AmyTuteurMD

AmyTuteurMD
Bio
Dr. Amy Tuteur is an obstetrician-gynecologist. She received her undergraduate degree from Harvard College and her medical degree from Boston University School of Medicine. Dr. Tuteur is a former clinical instructor at Harvard Medical School.

MARCH 26, 2009 8:36PM

Conservative Republicanism is a blight on this nation

Rate: 22 Flag

 Wall St. broken

I know, I know, the title is far too gentle, so let me tell you how I really feel:

 Now that Republican Conservatives have officially managed to ruin everything, from the banking system, to the budget deficit, to the endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they are shocked, shocked, that the rest of the country is holding them to account. They feel victimized!

Let's see if I get this straight. Everything that Conservatives have touched in the past generation, they have broken: the economy, foreign policy, the military, constitutional protections, the list goes on and on. At the moment, the country is embroiled in two endless wars, mired in a massive economic recession and is trying to restore our position in the world that has been morally soiled by a policy of torture.

Conservative Republicanism is a failed, intellectually bankrupt, morally indefensible ideology. Tryng to divert our attention from that reality with this pathetic whine about unionizing is grossly absurd.

Conservatives are the most amazing whiners. They whine about being victimized even though for the past 8 years they controlled the Presidency, Congress and the Supreme Court ... and destroyed everything they touched.

Conservativism is a backward looking, losing philosophy. Current Republican conservatives dirty the name of conservativism even further. It’s hard to think of anyone who has done more damage to this country than Conservatives.

Think about. When have Conservative Americans ever been correct about anything? At the nation's founding they were Tories, during the Civil War they were slave owners during the Depression they were the cause, in the Second World War they were isolationists. They opposed virtually every program, law or principle that has made this country great. Rather than whining about victimization, they should be ashamed. Of course, Herbert Hoover whined, too.

The GOP is to blame for the terrible struggles we face: their President, their Congress, their Supreme Court, and, most importantly, their failed PHILOSOPHY. Every single thing that was done was rooted in the philosophy of the Republican party, was introduced by the Republican party, was endorsed by the Republican party, and was voted for by the Republican party.

They can try to shed responsibility for this disaster, but it belongs to Republicans, in addition to the disaster in Iraq, the disaster in Afghanistan, the disaster in New Orleans, the disaster in Abu Ghraib, the disaster in Guantanamo, and various other disasters as well. The least the Republicans can do is take responsibility, the way that adults are supposed to take responsibility. They were wrong about the effects of de-regulating the banking industry, 100% wrong.

But, of course, we shouldn't be surprised. Republicans have a bad habit of creating depressions and recessions and pretending that it wasn't their fault. Hoover did it. Now Bush will do it. That doesn't mean that the rest of the Republican party should follow them off a cliff.

The real problem with the contemporary Republican party is that they are fundamentally un-American. They think they are elected only to govern Republicans. They are haters of the first order: they hate gays, they hate minorities, they hate atheists. They have absolutely no respect for the Constitution, except for the Second Amendment. I could go on and on.

Conservative Republicanism is a blight on this nation. It will go down in history with Hooverism and McCarthyism. Not surprisingly, they were Republican, too.

myspace profile views counter

Author tags:

politics

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
You'll find no argument with me, but it's not as uncomplicated as your essay suggests. After all, Lincoln was a "Republican." Now being a Republican was different then but nonetheless...

I spent a couple of years shacked up with my aged parents on a golf course in North Carolina. I got to know their friends. One of the things that struck me and made me question whether man had a level of intelligence greater than a worm was the plethora of retirees there who had retired with huge union pensions. UNION pensions negotiated by fire wielding advocates that did not ever vote for anyone with a capital R next to their name. These people reaped the fruits of these battles and while they sat at their pine desks overlooking the 12th tee they listened to Rush Limbaugh and were now right wing republicans. Go figure.

Age does not equal wisdom.
I agree with Ablond. At its founding, the Republican Party, which grew out of the Whig Party, sought investment in roads, bridges, and railways; higher tariffs to protect American industry; and containment/abolition of slavery. Most of the slaveowners were Democrats. Needless to say, things have gone downhill since then. The damage done by Republicans under the Bush administration is incalculable . To call them "haters" is a bit extreme. Some are haters, but many are just misinformed. If Obama is successful (and I believe he will be), the exodus from the GOP will accelerate. And given their current platform, that can only be a good thing.
Ablonde:

"Age does not equal wisdom."

That is definitely true.
Steve Blevins:

"To call them "haters" is a bit extreme."

I don't mean that every Republican is a hater. I mean that it part of Republican electioneering and governing philosophy to encourage hatred (and fear) of those who are different. Sarah Palin is a classic exponent of this philosophy.
That's one way to look at things. The left bears the responsibility for idiotic mismanagement of things like Freddie May and Fannie Mac, laws that made any idiot able to get a loan, Bankrupcy laws that made it easy to walk away from debt, causing the house of cards to fall.

On the top side, you have deregulation of derivitives based on these loans. But it is childish to think one party is responsible for the economic meltdown.

As for war, the 2006 election saw a huge turnover in Cogress over a war, they continue to fund, a president who is essentially just going to move troops from one mideastern hell hole to another.

But that's okay, huh? Most of the wars we've gotten into the past century were from Democrats who got elected by promising to keep us out of them.

We now have a scenario where your field, medicine will bankrupt the United States, as our national debt will exceed the Gross Domestic Product by six times in 50 years, and the presidents solution is to spend a few trillion more.

Republicans are there to watch insane spending. Had they been fiscally conservatives, we woulnd't be in this mess.

then you have the illigitimacy rate of African Americans going up to something like 80% since Johnsons Great Society created the welfare state that made a single mother a viable occupation. Nice work. Why not offer teens money to shoot heroin? That would be real compassionate.

The fact is a country, like a family needs a balance between coddling and disciple. In fact studies show children in single parent homes headed by fathers have less dropout rates, drug and crimes, implying disicpline is even more critical than coddling.

Saying yes to anything anyone wants is not compassionate, it is stupid and destructive.
I agree. However, conservatism isn't a philosophy. Never has been. In America, it's always been an opinion about the limits of liberalism.
If you believe in the Constitution, you hold a very deep and fundamental liberal belief.
This is a 100% true statement:
In America, if you are a conservative, you are at best a Liberal Conservative.
There's a Point to Ponder...
jimgalt:

"Saying yes to anything anyone wants is not compassionate, it is stupid and destructive."

What does that have to do with the fact that Conservative Republicanism has been an unbelievable failure? I notice you can't think of anything that the Republicans have done right.
Paul J. O'Rourke:

"In America, if you are a conservative, you are at best a Liberal Conservative."

That's absolutely true. Democracy is the triumph of Liberalism. Conservatives opposed it every step of the way.
Your post should isn't about Republicans as much as it is conservatism. There are plenty of conservative Dems that have been a part of the problem as well.
Correct, Amy.

There were conservatives in America during our liberal Founder's time. The word for conservatism then was "Tory."
If the conservatives had their way...we'd be a British colony.

PS- Amend my above to Conservative Liberal...a version of a liberal.
Paul J. O'Rourke:

"If the conservatives had their way...we'd be a British colony."

... with slaves!
Amy,
Thanks for saying it. When I see Rush Limbaugh leading a chant of his own name at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference...and I recall the oxford-shirted rioters shutting down the re-counting of votes at the Dade County election offices in 2000...I whiff a creeping brown-shirtism.

These thugs steal elections, stoke the fires of war, squelch science and feign religious piety. These are the same guys that jailed Galileo, burned witches and shot into crowds of organized workers.

I wish the left or Democrats or progressives or whoever the good guys are that have some power...would sing this song louder and stronger. Being civil seems not to be working.
I think Obama is the best possible hope for our country, but my god, what a lot of shit the guy has to fix before he can even think about building things for the future!

I'm ready to bail.
Jon Harris:

"These thugs steal elections, stoke the fires of war, squelch science and feign religious piety. These are the same guys that jailed Galileo, burned witches and shot into crowds of organized workers."

Exactly!
Ablonde:

"what a lot of shit the guy has to fix before he can even think about building things for the future!"

It's just like what Roosevelt faced during the Depression after 12 years of Republican rule.
Indeed, there is nothing legitimate or altruistic about the hordes infesting Middle America!

Sure, they commit very few crimes, and have been slow to act out on their hatred lo these many years. But believe me, they are but a sleeper cell, awaiting the day they will sink their fangs into the chubby necks of black babies!

We must learn from the lessons taught us by Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao. They knew how to deal with the forces of reaction!

We must build a massive and benevolent government of the People, where the vermin need not apply. We must attack their sacred symbols of feudal superstition in every public square, and drive them cowering to the hills. When, predictably they react, rearing their ugly purple hate-contorted faces, we will commence swiftly with the final solution to this bacillus, this cancer on the body politic!
shmadoff,

I guess you can't think of anything the Republicans did right, either.
On the contrary, Dr. They did more wrong then right. Your party will now preserve all the wrong, and add trillions and trillions of dollars worth of China-supplied wrong of their own.

Eventually, after your party has created an unmitigated disaster, the Republicans, with no need to reconstruct themselves as a more responsible party will regain power and continue the bipartisan effort to destroy our beloved country.
It isn't conservative Republicans that doubled our debt in 8 years. Bush was a wild spendthrift. Ron Paul would be closer to a conservative philosophy beliving in smaller government, which also means bringing troops home from the 150 countries we station them in policing the planet at taxpayer expense. Who can argue spending is not out of control. I still support Obama, and realize he was handed a shit sandwich. But I don't trust the people he has appointed to fix the mess, being the architects of the mess, and I am worried about passing around a few trillion more, and wonder what kind of control they are looking for. Government run, semiprivate institutions Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac don't have the best track record of govenment managed banking and mortgage. The FDIC is about the only sucessful banking system theyve established. And some could argue the SEC, but look how these ass masters dropped the ball recently?

I would not put this on the back of a party. The fact is, there are insanely rich and greedy individuals that put their golden parachutes and bonuses ahead of a companies long term goals, the way AIG burned through a 50 year stable insurance business, in two years of investment Ponzi schemes.

This happens over and over. The S&L, Junk Bonds, Dot Com bust with companies like Lucent more interested in their stock options than actually making fucking products that could capitalize on the internet, the way Cisco, Microsoft, Amazon did.

It is an ongoing problem. There is nothing long with big corporations making products and services selling them at a profit. The problem is the people at the top using get rich quick schemes, putting everyone in jeapardy for their own selfish interests.

Even Enron. I would guess 95% of them were normal honest people, but a handful of people running things were insane theives. There are just too many Maddofs in the world. Even people that hate Ayn Rand mischaracterize her philosophy. It wasn't about dishonest scheming to get whatever your can. Ethics was always a main point. But the entire banking and investment industry is rife with hustlers and pimps, who don't produce anything but side bets. They are bookies, and as important as capitalizing someones home is, or an innovative business, you can't build this Ponzi scheme 500 trillion dollar derivitive market, 4 times the size of the worlds actual assets, and expect nothing to go wrong.

Central banking is essentially a pyramid scheme with fractional reserves, and it is falling apart. The reason to be vigilant about bonuses, is because we have to isolate these sociopaths and tell them they are responsible for all their employees, the people invested in them, not just their golden parchutes and handful of friends on the board and in politics.
Democracy is a triumph of classical liberalism, which is Libertarianism, not marxism.
shmadoff:

"Eventually, after your party has created an unmitigated disaster"

Only if you think a robust economy, peace, full employment, and a balanced budget is "an unmitigated disaster." That's what the last Democratic President did. All the great presidents were liberals. None of the great presidents were conservatives.
jimgalt:

"which is Libertarianism"

No, not even close. Liberalism, the philosophy of Locke and Rawls, is one thing. Libertarianism, the philosophy of Ron Paul (a buffoon if there ever was one) is something quite different. Conservativism and Marxism are entirely different philosophies as well. Libertarianism is just selfishness and greed dressed up for consumption by the gullible.
What have Republicans done right? Ended slavery. Ted Roosevelt formed anti trust laws. Nixon actually formed agencies like the EPA, Ike helped end school segregation, Reagan bankrupted the Soviet Union, more recently Republicans in Congress worked with Clinton on Welfare reform, which emphasiede training, and put limits on having children while on it.

But as PJ O'Rourke said, Republicans are more of a filter on Democrats. In theory preventing 90% tax rates, wild spending, and socially trying to retain some semblance of traditional family values. Meaning the basic two parent system the human race has practiced for thousands of years, which is constantly under pressure from people telling everyone divorce has no adverse effects on kids, unwed mothers have nothing to be ashamed of. So there is a balance between the parties. No, they shouldn't be shamed, but it shouldn't be so mainstreamed as to become commonplace, when we know that 90% of the time unwed mothers result in poverty, poor children, bad schools, drug and crime infested areas.

As opposed to a postmodern, burn all bridges philosophy. With emotional logic about marriage being slavery, men evil, in fact a whole slew of racist sexist views on what races, sexes or religions are good or bad, and how everyone is just a sociological pawn, where every interaction can be judged by adding up their victims points.

+1 for being female, black, gay or Jewish
-1 for being male, white, straight or Christian

Sure, why treat people as individuals when you can just see how many guilt points they have and decide anything by their victim status. Progressives have mainstreamed radical ideas where art is feaces on a painting of the Virgin Mary, but a hate crime when applied to any other religion. Where 95% of the hate crimes arte just called crimes, because the victims were not "oppressed."

Any rational person can see there is a balance in politics in which each side forces the other towards moderation and slow, steady change rather than trashing everything overnight. Society in general is far more liberal than the 50s, but who can say it is all an improvement? Crime, drugs, illegitimacy, national debt, a declining family structure.

What do conservatives do? Prevent the entire country from looking like a Halloween Parade heroin fuled orgy. Stability, moderation, and yes, tradition. Republicans main goal is to temper liberals overemotional desire to break out the guillitines and try to replicate Stalinism the "right way."
Libertarianism has nothing to do with greed, you mental mutant. It has to do with the limits of government in our social lives or pocketbooks.

The founding fathers revolted over a hell of a lot less taxes than we have. Beliving the Government that governs least governs best. The revolution was a tax revolt. Doesn't sound that progressive to me.

Just confiscating money and passing it around is legalized theft, not compassion. Progressives are so very generous with other people's money.

And yes Classical Liberalism, look it up, Einstein:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

Maybe you should just stick to medicine.
Only if you think a robust economy, peace, full employment, and a balanced budget is "an unmitigated disaster." - AmyTuteurMD

If this administration brings those to fruition, I will renounce my independent status. Like Meryl Streep, I have doubts.

Great presidents of the distant past do not fit our modern definitions of liberal and conservative. As for the greatness of modern libs: LBJ-a VERY mixed bag, Carter- not so great, Clinton- not bad, with complications.

I wouldn't expect any objectivity from you as regards the cons.
Wikipedia, Jim?

Classical liberalism is liberalism. What the term does is separate more modern theories within liberalism that would hold less importance on the question of private property as it relates to liberty.
You can fit your idea of libertarianism into a classical liberal theory, but that doesn't mean they are the same thing, as classical liberal theories have a fairly wide spectrum. You could take it from 'small government, laissez-faire economics all the way to a government guarantee of an economic social minimum.
You're taking a segment of classical liberalism and identifying it as the whole. Doesn't work that way.

Now, in your libertarian version, our Founders did not share those laissez-faire ideals. In fact, it's safe to say they were far from that.
The tax revolt wasn't just against the crown, but against - as in that most famous tea party - politically powerful corporations and monopolies. Some who call themselves libertarians would look at the laws governing corporations in our Founder's time and call it socialism.

Libertarianism has a flaw. It doesn't work. I do think it's a great ideology for those committed to failure on principle.

It's not too late to take up medicine.
"Classical liberalism is liberalism"

Really. I wasn't aware that Hayek, Von Misis and Adam Smith were liberals. Here's a hint, read the Wikipedia article before making a fool of yourself.

"Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1], laissez-faire liberalism[2], and market liberalism[3] or, outside the United States and Britain, sometimes simply liberalism[citation needed]) is a doctrine stressing individual freedom, free markets, and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to place fiscal constraints on government[4] as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others. "

Modern liberalism is closer to socialism and has been since FDR.
"a doctrine stressing individual freedom, free markets, and limited government. "

Any of that sound familiar? It should. It's Libertarian, you fruitcakes.
Well, Jim,
You stumbled upon a truth. As a matter of fact, Hayek, Von Mises and Adam Smith were liberals.

"a doctrine stressing individual freedom, free markets, and limited government. "
Jim...that's Liberalism. Locke, Montesquieu, Hume, Smith...Liberals.

Before you continue struggling in the deep end, clinging haplessly to your Wikipedia ducky float ring, liberalism is classical liberalism and communitarian liberalism. It's all "Liberalism." What's so hilarious about your truncated understanding based on Wiki woo-woo is almost everything in your pasted definition is simply - Liberalism.
Classical refers to the economic aspects of liberal philosophy, not the civil liberties - those are the same.
REAL classical liberalism is what I said it is. Laissez-faire is fringe stuff, even in classical theory. The Wiki is about what those whose study is limited CALL themselves, and what meaning THEY attach to it.

You saying liberalism is closer to socialism since FDR is the dink think of the modern "somebody said it on talk radio", haven't really studied it labelbabbler.

I'm not impressed.
Everything great that has been done at any point in the history of humanity was done by liberals.

There is a place for conservatism. That place is in leaving things alone that dont need to be changed.
The current "conservative" Republican philosophy seems to be more about changing anything that was done by a Democrat, whether or not it worked. I agree that they are "haters" and simply seek to fight any progress that they cannot claim credit for. (which is of course, any progress at all)

I think it's very sad that this nation has been messed up enough by the previous administration that we must swing this far in the other direction simply to repair the damage.

Why cant't we all just work out a comfortable middle ground?
How could a former Harvard alum hate Republicans and Conservatives? Oh wait. There are SOOOOOO many things that are wrong with this post it's breathtaking to read. However, since you are a darling of OS and you like to write controversial posts that put you on the front page I'm sure this will get a lot of comments. If you really want to discuss this though I will be happy to point out all of your in corect statements. You can have your opinion but at least KNOW what your saying befoer you write something. Facts, facts, facts. Do your research.
jimgalt:

"What have Republicans done right? Ended slavery. Ted Roosevelt formed anti trust laws."

Both Lincoln and T. Roosevelt were liberals. Lincoln would certainly be a Democrat today, and Roosevelt was so progressive, he left the Republican party and formed a 3rd party.

"With emotional logic about marriage being slavery, men evil, in fact a whole slew of racist sexist views on what races, sexes or religions are good or bad, and how everyone is just a sociological pawn, where every interaction can be judged by adding up their victims points."

Oh, more victimization. Now it is the poor straight white male who is the victim.

Sorry, but those views do not characterize mainstream liberalism, no matter how much Republican fund raising haters pretend that they do. Liberalism is about equality.

"Any rational person can see there is a balance in politics in which each side forces the other towards moderation and slow, steady change rather than trashing everything overnight."

Which is why Bush, Cheney et al. were fundamentally un-American in their claims that Democrats were unpatriotic. The Conservative Republicans don't even follow YOUR values, let alone the values of liberalism.
shmadoff:

"If this administration brings those to fruition, I will renounce my independent status."

Get ready to renounce. A Democratic administration ALREADY did that. It was the Clinton administration. Bush and the Conservative Republicans proceeded to wreck it.
Paul J. O'Rourke:

"Before you continue struggling in the deep end, clinging haplessly to your Wikipedia ducky float ring, liberalism is classical liberalism and communitarian liberalism. It's all "Liberalism." What's so hilarious about your truncated understanding based on Wiki woo-woo is almost everything in your pasted definition is simply - Liberalism...

You saying liberalism is closer to socialism since FDR is the dink think of the modern "somebody said it on talk radio", haven't really studied it."

Awesome! You have a way with words.
LexBarron:

"There is a place for conservatism. That place is in leaving things alone that dont need to be changed.
The current "conservative" Republican philosophy seems to be more about changing anything that was done by a Democrat, whether or not it worked. I agree that they are "haters" and simply seek to fight any progress that they cannot claim credit for. (which is of course, any progress at all)"

Exactly!
DJohn:

"There are SOOOOOO many things that are wrong with this post it's breathtaking to read."

Really? Don't keep us in suspense. Tell us about the accomplishments of Conservative Republicanism.
The Republican party was the last bastion of the economy crashing robber barons. In "Nixon era" they took the McCarthy sociopathic course one step further. They embraced the disenfranchised racists, segregationist haters and dupes recoiling at the thought of equal rights under the law and remarketed themselves as conservatives.

Test case: Georgie Wallace taking the extreme Kennedy/King shooting wing away thus loosing the republicans and election cycle.

The chastened republican party further lowered itself realizing that coat hanger abortions, banishment and workhouses should remain in place rather than abortion. They could have come out in favor of adoption but the curdled up hate could easier be mined the remarketed "pro life and "Christian values". Easy targets those pregnant women.

Ronnie Reagan stumped for Truman and unions, against the big corporations, until GE got to him, he went for the bucks.

It is a corruption of the soul, the setting aside of morals for power and greed. The great swings in economic crashes, phony wars, the turning of citizen against citizen of this great nation, the subjection of the government to corporate city states all can be laid at the foot of the the tainted Nixonian Republican party. Take a look at who was slithering about in our Whitehouse behind the cloak of a court jester president Bush, left over Nixon acolytes. Better yet look at the "conservative values" we have to rescue our country from again, war(s) and economic chaos.

The conservative arguments on this page have degenerated into winkipedia definition smokescreen rants. Wear your cloak well conservatives. Just when things are looking good again you can come along and Hoover/Nixon/Wallace a coupe of stupidity redefining one or another core hatred and take America down another few pegs to "balance" things out with the liberals.
I can agree with all of this except referring to them as "unamerican." All ideas are acceptable in a free society, even bad/self destructive ones.

Further, it occurs to me that Republicanism is entirely about tax cuts. Everything from abortion to xenophobia get plastered onto the concept of "conservatism" in order to create a coalition of tax cutters. It has no other purpose. The death of the Soviet Union left the G.O.P. without a real enemy. And therein lies its fundamental flaw. Modern American conservatism exists to oppose something. Whether that something is bolshevism or contraception, it is a weakness to have no central philosophical endoskeleton. The modern G.O.P. is a philosophical parasitic insect.
You rock. That post made my day.
Amy, DJohn will tell you that something is "wrong", but he will never cite a specific. He can't. I have asked him to do so. He is intoxicated with the right wing radio's menu of whining about William Ayers and Ward Churchhill, but he has nothing substantive to say about political thought itself. He does not even understand the difference. Boehner, Cantor, and that silly excuse for an alternative budget are exactly the same thing.
"Libertarianism, the philosophy of Ron Paul (a buffoon if there ever was one) is something quite different."

Well, Ron Paul is a Republican now (used to be a libertarian). His views do fall more in line with current Libertarianism than current Republicanism, though. I think he would argue that his views are "old" Republican (don't know how true that is).

But, I'm curious, what makes you consider Dr. Paul a buffoon?
This rant is just as bad and uninformed as any neo-con's. Disgusting from either side.

Blame all the bad things in our history on the "enemy"!

Grow up or shut up.
Dr. Amy,

1) I would also argue that if Richard Nixon was alive and in his political prime today, he would be a democrat... a moderate democrat. As flawed as he was, his political views would not be acceptable by today's Republican party.

2) Libertarians are conservatives who want to smoke pot, gamble, and screw hookers.
This is precisely the kind of divisive and hate filled rhetoric that has poisoned our national discourse. I find it particularly amusing to see it displayed in efforts to illustrate how the other side has cornered the market in its use.

Physician, heal thyself.

Shirely even you can see the irony in that statement.
This is a ridiculous piece of political and historical commentary, lumping everything evil in American history and call it conservative Republican. It doesn't make critical distinctions, and it doesn't analyse. It does nothing but poisons the already divisive political discourse in this nation.
Von Misis, Hayek and Adam Smith would be called conservatives today.
I dont think Nixon would be a moderate democrat, but he would be a moderate Republican. His anticommunism was his most conservative side, being a part of so called McCarthyism.
Wow, rwnutjob I thought only liberals believed the other were actually evil. You really are a nutjob.
Just got to this insane screed and can only second the final comments of Geoff and Patrick.
I hope you are not as ignorant of a patient's medical history because with this post you have displayed your total ignorance of American History.
"Libertarians are conservatives who want to smoke pot, gamble, and screw hookers"

Really? Obstretician Ron Paul strikes you as a pot smoking whore monger?

Libertarianism is a consistent philosophy based on the limits of government. Property and local taxes pay for police, fire, emergency and schools.

And this is done with a fraction of the money the Federal Government collects for everything else.

Libertarians don't believe the government belongs in the bedroom or pocketbook. That from a pot smoking whoremonger.
"Really? Obstretician Ron Paul strikes you as a pot smoking whore monger? "

Yes! That's why I would have voted for him!
Amy, I hope you have noticed that they shout that you are ignorant, etc., but they don't give a specific correction. I see this sort of thing so often, I point it out, but it never gets a substantive response.

I have two dogs. I can ask them a slightly nuanced question, and they can give me an appropriate response. If I say, "where is the ball", they will paw it, or lift it and drop it in place. If I say, "give me the ball" they will bring it to me.

If I ask John Boni, or T.S., or DJohn for substance or support of their opinion, they always stop at the opinion. They dont know the difference between "where's the ball", and "give me the ball."
It took a while for sanity to prevail in this ridiculous thread. Given the good doctor's penchant for oversimplification and hyperbole, I'm surprised that any of her patients have limbs left.

Kudos to those who didn't just let the thread die of its own weighlessness.
No Jim, Ron Paul does not strike me that way, but the last time I checked he is a Republican. If he truly is a Libertarian why doesn't he change his party affiliation? I know that he ran for Prez as a Libertarian, but nothing is stopping him from declaring that party now.
By the way, I like Ron Paul. Strong common sense guy.
I'm a little late to this game, but WTF: "How could a former Harvard alum hate Republicans and Conservatives? Oh wait."

What? How could a highly-educated member of society, who has demonstrated above-average intelligence and analytical capabitlies, and has devoted her life to caring for women, hate Republicans? Dunno , DJohn, but looks like Dr. Amy wrote a Post above that might give you some clues.

If you want to play the anti-intellectual, anti-"elite" card, this probably ain't the best place. Maybe you should check out Glenn Beck's website or something similar.
Bill,

1. I didn't shout. 2. I don't see any point in furthering a discussion with someone who harbors such bias. 3. We both know where you hide the ball.
Conservatives are all evil!!! No, liberals are all evil!!!!

sigh... This helps how?
"I agree with Ablond. At its founding, the Republican Party, which grew out of the Whig Party, sought investment in roads, bridges, and railways; higher tariffs to protect American industry; and containment/abolition of slavery. Most of the slaveowners were Democrats. Needless to say, things have gone downhill since then. The damage done by Republicans under the Bush administration is incalculable . To call them "haters" is a bit extreme. Some are haters, but many are just misinformed. If Obama is successful (and I believe he will be), the exodus from the GOP will accelerate. And given their current platform, that can only be a good thing."--Steve Belvins

It's not the name of whichever party that matters. Over time the party Ideals have switched. The names have remained the same but if Lincoln were to be compared to today's ideals he would be for the most part Liberal. Don't forget, he thought Karl Marx--the creator of Socialism and Communism-- was an ok guy.

I think she is talking about ideals rather than names here. And conservative ideals have been a perpetual blight in this nation from 1787-2009. When do they go extinct is my question...like the Whigs, Federalists and the American Independants?
Bill,

Just so you know. I could debate you all day long on the principles of conservatism vs. those of what we today call "Liberal". If today were a day in the year 1775, you could place me as one of those Liberals ready to fight to the death for America's freedom from the British King. Today there has been a reversal in those roles. I want America free not only of foreign invasion and control but I want America free of internal socialist controls. I believe in the Constitution and for those principles and values for which it stands.

Not some ill defined, misguided social agenda set forth by mob rule. This is why we have a Representative Republic and not a Democracy.

Maybe Dr. Amy could remove that ball for you.....
I love your blog and find the topics interesting and the comments from readers insightful and intelligent. With that said I have to disagree with you on laying the blame for our country at the feet of Conservative Republicans

My personal belief are such.

The current problems are not a republican or Democratic problem. The problem is those who have been in Washington for the past 4 decades are out of touch with America and as career politicians do not care what is good for the country. They only care what is good for their reelection. We have senators and congressmen who have been in office for decades both democrats and republicans who are hand feed with special interest money.

Obama was elected mainly because he was an outsider. It is disappointing now elected he is acting like a Washington insider more everyday. Time will tell.

Consider these points.

Bush was not a conservative Republican and most of the current party leaders aren't either.

The current war in Iraq was approved by both Republicans and Democrats. Hillary voted for this war to. The current banking problems were foreseen years ago and Barney Frank (D) who sites on the banking committee ignored any regulations that would have stopped the raping of the American economy.

Both democrats and republicans voted for the current banking and investment regulations and voted for the massive bailouts of the very richest banks who until a couple of months ago were reaping billions in profit.

If you want to blame the lose of millions of jobs on unfair trade agreements, then blame Clinton since he pushed NAFTA with the help of his wife Hillary.

If you want to blame the collapse of ENRON blame it on Clinton who pushed for deregulation of the natural gas industry that benefited ENRON. Both Clinton and Bush received campaign contributions from top ENRON executives and both pushed through regulations that created the problem.

Out of control spending has been both republicans and democrats. Clinton had 8 years to fix SS and healthcare, he did nothing. Bush same thing. Will Obama do anything, time will tell.

There has not been a conservative Republican in the White House since Eishenhour in my estimation. All the rest have been posers.

What Americans need to do is stop blaming one party over the other and start voting out these career politicians who together have sold out the needs of the American people to please their special interest handlers. But, we won't because they have us so convinced there is a difference between republicans and democrats that we play the blame game while they are free to remain in power and destroy this nation.
Independants? What the hell are they? Some party made up of eight legged homophobes who live in colonies?
For the most part I agree with you in principal, but, the conservative element only gains power because the rest of us let them. Bush should have been kicked to the curb in 04 but the American people let the swiftboaters for propaganda get away with their lies. Bush was able to invade Iraq because people didn't demand answers to the questions about the WMD lies. The economy crashed because the average American was happy with unlimited credit and mindless deregulation. And the administration got away with treason by outting Valerie Plame becasue the American people were more than happy to let the entire scandal be swept under the rug, just like the Iran/Contra scandal.
We can blame the conservative element for creating the mess, but we didn't have to follow their lead. One can only hope Americans have learned their lesson, this time.
Jon Harris wrote:
These thugs steal elections,

You have that confused. The primary record in this country of stealing elections has been democrats. Ever hear of "Vote early and often" That was a saying of Richard Daley of the Democratic party machine in Chicago.
Even the dead voted in Chicago.
"Even the dead voted in Chicago."

They let your career vote in Chicago? Or were you referring to your brain? Either way it's strange!
"Conservative Republicanism is a blight on this nation"

Funny, that is exactly what the Repubs say about the libs....hmmm go figure.

Ya huh....na uh....ya huh...na uh

Jackoffs
T.S. gave an excellent example of why conservative thought does not exist. First, he stated that in 1775 he would have been a liberal fighting against the king. So he would have sought and received a republic, point taken. A liberalism point, by the way.

Then he says, he could "debate all day long" about the principles of conservatism versus those of what we today call liberalism". BUT DOESN'T

Here is my favorite part, "I {believe} in the Constitution, and for those principles and values for which it stands."

Again, the ubiquitous statement about what the conservative "believes." Does he know that it is a law, and not a religious document? DOUBTFUL. Does he know that it is a working mechanism that can be used to neutralize unconstitutional attacks against it? DOUBTFUL. Does he provide any examples of the unconstitutional acts for which he would, or we should use the Constitution to oppose? NO. He just states a loud, awkward blend of his unsupported rant with "for which it stands", a phrase from the pledge of allegiance.

He ends with some vulgar attempt at humor and disrespect regarding the hiding of a ball. Sad. Pointless. Uninformed. There was a lot of bluster about what he "could" do. He just didn't. That is modern conservatism for you. Impotent, impudent, idiotic.
Hey seamess

Your blog page indicates no posts and only the default friends. And yet I see your pathetic ad hominem attacks frequently on these pages.

Are you only a professional irritant?
"Does he provide any examples of the unconstitutional acts for which he would, or we should use the Constitution to oppose? "

Really. Is it possible that BB needs to be told about the 90% tax on bonuses, the proposal to regulate executive compensation with respect to companies that have received no governmental funds, and Tiny Tim's super-regulator suggestions of yesterday ?

Only today we hear of California's attempt to limit the sale of black cars because they are harder to cool, another proposal to make home thermostats automatically do the right thing, and a proposal to condition governmental support funds to newspapers on the paper's agreement to forego the expression of political views.

All of these outrages are made possible because of what might be called the Obama Aura. It's an atmosphere which basically holds that if any measure can cater to the collectivist appetite for redistribution, entitlement, and producer punishment, it's worthy of serious consideration without regard to the Constitutional principles involved.

BB, it's YOUR responsibility to know what's going on in the world around you. Don't try to sluff it off on others.
Gordon,
President Obama has indicated that he doesn't think that the 90% bonus is constitutional. It won't reach his desk.

I haven't heard about the black car thing but I wonder if a regulation like that would be unconstitutional. Interesting.
Seamess! Wow GordO you are clever! Did you think that one up all by yo0urself? I've seen what you've written, so I'm guess that is possible. You haven't shown the ability to come up with anyhting intelligent on your own yet. Get back to me when you do, jag off.
"Really. Is it possible that BB needs to be told about the 90% tax on bonuses, the proposal to regulate executive compensation with respect to companies that have received no governmental funds, and Tiny Tim's super-regulator suggestions of yesterday ?"--GordonO

Yes GordonO. It is a discussion. Telling is the point. Second, in the form of debating alternate views, the point is to present a premise and the supporting facts for that position. The purpose for this sort of exchange is persuasion. That is the form of debate. Do you have to be told that?

And further GordonO, suggestions or policy recommendations by the President, or the Congress, are not unconstitutional. Only acts can be unconstitutional. Do you have to be told that?
I missed this post when it originated Amy, but I would like to add that I resent you taking such a compassionate view of Conservative Republicans. I'm in favor or giving them a chance, 72 hours or less, to renounce affiliation, if they don't, then try, convict, and hang them. It would also be acceptable to skip steps one and two if the majority supports that.
Bill Beck:

"Amy, I hope you have noticed that they shout that you are ignorant, etc., but they don't give a specific correction."

I haven't worked my way to the end of the thread yet, but so far, not one has offered anything specific in terms of accomplishments of Conservative Republicanism. That's not really surprisingly, though, when you consider that there haven't been any accomplishments.
Devin Jones:

"I think she is talking about ideals rather than names here. And conservative ideals have been a perpetual blight in this nation from 1787-2009. When do they go extinct is my question...like the Whigs, Federalists and the American Independants?"

That's exactly what I'm talking about.

Conservatives will never be extinct, because Republican Conservativism is about preserving a status quo that benefits themselves. They are against political progress because they have a lot to lose and not much to gain.
You go get 'em, Amy. I didn't know you had it in ya.
M Todd:

"Bush was not a conservative Republican and most of the current party leaders aren't either."

Did Conservative Republicans vote for those people? Did they fund their campaigns? Did they fail to offer alternative candidates? Did they endorse the Republican legislation of the past 8 years? Did they introduce, vote for, and pass Gramm-Leach-Bliley, which gutted banking regulation? Did they enthusiastically support the Iraq War? Did they enthusiastically support the Afghanistan War? Did they vote for the budgets that created the crippling deficits I could go on and on.

Your claim might make sense if the Conservative Republicans had put any daylight between themselves and Bush and the Republican Congress, but they never did. They completely and totally embraced the failed, destructive policies of the past 8 years. They share the responsibility.
jimgalt: "Libertarianism has nothing to do with greed, you mental mutant. It has to do with the limits of government in our social lives or pocketbooks."

(chuckles from the peanut gallery)
Your question is interesting and complex. It is complex because it depends on who one considers a conservative, and what one considers an accomplishment. Since the OS conservatives dont understand the concept of reasoned discussion, I'll try.

If you consider Nixon a conservative, you could say S.A.L.T., E.P.A., and Title IX. But most would not consider Nixon a conservative, and even if you did, those initiatives certainly were not. So that rules him out.

Hoover initiated some of the programs that FDR saw thru to fruition. I believe Hoover started reforms regarding holding companies, but again, this was a deviation from the laissez-fail philosophy that he and later conservatives held, so this is borderline.

Let's see, Eisenhower with the Interstate System? No, that was a large public works project. Conservatives hate that. Plus it is a national system, and they are of the Federalist bent. Cross him off.

Teddy Roosevelt, hell no. He was a progressive. He set aside public land for national parks that the modern, rudderless Republicans want to exploit for oil.

GHW Bush defended Kuwait from Iraq, but that was not conservative, and certainly not domestic.

That leaves Ronald Reagan. Some try to give him credit for "winning the cold war." That's absurd. Containment lasted 40 years. Reagan just happened to be there at the time. Plus Reagan reversed most of the growth of the 20th century for the middle class.

It certainly seems that the only things accomplished by Republicans were accomplished by Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Nixon.
Will all respect,

Most people do not know the difference between democrats and republicans. They vote out of fear or slogans without really looking at the issues. And a lot of republicans are very upset with Bush and a lot of republicans now in office.

The rank and file republican is fed up with the party because it out and out lied. This could also be true of the a lot of democrats who are upset with their party.

My point is our problems are because of both parties in Washington. Each campaign each side blames the other for the mess we are in. I couldn't fix this or that or keep that promise because of the republicans or democrats.

As far as I am concerned neither party is doing its job. Obama won because a lot of republicans were upset with Bush and his policies. A lot of swing voters who voted republican saw McCain as the same old BS. And that is true of many democrats they saw Hillary as the same old Washington insider BS. I do not care what party my elected official is. I expect him or her to stop the political rhetoric and do their job. If not I will do my best to vote them out.
Bill Beck:

"It certainly seems that the only things accomplished by Republicans were accomplished by Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Nixon."

And those accomplishments were specifically opposed by the Conservative members of the Republican party.
M Todd:

"My point is our problems are because of both parties in Washington."

In a very general sense, that is true, but in the specific case of where we find ourselves in March 2009, the blame belongs almost entirely to Conservative Republicans. It has been their philosophy, their legislation, their President, their Congress and their Supreme Court that has led directly to the multiple crises that we now face.
The question is fascinating. I very serious historian might want to go back and analyze whether or not conservatism is ever humanistic or humane in its initiatives consistent with its philosophy. I conjecture that it never has been. The only form of liberty they espouse is property based. The 19th amendment was ratified under Wilson in 1920, so that does not qualify.

This is far more sweeping than I had suspected or thought possible. I think your title hits the nail on the head without a scintilla of hyperbole. It has been a blight on the nation.
"I think she is talking about ideals rather than names here. And conservative ideals have been a perpetual blight in this nation from 1787-2009. When do they go extinct is my question...like the Whigs, Federalists and the American Independants?"

When you make them go extinct. That is always the goal of the Left.

And cons can smell it. The scent of the death camps lingers for them. They ARE reactionaries, and have every reason to be.

I'm a liberal young man who couldn't care less what people do in the bedroom, hates racism, etc. But I came to a point where "my" side scared the shit out of me.

The game the left plays is that they dehumanize the opposition by denouncing them as fueled only by "hate." Well, why would such despicable people be allowed to vote, get a govt job... live?

Bill Ayers was a disciple of Mao who believes that "innocent people have to die in a revolution," but if creepy little cons have the nerve to bring up Ayers, Wright, or Alinsky, they are denounced as mindlessly echoing some gasbag on the radio.

Cons live in wooded areas and play with their dogs. They know how to smell a rat. The same tendencies that exist in Stalinism are on display in reformist post-liberalism.

Ex: The "well-meaning" social programs that wreak social havoc on those they "intend" to help can NEVER be abandoned. Instead, their failure is blamed on the wretched, racist cons, the "wreckers" of progress, for not funding them ENOUGH. In the USSR they had show trials for the"wreckers," the professionals they blamed for the failure of their Five Year Plans. The "deformed worker state" was never a product of any fundamental flaw within Marxism itself. Of course not, utopia and the "withering away of the state" could not be achieved because you can not have "socialism in one country," hence Trotsky's theory of "permanent revolution." It was the reactionary sovereigns world over to blame for not duplicating the famines and the gulags

The cons are WHAT IS IN THE WAY. That is their function, and God bless them for that. My pretty, petite, immigrant fiance would not last long in the death camps. Neither would my superstitious, Jesus-loving old mother. That's why I keep the heater in a drawer in the bedside table. At heart, I'm just an old-fashioned dago with quaint notions about protecting me and mine. I don't need Glenn Beck to tell me who should worry me. I've read my history, better I'm sure, than he has.
Right now republicans are banking on two things: Amerians being stupid and Obama screwing up. If this economy recovers in late 09- 10, the Republican Party is finished. They would become the modern day Whig party. Thoroughly discredited and left for dead.
shmadoff,

Do you have any actual facts that support your claims? Without facts, the claims are just your private paranoia.
What facts in particular do you need?

That Communism did what it did is a fact, and the propaganda lines that I put in quote marks are all fact. That our president, as well as Pelosi and many Dems, cultivated his mind in a milieu full of un-reconstructed marxists and radicals is a well-known fact, though taboo to mention.

That Dems have maintained a slavish fidelity to social programs like the old AFDC-scheme (kudos to Clinton for reforming it, but Obama is undoing those reforms as part of the stimulus bill), and the idea that only money can solve the education crisis is a fact.

That cons are consistently painted with the broad brush of racism for their lack of faith in failed programs is fact.

I'll give you another fact. Most liberals are decent, well-meaning people, though there is within the dems a strident minority of rads who over-represent themselves in certain bureaucracies. Ex: universities.

Conservatism can tend towards stasis, which is why libs are useful to give it a kick in the pants when needed. The progressive movement, on the other hand, is all about just that, movement - towards a utopian ideal achieved through government. That ALWAYS ends badly.
shmadoff:

"What facts in particular do you need?"

I've told you a number of times already. I want to know about the accomplishments of Conservative Republicans in the last 8 years. I want to know about the accomplishments of Conservative Republicans over the course of American history. You don't seem to able to come up with any accomplishments. I'm not surprised; there are none. At this point, you should be wondering why you are reflexively supporting them, since even you can't think of anything they've accomplished.
Shmadoff, your use of the term "social program" is just propaganda. Government itself is a social program. Government is organized activity that comes from society or civilization. To criticize government for "social programs" is a meaningless statement. Every single thing done by government, and the constitution of government itself is a social program. The only alternative is chaos. Have you ever given anything any serious though Shmadoff? Or do you just repeat what you have been told?
I have told you that I don't believe that you can place modern labels of conservative and liberal on past presidents. You think that you can claim anything positive from the past, Republican or Democrat, and leave me with the garbage.

The Abolitionists are my ideological ancestors too, maybe more than yours because I will oppose the creation of huge government behemoths, which is what is required to enslave people in the modern era. John Brown, my hero, was a Christian like me. Only difference his fundamentalism would make today's Left think Falwell was Mr. Rogers.

Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive Republican who busted monopolies, but not the believer in government as a panacea for all problems that you would like him to be.

Ike integrated the military, supported Brown vs. BOE, and built the super highway system. Reagan, who I have my own issues with, did help bring down Iron Curtain.

But the greatest achievement of cons is as a roadblock. It is not a glamorous position, but a necessary one, and the radical left hates them for it, just as Stalin, Mao, and Castro hated the counter-revolutionaries. Abbie Hoffman told them that there basic needs would come out of gumball machines, they could make a living protesting and having orgies. But the conservative maggots stalled the revolution, so they were forced to go get tenured as professors.

Conservatives are not categorically opposed to change. They weigh issues individually, not as part of a master plan. Sometimes cons have stood in the way of true progress, of that there's no doubt. On balance however, the fact that we are alone in the West for not having been siezed from within, or blitzkrieged from without by a dystopic statist nightmare, is the cons great, unsung achievement.
though Shmadoff? Or do you just repeat what you have been told?
Bill Beck
March 27, 2009 07:09 PM

No, only pompous left-wing fascists like you know how to think for themselves. Oh, I'm sorry all government is a social program, so we should expect government to do everything. Build your death camps you pompous little fuck, you won't get me.

The military is government, should our entire society be militarized? I even said that I'm a liberal guy, but you heard one thing you didn't like and you pounce. I grew up on the South Side of Chicago, the type of neighborhood you use to comfort yourself about how good you are, but you could give a fuck less about the body count.

I even voted for BHO but if I don't join in the Orwellian hate-speak of the far left and yearn for massive government and one-party rule, I'm a fascist right.

If I'm so dangerous, come get me. I spent a year in Iraq in the infantry and didn't kill anybody, but I didn't die either. I think I can handle you.
Shmadoff, you called me a fascist, remember? Not the other way around. I'll pass on the other stuff because it is impolite to our host and everyone else. I have no need to call you a fascist. I will say, the bit about Democrats being addicted to social programs is an absurdity. Everything the government does is a social program. Now from that you feel the need to drop F-bombs and so on, so be it. But you keep track of who did. At least do that.
Shmadoff, no one has said that the government should do everything. I said everything the government does is a social program. Do you understand the difference?
Bill Beck:

You have more perseverance than anyone I have yet to come across on OS. Kudos. A masochist? :) I would have abandoned this chain a while ago if I were you.

I am politically in your camp, but I decided to take the Dr. Amy / Bill Beck challenge (since the more conservative bloggers here would not) and name one Republican accomplishment. First thing that came to mind: Reagan and the end of the Cold War. Then I scrolled down a little to find your: "That leaves Ronald Reagan. Some try to give him credit for 'winning the cold war.' That's absurd. Containment lasted 40 years. Reagan just happened to be there at the time."

Please elaborate. Not because I think you're full of shit, but just because I suspect that I might be full of propaganda.

CL78

PS: Adding you as a "Favorite," hope to read one of your Posts soon.
Cool. I'd love to. Thanks for the compliment. Reagan and containment. Well, do the math. As an attorney you have to be able to reason. The LSAT tests for it. The policy of containment started with The Truman Administration. The U.S. and the U.S.S.R. staked out there respective parts of the world, and vied for influence. many historians refer to this as WWIII. It was fought as a proxy war all over the globe. Whatever it was, the vast majority of it was waged prior to 1981. The wall fell in 1989. The U.S.S.R.'s fall occurred contemporaneous with its time in Afghanistan. It went bankrupt. Now, you can give Reagan some credit for making Afghanistan more expensive for them, but was Afghanistan the sole reason for the fall of the U.S.S.R.? I doubt it. It was just the last big thing.
Perhaps it would be useful to define the issue more clearly than the original post and the original poster's comments have.

Conservative Republicans in government is one issue. Those cats have made an invaluable contribution to the country simply by acting as a brake against the collectivist activism of Democrats, never more out of control than under Obama. Sometimes the greatest contribution can be made by doing nothing when doing something represents an incursion on human freedom. I know it's hard for some to understand this, but try.

Individual conservative Republicans are on the average much more productive than Democrats. They generally create the jobs and make the engines run. There are exceptions: wealthy, productive dudes who are made to feel so guilty about their superiority that they turn Dem.

Enough contributions?
GordonO presented ZERO specifics. Can someone define it for him?
GordonO, I'll show you what specificity is.

In 1789 The Unites States created a democratic republic in a world of monarchies. We moved from being a colony of a monarchy to what we are now, with a Constitution, and rights for individuals. {Liberal Philosophy}

In 1913 the 17th Amendment took the selection of Senators from the State Govts, and made it direct vote of the people. {Liberal Philosophy}

In 1920 women's right to vote was finally recognized. {Liberal Philosophy}

Child labor laws. 5 Day work week. Fire escapes and panic bars on doors, and various safety measures became law. {Liberal Philosophy}

The right to have access to public accomodations. {Liberal Philosophy}

Do you see how those are specific things, GordonO? Simply saying "Conservative Republicans have made contributions, without saying what those are is merely a baseless opinion. It is not an argument.
Bill Beck:

"Simply saying "Conservative Republicans have made contributions, without saying what those are is merely a baseless opinion. It is not an argument."

The sad fact is that most Conservative Republicans have imbibed so many campaign slogans that they don't even understand what Liberalism is. It's not "social programs" and it's certainly not Marxism. The central principles of Liberalism are that everyone is equal, each person gets one vote, and that benefits and burdens of society should be distributed based on principles of justice, not on the principle that might (political or economic) makes right.
I apologize for the over-emotional response. After making all kinds of concessions to the decency of moderate liberalism, I'm abit taken aback at being told that I can't think for myself.

The Left argument here is flawed in two ways: one, it constructs a strawman conservatism opposed to all change, past, present, or future, grabbing all past accomplishments for itself, as if no modern conservative could possibly agree with say, child labor law. Two, any accomplishment by a Republican can be explained away as a liberal aberration or historical accident. I, reluctantly, gave real examples of Rep presidents, but you haven't gotten around to explaining how they belong to you, not me.

I was referring to the Left's steadfast fidelity to specific social programs, which I gave examples of. If you want to be nitpicky about terms like "social program" than you are not worth speaking to.

I am no fan of the Reps. They deserved to lose, and deserve to be humiliated until they come up with a platform that atones for their corruption and the betrayal of their own precious "free markets."

I do not believe in massive governments and one-party rule. Apparently you do. Thus, no reciprocity. No recognition that the tens of millions in the demonic red horde have souls or humanity.
shmadoff:

"I do not believe in massive governments and one-party rule."

That's nice, but that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing whether Conservative Republicanism has accomplished anything in the last 8 years.
Shmadoff, you started out calm. Lets stay there. Lets start at the end of your comment. "Apparently you do" has no place in a discussion. I can speak for me. And no, I dont endorse "massive government." Whatever that means. Back towards the beginning of your comment you said, "constructed a strawman conservatism opposed to all change." Conservatism defines itself as opposed to change. Not me. The Republicans who sought progressive change, and I did name some, were progressives, not conservatives. The discussion was about conservative Republicanism. I called it 'Modern American conservatism." Admittedly these statements to not apply to progressives. That was stated off the top.
I thought it had gone to has conservatism EVER accomplished anything?

OK, last eight years. Well, we ran up the deficit a couple trillion and helped the financials pull off the biggest robbery in world history.

That's not an accomplishment? OK. I don't like it either. Let Bam run the deficit up to 10 trill, and keep the NSA bail-outs coming, then Reps and Dems can have a farting contest.

Oh, and Bush didn't do nothing in response to 9/11. Some people like that. But only because we want to drink the blood of Muslim babies.

And even though he was a big-spender, there's still a lot of things he didn't do. Cons like that when pols don't do stuff (unless it involves drinking baby blood).

Bad president, not much to work with, but still something.
Shmadoff, what does responding to 9/11 have to do with conservatism? Bush is also a Methodist. That does not mean that Methodism responded to 9/11. The question is not about someone coincidentally being a conservative accomplishing something. The question is, what did CONSERVATISM accomplish.

And that is if I allow that the response to 9/11 was an accomplishment. You made some statement about drinking blood. I'm not sure what that means. But we attacked Iraq in response to 9/11 which was a waste of time, money, and lives. The people who attacked on 9/11 were mostly Saudis who were trained and backed by Afghanistan.

Let me make an affirmative statement so that the question can be more clearly understood. Conservatism has made no positive contributions to freedom and stability in America. Conservatism's purpose has been to slow progressivism. That is not a free standing philosophy. That is an adaptation to progressivism. Conservatism was opposed to the start of the country itself. It was opposed to the most freedom for the most people. It is opposed to all things that most people take for granted, even those who call themselves "conservatives".
Bush's stated justification for war in the middle east is "spreading democracy. That is called Wilsonian democracy. That is not a conservative philosophy. It is very, very poorly applied Wilsonian theory.
Ok here we go. How many things are wrong with this post?
"officially managed to ruin everything, from the banking system, to the budget deficit, to the endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan"
So I guess the fact that for the last 2 years BEFORE the crisis when the DEMS were in charge of the Congress and did NOTHING to stop the coming downturn they get a pass. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd hjad absolutely NO power (even though they were in positions of leadership) to get anything done. It doesn't matter that Franklin Raines (advisor to Obama) was in charge of the one the GSE's at the time when it was "stable" and looted it for milllions on his way out the door. How come nobody is outraged about the bonuses he got for running them into the ground. Oh, wait, that's right. He is a) African-American, b) friend/advisor or Obama and c) a Democrat.

As far as the wars are concerned this is really getting old. Clinton called for regime change in Iraq and thought they had WMD, so did the UK and many of the world's intelligence operations. I guess it doesn't matter that one of Saddam's Top Generals wrote a book after he turned against him that stated emphatically that ALL of their WMD's were moved to Damascus over a 2 week period and remain there today. Saddam thought that this war would be like any other he has fought before and he would eventually get them back. Oh and by the way, when I fought in the FIRST Gulf War they ahd them then also.

"They opposed virtually every program, law or principle that has made this country great." Really? Like what? Specifics please.

"the disaster in New Orleans, the disaster in Abu Ghraib, the disaster in Guantanamo" You know what's funny about this is the fact that the Gulf Coast of Mississippi got hit just as hard and they are well on their way to being rebuilt. What did NO do? They re-elected the very same Mayor who stood around whigh his thumb in his a** instead of taking care of his people (even though he was warned numerous times) and then blamed the whole thing on the government. Typical liberal, can't help himself.

Abu Ghraib was a failure in command. You had a group of idiots that were left unsupervised and a Commanding Officer who didn't know what was going on in her own house. Shameful? Yes, but it was not planned that way. It was a failure of leadership and it happens.

The disaster in Iraq? You mean the re-building process that the country is now going through. Apparently you think it's more humane to let Saddam and his ilk plunder and rape his country for his own benefit. I'm not so sure the millions of Iraqi's that are free for the first time in a generation would see it the same way.

"they are fundamentally un-American" Especially when you consider all of the degrading and unhonorable things they said about our troops while they were in the midst of fighting a war. Oh wait, that wasn't the Republicans. Hmm who could that have been i wonder?

"They have absolutely no respect for the Constitution" I honestly can't even comment on this as I am still trying to control my laughter from such an idiodic statement.

As usual, all fluff, no stuff. You are entitled to your opinions but in the end that's really all they are.
In a way, you're right.

As I said before, "Sometimes cons have stood in the way of true progress, of that there's no doubt. On balance however, the fact that we are alone in the West for not having been siezed from within, or blitzkrieged from without by a dystopic statist nightmare, is the cons great, unsung achievement."

I am not categorically against change, but I appreciate cons for being the brakes on "progressivism." The absence of gulags may not seem as substantial as the building of office towers, but it's wonderful in my book.

It is possible to reach a point in history where "progressivism," not classical liberalism has run its course. Most of the changes we needed have been made. It's time to slam on the brakes. Feel free to disagree, but please don't pretend that I, or all of my more conservative friends, are nothing but knee-jerk reactionaries with only bumper stickers for thoughts.
DJohn, you say you were a Marine. I was a Marine. You know what "command responsibility" means. Saying Abu Ghraib was a failure in command, and isolating it from the top is nonsense. You know that.

The fact that some man was African American means nothing.

"Calling for regime change" is diplomacy, not war. Bush started a pre-emptive war. The two things are not even remotely close. And "thinking" that there is WMD is no excuse for anything. If you start a pre-emptive war, you are responsible for the result. Opps, I thought.....counts for nothing.
And furthermore DJohn, what former military person uses the the term "unhonorable?" Military personnel do not use that term.
Shmadoff, not having been taken over by WHATEVER has nothing to do with conservatism.
"Conservatism's purpose has been to slow progressivism. .. opposed to the most freedom for the most people"

Bill Beck,

I believe that at this point in our history, the natural conclusion of progressivism will not be "the most freedom for the most people."
It's that simple.

Obviously, you don't believe that.

I do. Hooray for the forces of reaction!
I dont discuss "belief" or use the word. This has nothing to do with belief. If it is short of a fact, I wont use it as a premise. Belief has no purpose here.
You only discuss "facts." And I suppose your political tendency has a monopoly on those. Sigh.

Spoken like a true totalitarian. My narrow, facile campaign of resistance to your "progress" gets sexier by the minute.
jim galt" "Republicans are there to watch insane spending." What world are you living in?
Clearing away some of the recent debris on this thread, let's examine the poster's rather concise statement of liberalism.

"The central principles of Liberalism are that everyone is equal, each person gets one vote, and that benefits and burdens of society should be distributed based on principles of justice, not on the principle that might (political or economic) makes right."

Anyone who thinks that all people are created equal in the sense of capacity and morality is a fool. All people are created equal only in the sense that under a rational system of government, they should have equal freedom from unconstitutional governmental interference. Freedom from, not freedom to, for the latter inevitably involves correlative duties on others which is a form of slavery.

Equal voting rights are great. Too bad the Democratically controlled ACORN didn't sign on to that one.

Most clearly illustrative of the flaws in liberalism is the author's apparent equation of political and economic power. Political power rests on votes; economic power rests on the exchange of produced values. Economic power runs the show; political power merely sets the stage. The ultimate obscenity is for politicians who by definition have contributed nothing of useable value to dictate to those who have how they should deal with their rewards.

Fortunately, liberalism is so impractical and so inconsistent with man's basic instincts, that it always eventually perishes once the producers get sick of being victimized. The AIG executive who recently resigned could be a beginning. When this happens on a large scale, Barney Frank won't have other people's toys to play with anymore.

P.S. Great comment, DJohn. Sock it to 'em.
Bill-It absolutely makes sense. My best friend was in charge of a Marine sniper platoon at ABBY GRAB. He said it was typical Army BS as usual. No command, no control and the inmates were running the asylum. However, there have ALWAYS been war crimes in EVERY war. You know that! These idiots paid the price also. They were tried and convicted of their crimes. I agree that it was a bad PR incident and it hurt the war effort because everyone seized it as an opportunity to blame Bush. Fine. He's the President, he get's the blams, as he should. But to suggest that this was a PLANNED event is just typical, liberal propaganda as usual.
As far as the pre-emptive war is concerned; it was necessary. How many times were we going to allow Saddam to fire missiles at our planes and break the UN Security Council Resolutions? We were either going to enfore those Resolutions or we weren't. Obviously the UN was not going to so someone had to. Even bin Laden and his boys admitted that the front became Iraq and that is where tjhey made their stand. GUESS WHAT? They LOST. We met them on the battlefield and we kicked their towel-headed asses. THEY chose to come their and broaden the war. We accepted the challenge. Were mistakes made? Yes. Are mistakes made in every war? Yes. However, the toops never gave in and they never lost hope. I can't say the same fro our prestigious colleagues in Congress. They wished for and at times even facilitated a loss for us because they wanted to benefit from the political fallout and blame Bush. As far as I'm concerned they have lost ALL credibility when it comes to warfighting, national defense and foreign policy. The DEM's showed their true colors when Harry Reid publicly announced "the war is lost" WHILE we had troops in the field. SHAME ON HIM AND SHAME ON THE LIBERAL HACKS THAT AGREED WITH HIM. And yes, they are unhonorable which means "not Worthy of honor."
Nobody has actually listed any conservative acomplishments(that I have seen).
There are none so blind as those who will not see.

You might want to check my comment, as well as many others.

This liberal knee-jerk refrain, "but you don't give specifics," is an inartful dodge which is becoming tiresome. The fact is that most liberals on OS wouldn't recognize a specific if it bit them.
"You might want to check my comment, as well as many others."

I check yours and didn't see anything other than unsubstantiated, vague statements about productivity and conservatives reigning in the irresponsible left
You got it! Congrats.
You might want to check my comment, as well as many others."

I check yours and didn't see anything other than unsubstantiated, vague statements about productivity and conservatives reigning in the irresponsible left
Roger Fallihee
March 28, 2009 01:22 PM

Sigh. I catalogued several specific lists. What you don't get is that "reigning in the irresponsible left" IS a tremendous accomplishment. The hundreds of millions murdered by statist utopias may mean nothing to you, but they weigh heavy on the minds of the people you despise.

The entire point of this blog, rallied to by its defense-weasels, is to take a group of tens of millions of people, highly productive, law-abiding people on average, and demonize them and claim that they have offered nothing positive to society in the entire history of the nation. On the contrary, they are somehow the ideological descendents of any retrograde baddie of the past.

This is a pitch perfect echo of the propagandas that precede totalitarianism. Just replace "conservatives" with "Jews," or "counter-revolutionaries," or "Mensheviks" (you probably have no idea who the Mensheviks were, do you? ). I'm not saying that you guys are going to create what your forefathers did here in America. You don't have the cohones, and I could take on any ten of you without getting my Obama/Biden T-shirt dirty. But the hatred, and the self-righteousness are there.
Both you and Gordon O ignored that I put the word "unsubstantiated" in my comment. It's not very compelling to read random statements about the left or right without documentary evidence that your statements are true.

Implying that I'm an idiot (I actually am but you don't know me) doesn't further your argument either.
I think that conservative people contribute greatly to this country. I don't despise ANY group of people based on their beliefs.

This post is about Conservative Republican elected officials and their lack of accomplishments, not conservatives in general.

When George W Bush's reckless budgets are discussed, conservatives (with a straight face) claim that he wasn't a true conservative, even though Bush enjoyed 80% approval ratings from the conservative base.

By the way, you were right, I didn't know who the Mensheviks were until I googled them.

So, if you want to use your third grade debating techniques and call me a moron who despises people, go for it.
Roger-I'll give you most obvious accomplishment: no further attacks on the US since 9/11. If for nothing else I will always give President Bush his due there. He lived 9/11 everyday. The country moved on but he didn't. He did what was NECESSARY to keep us safe. For that he has my gratitude and I believe will be treated very kind by history once the "anti-Bush fanaticism" is long forgotten. Now the ball is in Obama's court (who can't even say the word terror) to keep us safe as well. One thing you can guarantee; bin Laden and his boys are coming again.
GordonO:

"Anyone who thinks that all people are created equal in the sense of capacity and morality is a fool."

Who said anything about capacity? All people are morally equal.

"Equal voting rights are great. Too bad the Democratically controlled ACORN didn't sign on to that one."

LOLOL. Classic conservative blather, meant to obscure conservative crimes. Does ACORN represent the Democratic party. No it does not. So why are you invoking it as if it represents liberalism? It is entirely irrelevant.

On the other hand, the Conservative Republican Supreme Court that handed down the abomination known as Bush v. Gore, DID represent Conservative Republicanism. That is a decision which will go down in history along side Dred Scott, and Plessy v. Ferguson, both of which were accurate representations of Conservative thought in their times.

"Political power rests on votes; economic power rests on the exchange of produced values."

Wow, one joke after another. You could be a comedian.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but money buys votes. That's why Conservative Republicans routinely oppose campaign finance reform.

"Fortunately, liberalism is so impractical and so inconsistent with man's basic instincts, that it always eventually perishes once the producers get sick of being victimized."

Newsflash for you: democracy IS liberalism. In the grand sweep of history, the United States of America is the embodiment of political liberalism. That's why I said, and I meant, that contemporary Conservative Republicans are un-American. The fundamental values of American government are democracy, justice and transparency. The Bush administration violated every single one, from stealing the 2000 election, to torturing prisoners, to lying to the American people. Conservative Republicanism is a blight on this country. Even its own supporters can't think of anything it has accomplished.
DJohn:

"Roger-I'll give you most obvious accomplishment: no further attacks on the US since 9/11."

Since 9/11? So what. He was directly responsible for allowing the attack on 9/11 that killed more Americans than Pearl Harbor. That was just the first, and possibly the biggest, of his many, many abject failures.
Djohn,
I'll give you that since 9/11/2001 we have not been attacked, and for the sake of this discussion I will give Mr. Bush all of the credit for that. But if you move the date back one day, to 9/10/2001 he doesn't look as good.
GordonO:

"This liberal knee-jerk refrain, "but you don't give specifics," is an inartful dodge which is becoming tiresome. The fact is that most liberals on OS wouldn't recognize a specific if it bit them."

Really. Well, since you're so convinced this is the case, why don't you point out some of the "specifics" you've given so that we'll know how to recognize them in the future?
"He was directly responsible for allowing the attack on 9/11 that killed more Americans than Pearl Harbor."

The boneheaded stupidity of that comment is staggering. Now I know why you've been branded as a pariah on OS. And if liberals can't make it here, they can't make it anywhere. Back to the bassinettes, please.
The conservative right and the related religous right are as symbolic of the Republican party as the so called "liberals" (progressives) of the Democratic party.

What both have done is take us from compromise to polarization.

For progress (the will to change is a meaning of liberal) we need to be open to all views and all points of view.

I am a registered Democrat, so I did enjoy your posting, but why are we in a society where for the most "hits", ratings, response we need to take extreams or villify?

What happened to the great American center.

I note that Conservative Republicans claim they represent it while being blind to what it is like to live pay check to paycheck, to lose your job, to be discriminated against or to have to do things that you do not enjoy doing just to get by.
You "liberals" make me want to puke!

It is in the class interests of the Conservative swine to extract the surplus value of the People's labor. From a strictly material standpoint, the only standpoint worth anything, that is understandable.

The true enemy of the people are the reformist two-headed swine who kiss the people while fellating the bosses. Now you denounce the Conservatives, but you better hope they can save you when the revolution comes!

Cinque has spoken!
Art, what makes you think that conservative Republicans, whoever they are, don't also live paycheck to paycheck? This assumption by Democrats and Liberals that Conservatives and Republicans are all rich and greedy is part of the problem of class warfare the left insists on perpetrating.
This is not a conservative accomplishment yet but if Rep Boner has his way it will be.

http://open.salon.com/blog/rogerf1953/2009/03/28/boehner_proposes_massive_redistribution_of_wealth
GordonO:

"The boneheaded stupidity of that comment is staggering."

You know what? An insult isn't an argument. It isn't even a substitute for an argument. Indeed, it is a sign of being unable to create a compelling, reasoned argument.

9/11 happened on Bush's watch. The Bush administration ignored their OWN intelligence reports. They refused to act on information from the FBI, and then, they attempted to obstruct the efforts to find out what happened.

Obviously, you can't figure out a compelling response to these facts, so you attempt to divert attention with an insult. No one is fooled, least of all me.
Arguing that a group doesn't have accomplishments, when really the issue is that they have accomplishments you don't like, isn't a very compelling argument for why a group shouldn't exist, or why it's "evil."

Current events don't happen over night. Reagan and Russia/the Cold War is a perfect example. That was decades in the making. It happened on his watch, so should he get credit for ending the Cold War? Probably not, but he did preside over the end, and maybe his tactics where the proverbial straw. Bush gets grief for not preventing 9/11, but I rather doubt he caused it, and really who's worse, the person who lights the fuse for a bomb or the person how fails to stop it from going off (and since I doubt anyone here was present when the debriefings and all the supposed intel was delivered, anything we "know" about that is hearsay at best and suspect)? Iraq may be a mis-begun war, but are the Iraqis better off or worse off for it? We armed and trained the Taliban to fight the Russians, now that is biting us in the ass; who is at fault for that (I absolutely love, LOVE, the modern irony of Rambo 3)? Obama's Grand Plan may work, but maybe it'll take 12 years, at which point will people remember that he started it, or will they just look at whoever is the president then and applaud them?

"When have Conservative Americans ever been correct about anything?"
Well, from another post I read by you, you seem to agree that a child is best raised by married (heterosexual, blood-relations to the child) parents. Isn't that something that conservatives usually advocate?
Dr Amy- "Perhaps you haven't noticed, but money buys votes." In light of the fact that Obama raised more money in his campaign than any other in history are you sure you want to lead with that statement? You basically just said that he BOUGHT the Presidency.
Roger-I agree that the Bush Administration should have been more vigilant before 9/11 if they were given the intelligence reports by the Clinton Administration. However you must also realize that byt the time Bush took over they were in the final phase of this operation. The pilots were already trained and the plans had been meticulously rehearsed. We now know that they planned these attacks for 7 years. Subtract 7 from 2001 and you land smack into 1994. Two years after Clinton had taken office. In essence, bin Laden and his boys planned, practiced and trained (sometimes right her in the US) while Bill Clinton was in office. let's not forget the attacks on the USS Cole, the Embassy bombings in Africa and the bombing of the Khobar Towers that ALSO happened on Slick Willy's watch. Maybe if he had taken the fight to them rather than do NOTHING 9/11 would never had happened in the first place. Alas, he was apparently too busy with Ms. Lewinsky maybe.
@ DJohn:

Didn't he? He certainly bought himself a 30-minute prime-time major network infomercial right before the election.

He declined public campaign financing--as he stated he wouldn't--in favor of the much larger pool of private bucks.

I feel sorry for all those who bought into the history and the inspiring speeches preaching hope and change and are now stuck with the realization that they are responsible for electing a guy who can't deliver the simplest of prepared statements without a teleprompter; a guy who can't answer a question without sixteen "...ummmm"s and "...uuuuuhhhhh"s and "...aaaaahhhhh"s; a guy who did the "the-sky-is-falling" routine in order to convince our elected officials to pass an incredibly expensive stimulus plan that likely won't stimulate the economy at all, let alone in the timeframe outlined; the guy whose administration can't properly vet candidates to appointed posts; the guy who is spending unprecedented amounts of our money to get results that aren't supposed to happen until he's well out of office (of course); the guy who promised to bring our troops home, but is going to send them to Afghanistan instead; etc., etc.

So much for hope and change. Looks like business as usual in Washington to me; just more expensive.
sickofstupid,

Do you have any substantive comments, or are you merely going to parrot inanities?
DJohn,
I am not defending the Clinton administration but you bring up an interesting point. Maybe Bush didn;t keep us safe after 9/11, it just takes years for al queda to attack.
Inanities?

Did Obama not campaign for 30 minutes on prime time television right before the election? Was the cost of the network time not paid for by his campaign?

Did Obama not refuse public campaign financing? Did he not originally state that he would use it?

Thw White House Press Corps will tell you that Obama refuses to deliver prepared statements without his teleprompter, much to the dismay of photographers who would just like to get everyone in the picture for once.

If you've ever watched one of his unscripted press conferences, you've witnessed the "...aaaahhhh" phenomena.

Did he not encourage a climate of fear regarding the predicted collapse of our economy? Did he not richly benefit politically from the economic doomsaying when Congress passed his bloated package? Does it not contain costly items totally unrelated to the economy? Did he not allow further expansion of the so-called stimulus via insertion of pet-project funding in order to push the legislation through? Are the majority of created jobs not theoretical, estimated or unsustainable? How long can it take to resod the Mall? And how long until we see results? 10 years, at which point he'll have been safely out of office for 2-6 years?

How many appointees/proposed appointees were caught cheating on their taxes? How many withdrew from consideration over irreconcilable differences? How many problem children did their flawed vetting process catch before we caught the scent?

Have we ever before had a President who managed to spend as much as Obama has/will during the first few months in office?

Is Obama not decreasing our troops in Iraq only to increase their presence in Afghanistan? Do we have a viable exit strategy for that war? Or are we to refer to that as a peacekeeping mission or a police action now? Is that action not a direct "screw you" to those who voted for him based on his promise to bring the troops home?

Geithner "borrowed" the new financial strategy, made few changes and presented it as his own. Whose strategy will he "borrow" when values fail to increase? Why must the car makers violate contracts for bailout funds, but AIG employees still get their checks?

Did Obama not snub the online community? Did he not laugh at them in dismissing their valid question? How much money did they raise for his campaign?

Does anyone expect universal healthcare at this point? Does anyone expect creative solutions? Do we still believe in change?

Some do. Some are too deeply invested now to hit the brakes. They "what if" and make excuses for every action that refuses to jibe with campaign promises.

I find that very sad. They deserve better.

I don't parrot; opinions posted are my own unless otherwise stated. If it sounds similar to things you've heard before, perhaps you should consider the notion that it may be because it's all true.

If you believe differently, feel free to challenge any statement directly.
sickofstupid-What concerns me is the backlash that will result once the honeymoon is over and the curtain is puuled away to reveal the true Obama. Europe is planning quite a different reception this time around than the one he received the last time he was there. Apparently honeymoons are shorter over there. ;-)
Dr Amy-"He was directly responsible for allowing the attack on 9/11 that killed more Americans than Pearl Harbor." And you know this how? I guess the fact the al Queda was TRAINING in the United States during the Clinton Administration means nothing to you? Or the fact that the Khobar Towers, USS Cole, African Embassy bombings and "Black Hawk" down all occured under Clinton BY THE SAME GROUP? Bush just happen to be the President in office when the plan was finally set in motion. They had already planned and carried out numerous attacks beforehand the Bill boy did nothing. THAT is why we got hit on 9/11. WE DID NOTHING to them for 7 years. It took 9/11 and a President with some balls to finally take the fight to them. However, if it helps you to feel better about hating Bush by blaming him for 9/11. Go right ahead. Just please be sure to adjust the tinfoil hat for your closeup. Thanks.
DJohn:

"And you know this how?"

I know this because Condoleeza Rice admitted under oath that the National Security briefing she gave to Bush on August 6, 2001 was entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."

Could it possibly have been more clear?
Hey gordo,

In response to your question the other day, there are two reasons I don't have any posts on OS.

One, quite simply I'm not a writer. I've never claimed to be a writer. In fact, in my entire life, I've never written anything intended for publication or production. Sadly for you, with all that being true, I've still had almost as much success as you have as a professional writer. I think this goes a long way in explaining why you are such a bitter old queen. But don't worry, there's always teaching english to fall back on! And if that fails, there's always someone else to sue, right?

Having said that, I could still stitch together some ill conceived, poorly thought out schlock like you and your third rate hack buddies Boni and DJohn. But as I'm sure the decent, thoughtful, intelligent posters here on OS would be happy to tell you, It takes a lot of time and effort to craft a really worthwhile post. And honestly, I just don't feel like taking the time.

I have friends Gordo. Actual, real, flesh and blood people. Not a couple fo nitwits on the internet with the same failed ideological beliefs. And I have a relationship. Not the fleeting moments with strangers in bath houses, and stolen moments with young boys in dark alleys that make up your love life. Not that there's anything wrong with that!

Last but not least, my jizz brained friend, if you find me so irritating, let me offer this suggestion to you. Don't read what I write. I promise you'll find me much less irritating.
Dr Amy- "August 6, 2001" So a month later the attacks took place and it's all Bush's fault? He had ONE MONTH to prepare for these attacks. Clinton had EIGHT YEARS and did nothing. If you can't see the difference than I am REALLY glad your not my doctor.
DJohn:

"He had ONE MONTH to prepare for these attacks."

You make it sound like he was preparing. The point is that he ignored the intelligence information. He didn't prepare at all, did her?
Dr Amy- You are missing the point. EVEN if he had begun to prepare for an attack at that point, he had ONE MONTH to do so. If you know anything about government you know that it doesn't move that fast. They DID by the way put out an al agency alert but the plans were set and the execution was days away. It's extremely difficult to stop an attack one it reaches that phase. This still does NOT let Clinton off the hook. If his administration was as concerned as they say they were they would have done MUCH more to protest this country and stop the threat in the EIGHT YEARS prior. Again, they did nothing.
DJohn:

"EVEN if he had begun ..."

That's your argument: Sure he was a moron and grossly incompetent to boot, but it doesn't count because there wasn't enough time?