Assuming the worst. What next?

As far as THE agenda of the Republican party, I think Greadius' take on coalitions within the party is dead on so that there is not really as much of a unifying agenda as people might think.

As a general rule, the consensus agenda of an unfettered Republican guard would be high on getting the government out of the way on fiscal issues but more intrusive on social issues.

Fiscal policy would be a continuing targeting of the elimination of wealth-based taxes (a tax cut a year seams to be the rallying cry), a loosening of antitrust concerns, privatization of social security, elimination of affirmative action, less mandates on how employers treat employees, and caps on legal liability for bad business as usual.

Social policy - all you have to do is think of is what kind of precedents that a Supreme Court with a six pack of Bush would overturn. We would again have the government having greater ability to take away freedom of choice when it comes to abortion, consensual & private adult activity, and state driven issues regarding gambling and use of drugs. On social issues where states have traditionally been morally harsh (abortion and bedroom activity), a Bush Court would give the states back their right to be morally harsh. On issues where the states may be more liberal than the Feds (gambling and drug use), legislation and court backing of such legilation will Federalize these issues to the extent individual states have less and less control over them.

The sphere of individual freedom granted by the Bill of Rights would generally be tightened. Most 1st, 4th, 5th, and 10th amendment issues would be intepreted and legislated in a more restrictive fashion. The glaring exception to this would be 1st Amendment freedom of religion issues which would gain ground at the expense of establishment clause concerns. 2nd Amendment issues would be treated a lot less restrictively.

I am actually with the Republicans on certain issues, if done with moderation, but if the Tom DeLays of the party end up running the asylum, then any moderation is out the window and future elections (if allowed by Tom Delay prior to him redrawing every Congressional district in the country) will take corrective action to restore the country to a fair and balanced state not as envisoned by Fox.
 
Originally posted by Titan2018

Zarn: Always remember that Jesus was a Die-Hard Liberal! :jesus:

I'm sorry, but I think the Lord would rather have people donate money, than have it taken out of their hands to give to others. The former way is better, because that peron wouldn't be doing it, because it was required. They would be doing it as a decent person, not as a tax payer. That's one of the biggest issues between the Crats and the Republicans.
 
Originally posted by Zarn


I'm sorry, but I think the Lord would rather have people donate money, than have it taken out of their hands to give to others. The former way is better, because that peron wouldn't be doing it, because it was required. They would be doing it as a decent person, not as a tax payer. That's one of the biggest issues between the Crats and the Republicans.

Well, I'm sorry, you aren't the Lord.

Without going into the countless parables where the rich are condoned (God's not too fond of monetary success, don't ya know...), there is one thing that is epistomologically present in Christian Dogma that prevents your conjecture from being correct. I am of course referring to the Christian belief that everything that stems from the human ego (selfishness, greed) is fundamentally evil. This is directly hypocritical to the many practices of Republicans.
 
Ahh, so you stereotype Republicans. I am not a greedy person, newfangle. I do not dwell on getting more and more money for myself. Also, I am a Republican. That makes your statement false. If you don't believe me (because I'm the big, bad, power hungry Republican that you see me as), then fine. It's still a stereotype.
 
Originally posted by andrewgprv


Something so many christains forget.


Quite astounding arrogance in this statement eh?
 
Originally posted by Free Enterprise



Quite astounding arrogance in this statement eh?

No. Swinddling money in the stock market, but going to church every sunday to get a ticket into heaven is arrogant.
 
Does anybody have a list of Senate seats that will be up for re-election in 2004?

I know that seats in Illinois, Georgia, and Nevada will be up for grabs. I foresee a party change in all three: Republican to Democrat in Illinois, and Democrat to Republican in Nevada and Georgia. Feel free to disagree with me on these projections if you want; but for now let us assume that.

That puts the Senate starting in 2004 at 52-48, not counting the other 33 races.
 
Also; a practically filibuster-proof Senate does not need 60 Republicans. On many Democratic filibusters in this Congress, especially those on judicial appointments, some Democrats have actually voted with the GOP on clothure; three, four, sometimes even five of them.

If the Democratic presence is reduced by even four seats, some of the judicial appointments previously blocked could come through.
 
SeleucusNicator--wasnt that the Roman general that opposed Hannible with delay tactics--has the current count right, three officially open seats. There are 4 more Democrats standing for reelection than Republicans, exactly opposite 2000 when there were 6 more Republicans. Some names of interest, Barbara Boxer, Evan Bayh, Russell Feingold, Christopher Dodd, Tom Daschle, Patrick Leahy and of course, John Edwards. Oh yes. John McCain. If they split the difference, then it goes to 53-46-1. On the other hand, if they had split the difference in 2000, the Democrats would control the Senate.

As you can see some of the names are influential in the party power structure, though I throw in Boxer gratuitously. I recall in the 90's when Mitchell was going to retire and a Tennessee Senator, whose name escapes me, was jockeying to be his replacement. Instead he was swept out in the Gingrich revolution.

BTW in 2006 there are two more Democrats than Republicans plus Jeffords, the independant who left the Republican party. 2008 is dangerous for the Republicans. At present 9 more seats up than the Democrats.

Greadius made my point a while back. Once the opposition is muted, there tends to be no agenda. The internal bickering takes over. More than anything else, the party in power can avoid issues it does not wish to discuss. There is rarely any real unity on what to do. So, if the worst happens, it wont be as bad as some people wish to think.

J

PS Source material here.

PPS Nice article. You put it up while I was typing, or I would have mentione Hollings, who is the Democrat's Strom Thurmond. I did note Graham, but he's not making any headway for President, so I figured him rerunning. If not, that looks like a Republican pick up. But calling the Times a conservative rag is like calling the Post a liberal one. Wait a minute. Some people actually do that. ooops...
 
Graham retiring from the Senate won't necessarily mean a Republican pick up. Bill Nelson won his first senate spot in the 2000 election with quite a margin of victory. All it takes is one of the old South types from the I-4 corridor and they can keep the seat.
 
Originally posted by Ohwell
If they DID, then the country would be well on its way to a one-party democracy, better known as fascism. But I highly doubt this would happen, there are too many opponents of the current admin to make it happen.

As opposed to what, the bi-facism we have now? John-LP thinks that in either case, we`re focked!

The Democratic party has done a lot to damage itself since 2000 and it doesn`t appear as if that is going to end anytime soon.
 
Originally posted by Zarn


I'm sorry, but I think the Lord would rather have people donate money, than have it taken out of their hands to give to others. The former way is better, because that peron wouldn't be doing it, because it was required. They would be doing it as a decent person, not as a tax payer. That's one of the biggest issues between the Crats and the Republicans.

Money is the root of all evil, or did you choose to forget that bit?
 
Originally posted by onejayhawk
Flaming I would call it.:nono:

J

Indignant intolerance I would call that. :rolleyes:

Enough off-topic digressions, let's end here.
 
Originally posted by CurtSibling


Money is the root of all evil, or did you choose to forget that bit?

No No No. The bible says the love of money is the root of all evil.
 
I suppose christian TV evangelists cringe with pain when they get donated all that dough...

They have no love of the stuff...

Sure! :crazyeye:
 
Back
Top Bottom