Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Dumb and dumber

I am no longer a Republican. I am greatly disappointed with the presidency of George W. Bush. I am looking forward to the changing of the 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. guard in 2008.

However, as fed up as I am with the so-called conservatives in power, there is a reason I will never be able to support Democrats. Here is Hillary Clinton, late last week:

"The Democrats know what needs to be done. Again, we're working trying to try push this agenda forward. The other day the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative, smart energy; alternatives and technology that will begin to actually move us toward the direction of independence."

If Hillary Clinton becomes president, it will be the Executive Branch's view that government should be able to "take" the profits of private companies and spend them as it sees fit.

Another cut-and-paste, this time from Dictionary.com:

so·cial·ism [soh-shuh-liz-uhm]
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Unless the nominee is Giuliani - and he continues to eschew bowing to the religious right - I doubt I'll be voting Republican in 2008. You can be damn sure, though, that the box I check will not have a "D" next to it.

(Yes, I tried to get a link that wasn't Fox News for the Clinton quote - it just turns out they were the only mainstream media organization I could find to run such an amazing quote.)


Doug said...

I'd have more of a problem with Clinton's idea if the government weren't already shoveling billions of dollars in subsidies into the oil industry to "encourage exploration." Right, because otherwise the oil industry would have no incentive whatsoever to look for more oil. I don't like the "take those profits" wording a whole lot more than you do, but if you look at it as the government simply taking back that money it's been needlessly throwing away for years, it becomes a lot more palatable.

At any rate, you might as well start researching the Libertarian candidates now, because there is no way on God's green earth that the GOP is going to bestow its nomination on an avowedly pro-choice candidate. You don't have to be a Washington insider to realize that.

Josh said...

Look, if you want the government to stop providing subsidies to the oil industry, fine. I can get behind that.

That is not what Clinton said, though. It's not even close, in fact.

DAve said...

It's funny you mentioned this, because if recent rumors are any indication, I will be voting Republican in 2008. Except that he's actually not one, and won't be running as one.

Doug said...

Here's a so-called conservative already turning his back on Giuliani. Ironically, it seems like Rudy would have a much better chance of getting elected if he ran as a Democrat than if he ran as a Republican.

jason said...

Rudy will get nominated if he runs well. Unlike the blogocrats, Republicans can be quite pragmatic. We're...I mean, they are not going to follow Howard Dean off a cliff. If Rudy starts to look electable in a general election, even the religious right will help secure his nomination to defeat an imminent Hillary presidency. He sure beats McCain: McCain-Feingold might be the least conservative legislation passed in the last 20 years. Also, George Bush was a pretty centrist "Republican." Not many conservatives agree with him on spending, immigration, health etc. He's vetoed one bill in 6 years. Rudy might be more conservative than Bush is. Plus he's got the leadership to deal with the kind of people who like to blow up civilians. If he can deal with that, social security, and the third-party payer health system, who cares if Ace and Gary get married?
But I'm still holding out for Newt... (that's right, I said it.)

jason said...

What? I say "Newt" and it kills the thread?

Doug said...

he's got the leadership to deal with the kind of people who like to blow up civilians

I have to admit I'm kind of mystified at the insistence by Giuliani supporters on both the left and the right that he committed heroic acts during 9/11 and that that heroism will translate into him being a great leader for the country. I mean, sure, he kept a stiff upper lip and apparently served as a good example to keep all of New York from going collectively pants-shittingly bonkers, which was admirable, but . . . what did he do, exactly? He responded well to a crisis (particularly compared to Dubya), but does that mean he'll be any better at preventing such crises than anybody else?

Chip Houston said...

Do you consider Ronald Reagan to be (have been) part of the religious right?

Surely you would vote for a candidate molded in Reagan's image, if there was one? (not GW Bush, not even close)

I agree there are some big time religious idiots (pat robertson) out there in the conservative end of the spectrum, but there are (have been) some very solid, strong, popular leaders (Reagan, who wrote a book on pro-life, ended all speeches with 'God Bless America' etc.)

My point is simply this: The Republicans are no longer Republicans, not like the conservative-Reagan Republicans of the Cold War.

Chip Houston said...

I agree that Guilani's heroism on 9/11 does not necessarily translate into an automatic ticket to the White House. And, I can't ignore the fact that before 9/11 most of NY thought Guilani was completely corrupt.

However, since you asked, "What did he do, exactly?" I must point out one thing he did in particular that I loved.

Remember Cynthia McKinney? Remember when Guiliani was offered millions of dollars by some Saudi Arabian Prince (or somewhere?) in the wake of 9/11? He was about to accept the money until the Prince made a comment to the effect of "America deserved to be attacked." Guiliani told him to stick his millions up his ass. I admired that. That's one good thing he did. And of course, Cynthia McKinney followed up with the Prince asking if she could have the money for her constituents in Dekalb County. That was a week or two before she accused Bush of conspiring to attack America on 9/11. I don't think the Prince wrote her back.