My hope is that the real conservatives in the GOP (not the Bushie wingnuts now in power) will wrench the Republican party back towards its roots of fiscal responsibility, and nominate John McCain.

We both agree that the GOP needs to return to its roots, but John McCain is not the man to do it. He reminds me too much of the other George Bush. You know, the man who ran for office promising to cut federal spending and instead raised taxes. My definition of the GOP’s roots would be to fight to eliminate federal spending on programs that are not enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. If we did that we could cut our taxes in half, halve them again, and still run a balanced budget.

Here is a good article by my favorite conservative columnist, Thomas Sowell, describing the platform of a true conservative: get rid of it!

I’ve thought about this a lot and realized I can’t think of whom I’d like to see as President. The truth is I usually just wait to see who’s on offer and then try to pick the best man for the job. Not being registered as either a Republican or Democrat I can’t vote in primaries so I spend my time watching to see who ends up on the final ballot.

My hope is that the real conservatives in the GOP (not the Bushie wingnuts now in power) will wrench the Republican party back towards its roots of fiscal responsibility, and nominate John McCain.

Yeah, the Democrats would love that - a liberal Republican president… not thanks. McCain should have switched parties a long time ago.

Chewbacca for head of the Dems!

What?  He`s a fictional character? Really?
Huh.

I dunno then… John Stewart?

A revolutionist like Che would be perfect, imho. It’s what they need to stop the “Bush Reich” (as my über-liberal father calls it).

As to what Swine said, can’t you imagine the “Vote Pryor/Wilder in 2008” bumper stickers already?

No one’s mentioned Nixon yet. How suprising…

If a crack head should be president, why not go with
Barry ?, a drug user with political experience.
Heck, after being busted, he was even elected again.
Decriminalizing drugs sounds like a good argument.
Legalization removes profits from dealers and would help unclogg some of the legal system; but,the job of government is to ensure the well being and safety of ALL its citizens and when it allows a segment of the population to engage in self destructive behavior,(not counting booze and tabbaco)it’s a failing government.

but,the job of government is to ensure the well being and safety of ALL its citizens and when it allows a segment of the population to engage in self destructive behavior,(not counting booze and tabbaco)it’s a failing government.

No, actually, the government’s job is to protect your “negative” rights from infringement by others.  It is no one’s job to protect you from yourself.  Hell, I would support legalization of voluntary euthanasia.  If you want to be a junkie, fine.  Just don’t rob people to support your habit and don’t expect my tax dollars to support you and any medical bills you incur.

No, actually, the government’s job is to protect your “negative� rights from infringement by others.

Warbi, you beat me to it!  I don’t want the government to protect me from my own choices for three reasons:

First, (as Warbi said) that simply isn’t the government’s job.  A tyranny of good intentions is still tyranny.

Second, there are risks to almost everything that is fun, and if you choose the latter you are choosing the former.  It is called “pursuing happiness.” No one but me knows how much I value the things I like to do, or how I would weigh them against the risks.

Third, the government isn’t wise enough to always make correct decisions or even cost-benefit analysis for me.  Bureaucratic rules are often based on bad data, erroneous assumptions, or a different desired outcome.

Now if the government wants to do disinterested research and help me make a more informed decision, I’m OK with that.  So long as I’m free to reject their recommendations for whatever reason, that is.

the job of government is to ensure the well being and safety of ALL its citizens and when it allows a segment of the population to engage in self destructive behavior,(not counting booze and tabbaco)it’s a failing government.

No, actually, the government’s job is to protect your “negativeâ€? rights from infringement by others.  It is no one’s job to protect you from yourself.

The government has two and only two purposes. Protecting us from outside attackers and maintaining a stable infrastructure. Anything and everything else it does is an infringement of our rights in one way or another.

I think it’s way past time for the Democrats to stand up for themselves and quit living in fear that the Republicans are going to say something mean about them.  Guess what, they are going to throw a shit fit regardless of whether the Dems say something about them or not.  That’s how they get and keep power, by manufacturing hatred and demonizing the opposition.

So Dean said some off-color (but true) things.  BFD.  What he said is not a quarter as hateful or malignant as the frothings of Pat Robertson or Bill Frist or even George Bush.  And yet, their personal fortunes and political lives have not been harmed.  If you’d rather vote for a goddamned republican, have the balls to vote for a goddamned republican.  Quit whining about how the Democrats aren’t chasing the middle around (a losing strategy if there ever was one.) like puppy dogs.

I think it’s way past time for the Democrats to stand up for themselves…
So Dean said some off-color (but true) things.  BFD.  ...
Quit whining about how the Democrats aren’t chasing the middle around (a losing strategy if there ever was one.) like puppy dogs.

SO TRUE.
At the last local DNC meeting i attended there was a whole faction against Dean rising to Chairmen merely because of “how he might be seen by left-of-center Republicans.” Of those complaining (qty 8), five of them drove home in SUV’s that night.

If anything, we have more to fear from within our own ranks.  I’d love to see a good ol’ purge of the DNC’s middle-tier after 2006.  A clear DNC victory, under Dean’s leadership, may make this very possible.  (Finally, then maybe we’ll rid ourselves of the ConsumeristLeft and their cancerous selfish ideaology.)

I am greatly enjoying Dean’s tenure as head of the DNC because it is hastening the death of the Democratic party. As Dean himself recently said of Bernie Sanders, a socialist is basically the same thing as a liberal Democrat. The sooner mainstream American realizes that they have nothing in common with the Democrats, the faster they will join the Whigs in the dustbin of history.

That realization is what got me to switch parties.

The sooner mainstream American realizes that they have nothing in common with the Democrats, the faster they will join the Whigs in the dustbin of history.

Apparently you haven’t seen the latest

polls.  In addition, with the Independents so low on the political radar, the “death” of the Dems would lead to a de facto one party political system for national elections.  If that is your interest, you could always move to somewhere like Uzbekistan and hang out with Bush’s good buddy Islam Karimov.
I am like Les- I don’t consider myself affiliated with either party.  I wait and see who is fielded by the major parties and the Independents before I decide who will get my vote.

Bush’s job approval was where it needed to be on November 2. But I am not concerned with the ebb and flow of approval ratings on a short term basis. I am instead more interested in ongoing the retreat from socialist policies that began in the mid 1960s. Back then the Democrats had two-thirds of the senate, house, governships, state legislatures, and registered voters.

I am like Les- I don’t consider myself affiliated with either party.  I wait and see who is fielded by the major parties and the Independents before I decide who will get my vote.

If you keep sitting on that fence you’re gonna get hurt!

I want to see us get back to the Constitution. That means scaling back the federal government (note: Bush is not always very good at this). The federal government should stop spending money on things that are not enumerated in
[url=http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html]Article phasing out Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and most of the rest of the federal government.

Ever since the New Deal, our judges have stopped interpreting the Constitution as written and adopted a “living document” approach. That means that the Constitution is whatever a particular judge would like it to be. I would like to see judges nominated that would get back to basic and enforce the Constitution.

So if we were to get a Democrat that proposed this basic philosophy, I would vote for him. But in practice the desire to get back to the Constitution makes you a Republican.

But in practice the desire to get back to the Constitution makes you a Republican.

I’m sure that’d be news to a lot of Republicans based on how they’re acting.

The government has two and only two purposes. Protecting us from outside attackers and maintaining a stable infrastructure. Anything and everything else it does is an infringement of our rights in one way or another.

I thought its purpose was to ’govern‘ hence the name.

I’m sure that’d be news to a lot of Republicans based on how they’re acting.

That’s true. The Pew Research Center has done some interesting research and have identified major subsets of the Democrats and Republicans. They have also found some large divisions (scroll down) among Republicans on these issues. So you are correct that the Republicans are far from unified in their desire for smaller government. But the same research (and common sense!) also demonstrate that there is no significant subset of the Democrats that want smaller government.

That means scaling back the federal government (note: Bush is not always very good at this).

Like almost never… Bush is not a conservative, he is a radical.  Under his tenure, the federal government has become more and more bloated and invasive..  His fiscal policy is crap.
BTW, you were the one who mentioned what “mainstream” Americans have in common with whichever party:

The sooner mainstream American realizes that they have nothing in common with the Democrats…

Like almost never… Bush is not a conservative, he is a radical.  Under his tenure, the federal government has become more and more bloated and invasive..  His fiscal policy is crap.

The President has little control over the business cycle, which is primarily determined by the monetary policy set by the Federal Reserve. A better comparison of liberal vs. conservative economics would be by comparing Europe to the United States. Europe is mired in 9% unemployment (which is about 5.2% in the US) and facing slugish growth in GDP and productivity. Unlike the US, who’s economy has been growing nicely for a couple years now.

Of course, Europe’s real troubles are still in the future. A society can reap a financial windfall in the short term by lowering its birth rate. Children are expensive and do not work to contribute to the economy. But as the population ages the low birth rates put a demographic squeeze. Europe is facing a crisis that makes our Social Security problem look like a walk in the park.

No, Justin, I didn’t mean the patterns of Wall Street- the link was for the federal deficit.  To be honest, regrading fiscal policy, I consider myself more conservative than liberal.

That is the business cycle. If you assume that all federal spending is pegged to inflation, you will run budget surpluses during boom times and deficits during recessions. Tax receipts are a lot higher when unemployment is low and businesses and people are making money.

The Federal Reserve lowers interest rates during down times. Cheap credit makes people start more businesses and do more investing. Eventually that investing starts to pay off and the worry is that the economy will start to overheat and inflation will set in. So then interest rates are lowered.

Since a central body (The Fed) and not the free market are setting those interest rates they never get them quite right. Credit is too cheap or too tight. When credit is too cheap people create marginal businesses that cannot survive. Eventually they go under. When credit is too expensive they never create businesses in the first place.

The result of balancing economic growth vs. inflation, and of only crudely being able to determine what interest rates should be in order to accomplish this, is a boom and bust business cycle.

Oh I forgot to mention. I am glad to hear that you are a fiscal conservative.

I think many of the problems between Christians and Secularists would become non-issues if we could just shrink the federal government. Then our battles over what form the nation would take would be through the charities we support. We would be in an “arms race” to support Christian vs. Secular charities. I think we can both agree that that would mean that everybody wins, most particularly those that need help!

Instead we are left fighting each other over how our tax dollars are (unconstitutionally) spent and creating bad feelings on both sides.

Errr… sorry that I couldn’t find tables that matched a little better, but it has enough data to show that the stock cycles have only a casual linkage to the federal deficit at best.  The best example is made by comparing the fairly large dip of the ‘94 market compared to the decreasing of the federal deficit that started in ‘93 and continued to 2000.
As for your last observation, Justin, I agree.

Warbi, I have to stop doing your economics research for you. From economics.about.com: the stock market is a leading
indicator of the overall economy. It isn’t just the stark market by itself that produces tax receipts, but the economy as a whole.