Actually, what I meant is that I don't think the word "conservative" is
being used in a way consistent with its definition.
> The base that propelled Bush to victory in 2004 is conservative.
> Obviously, they need it in 2008 or they will experience another 2006.
>
>>>> Susan Rogers <[log in to unmask]> 11/10/06 10:54 AM >>>
> I'm still trying to figure out why one would characterize the current
> version of the Republican party as "conservative."
>
> I think a lot of their positions are quite extreme and radical.
>
>
>> Elaine,
>>
>> If Bush doesn't nominate the most conservative judges he can find,
> then
>> he's truly stupid. Nothing gets the conservative base out stronger
> and
>> faster than the vilifying of a good conservative judge. Under this
> new
>> alignment they won't even get out of committee or at least the
>> Republicans hope they won't. And, as to other appointments, with only
> 2
>> years left, who needs the Senate? He can get by with temporaries.
> With
>> veto power, Bush is still in the catbird seat.
>>
>>>>> "Ingulli, Elaine" <[log in to unmask]> 11/10/06 7:35 AM
>>>>
>> At the very least, I for one am hoping that a Democratic senate will
>> stop the President from nominating ultra-conservative judges and
>> semi-competent ideologues for other positions that require Senate
>> approval. Already I am reading that there is some question about
> Bolton
>> going forward--although that could easily be posturing. Rumsfeld is
>> quoted in today's Philadelphia Inquirer as admitting that the war is
> not
>> going as well as hoped. (I am always curious that this is still a
> "war"
>> as I can't figure out who we are fighting---I know, I know, "the
>> terrorists"--but I mean, seriously? If its truly a "war" against one
>> faction of the Iraqi society, then does that mean the "insurrgency"
> has
>> become a civil war--or not?)
>>
>> Interesting, too, that we have elected the first-ever Socialist
> Senator
>> (Bernie Sanders of Vermont), and that the leadership of the Democratic
>> Party will be more liberal-centrist than not (i.e. committee chairs
> such
>> as Leahy at Judiciary, Levin, Byrd in the Senate and Waxman, Dingell,
>> Rangle, Frank in the House.)
>>
>> Dan--well said!
>> Elaine
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk on behalf
>> of Pearson Liddell
>> Sent: Fri 11/10/2006 8:22 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Cc:
>> Subject: Re: CAVEAT! My Commentary on the Election
>>
>>
>>
>> Dan,
>>
>> Except for the perception that we are losing the war in Iraq (to
>> which I
>> don't subscribe in regards to the ground war but to which I do
>> subscribe
>> as to the psychology of war) and a few well-publicized scandals,
>> the
>> Republicans would still be in power. Further, as David has
>> stated
>> below, it took the running of very conservative Democrats to
>> take those
>> races. According to NPR 18 of the 28 House seats are
>> conservative
>> Democrats. I don't know what the liberal leadership has the
>> power to
>> do.
>>
>> Frankly, this election did not signal an end to conservatism but
>> a
>> wake-up call to the Republicans that they haven't cornered the
>> market on
>> conservatism or biblical values. All you have to do is to
>> research the
>> backgrounds of those 18 new "conservative" Democrats. This
>> should be an
>> interesting 2 years.
>>
>> Pearson
>>
>> >>> Dan Levin <[log in to unmask]> 11/10/06 12:14 AM >>>
>> Like Keith Maxwell, I am very pleased with the election results.
>>
>> I think the American people Tuesday rejected the kind of
>> conservatism
>> that has taken hold in America since Ronald Reagan was elected
>> President in 1980. In that modern and twisted brand of
>> conservatism
>> (which bears little relationship to the small-government,
>> libertarian
>> conservatism of traditional conservatives like William F
>> Buckley),
>> the Republican leadership (with the assistance of dirty
>> tricksters
>> like Lee Atwater and his protege Karl Rove):
>>
>> 1) rejected small government in favor of big government (while
>> refusing to pay for it with taxes, thus helping to ensure that
>> super
>> rich people remain super rich, while saddling the nation with
>> huge
>> deficits),
>>
>> 2) claimed to reject government interference in people's
>> individual
>> lives but insisted that government should police people's
>> bedroom
>> activities (ordinarily considered personal and private) and
>> interfere
>> in the physlcian-patient relationship with regard to
>> reproductive
>> decisions,
>>
>> 3) shamelessly attacked, with lies and distortions, the war
>> records
>> and patriotism of heroes like Democrat Max Cleland -- and,
>> astonishingly, even Republican John McCain -- when most of the
>> principal attackers (including Pres GW Bush, VP Cheney and
>> political
>> adviser Karl Rove) never had the courage to serve a single
>> minute in
>> combat,
>>
>> 4) made a frontal attack on the separation of church and state
>> (one
>> of whose central purposes is to protect religious freedom), with
>> the
>> help of so-called "Christians" like Pat Robertson and Jerry
>> Falwell
>> who, day after day, preach hate and don't seem to understand
>> that
>> Jesus Christ counseled people to love (not hate) their neighbor,
>>
>> 5) claimed (when a Democrat was President) to be opposed to
>> nation-building abroad but then under GW Bush engaged in a
>> massive
>> nation-building program in Iraq that has been handled with the
>> most
>> incredible incompetence, and lack of planning, in American
>> history,
>> and has cost our treasury hundreds of billions of dollars,
>> killed or
>> maimed thousands of US soldiers, and killed or maimed tens of
>> thousands of Iraqis (most of whom are probably innocent and
>> precisely
>> the people our invasion of Iraq was supposedly designed to
>> help), and
>> fueled Islamic fascism and terrorism, making the US less safe,
>> rather
>> than more, from terrorists,
>>
>> 6) turned America's back on allies like Germany and France
>> (alliances
>> that the US had been building for 60 years to keep the world
>> free and
>> safe) and said, in effect, '"We are so powerful militarily that
>> we
>> don't care what the rest of the world -- including many of our
>> oldest
>> allies -- thinks about what we do",
>>
>> 7) turned its back on the Geneva Conventions, one of whose
>> central
>> purposes is to keep *our very own soldiers* free from
>> mistreatment
>> and torture, and in the process implemented policies remarkably
>> similar to the German government's World War II policies for
>> which
>> Nazi leaders were hanged after international war crimes trials
>> at
>> Nuremberg (in which Americans were prosecutors), and
>>
>> 8) lied repeatedly to the American people and the world about
>> many
>> fundamental things including the rationale for invading Iraq and
>> the
>> dangers posed by global warming.
>>
>> Dan Levin
>>
>>
>>
>> >Yippee for what exactly though? If you're a social liberal,
>> I'm not
>> >sure there's all that much to celebrate. Many of the "new"
>> Dems are
>> >socially conservative. Moreover, they will likely be rather
>> >vulnerable in two years. If you're an old-school Dem, it seems
>> to
>> >me that real celebration is premature.
>> >
>> >Personally, I'm glad this election seems to be forcing some
>> sort of
>> >change in policy in Iraq, but my prediction is that Iraq will
>> begin
>> >to resolve, there will otherwise be gridlock, and the Dems will
>> not
>> >hold their majorities next time around.
>> >
>> >David W. Opderbeck
>> >Assistant Professor of Business Law
>> >Baruch College, City University of New York
>> >(646) 312-3602
>>
> ><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>> >
>> >
>> >-----"Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk"
>> ><[log in to unmask]> wrote: -----
>> >
>> >To: [log in to unmask]
>> >From: Keith A Maxwell <[log in to unmask]>
>> >Sent by: "Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk"
>> ><[log in to unmask]>
>> >Date: 11/09/2006 03:28PM
>> >Subject: CAVEAT! My Commentary on the Election
>> >
>> >Yippee!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
>> >Keith A. Maxwell
>> >Nat S. and Marian W. Rogers Professor
>> >Professor of Legal Studies and Ethics
>> >School of Business and Leadership
>> >University of Puget Sound
>> >Tacoma, WA 98416
>> >Office Phone: 253.879.3703
>> >www.ups.edu/faculty/maxwell/home.htm
>> >ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel A. Levin, JD, MBA
>> Associate Professor of Business Law
>> Minnesota State University, Mankato
>> Dept. of Accounting & Business Law
>> Morris Hall 150
>> Mankato, MN 56001
>> 507.389.1827
>> [log in to unmask]
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>
>
> --
> Suzy Rogers
--
Suzy Rogers
|
