I was not in any way saying that the Republicans have the exclusive right to telling people how to run their lives. They just choose different laws to shove down our throats than the democrats. They both do it, only the other guys force feeding us is less palatable than ours because of our individual beliefs.
|
I don't think you're wrong. That was also the point I was trying to make - that we tend to forget that politicians seek power and we can't say that individuals from one party or the other drink less kool-aid than the other. Social activists, similarly, are driven by ideals and a vision which, when given a platform and power, can step on individual rights and our civil liberties.
More to your point of Republicans vs Democrats... ultimately, if the libs could centralize and monoplize the power as this administration has been able to do, they would do it without batting an eye. They are just as deeply convinced that their views are principally correct as the neo-cons (for example) and they're no less power-hungry than the neo-cons, imo. The fact that they (the Democrats) haven't been able to coalesce their power speaks more to their lack of ability to join forces and act in a united and concerted fashion - shooting themselves in the foot as they appear to always be able to do. I've said it before; that the Democtratic party is assembled from two or three very large constituencies that have deep ideological disagreements and world views. There's no more opportune example of this than this year's Demcratic nomination race.