Ask your garbageman who he is voting for and then tell him he's not physically hard-working. Then ask your banker who he is votong for and tell him that he has a physically hard job. :grin: Conservative democrats? They went over to the republican party in the 70's. The right side of the democratic party is composed of moderates, which is my point.
Others feel that it is because an advanced education tends to remake conservatives into moderates and liberals. Not since Ronald Reagan have the republicans been fiscally conservative. That's a long time, Kedo, this is NOT Ronald Reagans Republican party anymore. It's a Frankenstein monster of traditional fiscal conservatives (the old-money republican party of yesterday), social conservatives (the old conservative democrats), religious fundamentalists, and neoconservatives . Not since Jimma Cahta. Bill Clinton reduced the rate of federal spending. And Bush has created huge underfunded new federal programs like "No Child", OHS, and the Medicare prescription drug plan. Sorry, I just choked. Who, pray tell, is still a conservative republican then? The old democrat/republican models just aren't valid anymore. Both parties are evolving rapidly. The smart party and the ultimate winner will be the one that moves to the center and can gain the support of the moderates. Better still, a moderate political party needs to be established between the increasingly radical democrats and republicans.
Red, George bush was elected as a so called "compassionate conservative" and you admit in your post that he created huge underfunded programs .This violates coservative fiscal policy.Socially ,yes he is conservative,but he cannot be considered a true conservative. As for Clinton ,I wouldn't consider him a liberal.When he was elected as a "new democrat " he was much more of a centrist.And along with republican congress ,a centrist democrat was able to do some damn good things economically. And now here we are months before the 2008 election ,in a year when the democrats are set up to win everything,and who do the democrats throw out as their candidate.Is it a moderate candidate? .No, they throw out the most liberal senator in the entire freaking senate.A guy more liberal than Ted Kennedy ,Chris Dodd or Harry Reid.They go all the way to the extreme left of the spectrum and pick Barrack Obama. NATIONAL JOURNAL: 2007 Vote Ratings (03/07/2008) Amazingly the most moderate of all the democratic senators is Mary Landrieu
This is just one opinion, and not an unbiased one either. It seems every election year the National Journal finds the democratic presidential candidate to be the most liberal member in the senate. It was Kerry in 2004. Barack Obama: The Most Liberal Senator? An Analysis correcting misinformation about the National Journal's U.S. Senate ideological rankings Here is a good one: In any case, Clinton the more moderate candidate is clearly getting almost half the democratic support. The climate for change is very intense, so many people are taking risks on Obama who has an anemic track record to judge him on. His rhetoric in his speeches and in his books is moderate and that is what people are attracted to.. What's amazing about it? Landrieu has always been a moderate democrat, like Breaux was.
Sometimes, it's difficult to separate standard, polarizing rhetoric (you know, what ALL politicians do for a living) from a voting record (what some of them do less than others...). I'm guessing that's the case with Landrieu. Although, I'm too lazy and busy to research it.
Leave it to "moderate" Mr. Red to rebut an opinion, widely reported and acknowledged throughout the Liberal media (thus lending it credence :rolleye33, with a little known and seldom (if ever) referenced hack job by a media source with this little unbiased gem leading it's mission statement: :lol: That's the mission statement of a media outlet dedicated to providing TRUTH, dammit! Just ask them! If they say it, it's the TRUTH! :lol: May as well read straight from the Obama talking points... C'mon Red. You're better than that. Aren't you? :huh:
So . . . if I fight fire with fire and offer a highly biased refutal of a highly biased and widely criticized source, then it is a political hack job. Not like your saintly, venerated, and authoritative source. :lol:
