Party of Family Values: Foley Resigns

Parent Cafe
1041

<p>Pete McCloskey. Oh my. A man who served his entire congressional career under the generations-long dominance of the Democratic party. There is a hyphenated expression for men who have always had to beg for what they want, but it’s probably not appropriate here. He, and many of those in “the revolt of the elders” seem to yearn to be back under the spiked heel of the Democratic dominatrix. Wait til they find out she’s turned into SanFranNan(Gran).</p>

1042

<p>So some people have found that their values are more in line with the other party and switch their affiliation. Many people on this board have described themselves this way. However, if you are unhappy that the representatives of your party have not lived up to the values that they claim to hold, does it really make sense to punish them by voting against those values and for the party that doesn’t have any better record or that doesn’t even claim to hold them? That makes no sense to me and seems to be a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.</p>

1043

<p>You know, whatever your politics, Pete McCloskey is one of those guys it is difficult to see as anything but straight up. I am sure there are others in politics like him, since I don’t follow politics, I don’t know. I know the McCloskeys from their years of public service in this area. It’s possible to be a staunch Republican and still acknowledge a standup guy. Right? It is, right?</p>

1044

<p>I didn’t say he wasn’t a stand-up guy. He ought to just stand up and say “I’m a Democrat.” I’m just not impressed when these whipped eunuchs from the past–and there were indeed many, many more like him–just like him-- show up as “main-stream Republicans” in support of their former mistress. Sorry.</p>

<p>N.B. Now Lieberman–there’s a stand-up guy.</p>

1045

<p>Translating from Driver-ese:
Agrees with me = “stand-up guy”
Disgarees with me = “whipped eunich”</p>

<p>But that’s OK, because it’s “arch”, right?</p>

1046

<p>Back to the language lab for you, Kluge. My description only referred to the service of generations of GOP members of congress who grew up under the boot, and became go-along-get-along poofs. Add that to your vocab list. Please note that despite your “quotation” of me, I spelled “eunuch” correctly–I know one when I see one.</p>

1047

<p>He doesn’t want to stand up and say “I’m a Democrat.” He wants to stand up and say, “I want the leaders of my party to demonstrate ethics I can commit to.” It’s the ethics he has issues with, not the policies.</p>

1048

<p>Logos, seems to me that if fiscal conservatism, the hallmark of the Republican ideology, was really important to a voter, they would take a long, hard look at spending patterns under Reagan, Bush I and now the wantonly wasteful Bush II. Spending under every democratic administation (yes, those “tax and spend liberals”) has been signicantly less, the national debt reduced, more jobs created etc.</p>

<p>So, it seems a little “punishing” is in order, since I don’t know how anyone can tolerate this runaway debt, which will evenutally bring down this country when China comes calling for repayment.</p>

1049

<p>

OMG!! I’d had no idea that this was true. You’ve convinced me. Can you just document it a little bit before I change my voter registration? And of course, add in the relevant data about the party in control of congress during these remarkable, thrifty Democratic administrations. I feel so silly–there must have been dozens of such administrations.</p>

1050

<p>Allmusic,</p>

<p>Republican spending is one of the issues that I have a problem with, but I hardly think the Democrats are any better, and I’m sure I would have a greater problem with the direction in which their spending would flow.</p>

1051

<p>

You might want to rethink your “runaway debt” comment:</p>

<p>

EDIT: Sorry - Forgot the [url=<a href=“http://www.forbes.com/infoimaging/feeds/ap/2006/10/06/ap3072862.html]link[/url”>http://www.forbes.com/infoimaging/feeds/ap/2006/10/06/ap3072862.html]link[/url</a>].</p>

1052

<p>Last president to balance the budget was a democrate.</p>

1053

<p>Which democrat was that, and in which year did said democrat accomplish this feat?</p>

1054

<p>

If someone read only this thread to learn about American politics, they would believe Republicans are sex-obsessed and Democrats are devoted to fiscal responsibility and gay witch hunts. How ironic is that?</p>

1055

<p>I guess the Dems really are the party of irony, after all.</p>

1056

<p>NYT today has a fascinating article about GOP Capitol Hill Aides. There’s a fair number of them, almost all of whom play it “straight”–even dating women for a cover. Yet they say that there has been some relaxation in the last years, and they feel safer inside the party. Some work for gay-bashing congressmen, but the congressmen themselves are aware of the aides’ orientation and accept it–weird! The worry for these staffers is that they will lose the progress they’ve made, and a right-wing anti-gay backlash will force them out, or deep into the closet again.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/washington/08culture.html?hp&ex=1160280000&en=a13a3dac6d27c8cb&ei=5094&partner=homepage[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/washington/08culture.html?hp&ex=1160280000&en=a13a3dac6d27c8cb&ei=5094&partner=homepage&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

1057

<p>Thank you, Farawayplaces. Your comment is the icing on the irony cake.</p>

1058

<p>Beyond icing, beyond irony. Notice that there is no attribution of any kind in that NYT piece [oh, the times will do a “correction” sometime, maybe they’ve got another Jayson Blair on their hands, poor things]
Meanwhile, notice who’s pimping the “gay GOP list.” Oh, yes, David Corn, of The Nation. But he’s not really going to tell you who’s on it…but he just wanted you to know he has one…a copy of the list, that is. wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more </p>

<p>That would the same David Corn that told the world that the White House “outed” Valerie Plame to “punish” Joe Wilson for speaking “the truth”…and then wrote a book with Michael Isikof explaining how smart he was for figuring out that all of that wasn’t true. Oh, irony.</p>

1059

<br>

<br>

<p>That was Bill Clinton:</p>

<p><a href=“http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/[/url]”>http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

1060

<p>Are you Bush lovers on this thread, doubting that Bush took our lovely surplus and borrowed us into a multi-trillion dollar debt? As you are tut-tutting here, are you really claiming to ignore the FACTS? DRJ, maybe the deficit is being reduced, but it is still GINORMOUS, and you are ignoring the fact that we had no recognizable deficit before, and now we owe the Chinese trillions.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/[/url]”>http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.66 billion per day since September 30, 2005!</p>