Reflections from the Grounded Center

3.08.2006

At Conservative Forum on Bush, Everybody's a Critic

From the Washington Post
By Dana MilbankWednesday, March 8, 2006; A02

Interesting...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030701403_pf.html

11 Comments:

Blogger KOB said...

The Cato Institute is a Libertarian organization. Describing them as "conservative" is misleading. Then again we are talking about the Washington Post, so it's meant to sway opinion against the President.

In a related note, I hosted a Clinton bashing session last week in my living room, and despite my invitation Hillary never showed - she must be guilt of everything we accused her of...

21:17

 
Blogger A. K. Brown said...

It is so sad to see someone so misled.

22:02

 
Blogger KOB said...

Hillary? - tell me about it!

12:29

 
Anonymous gerd said...

"and despite my invitation Hillary never showed - she must be guilt of everything we accused her of..."

Good ole republican logic here!

The conservative forum in Alex's article most likely extended formal invitations to the white house.

Did Kurt Brown send a formal invitation to the NY senate requesting the presence of Hilary Clinton in your living room?

I think not.

swisssh! No net!

12:59

 
Blogger A. K. Brown said...

Well he would have had to send it to the US Senate, but that is besides the point.

Saying that Libertarians aren't conservative is like saying that Communists aren't lefty.

But then again, you think that GW and Co. are "conservative." Reactionary is really a bit more fitting.

13:20

 
Blogger KOB said...

Once again, Gerd posts without reading/understanding the article. It was their logic not mine.

So if I sent a formal invitation the "guilty by no response" logic would hold up right? How's the crack pipe? BTW, you should really stay away from metaphors you don't understand. Swish is the sound you get when it hits nothing BUT net.

I never said that Libertarians are not conservative, I said using the term conservative to refer to them is misleading. I say this because that term is commonly used in the media to refer to Republicans.

For example, if Fox News (whom you believe to be conservative much like I believe the Wash Post to be liberal) printed that a liberal group met in 1998 to host a couple of writers that have written anti-Clinton books, and that by not showing up to defend the administration to a hostile crowd, the Clnton Admin. was admitting guilt, you would call them crazy. If you then found out that the liberal group I was talking about was actually the Green Party, you would definately find fault with the slant and logic of that article.

10:52

 
Anonymous Gerd said...

"Once again, Gerd posts without reading/understanding the article. It was their logic not mine."

Once again, KOB fails to grasp the basic principles of logic, and tries to incite everyone as his only way to try to "win" an argument is to insult others.

Re-read your post, and mine.

It was your failed logic KOB. You fail to understand very basic postulates.

I read the article, understood it, and actually I read it before Alex even posted it on this forum.

Did you read it? Apparently not.

But then again, your probably did read it but your Republican programing prevented you from understanding it.

19:58

 
Blogger A. K. Brown said...

Don't tell me what I would or would not do. Unlike a lot of pundits, I don't make up my mind until I have read or heard any given article or argument. Your convenient hypothetical means zero.

I also think it is sad that every "discussion" here always turns into a sh*t slinging match between you two rather than a real dialogue. It leads me to believe that niether of you care about the issue at hand, but rather bruising the other - just like Washington.

22:08

 
Blogger KOB said...

I'm pretty sure if you go back and read most of the shit slinging, you'll find that it starts with an argument from me as to the thread topic, followed shortly thereafter by an attack on me.

Just look at this thread as an example. I give an argument regarding the nature of the organization in question being one that by definition doesn't agree with the Republican party. I then give an analogy to demonstrate how silly the topic of the article is in suggesting that a no-show by the administration at a hostile event is an admittance to every accusation at that event.

The very next post, by Alex, is not pointing out flaws in my post, nor adding to the debate the article started, but a personal attack on me for my comments.

I then deflect the comment with an off-handed knock on Hillary, and the next post by Gerd insists that all Republican logic is flawed because I didn't send a formal invitation to a political body to which Hillary doesn't even belong -as if my ridiculous, made-up, analogy would be correct if I had sent a formal invitation. He then high-fives himself with an incorrect sports cliche.

Admittedly, I then attack Gerd and the response is predictably 3rd grade, complete with the use of big words to sound smart and the compulsary "brain washing" comment he thinks is the answer to every argument he fails to actually address.

Alex, then upset with the tone that, of course, he forgets that he started, comes back with the always popular "I always look at all sides defense," while never addressing the issue of why my hypothetical is actually incorrect.

Going forward, I agree to stay away from the personal insults if you two will agree to the same. However, can you for once stick to the actual topic. I still haven't heard one of you address the article and I've done it twice now.

23:41

 
Blogger A. K. Brown said...

Your hypothetical is incorrect because I have not seen, heard or read any such article or opinion by anyone from the Green Party or otherwise, and you have already prescribed my response. To agree with you would be ridiculous. That is like saying that if they had a book burning party for Harry Potter you'd be the first to show up because you like GW, and he likes crazy Evangelicals. Using hypotheticals is a poor way to prove an argument.

I want to digress a bit and address two terms you love to use-conservative and liberal. These two words are ridiculous, and nothing but politically charged weapons of the pen that hold no real meaning.

For example, if GW's Republican Party were actually conservative, their spending habits and foreign policy would be 180 degrees different than what it is right now. They are not conservative, they are some new hybrid borne of extreme nationalism and reactionary values. My father and grandfather are conservative - GW, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove are Facist. And please don't try to use any sort of self-engrandizing prefixes like paleo or neo...to me that is akin to Soviet-speak.

Likewise, Liberal is a ridiculous term also. Your favorite example of a "liberal" President, Bill C., is actually quite a conservative guy who, let's not forget, is a great deal more fiscally responsible than the current administration (see: balanced budget and welfare reform). "Liberals" of today (in your mind Democrats) are not that liberal at all...they are pragmatists and moderates, like myself. It is just that Dubs and crew have swung us so far to the right, than any middle stance seems like a Communist diatribe.

As for the article, I wasn't even that hung up on the fact that a representative from his admin didn't show up. I was more interested in the details of what they were saying. I think it is ridiculous to expect that someone would go to what was obviously planned as a bashing session. Since Reaganites seem to be turning from GW by the day, and Reagan being a supposed hero of the GOP, the article struck me as an interesting piece in a long line of them where fiscal conservatives are outraged and confused by GW's spending.

One last thing. Why do you always use Hillary as the person to attack? She is my Senator, but you guys must really be scared of her to always use her as the target. Why not Russ, or Harry or Ted K.? It is feasible that at least one of those will make a run in '08 too. Just an observation.

09:44

 
Blogger KOB said...

OK - much better.

My hypothetical was simply reversing the situation so you could see that the point of admission-by-absence is ridiculous - a point you agree with already. You posted the article without comment, so how was I to know you disagreed with the supposed basis for the article. In reality, it's hard to tell if the article was being honest about that point, or if the author was just looking for a way to publish the contents of the bashing session and call it news. It's a stretch to call the article newsworthy because of the absence of GW Admins.

I disagree with your views on conservatism/liberalism (surprise). It surprises me that you think that there cannot be any grades of cons or libs, as you are always trying to paint me as the absolutist. Bush is definitely a conservative, but he has a major flaw. That flaw is that he tries to make friends in politics and it always bites him. This is his “compassionate conservatism” that he touted. In his mind, there is a divide between traditional conservatism and being compassionate, and that divide is spending on government programs. Reagan Republicans believe that conservatism is compassionate by definition and needed no make-over by Bush or Rove. Thus, they applaud the tax cuts and the stance on social issues, but hate the spending.

Most traditional conservatives believe that the government is a crutch only to be leaned upon under very specific circumstances. These people are upset with Bush’s spending in the last 6 years and the increased government involvement in social programs. To be fair, Bush had a recession to deal with and most economists agree that government spending during downturns is a very important element to softening the fall. Now that we have turned the corner, however, it’s time to start curtailing some of that spending. Bush’s problem is that he is facing a lot of unpopular cuts now that the people have gotten fat on the increase in spending and he has lost a lot of political capital to make those cuts.

On the flip side, Clinton was not conservative, but had to make some concessions to the conservative congress. Thus, a lot of his liberal policies were tempered by that conservative congress. He also had a runaway economy that helped him balance the budget, something GW did not have when he inherited the bubble burst, 9/11, recession, natural disasters, oil crisis, etc. There were certainly many more problems in this presidency than in the last one, but many of them are silly to blame Bush for.

The modern day Democrat party is NOT run by moderates! You are the one that sent the list that measured the polarity of the parties.

http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/pdf/Fringes.pdf

The most vocal congressmen/women on the left occupied the farther left positions, while the visible Republicans were further down the list toward the center. Also, the Republicans scored closer to the center as a whole than the Democrats did, particularly if you look at the most polarized. To make the point, the top Conservative senators (3 way tie) have to wait until the 4th most Liberal on the Democrat senator list to get a respective rating. It’s much worse on the Representative list where you have to go all the way down to #9 on the Liberal list to get an equal conservative rating for the most Conservative Republican.

11:46

 

Post a Comment

<< Home