Republican Pork

Remove all ads!

I think your problem is that you have only really been aware of the situation with one party in power. You've only seen one side. Looking back over the past 16 years, it's not too hard to say the Reps and Dems are about equal. Clinton was much more subtle about what he did, but not really better.

The issue is less what the official party goal is (make America better) and more how many of them actually adhere to that rather than the other goal (make me richer/more powerful). This is where the rotten-ness of the parties comes in. As has been pointed out, investigations and allegations are constantly being thrown around by both sides, and all too many of them seem well grounded.

 

On the one hand, you say I've only been around for one party in power, which is true. On the other, so have you, considering you're 4 years my junior (and I doubt you became interested in politics much earlier than 12. If you did, shame on your parents). I'd also bet top dollar you've always been a Republican. So you've only seen one side, too - and in fact, are more likely to defend that side and not see the bad in that side, since they've always been your side, and see the wrongs of the other side as disproportionately negative. You've been on that side since before you knew the differences between them. So it's very hard to give much significance to your seeing balance given your perspective, since your side is always going to look better to you than the opposition. I on the other hand started on your side, grew sick of ridiculous positions of and being lied to by that side and bolted - because my loyalty is to the country and the best way forward, not either party (that, and neither party really matches my priorities 100%).

Which of us took the correct course is open to interpretation, I guess. EDIT: I guess my overall point is, a loyal Democrat will most likely never accept that their party is worse than the Republicans, and the Republicans definitely won't do the same, no matter the facts at hand. You, NOG, are a loyal Republican. I make it a point not to tie myself to either party, and try to take a longer view. I don't care about how things were in the past, I care about things today. And today, sh*t ain't balanced. If the Dems become too drunk with power over the next 4-8 years, as the Republicans did, that will likely change.

 

I'm not even sure it is true. For six of the eight years Clinton was president, there was a Republican Congress. Even if you want to go back eariler than that, the Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress during the entirety of George H.W. Bush's Presidency. And during the Reagan years, Republicans controlled the Senate for 1980-1986, but the Democrats controlled the House in that time frame. For the last 28 years, there have been only 8 years (two under Clinton and six under W Bush) where the President and the majority of Congress have been from the same party. Obvoiusly, this number will increase to 10 years by the time we hit the 2010 midterm elections, but that still would mean that 2/3 of the past 30 years we would not see one party in power...

Well that's definitely true, but it also seems to be stating the obvious. What possible reason would you have for being a registered Democrat, if you felt that the Democratic party was worse than the Republicans (or vice versa of course).

 

Damn good point...I wish I'd made it. Jerk.

Policy and shared values. A pro-life, pro-second-amendment, pro-war, anti-welfare, anti-tax voter is typically going to stick with the Republicans no matter how badly they suck. Same with the Democrats, usually.

 

I'll admit that I wasn't as aware of politics 16 years ago as I was, say, 4 years ago, but I was aware. I also had friends at the time that weren't all Republicans (or republican children) and we did talk politics. It may not have been as educated as these forums, but it was there. The other thing to remember is, I'm not defending the Republicans, which is what you would expect your 'loyal Republican' to do. I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm also not just talking about the party's overall activities in power. I'm more talking about the individual activities of individual members, whether they're in power or not. It's more likely to be noticed, and be sizable, if that party is in significant, or even noticable, power, but criminal investigations wait for that stuff.

I don't think that's 100% true, espectially not of memebers of these boards. There are enough of us that admit to non-standard leanings (libertarian party, foreign equivalents there-of) that I think most of us can honestly say we'd leave the sinking ship before it went down, be it the Rep ship or the Dem ship.

 

I don't think it's 100% true either, which is why I said 'typically' and 'usually.' But your point is noted.

I too am calling it like I see it. But then, our calls certainly depend on our own points of view.