It is the two amjor parties who are of special import today. Over the past 60 years the Democrats have held the US in their grip only occasionally relenting to a Liberal voting or Fence Riding President ( Nixon and Eisenhower, Respectively). Recently the US has seen a trend away from massive governemnt social spending and more towards classical libralism goals and fiscal conservativism (conservancy?)
Reagan won in '80 promising tax cuts and a more efficient government, Bush 41 rode his coat-tails. In 1994, Despite having an enormously popular president, the Republicans took the Congress by storm instituting their "Contract with America". In both elections ( 1992 and 1996)Clinton won with either a plurality or a slim majority, both times due to the rise of a second conservative party, thus indicating that America was growing more conservative, not less.

In 2000 America saw to it that a Conservative Republican was elected, despite the Democrat attempt to steal the election. ( I don't mention thrid parties that might have influenced this election because both sides had them in significant numbers). In 1992, this past November 5th America put the two parties to a vote...and the Republicans won...everything
Conservative representatives of the people are now the norm. The Federal Congress (both houses) are Republican, The Executive is Republican, the judiciary was largely appointed by Republican Presidents. Most state Governorships are Republican, most state congresses are Republican.

This overwhelming success of the right-wing ideology has led to House Minority Speaker Gehpardt (D) of Missouri ( my home state) to step down. In his place Nancy Pelosi (D), of California was elected, over the moderate Democrat Harold Ford (Tenn). Why was a left wing Radical ( http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29612 ) chosen over a moderate? Doesnt the Democrat party see the writing on the wall? most of American seems to be conservative leaning moderates. Why would they elect a person who might radicalize the party and alienate moderate voters?
i do not have the answer, but i do have a prediction. The Democrat party, unbeknownst to its members, has just signed its death warrant. As the party radicalizes under the leadership of Rep. Pelosi Democrats will lose the moderate base and chase out moderate Democrats such as Ford and his ilk. Within ten years, if the Democrats dont turn it around by Election Time in 2004 we will be seeing the death throws of the Late Great Democrat party.
Do i predict the elimination of Liberal politics in America ( the nation with two "conservative " parties according to our socialist pals across the lake)? No i do not. I see the Democrat part splitting into 3 seperate parties; The Greens, the Social Democrats and the Remnants of the moderate Democrat party die-hards.
This radicalizationof the Left will push moderate democrats in increasing numbers into the Republican party thus moderating its voice. This moderation of Classical liberal ideals and the Moral Right will lead to a strengthed Christian Coalition type party and a Libertarian, Free market party.

The modern left wing did not come about after WWII. What was the New Deal?

Clinton was not an "enormously popular" president in 1994. His approval ratings were under 50%. And it takes some nerve to complain that Clinton didn't get a majority when Shrub didn't even get the most votes. And the business about stealing the 2000 election is pure garbage which I won't respond to.

People conveniently forget that there's a huge voter block in the U.S.-- and a growing one in Canada, of voters that don't vote because they don't have a place to put that vote.

That's what has killed the Democrats lately. Their move to the right encouraged left of center people to stay home or vote Green. Most stayed home.

People can look at the Jesse Ventura governorship as a flash in the pan, but the seminal lesson in that was a shoot from the lip ex professional wrestler won an election by harvesting the non voting voter block.

The move by the Democrats to familiar turf gives not just traditional Democrats a place to vote again, it gives the "Regan Democrats" and the "Bubba" vote a place to go when they get tired of the Republicans and look to vote elsewhere. There's little point in voting for psuedo-Republicans, as the Democrats had become, when you have the real McCoy already in place.

So, far from being the death knell of the Democratic party, this could signal its re-emergence as an alternative to the Republicans.

---------

Funny, the Republicans always run on the "fiscal conservative" plank, but with Regan and now Bush, we see government spending, and the deficit, go through the roof.

How is it they never get called on this kind of thing, and, on top of it, maintain the big lie of "fiscal conservatism"?

quote:

---

Funny, the Republicans always run on the "fiscal conservative" plank, but with Regan and now Bush, we see government spending, and the deficit, go through the roof.

---

It's a Republican pattern. By "fiscal conservative," they mean "tax cuts," which of course is not fiscally conservative if you jack up funding to the military at the same time you're making the tax cuts. But your average person, I guess, doesn't see the federal books, doesn't know where the money is coming from, doesn't understand that in the case of the government it can quite literally come out of nowhere.

It's interesting that Clinton is the one who got them on track economically, at least for a while - who cut their deficit, put them on the road to recovery. And then Bush comes along, and before you can say "tax cut," he's made a huge one, skewed, of course, in favour of the very wealthy. Where are they going to get the money for this? Oh, somewhere.

And then we have this "war," and will he cancel the tax cut? No. Where will they get the money for the war? Somewhere.

Funny, when tax money is used for schools and welfare and health care, it's a waste and a disgrace and people scream bloody murder - but when it's used for weapons, that's okay.

I don't understand people sometimes.

quote:

---

They spend the money so they won't have the money to spend later? They really hate social programs that much?

---

Hey Smith, this is what Mike Harris was doing since he proved that democracy is a very flawed system here in Ontory-o.
The whole "crisis in health care" has been manufactured in this way, IMO.
Paul Martin is a master of the "kill the patient and then complain he's not paying his bill" approach to program spending.

I mean, we can afford war, a rebate to voters whose political activism ends at the last line of their damn electrical bills, tax cuts to the rich and corporations as well as millions of dollars in bogus consulting fees, but suggest it might be nice if seniors taking care of relatives with dementia with their own resources had people to help them with it for a couple of hours a day and you're portrayed as some thug stealing hard-earned cash from defenseless investors with too much cash and an eye on for-profit MRI clinics.

Edited to add, since this is the first thread I've shared with the much-maligned Libertarian, I'd just like to say that I feel rather bad at the attacks your posts have garnered on this usually-tolerant newsgroup, particularly when you're good enough to post howlers like this

quote:

---

In 2000 America saw to it that a Conservative Republican was elected, despite the Democrat attempt to steal the election.

---

[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: Sisyphus ]

[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: Sisyphus ]