You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Bush Disapproval Rating on Iraq Exceeds 50% in Poll
- Thread starter ARogueTrader
- Start date
Quote from dgabriel:
This is true. But has it ever been much different since the birth of our Republic?
First off, this is the generic fallacy that is commonly used by one of the two major parties in this country. It goes something like, "everyone else is doing it, so there is nothing wrong with doing it." Just because some politicians lack honor does not justify every other politician in acting in a power-hungry manner. Being honorless is not justified no matter how many honorless role models one has.
And for your information not every politician has been an honorless power monger. Take George Washington, for instance. He was the president who could've been king but decided that would be a bad precedent to set, so as a result up until FDR all the other presidents had enough respect for Washington to not run for a third term. Then in the aftermath of FDR, congress decided it was best to change the constitution so that nobody pulled that number again.
Quote from ARogueTrader:
Why can't they just say they have a better idea without trashing Bush in the process? Negative selling is really base and vile in its nature, and demonstrates that the position they take is not clearly superior on its own merits.
The sad thing is that they don't have any better ideas. Ever since Newt Gingrich shook up the congress, for the most part the Democratic party has been either reacting to the Republican agenda, or co-opting it (as Clinton did successfully in many cases during his presidency). The Democratic party really has become the modern day "Know Nothing" or reactionary party.
Quote from TriPack:
The sad thing is that they don't have any better ideas. Ever since Newt Gingrich shook up the congress, for the most part the Democratic party has been either reacting to the Republican agenda, or co-opting it (as Clinton did successfully in many cases during his presidency). The Democratic party really has become the modern day "Know Nothing" or reactionary party.
I don't agree with your generalization. During the entire 8 years of the Clinton administration, I saw the republican party do little but react to Clinton and his administration.
Now that Bush is in power, the Democrats are playing the same game.
It was pitiful then, and pitiful now.
Part of the problem is that the Democratic party was the party of inclusion and diversity, where the Republican party was more the party of exclusion and homogeneity, not having a large minority base.
The large minority base and inclusiveness makes the party messy and often fractured, thus weakening its underlying agenda which is fundamentally different in many areas than the Republicans.
The conflict of these growing factions create candidates who try to hard to please all the different groups, rather than focusing on the middle of the road where elections are actually won.
Quote from TriPack:
First off, this is the generic fallacy that is commonly used by one of the two major parties in this country. It goes something like, "everyone else is doing it, so there is nothing wrong with doing it." Just because some politicians lack honor does not justify every other politician in acting in a power-hungry manner. Being honorless is not justified no matter how many honorless role models one has.
And for your information not every politician has been an honorless power monger. Take George Washington, for instance. He was the president who could've been king but decided that would be a bad precedent to set, so as a result up until FDR all the other presidents had enough respect for Washington to not run for a third term. Then in the aftermath of FDR, congress decided it was best to change the constitution so that nobody pulled that number again.
Your points are well taken, but my point was in response to the context of AAA's statment where he laid greater import to the politcal machinations in Washington now than to the war on terror. And the since ther have always been groups of politicos for whom power is greater currency than public service, yet public service is still yet performed.
We are witnessing the trashing of at least two worthwhile traditions. One involves the notion that politics stop at the water's edge. The traditional way of looking at foreign policy, particularly warmaking, was that it was too important to be included in the rough and tumble of domestic politics, where lying and name-calling were basically expected. It was assumed, and expected, that candidates would take positions on these matters in light of the national interest, not to play party politics, and certainly not to appeal to ethnic voting groups. This tradition was severely undermined in Vietnam and in the anti-communist struggles in Latin America in the '80's. Now it appears totally dead, with candidates openly accusing the President of waging war for imperialistic purposes, to advance the interests of private companies or to steal "Arab oil."
The second tradition was that senior members of former administrations would not directly criticise the incumbent administration, and certainly not in matters of foreign policy. Bush 41 kept totally silent throughout the Clinton administration, even though he no doubt had serious questions about policy. Now we have Clinton, Gore and former Sec. of State Albright, among others, attacking the President before both foreign and domestic audiences in the most inflammatory language.
The second tradition was that senior members of former administrations would not directly criticise the incumbent administration, and certainly not in matters of foreign policy. Bush 41 kept totally silent throughout the Clinton administration, even though he no doubt had serious questions about policy. Now we have Clinton, Gore and former Sec. of State Albright, among others, attacking the President before both foreign and domestic audiences in the most inflammatory language.
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
The traditional way of looking at foreign policy, particularly warmaking, was that it was too important to be included in the rough and tumble of domestic politics, where lying and name-calling were basically expected. It was assumed, and expected, that candidates would take positions on these matters in light of the national interest, not to play party politics, and certainly not to appeal to ethnic voting groups.
but isn't their position that it is the foreign policy that is contrary to the national interest?
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
We are witnessing the trashing of at least two worthwhile traditions. One involves the notion that politics stop at the water's edge. The traditional way of looking at foreign policy, particularly warmaking, was that it was too important to be included in the rough and tumble of domestic politics, where lying and name-calling were basically expected. It was assumed, and expected, that candidates would take positions on these matters in light of the national interest, not to play party politics, and certainly not to appeal to ethnic voting groups. This tradition was severely undermined in Vietnam and in the anti-communist struggles in Latin America in the '80's. Now it appears totally dead, with candidates openly accusing the President of waging war for imperialistic purposes, to advance the interests of private companies or to steal "Arab oil."
The second tradition was that senior members of former administrations would not directly criticize the incumbent administration, and certainly not in matters of foreign policy. Bush 41 kept totally silent throughout the Clinton administration, even though he no doubt had serious questions about policy. Now we have Clinton, Gore and former Sec. of State Albright, among others, attacking the President before both foreign and domestic audiences in the most inflammatory language.
"Attacking the President before both foreign and domestic audiences in the most inflammatory language."
Attacking the president in the most inflammatory language? What, they are calling the president a liberal?
Are you suggesting any president has a "get out of war criticism free card"and censor criticism of policy?
How do you know that their efforts are political, and not issue based, attempting to act in what they consider what is best for the country?
Should former elected officials just sit by and keep their mouth shut even when they think what is happening is wrong?
I don't recall you wanting to censor Clinton when he phoned in to Larry King and lobbied support for Bush in context of the war several months ago.
Seems to me that you are the one who is politicizing this, as you always politicize everything that doesn't concur with your perspective.
Quote from Madison:
but isn't their position that it is the foreign policy that is contrary to the national interest?
All those before could have justifiably said the same thing about the foreign poilicy they opposed. By definition when you disagree with a policy, you think it is contrary to the national interest, or that some other policy would be better for the national interest. The point is that they didn't say it even if that's how they felt because they respected the role of being a member of a former administration, a respect that no longer exists.