The Europeanization of the Democratic Party
William Moloney
Published August 19, 2008 at 6 a.m.
In the 19th century Americans took very seriously Washington’s warning against “entangling alliances” which might interfere with the country’s unfolding “Manifest Destiny” of dynamic growth and expansion. A corollary to this belief was that the “Great American Democracy” was a unique-perhaps even divinely inspired-form of political organization vastly superior to the Old World’s tired regimes of aristocratic privilege and downtrodden masses.
In the 20th century America entered upon the world stage powerfully and decisively coming to the aid of embattled European democracies and leading them to victory in two world wars and the Cold War. Launching these extraordinary interventions were three memorable Democratic presidents - Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman.
Though American actions in the two centuries were starkly different - isolationism in the 19th, and intervention in the 20th - one compelling theme was constant: American Exceptionalism - a general notion that foreigners were a source of problems and Americans were a source of solutions. This attitude was often naïve, and jingoistic, but it provided a sturdy foundation for American patriotism through most of our history.
This enduring national consensus, however, collapsed during the “Perfect Storm” of the 1960s when a toxic brew of social, military and political convulsions tore gaping holes in the fabric of our national life - self-inflicted wounds that remain unhealed to this day.
Out of this turmoil there emerged a powerful body of left-wing opinion and activism that turned the old national consensus upside down. Rejecting Henry Clay’s “my country - right or wrong,” the left substituted “my country - always wrong.” More extreme elements declared their country to be the most oppressive society in history - racist at home and imperialist abroad - while discovering sublime virtues in genocidal tyrants from Mao Tse-Tung to Pol Pot.
While this raging ideological virus infected in varying degree a wide range of American institutions - e.g. media, academia - its principal victim was the national Democratic Party.
In less than a decade the party that boldly sponsored the Berlin airlift, the Marshall Plan, and the NATO alliance went from the confident activism of the hawkish John Kennedy - “pay any price, bear any burden to assure the success of liberty” - to the “Blame America First” defeatism of George McGovern - who aptly themed his 1972 acceptance speech as “Come Home, America.”
Betraying allies in Vietnam, ignoring genocide in Cambodia, accepting communist aggression from Angola to Afghanistan, and bowing to humiliation in Iran, America’s defense of liberty abroad was reduced to Carter’s pathetic gesture of boycotting the Moscow Olympics.
The sorry Democratic mismanagement of both economic and foreign policy led to a series of landslide Republican presidential victories and finally a decade of GOP congressional dominance. Yet, amazingly, none of these severe reality checks halted the Democrats' steady leftward drift.
To understand this hostile takeover of the Democratic Party it must be seen in the context of what happened to all “parties of the left” in Europe in the second half of the 20th century. Traumatized by the shocks and dislocations of world wars and Cold War the entire European political spectrum moved decisively leftward. While the socialist parties led this progression, the parties of the center and right - shaken by their own crises of confidence - succumbed as well. European capitalism and nationalism was decisively weakened and the door opened to a continent-wide shift to collectivism and the transnationalism represented by the United Nations, and the European Union.
Today the elitists who dominate the Democratic Party have embraced the “New Europe” and its worldview. On virtually every issue - Iraq, taxes, abortion, global warming, energy, hostility to religion, suspicion of Israel, regulation, U.N. worship etc. etc. - differences are only of degree, not kind.
The fawning reception of Barack Obama in Europe illustrated this perverse harmony. Clearly Obama’s view of the future fits with Europe’s. They see him as the anti-Bush, their best bet ever to lash “rambunctious” America to the collectivist chariot of Europe’s “Brave New World.”
While heir to Western Civilization, America has always stood apart in the degree of its faith, patriotism, individualism, opportunity, and vitality. Most basically the presidential election will decide whether this American Exceptionalism will endure or not. The Democratic Party has already given its answer. In November, ordinary Americans will give theirs.
William Moloney’s columns have appeared in the Wall St. Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, Washington Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, and the Baltimore Sun. He is Colorado's former commissioner of education.
August 19, 2008
10:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Romulus writes:
What an incredibly inane analysis. The Republican party has endorsed pre-emptive wars, torture, extraordinary rendition, warrantless wiretapping, exploding deficits, extravagant tax cuts for the wealthy, the entanglement of religion and government, and the replacement of science with political ideology. Yet somehow it's the Democrats who are the elite extremists? And by the way, isn't it the European nations that can boast of the rising euro against the dollar, universal health coverage, and highest living standards in the world?
August 19, 2008
10:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Moloney is 100% accurate.
The list of how far down the Democrat Party has sunk is endless. All you need to do is compare past Democrat leaders with current Democrat leaders. FDR, Truman, JFK..... Pelosi, Osama, Gore. Only a crack addict would think the current Democrat leaders even resemble the leadership skills of FDR, Truman, or JFK.
The Democrat Party has destroyed itself over the past 35 years.
JFK would be ashamed of what the lunatic fringe has done to his party. FDR wouldn't recognize them. Truman would kick them out of the door.
The Democrat Party went from producing candidates like FDR, Truman, and JFK.... to producing Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, and Barry Hussein Obama.
JFK stood up to the Russians. Obama gave a weasel speaking point about the Russians and Georgians using "restraint".
JFK sent troops to VietNam. Obama wants to retreat into defeat by pulling troops out of Iraq.
JFK cut taxes on ALL Americans. Obama has admitted he will raise taxes.
JFK NEVER supported the genocide known as abortion. Obama supports it, even refusing to support a bill in Illinois that would have prevented doctors from withholding life support for newborns.
JFK expanded the American economy, while Obama promotes the enviro-whacko approach that shuts down the economy.
The gap in substance between the REAL Democrat party that made America great.... and the modern day Eurotrash Democrat party is immense.
And the reason why they have lost so many elections over the past 40 years. And why Obama today... with the best conditions in decades.... can't do any better than a tie with McCain.
August 19, 2008
11:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Further proof of how low the Democrat Party has sunk.....
What have the Democrats in control of Congress produced in the last two years?
Did it do anything to address real issues in America? No, but it did celebrate watermelons and to decree the origins of the word "baseball.""
Dead serious. They didn't have time to bother with anything to do with the foreign policy, the economy or fuel prices, or any other real issue, but Democrats did have the time to CELEBRATE WATERMELONS.
The Democrats running Congress have saluted such milestones as the Idaho Potato Commission's 70th anniversary and recognized soil as an "essential natural resource."
As legislation on gasoline prices, tax fixes and predatory lending languish, Congress has designated May 5-9 as National Substitute Teacher Recognition Week. I'm sure every American will be cheering that Democrats managed to accomplish that!
Democratic Rep. Charlie Wilson of Ohio, a fourth-generation undertaker, sponsored a National Funeral Director and Mortician Recognition Day.
In late June, House members gathered on the floor to debate a resolution establishing Pittsfield, Mass., once and for all, as home to the earliest known reference to the word "baseball."
Democratic Rep. John Olver of Massachusetts, the bill's author, rose to stake Pittsfield's claim, based on the recent discovery of a 1791 Pittsfield law banning "Wicket, Cricket, Baseball, Football, Cat, Fives or any other game or games with balls" near the town's new meetinghouse.
Considering the "accomplishments" of the current Democrat gang, it will take them 400 years to get around to actually addressing any real issue.
Of course, this is why they have a 9% approval rating. The lowest in American history.
August 19, 2008
11:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
p_myers661 writes:
Both parties pass puff legislative measures. Takes little time and makes headlines and news articles one of their own can wave at the press during the re-election campaign.
There will be a cry that nothing could be done because the Democratic majority is too small to overcome Senate Republicans. If we accept this as true, let us examine what the Democratic majority in the House has sent to the Senate to be blocked. I don't think we'll find much.
The author of this piece is right about the what. I think he is also right about the why. There isn't a Democrat today who can reach above themselves and touch the shadows of JFK, Roosevelt or Truman. Each of these men was vilified and mocked while in office for going ahead with what they thought right instead of what was popular.
I'm a conservative Republican. I almost celebrate this weakness in the Democratic party because it makes Republicans stronger and more likely to win elections. I say almost because, as an American, I want the best possible government and two strong candidates who celebrate their American heritage with pride would ensure a good result.
It's that same ambivalence that gives me hope and despair. I hope because an Obama presidency will be a disaster big enough to eclipse Carter and re-energize the real Republican party. I despair because of the damage that four years could cause including the terrorist attacks that would happen because he won't be ready to respond strongly. Whatever happens I wish the real Democrats well. May they grow strong enough to take back their party.
August 19, 2008
12:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
justfacts264 writes:
what a narrow-minded view of the author.
- the last eight years: republican. The economy: always downwards. Friends in the world: we lost most of them, everybody hates us, everybody fears us. We are seen as people of torture, paranoia, greed and belligerence. go travel wherever in the world and most people will let you know. In Germany people looked up to us and admired us. Under Bush it turned into hate. Why: Because republicans act unilaterally, egoistic, ideology-driven, not fact driven. The world is alienated. That is why Obama is popular around the world, he is seen as the chance to go back to what America was: an everywhere admired and respected nation.
- the eight years before Bush: democratic: the economy went up up up. The spending:low. budget deficit: none. I don't know where you guys get the myths from. Just look at the facts.
to rickg: other people can hide their racism better than you.
to p_myers: if you want a strong america, look at what Bush has done to our country. In the last two years Mccain has voted 95% with him. So, you still vote republican? congratulations.
August 19, 2008
1:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Mayor_Quimby writes:
This article could not be more correct. He is basically saying 2+2=4. The dem party changed to a far left wacko party in 1968 and has since been held hostage by these loons. In the early 80's, they introduced the super delegate after winning just one presidential election since 1964. That did nothing and if there was no Ross Perot in 1992 or 1996, then the Republicans would have held the White House for the last 28 years. That's how out of touch the Dem party is with just about everybody.
justfacts, you lack of understanding of anything of substance is astounding. First off, the economy has been going up significantly since late 2002 and we created more jobs under Bush II than under Clinton. Second, the reason there was no deficits under Clinton was the republican congress under Gingrich who cut spending drastically.
Second, the rest of the world always hated us, even before Bush. This is another liberal fantasy they created in order to make Bush look bad.
August 19, 2008
2:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
jayhawk writes:
I do not see that any of the prior messages actually refute the author. Several writers argue that Bush et al. are vile and have done this and that. Even if we grant this premise, it does not invalidate the author's point. The Democratic party has moved far left in the past several decades. If Truman and JFK were alive, they (like Lieberman) would be a target of the Democratic left. On the other hand, I do not think one can credibly argue that the Republicans have moved far to the right of Eisenhower, Goldwater, Nixon and Reagan.
August 19, 2008
2:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
loco36 writes:
A number of you have responded to this article by talking about how badly the USA is viewed by the world. Have you wondered what impact all the politicians and entertainers from the left have created about us by going abroad and talking ill of this country? Many time their comments have been an extension of their political aspirations and battle with the republican party, a departure from past practice of decades in which it is felt that partisan battles are inhouse matters. Think of those who hate us like Saudi Arabia, Yeman, Syria, Al-Quida, Hezzbollah. Do we care? Consider the European countries that have recently elected conservative leaders with policies similar to Bush's.
Propaganda in the MSM regarding how bad is our economy has been misleading. Pockets of difficulty have always characterized this country's economy even when the rest of the country is doing well because we are a dynamic economy. That is true today. 95% of mortgage holders are paying their mortgages, New jobs are being created. The strength of the dollar is raising against the euro. The trade balance has been more favorable.People are adjusting to the fact they cannot use their home equity as an ATM. We have survived the impact of 9/11 and the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and still have grown even if that growth is now only about 2%. Although inflation was bad in July due mostly to the cost of oil, the raise in the strength of the dollar is expected by experts to offset further inflation. Just the talk of future drilling has settled speculators and costs of oil have dropped dramatically. How about more positive attitudes and faith in capitalism and freedom to overcome problems. How about attacking problems not the personality and character of the opposition especially abroad?
August 19, 2008
2:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
raoul writes:
where's looney Buffsblg, Artstarz and froward?
responding to the merits of this author's article would require critical thinking skills and genuine thought. canned liberal talking-points not allowed!
August 19, 2008
3:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
jbowen43 writes:
The author doesn't need refuted because there are no fact in the piece, only opinion. Opinion mostly informed by ignorance.
August 19, 2008
3:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
aleph writes:
"If Europe and America are together, the others will work with us. If we split, the rest will play around, play us off and nothing but mischief will be the result of it."
Tony Blair addressing a joint meeting of the U.S. Congress on Thursday, July 17, 2003.
August 19, 2008
3:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
BO writes:
loco36-
So what you're saying is that the negative image the world has of us was caused by the Dixie Chicks? What are our politicians and entertainers supposed to do, kow-tow to whatever Bush does and tell everyone how great he is? People in other countries are smarter than you give them credit for. Most people around the world were against us going into Iraq, long before any left-leaning politicians and entertainers ever said a word. I was in college in the late 1990s, and I lived in on a dorm floor with many foreign students (only 7 Americans out of about 45 people). Even then, many of them didn't like everything the US did, foreign policy wise, and that was well before Iraq. Many of them, even though they enjoyed Americans and our country, felt the US government stuck their nose to other countrys' business too much. Did I take it as hatred? No, it was just their opinion. Yes, there are nations in Europe that have elected more conservative leaders, like the French (Zarkozy- my spelling may be off) although he is still a believer in the whole global warming thing. Most of those countries are still more left of center than the US has ever been (even w/ Clinton in office).
August 19, 2008
3:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
HistoryBuff writes:
Excellent article.
I can remember when the Democratic Party was a viable, responsible political force that could lead. I think that pretty much ended when Tip O'Neill retired.
The Democrats today are whiners, with negative vision. The future they see is bleak, they have no real 'answers', and they see no 'right' or 'wrong'. Hard to tell what the Democrats stand for, anymore.
August 19, 2008
3:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
justfacts264 writes:
I wonder who of you right wing guys have actually ever left the US, travelled to europe, africa or asia (not making business there) and talked to the people and experienced the attitude towards the US? During the bush years AND the clinton years? difference like day and night.
In the nineties, my friends (voting conservative there!!) in Germany and England and Austria always admired the US, that has completely changed.
governor: and how about the budget deficit? typically democratic/republican for the past 16 years?? notice something?
and european countries voting for governments that follow bush policies? Oh, I see, you never watch anything else than FOX. I never heard anything more ridiculous.
August 19, 2008
3:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
P_Denver writes:
We have come by our negative image on the world stage the old-fashioned way: we earned it.
Whether it was Jimmy Carter screwing up in the midlle east, or the current George Bush screwing up in the middle east -- we earned it.
The rest of the world does not care about our internal issues: very few people inside the US - let alone outside - can state what the national debt is, or what effect it has on the economy. What the world sees is us - U.S. - out on the public stage -- trashing relations in Europe (Clinton & Germany) or bad-mouthing China right before the Olympics (another Bush idiocy).
That's why they think we're not mature. That's why they think we do not play well with others.
And to some extent, they're right.
There are no more JFKs, or Trumans, or even Eisenhowers or Regans. What do we get to choose from? McCain and Obama. Help me, please! This is what we've sunk to? A semi-hero and an amateur politician.
America's still the best place in the world to live, in spite of our political system. It probably always will be.
But the past sixteen years - and probably the next four - are NOT shining examples of why we should be the leaders of the free world.
August 19, 2008
5:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
midwich writes:
justfacts264 writes:
"I wonder who of you right wing guys have actually ever left the US, travelled to europe, africa or asia ..."
I've done all those things, many times - particularly the europe thing as I am British and live in the UK. Hear this, and listen well: Europeans have ALWAYS disliked the US, the only difference between a Democrat President e.g. Carter or Clinton and a Republican President e.g. Regan or Bush Jr is that people despised/laughed at the US when a Democrat was in power (I'm old enough to remember the Carter years), but respected/feared the US when a Republican was at the helm. There are a lot of nasty people out there: the latter attitude is by far the healthiest for the US in the long run, I can assure you.
Even during the Second World War, with US troops over in the UK about to die by the thousand for Europe, there was a well-known phrase about them: "Over paid, over sexed, and over here". It's just base jealousy you see, that's why as long as the US is so successful, dislike of the US will never go away. Understand it, and learn to live with it. But never pander to it.
August 19, 2008
5:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
RRD writes:
To all the left wingnuts who care about what the Euro-socialists think of us, may I suggest reading this article. Admittedly it only addresses UK errors but, given that the British are more likely to support us than their continental counterparts, I have no doubt that the problem is worse elsewhere.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world...
RRD
August 19, 2008
5:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
gftail writes:
It is always disappointing to me to see articles like this, that begin with some solid premises built in reality slowly deteriorate into a partisan manifesto from someone with red pomm pons about those with blue. I become downright disgruntled reading the comments which do the same with more ferocity. At least when Kratman opines about the transies, he steers clear of deifying the red guys in the process. None of the presidents mentioned on either side were inherently evil or underhanded. Reagan did some good and some bad. The same can be said for Carter, the first Bush and Clinton. By demonising the presidency we are now left with an all or nothing shouting match in which nothing gets actively accomplished and it is self-apparent that nothing any president has ever done has irreversibly broken any aspect of our government. This sophomoric rah rah partisanship erodes American institutions more thoroughly than any crackpot, chuckle-headed ideas furthered on either the left or the right. Yes, we have to be wary of the old communists making themselves out as the new socialist elite. But not at the expense of flushing america down the drain in the process.
August 19, 2008
5:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
spartyboy writes:
I don't understand all this nonsense about how much America is hated.
The American Olympic team received a standing ovation in China while the Iranian team was booed. In the Olympics that were held in Athens, the Americans received a standing ovation as they entered (I remember Bob Costas trying to explain that away.)
I have attended several events in Europe (American Football clinics... as a teacher) and the local citizens are in absolute awe of America and all that it means. They are in awe of American people and American opportunity and American power.
To say that America is hated is flat-out wrong. That is nothing more than a political position. America is only hated by far-left socialists that, unfortunately, dominate the American Democratic party.
August 19, 2008
5:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
WayneS460 writes:
In traveling to Europe a few times a year a few things become obvious:
- Most European Cities and Large US Blue State cities have similar thought processes. Many, but not all, rural areas have similar characteristics to US Red States.
- Most opinions of US are based on local news sources, BBC, and CNN International. Very few of the stories from these sources shown in Europe reflect the US that I live in.
- The best example of military self defense was displayed by a Danish friend of mine while touring the WWII tank museum in Germany. It was stupid American's on this design and that design -- of course Denmark defended their borders for 30 minutes before being run over.
- As far as nationalized health care goes, I buy additional medical insurance to make sure I get home to get the superior US health care instead of the poor quality (but free) health care provided in most European countries.
August 19, 2008
5:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
LL writes:
I'm not one of those dems who look to Europe as a progressive utopia, but frankly much of Europe is doing quite well in terms of providing education etc to its citizens while maintaining a thriving economy (not everywhere, but you get the idea). No viable US presidential candidate has advocated moving our country as far to the left as much of Europe, and none, if elected, could begin to accomplish that feat.
The fact that Obama is well received in Europe reflects powerfully on the unpopularity of Bush, and their excitement about an inspiring and more liberal alternative. It does not make Obama a socialist (by that logic, our administration's friends of Musharaf would be pro-authoritarian-military-regime... more substance in that really). Good standing and popularity among our allies is an asset, plain and simple. Our allies can not back us as forcefully if they risk political fallout at home for doing so.
August 19, 2008
5:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
I'd much prefer we emulate Europe rather than Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and some of our other "allies."
Anyway, it's funny to read the conservatives on this forum touting FDR as the kind of Democrat today's liberals should be. While I actually agree with that, FDR was far more liberal than the spineless Democrat congress we have today.
August 19, 2008
5:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
What a great column. And the leftist responses are very amusing.
The author wrote about how Democrats are aligning themselves with European attitudes and have a negative view of America. So, the very first commenter calls this column "inane" and then proceeds to not only list perceived negatives about America, but closes with this remark:
"And by the way, isn't it the European nations that can boast of the rising euro against the dollar, universal health coverage, and highest living standards in the world?"
The worst thing about liberals, besides their economic illiteracy and irrational emoting, is their horrible argumentative skills.
Romulus, I hope you are at least smart enough to realize that your comment makes the author's case against Democrats.
August 19, 2008
6:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
middleroader writes:
First off let me say this. There are few things that as a whole I agree with in either party. No I don't get my info from Fox news or CNN or CNBC. I find as many articles as I can from different news sources on the internet and form my own opinions. The Media now has no unbiased opinion. The have chosen one side or the other and their news casts show the best of that side and the worst of the other.
Now that I have that out of the way. I do feel that over time the Democrat party has gone down hill. They have spent way too much time pandering to the desires of the extremists in their party and worrying way too much about making them mad, instead of trying to figure out the best things for this country.
I agree completely with what the author has to say about them. Unfortunately, the republican party has been moving towards the Democrat side of things for years. trying to steal voters.
Those of you who said we have no more Reagan, FDR, JFK's, or even Lincolns. Its a scary thought that your right.
Right now we have to choose between someone who has spent less time in politics than Wiping his kids hindends or, we pick a man that while definately has the experience, has age on him that may or may not hinder his judgement.
When an election will be decided, not on the candidates but on who they pick to run with them, that just scares me.
And why should the Rich pay more taxes???? The top 10percent of the money makers in the country pay 60 percent or higher of the total taxes. So we're suppose to continue to punish those who have succeeded??? and no I am not rich and far from it. I make less than 20,000 a yr. I pay my share, but the less someone makes the less they pay. Who convers the difference? the rich do. The people who work the hardest and make the most are punished and expected to care for the lowest. Now who is talking about fairness????
August 19, 2008
6:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
John II: "The worst thing about liberals, besides their economic illiteracy and irrational emoting, is their horrible argumentative skills."
Yeah, and this is coming from a self-professed econ wiz who believes lower tax rates increase tax receipts, that oil prices recently dropped because President Bush announced he was lifting the ban on offshore drilling, that a college education is "intellectually destructive," and oh yeah, advocates taking the right to vote away from anyone under 30. Those are just the first few crazy things you've said that immediately come to mind, I'm sure I'm leaving out countless more.
Of course you find liberal arguments "horrible." You're so out of touch with reality that reason and logic sound like a foreign language to you.
August 19, 2008
6:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
middleroader: "And why should the Rich pay more taxes???? The top 10percent of the money makers in the country pay 60 percent or higher of the total taxes."
I've read that the top 1% richest households in this country own almost all the wealth. I seriously doubt a slightly higher tax rate is killing these people you feel so sorry for.
"So we're suppose to continue to punish those who have succeeded??? and no I am not rich and far from it. I make less than 20,000 a yr. I pay my share, but the less someone makes the less they pay. Who convers the difference? the rich do. The people who work the hardest and make the most are punished and expected to care for the lowest. Now who is talking about fairness????"
You seem to be implying that people who make more money work harder than those who don't. Do you seriously think, say, a hedge manager works harder than a manual laborer? I'm sure there are many rich people who have worked hard both physically and mentally for their money. But by and large, the lowest paying jobs tend to be the most physically strenuous.
August 19, 2008
6:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Sorry, I didn't word this right: "I've read that the top 1% richest households in this country own almost all the wealth."
It should say "the top 1% richest households in this country own almost *half* the wealth.
August 19, 2008
6:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
oweng writes:
I can't believe they are doing it again. Three times in a row we have a scripted "character" about to be nominated by the dems, to our certain defeat. I was so embarrassed by Obama on Saturday I took down my yard sign. Three times I've sent money to Obama. I fear it's been a waste. He never evolved one inch from "change'n'hope" back in Iowa.
Compared to McCain, there's no there there. Hillary, I voted against you because I think you're a corrupt sleaze. Please ACT LIKE IT and try to take away the nomination from loser-boy before it's too late. Here in NJ, when Torricelli was going down, they just replaced him in early October. It saved the seat. I can't believe the Clintons are going to stand by and watch. Please show some leadership, fight for the nomination, and save the Party.
August 19, 2008
6:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
McCainWins writes:
This article didn't go far enough. With the Muslim invasion of Europe, a new de facto political region has been created: Eurabia. Europeans now live under the constant threat of Muslim terrorism and they have capitulated to the invaders in an appeasers attempt to prevent societal upheaval. Europe is now Judeophobic with hate crimes against Jews increasing at an alarming rate across The Continent. The crowd that greeted Obama is a part of this dynamic and his prospect fits the new paradigm perfectly as he is a self declared "citizen of the world" who will not resist jihad; instead, he will attempt to placate it in the delusion that Islamists can be pacified.
August 19, 2008
7:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
"Anyway, it's funny to read the conservatives on this forum touting FDR as the kind of Democrat today's liberals should be. While I actually agree with that, FDR was far more liberal than the spineless Democrat congress we have today."
FDR was closer to modern day Republicans than Democrats.
FDR stood up to America's enemies. When the going got tough in WWII, he didn't retreat in defeat like modern Democrats demand.
FDR was willing to take action on the economy. Modern Democrats, as demonstrated by the Democrat leaders in Congress refused to do anything, except pass bills supporting baseball definitions, watermelon celebrations, and National Substitute Teacher days.
JFK cut taxes. Modern Democrats admit they will RAISE taxes. Obama even promised to do it.
I'll take EVERY REAL Democrat (pre-1965) over the current crop of deranged leftwingers, any day.
August 19, 2008
7:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Powerhut writes:
I want a President who loves America, Obama doesn't and McCain does. The author is right, the whackos who are in charge of the Democratic party do not love America.
August 19, 2008
7:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
middleroader writes:
Mytwocents: You seem to be implying that people who make more money work harder than those who don't. Do you seriously think, say, a hedge manager works harder than a manual laborer? I'm sure there are many rich people who have worked hard both physically and mentally for their money. But by and large, the lowest paying jobs tend to be the most physically strenuous.
You are right. I worded that incorrectly. What I should have said is those that chose to work at an education, and work at a career that pays well and to put in a "different" type of hard work are the one's that everyone wants to punish. IF I choose to go to college and get a career that pays 200,000 a yr. is it fair that because I suceeded in school, and suceeded in my chosen career that I now get to pay two to three times the taxes as someone who chooses to not go down that path???
What about the plant manager that Worked his tail off from the floor to the manager position and gets paid 150,000 a yr. He'll be classified as rich if his wife chooses to work also. There is a working man that will be punished for doing a good job.
Do I think construction workers should be paid more, definately. Should a grill jocky at a burger king. no. should a grill jocky pay taxes. yes. does he/she? no, they get what they pay in plus more back at the end of the year. What about the plant manager who has worked hard all of his life? He not only pays his taxes but will end up paying more in because of his hard earned success.
I don't like paying taxes either. but I pay mine, and because of my income I break even. don't get back don't have to pay more.
Thats all I expect anyone to have to do, pay the same percentage of income across the board. From the lowest paid person to the highest. no more, no less.
Cause Fair is Fair.
you said yourself that 1% of the population in the US has half the wealth. ok. but that one percent pays 60% of the taxes. roughly the other 40% is paid my the upper middle and middle class. What does the lower income bracket pay now??? other than those that choose to be on welfare and pay even less.
I have worked jobs where I made 9,000 in a yr. they took for the year aproximately 1,000 dollars ( for an expample here) at the end of the year I got back 1,200. How is that possible??? the gov gave me more than I gave them? the next year I make 90,000 dollars and paid in 10,000. at the end of the year the gov says I owe them another 2,000 because I didn't pay enough. wait, that can't be right can it???? I paid 11% at the low income and the gov gave me money. I paid 11% at the high income and now I have to come up with another 2%. you tell me who's getting screwed.
August 19, 2008
7:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
McCainWins writes:
"Anyway, it's funny to read the conservatives on this forum touting FDR as the kind of Democrat today's liberals should be. While I actually agree with that, FDR was far more liberal than the spineless Democrat congress we have today."
FDR Address to Congress after Pearl Harbor:
"We will wage war without limitation."
It is difficult to imagine a modern Democrat uttering such words.
August 19, 2008
7:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
aleph writes:
A World Without America..
a curious video worth watching from the UK -
http://americaintheworld.typepad.com/...
August 19, 2008
7:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
UKATS71 writes:
I agree 100%. Here is the ironic thing. It is the fact that we, the US, have been playing our exceptionalist role that allowed Europe to afford their extreme socialist ways. Instead of spending their share of GDP on defense they poured it into social programs and built a semi-socialist liberal state. During the cold war we took the burden of huge deficits to fund our military machine as a counter to the Soviet superpower. Europe was happy to have the US play this role and instead focused internally on their own social issues. While we were out winning the cold war they were happy just letting us bear the brunt of the costs. Once the cold war ended they started to look at us in contempt because they thought they no longer needed us. Now that Russia is returning to it's imperialist ways I am sure their opinion of us will change again as the big brother that will bail them out by becoming the counterweight again. This is the ironic part. If Barack Obama gets elected and continues the Europeanization of the United States we will not be there to be that big brother. We will be too busy funding our own socialist state. That will leave Russia like a bear in a china store. So, to sum it up, the Europeans have been waiting for us to be like them ever since the cold war ended and now when they actually need us to be the activist superpower instead of another left of center democracy they might just get their wish.
August 19, 2008
7:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
BO writes:
Powerhut-
Brilliant. How long did it take you to come up with that one? Tell me, did you watch Fox News before or after you posted that gem?
I'm sure you can provide an example where Obama says he doesn't love America. Not some innuendo-like, ipso-facto spin. A real quote.
August 19, 2008
8:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
doctorg writes:
As to how the income tax burden falls in the US -- one hates to quote Wikipedia, but they actually have a nice summary (under "Taxation in the United States"). It turns out that the top quintile gets 47.6% of the income and pays 82.5% of income taxes, while the middle quintile earned 14.2% and paid 5.2%. So US income taxes are pretty highly progressive.
The data:
"In 2001 the top 1% earned 14.8% of all income and paid 34.4% of federal income taxes. The next 4% earned 12.7% and paid 20.8%. The next 5% earned 10.1% and paid 12.5%. The next 10% earned 14.8% and paid 14.8%, completing the highest quintile, which paid 82.5% of federal income taxes. The fourth quintile earned 20.7% of all income and paid 14.3%. The third quintile earned 14.2% and paid 5.2%. The second quintile earned 9.2% and paid 0.3%. The lowest quintile earned 4.2% and received a net 2.3% from the federal government in income 'credits'. When including social security insurance taxes: In 2001 the top 1% earned 14.8% of all income and paid 22.7% of all federal taxes. The next 4% earned 12.7% and paid 15.8%. The next 5% earned 10.1% and paid 11.5%. The next 10% earned 14.8% and paid 15.3%, completing the highest quintile. The fourth quintile earned 20.7% of all income and paid 18.5%. The third quintile earned 14.2% and paid 10%. The second quintile earned 9.2% and paid 4.9%. The lowest quintile earned 4.2% and paid 1% of all federal taxes.[23] Whether this breakdown is "fair" is a matter of some debate."
I like that last line.
August 19, 2008
8:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
GeraldD writes:
CNN, CBS, MSNBC, ABC, Newsweek, The New York Times and many other members of the Main Stream Media have for months now, helped to foster what amounts to a deception upon the American people. Specifically the deception is not revealing Obama's true position on many of the major issues. They have achieved this deception by not reporting on the facts. They have not been asking the tough questions they need to ask of a Presidential Candidate. The U.S. Constitution guarantees Freedom of The Press in order to assure that the press is free to ask just such probing questions without fear of retribution from any member of the government. The profit motive has now injected itself into political reporting. Many major news outlets are skewing their reporting in order to increase their ratings among certain portions of the population. This "Prostitution" of the Freedom of the Press was never envisioned by our founding fathers. Isn't it IRONIC that a PASTOR and NOT a REPORTER was the main instrument in getting Obama to finally answer some tough, difficult, yet truly relevant and revealing questions? Pundits from every major news organization have admitted ON AIR that the Saddleback venue Pastor Rick Warren organized was a "Brilliant" one. Rest assured that since the Obama campaign has seen how poorly Obama performed under such a format, that they will do everything in their power to block any further "Debates" from adopting the same format.
The Saddleback forum has firmly cemented the Church's legitimate role in the future of Presidential Debates. Thanks are due to CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, Newsweek, and The New York Times for moving aside in your reporting coverage these past months, and allowing Rick Warren to forge a place in history for him and for the Church. Thank God for people with courage and moral fortitude like Pastor Rick Warren who are willing to examine the issues facing our country without regard to the profit motive or party loyalty. Freedom of The Press Should not be for sale! Take heed CNN. Pay attention MSNBC. Learn something CBS. We've just made news here ABC. Are you reading between the lines here Mr. Editor of The New York Times? Can you figure out the implication of this story Newsweek? I hope all of you are listening. The silence is truly deafening!
August 19, 2008
9:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
GeraldD: "Thank God for people with courage and moral fortitude like Pastor Rick Warren who are willing to examine the issues facing our country without regard to the profit motive or party loyalty. Freedom of The Press Should not be for sale!"
Rick Warren is not a member of the press. Just an FYI.
rickg: "FDR was willing to take action on the economy."
Yeah, it was called the New Deal. Remember, you cons despise that with an abiding hatred? But I'll remember your praise should you happen to crab in the future about Social Security and stronger protections for unions...
August 19, 2008
9:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
UKATS71 writes:
Hi BO, I actually form my own opinions. I came up with that myself thank you. When you look at Barack Obama's positions on the issues he aligns very closely with European democracies. That is not a slight, but, an observation. His record, though short, bears that out pretty clearly. Personally I do not think that I would like to have a European democracy in America, however, some people that are left of center love the idea of joining Europe as a social democracy. My point, however, regarding an activist United States is one that will come to bear out. You cannot have a social democracy based system and have a giant military machine. Not enough money to go around.
August 19, 2008
9:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
old_salty_dawg99 writes:
Romulus,
You forgot to mention 75% tax rates,riots a the slightest hint of reducing taxpayer funded hand outs, elderly persons be refused health care because the government can not recoup the cost from their taxes after the operation. Democrats in this nation do not want a democracy theyt want a Communist Nation with them in charge. Obama in his own words stated that America would only be great when he was in the oval office.I LOVE to tell that pompass twit that America was great before he came along and will be great long after him and his Liberal twit flunkies are gone.It will not take as long for America to recover its greatness if we keep him out of the oval office and kick Pelosi and her thugs out of the House and let's not forget about Reid and his morons in the Senate. When the Democrats remember that they work for WE THE PEOPLE not the other way around maybe they will start be the people's party once again as for now they are the party for themselves and that is just plain ego and greed on their part. They get to keep all those contributions after the election ends so they want to stay in power anyway they can and getting gulible people to agree with them is their pefred way. So you just keep right on buying their lies and I'll see you in the poor Gulag when they turn this into a neo-communist nation.
August 19, 2008
9:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
arkpoet writes:
Great article and very true---I come from a family of Democrats---but slowly about half of us vote Republican while we hold our nose, because we do not support this blame American first attitude...
August 19, 2008
9:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
keithkc writes:
"In the 20th century America entered upon the world stage powerfully and decisively coming to the aid of embattled European democracies and leading them to victory in two world wars and the Cold War."
it's nice when facts are correct. The US joined the first world war essentially at its end and the impact of its armies wasn't nearly as significant as most other Allied countries such as Britain, France, Australia, Canada, etc.
In the Second World War in Europe, the USA accounted for less than 20% of the Allied armed forces fighting Germany and contributed even less in actual battles. Russia tied up over 75% of Hitler's armies, and lost considerably more soldiers than the entire US army had in the field. Also to note that the US only joined the war after almost three years of fighting had already happened (selling millions of $$ of arms to Germany in those years).
Some leader.
August 19, 2008
10:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Gregenn writes:
It is easy to assemble facts in facts in extreme ways and attach extreme explanations to them ……… how about this ………..
“The modern Republican party from Reagan through Bush 1 and Bush 2 have directed tax cuts and wealth to the very rich wilfully UNDERMINING THE INTEGRITY OF THE USA. Bush 1 left the USA in heavy debt - the democrats under Clinton grew the economy and created a surplus – when Bush 2 came along he let spending rip and also funnelled more money to the very rich (himself included). He is leaving the national debt and the economy in tatters. The USA is now in debt to the Chinese and the oil-rich Russians but McCain will even accelerate this process. The economic integrity and independence of the USA mean nothing when balanced against the republicans’ desire to create a champagne party for billionaires.”
Now I do not actually believe that the republicans put their self-interest before the country (are treasonous?), rather that they just do not think things through. We know the republicans did not think when they invaded Iraq – they did not question their assumptions /create a plan B / do a risk assessment. Same with the economy – let spending rip, let lending rip … and also give us some more billions please – don’t bother to think things through.
It is lack of intelligence that is so damning – I really truly would not mind if a president with different policies to mine were in charge if they thought things through intelligently. We know that Bush 2 cannot string more than 6 words together in a sentence (listen to his speeches). This goes for his thoughts and deeds too. And now we have McCain who actually boasts that he came bottom of the class at Annapolis. Do we really NEED ANOTHER GRADE C+ PRESIDENT ???
August 19, 2008
10:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
DenverDennis writes:
The author makes some excellent observations. For years, the Democratic party has moved toward socialism. Their heiarchy have an elistist viewpoint and their desire is to rule over those of us who are "fools" in their eyes.
August 19, 2008
11:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
BO writes:
UKATS71-
Howdy. Whether or not Obama wants to move the US towards a European style democracy (like he could do that all by himself-and I personally don't think so, even though my vote is still a toss-up) isn't the issue. You, or the poster from earlier, stated that Obama doesn't love America. Even if he wanted to move us to be more like a European democracy, that doesn't equal hatred for America. The reason we're stronger militarily than the Europeans is that to be a superpower, you have to have a large population base. Aside from Russia, Germany has the largest population in Europe, at about 81 million or so (compared to our 300 million). Hard to have a lot of soldiers w/o people (yes, $ helps as well). Much of Europe is experiencing a stagnant to negative rate of natural increase.
Its amazing how the rightwingers are so quick to point out how little control Bush has over things he gets blamed for, but yet Obama will singlehandedly, magically have control over those same things. Amazing.
August 19, 2008
11:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
sbooker1976 writes:
It doesn't matter what party you're in, we're all a bunch of whiners and we all going to disagree. Me myself i'll be glad when all of this over. You already know who going to vote for, not to mention you're going to be up all night to look at the results. Here's an idea: Relax! It's not that crucial, and if you're wondering why I'm saying this, read the first sentence over in my comment.
August 19, 2008
11:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
BO writes:
Old Salty Dawg-
"When the Democrats remember that they work for WE THE PEOPLE not the other way around maybe they will start be the people's party once again as for now they are the party for themselves and that is just plain ego and greed on their part. They get to keep all those contributions after the election ends so they want to stay in power anyway they can and getting gulible people to agree with them is their pefred way. So you just keep right on buying their lies and I'll see you in the poor Gulag when they turn this into a neo-communist nation."
You do realize that you could change "Democrats" for "Republicans", and your statement would be just as true, don't you? What have the Republicans done that shows that they work for "WE THE PEOPLE?" Neither party works for WE THE PEOPLE, if you think either one of them does over the other, you are a complete idiot, and are too dumb to have a vote. I have never heard of a Republican returning their contributions after the election ends. BTW- I believe McCain, in one of his ads, promises to make America great again. I guess he doesn't realize that America was already great. You should also see the interview he did with Hannity when he explained how he "wasn't really in love with America until he was deprived of her company." Youtube it.
August 19, 2008
11:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
owlfan12000 writes:
The biggest problem with both parties has been created by gerrymandering. Because the parties can divide up the electoral districts into safe Republican and Safe Democratic districts most elections are decided in the primaries. Since there is no real competition from the other party the party activists feel free to nominate people from the extremes of their own party. The result is Congressmen from the extreme left and the extreme right.
This results in a completely dysfunctional legislature. Because the extremists cannot begin to see the other side's point of view there is very little crossing over the aisle to enact legislation that most of the country would support.
Doing that makes for good government but bad politics. Because there is no compromise the party in power is forced to cater to the most extreme elements of their own party. Over time this results in radical legislation that eventually disgusts the country and the pendulum starts to swing back to the other underdog. Newt Gingrich used the no compromise approach to throw out the Democrats and the Democrats have recently used this approach to throw out the Republicans.
I have two recommendations for those that want a more moderate government. The first is easy, vote for divided government. At this point that probably means voting for McCain because it looks like the Republican housecleaning will continue for now. This approach worked pretty well in the past.
The second is hard, figure out how to eliminate gerrymandering. I'm from Oklahoma which has 5 Congressmen, 4 Republicans and 1 Democrat. If I would King we would have to arrange the state Congressional districts using 1 horizontal line and 3 vertical lines. That would mean there were some big cities with some rural areas. This would invariably force a more moderate Congressman. Clearly anyone elected in Oklahoma is going to be more conservative than anyone elected in Massachusetts but they probably won't think that the other side is evil.
I suspect that the only way for this to happen is for the party in that is a minority in the state to start an initiative petition drive since the majority party would never cut it's own throat and vote something like that through the state legislature.
If we don't do that we will probably end up starting down the European model for a while. That should disgust enough Independents and Democrats to swing us back to the religious right. After that we can start it all over again.
August 20, 2008
12:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
justfacts264 writes:
powerhut wrote: " I want a President who loves America, Obama doesn't and McCain does. "
Well, you got George W. Bush. he certainly loves our country. But did it help?
Let alone, I wouldn't be surprised if the assumption that Obama doesn't love his country stems from latent racism, nothing else.
August 20, 2008
12:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
veryheptomeetyou writes:
I love to hear Neo-conservative Republicans talk about the downfall of the Democratic Party. What a laugh! Berry Goldwater is probably rolling over in his grave, seeing how the Republican party has been hijacked by fear mongering neo-cons pandering to their self-righteous, religious fundamentalist base to keep them afloat and all powerful. In a way my hat's off to Carl Rove, who served up irrational fear in a twilight zone campaign strategy where insulated, ignorant Americans swallowed the poison pill whole-heartedly.
It's amazing how today's Republican party loves to use "liberal" like it's a dirty word. I guess they forget it was a more sober Republican party who started San Francisco. If anyone were to read the city’s charter, they’d realize how modern "Democrat" it actually sounds. Do today's starched shirts forget it was Teddy Roosevelt who wanted "In God We Trust " eliminated from the dollar bill, or that Goldwater believed in a woman's right to choose?
Bottom line, the Republican Party has become a paranoid, immature teenager who can't accept the fact that he has lost a race or two and is too afraid to consider the competition's wisdom. They leave the field indignant, thinking that being absolute and resolute is far more important than being pragmatic, objective and open-minded. It's easier for them to settle down at night, viewing the world as the movie, "Star Wars", a fictional battle between simple right and wrong, black and white, unable and unprepared to deal with complex measures of gray.
Are Republicans so self-absorbed that they can't learn from other countries older them themselves? Looking at Europe or Asia's success and failures does not mean that you have to give-up all the superlatives of high-school pepper rally. Go ahead, wave your pom-poms, but before you play the game, know that the other team has got a play or two you can benefit from. Denmark, reviled by U.S. capitalists for being "socialized", has learned they can be more like us. In fact now, with a clever balance between sideologies, Denmark has one of the highest standard of livings in the world, not to mention one of the highest GNP's. Instead of scratching our heads at countries like Denmark, maybe it's time to realize that national healthcare does not mean someone from government is going to blind-side you on a Sunday morning, forcing you wear olive khakis and a red star.
The Democrat party continues to make a number of mistakes. But at least there is some ability to learn from them. They have realized an ill-fated, misguided Vietnam. The Republicans seem view their brand of pre-emptive strikes like wishful thinking sequels to Rambo. For a young nation, Republicans sure have become the curmudgeons for, “No room for improvement.” Bottom line, change comes in many forms, and it is the only real constant. If you keep thinking of yourself as the center of the world you're most likely to end up there, ten feet under.
August 20, 2008
1:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
justfacts264 writes:
The US is the only highly-industrialized country in the world that does not have a universal health care system. That sure makes all other countries solcialist countries... Wayne: buying health care plan here with the same benefits is about 2.8 times more expensive as in Germany. I lived there.
August 20, 2008
2:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Gregenn writes:
This is all perfectly true:
in the People's Republic of China :
1) there is no universal health care - unless you are covered by your employer ("work unit") or are rich you have no benefits at all.
2) Higher Education is not free or subsiidized - if you want your children to go to university you have to pay the commercial rate: there are no loan facilities that I have heard of.
3) Taxes are low - the several chinese over here that I know all complain about paying taxes (chinese try to get additional jobs - payments for these escape the tax net completely).
4) The Chinese govt does not waste money on ensuring clean air or rivers, as it does not wish to hobble industry with these costs.
Now, IF the outcome of this election meant that the USA would bear in some ways a similarity to another country, would you want that country to be Communist China or not ?
If so, vote Republican.
August 20, 2008
2:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
"rickg: "FDR was willing to take action on the economy."
Yeah, it was called the New Deal. Remember, you cons despise that with an abiding hatred? But I'll remember your praise should you happen to crab in the future about Social Security and stronger protections for unions..." - mytwosense
I think I speak for all conservatives when I say that rickg's comments at 7:04PM were completely false and moronic. FDR was nothing like modern day Republicans. He stalled on entering WWII. He initially campaigned on the promise of peace. In fact, it took a devastating surprise attack to finally get him to take action. Sure, he took action to help the economy: but it was wrong the action. FDR's socialistic and unconstitutional economic plans, many of which were overturned by the Supreme Court, managed to extend the Great Depression. He eventually threatened the Supreme Court in order to get some of his programs, like Social Security, passed. On top of that, he authorized the mass abduction and internment of innocent Japanese-Americans simply because they Japanese-Americans.
FDR represents a baseline for socialism in America. No Democrat wants to revert any of his policies (save for Japanese internment. Now it is white males they want punished); they only want to build on top of those programs. FDR brought socialism into America. Modern-day Democrats like Obama want to extend on FDR's socialism.
So, please ignore that idiot, rickg. He was simply repeating what he heard in public school. He does not speak for conservatives.
August 20, 2008
2:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
pcull writes:
justfacts264
YOU ARE A COMPLETE IDIOT!!!!!! WHAT ARE YOU RICH? B. HUSSEIN OBAMA HAS BASICALLY SAID HE WILL RAISE TAXES. I'M AT THE TOP BRACKET, SO I GUESS I AM RICH, BUT WHEN CANDIDATES TALK ABOUT RAISING TAXES, I CRINGE. AND AS FOR YOUR COMMENT ABOUT THE TIME PRIOR TO BUSH, LABELING IT DEMOCRAT, AND ECONOMY UP, UP, UP. GUESS WHAT, WE HAD A REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED HOUSE AND SENATE. YOUR BOY SLICK WILLY, WAS THE BENEFICIARY OF NEWT GINGRICH'S CONTRACT WITH AMERICA, WHILE HE WAS BUSY SCREWING PEOPLE OVER WITH WHITEWATER. RESEARCH HISTORY TO SEE HOW WRONG YOU REALLY ARE. LOOK WHAT THEY DID IN THEIR FIRST 100 DAYS, WELFARE REFORM, TAX REFORM, THE LIST GOES ON. WHAT HAS THAT HOUSEWIFE PELOSI DONE? NOTHING!!!!! AND YES, I KNOW I AM TYPING IN ALL CAPS, THE INTENT IS TO YELL AT YOU AND EDUCATE YOU! IF YOU DON'T KNOW HISTORY, YOU SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO VOTE. IF IT WERE UP TO ME, YOU'D BE THE FIRST TO LOSE THAT RIGHT BASED ON YOUR IGNORANCE OF THE FACTS. WHAT IS THIS, YOUR FIRST ELECTION? FEELING LIKE A BIG SMART GUY CAUSE YOU JUST TURNED EIGHTEEN? YOU WANT TO WEAR THE DADDY PANTS? THEN GROW UP, AND REALIZE THIS IS A COUNTRY OF STRONG INDIVIDUALS ALWAYS FIGHTING TO BE THE BEST. IF YOU ARE NOT UP TO IT, GO TO ONE OF THE EUROPEAN COUNTRIES YOU THINK ARE SO GREAT.
August 20, 2008
3:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
theorangeparty writes:
From a Brits point of view, it is not the way the US has become more 'Europeanised' but the way Europe and in particular the UK has become more 'Americanised' under the so-called 'special relationship.
The US needs the UK as its voice and muscle in Europe and the Middle East, particularly in its role in Nato and the EU.
Former UK prime minister, Tony Blair, met the Georgian president last year, to set out the UK position on Nato and the EU and also strengthen the troop involvement in Iraq, as I disclosed here
http://theorangepartyblog.blogspot.co...
Democrats (Obama or Clinton) and the Republicans (McCain or Bush) will keep up the relationship while there is so much at stake.
Just observe how Blair popped up during Obama's European tour. He was the first UK politician to have an early morning chat with Obama in London. While Blair is no longer prime minister, his Blairite government still calls the shots. Blair has his sights on the EU presidency and both Democrats and Republicans want the UK on side.
On the Obama campaign - interesting how both Blair and Obama have so much in common, as I point out here - they are like two peas in a pod.
http://theorangepartyblog.blogspot.co...
August 20, 2008
3:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
retafo writes:
As a european who lived two years in the US i find this article quite funny. The author has in my oppinion absolutly no idea of european politics and europe in general.
1." European capitalism and nationalism was decisively weakened and the door opened to a continent-wide shift to collectivism and the transnationalism represented by the United Nations, and the European Union."
Just the opposite is true. You will hardly find a german conservative or business leader opposing the EU and the european integration. The left parties oppose the EU while at least in most countries the economic friendly conservative parties are EU supporters. Mainly economic and capitalism is the driving force and the reason of success of the EU. By the way if a unbelivable success like the EU should be a example for a bad or wrong policy is beyond my understanding and what´s wrong with transnationalism if it works.
2. To defend the Bush foreign policy is even much more beyond my understanding but i do not have to pay the bill. So if you wish to continue with htis i have no problem with that. The good news is that even your children and grandchildren will remember bush when they pay their taxes and pay the rates for his foreing policy and every new deficit and debt record. How many Bushs can the average american effort?
3. paying trillions to become really really unpopular and selling this as the right foreign policy for the average american who will pay the bill for this every year until the end of days is ......
4. what has the US won with this unilateral hawkish policy. I think there is too much politics and too much hate between the different parties within the US after so many years that both sites are willing to defend everything from the own party or to dislike everthing from the other party. It is time to calm down and work together. Here you can learn a lot from the europeans especially from the scandinavian countries.
August 20, 2008
3:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Gregenn writes:
PCCULL - if you want to drive people out of the country to european countries (remember "go back to russia" ?) it seems that the country YOU should move to is the People's Republic of China as they admire strong and rich individuals and let the weak suffer (in China do you know that if you are rich/successful you get lower interest rates on bank loans than if you are a mere worker?). The communists now support raw capitalism. Your views of denying people the right to vote "IF IT WERE UP TO ME, YOU'D BE THE FIRST TO LOSE THAT RIGHT (to vote)" also appear to match those of the communist chinese perfectly.
(I am going to lose my faith in humanity soon, reading idiotic views like the ones posted above).
August 20, 2008
5:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
Comparing the US and the EU is meaningless. The US has a defense budget and actually defends itself. The EU depends on the US to defend them (and we do it).
This whole picture would look much different if the EU actually had to maintain a standing military. Look at what is happening in Georgia - suddenly the complaints about America grow quiet when the Russians start flexing their muscle or when the US starts talking about pulling troops out of Germany. The EU couldn't do anything in Kosovo either.
When the EU takes defending themselves seriously - then the US will take the EU seriously.
August 20, 2008
5:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
FLGuru writes:
There are 2 kinds of people in the world; people who want to feel good about themselves and be liked, and people who want to succeed at any cost. Its apparent in every aspect of life, from politics to our personal lives. Its unfortunate that the spirit of America has eroded from a nation of winners, to a nation of people who are more concerned about what the Europeans think of us. McCain and Obama represent this perfectly; our choice is either a man who wants America to be strong; or a candidate who wants to be cheered by the peasants. Hopefully recent events have reminded Americans of how dangerous the world is so we can keep the do-gooder crowd in the minority.
August 20, 2008
5:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
UKATS71 writes:
I never said that Obama didn't love America. I believe he wants to do what he thinks is right. I don't believe in his vision or what he thinks needs to be done so I will respectfully disagree. Look at my post again and you will see that I mean no disrespect. I just do not believe a socialistic vision is good for America.
August 20, 2008
6:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike846 writes:
Excellent comments, these. The Democrat Party is trying to cast Obama as the new JFK. The two men couldn't be more different in their beliefs and leadership styles. Prediction: absent some huge gaff by McCain, and assuming Obama gets the nomination (by no means a "sure thing", with Hillary still in the mix and working behind the scenes), this election may very well mimic 1972. A repudiation of the socialist elitist wing of what used to be the party of the common man. Its going to be interesting, to say the least. Mike
August 20, 2008
8:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
JDub writes:
A couple of people have said it but I will say it again. It is hysterical how the lefties try to refute the article and defend their position which constitutes insulting America and our fundamental beliefs. Then they say how great Europe is. That was the point! Did they so caught up in their anger at the truth while reading the article? What does it lead to? Revealing their true feelings and further justify and add merit to the author and his arguments.
Many thanks to the author and to everybody that completely failed to make a single VALID argument. This was a goodie worth a few laughs.
August 20, 2008
9:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
JDub: "A couple of people have said it but I will say it again. It is hysterical how the lefties try to refute the article and defend their position which constitutes insulting America and our fundamental beliefs. Then they say how great Europe is. That was the point!"
My impression was that several were refuting the erroneous statements, based on a faulty understanding of history, made in the article.
At any rate, is it now a conservative prerequisite to hate Europe, too? You folks are getting a pretty lengthy list going of people and countries you despise. Pretty soon, you're going to marginalize yourselves to the point of being obsolete.
August 20, 2008
10:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
"At any rate, is it now a conservative prerequisite to hate Europe, too?" - mytwosense
Where did you get that from? Conservatives do not hate Europe. They just do not look to Europe as some kind of archetype of the perfect society. Nor do conservatives obsess about how much Europeans like or dislike America.
Western Europe largely adheres to the socialist ideology. Socialism is antithetical to conservative principles. Therefore, conservatives do not idealize Europe like liberals do. But, to say that conservatives "hate" Europe is just inaccurate. Conservatives simply do not want to emulate Old Europe's old ways.
August 20, 2008
10:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Ok, perhaps I exaggerated. But judging from some of these posts, at least some of the conservatives on this forum strongly dislike Europe. And label anyone who admires some of their policies as a Socialist.
August 20, 2008
10:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
"The US is the only highly-industrialized country in the world that does not have a universal health care system." - Justfacts
In a not too long ago time, you could have easily replaced the words "universal health care system" with the word democracy. America was founded on the idea that she can govern herself better than the rest of the world. If she followed your logic, we'd still be governed by kings and queens.
August 20, 2008
10:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
"And label anyone who admires some of their policies as a Socialist." - MTS
Because it seems like the only policies they admire are the socialist policies.
Is there a non-socialist European policy that you admire?
August 20, 2008
10:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
CORRECTION: I should have said monarchy instead of democracy.
"In a not too long ago time, you could have easily replaced the words "universal health care system" with the word monarchy.
August 20, 2008
10:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Well, it depends on what you mean by "policy." From my perspective, I associate the term with official government legislation, mandates, etc.
And my impression from talking with you over the past year or so is that you generally view government legislation and mandates on anything other than military decisions and upholding business contract law as Socialism. However, I may be wrong.
So could you clarify what you mean by policy?
August 20, 2008
10:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
Policy as in governmental policies in regards to the management of a country.
August 20, 2008
11:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Well, I like the European approach to mass transit. They've built a sleek Eurorail that citizens enjoy and use, probably more than they use cars. We used to do something similar with trains.
I also like Germany's embracing of solar and wind technology. They've set ambitious targets which it looks like they're not only going to meet, but are going to exceed. It's also created an economic boom for them.
And I like the French government's respect for their workers' wishes for more time to spend with family or just pursuing their own happiness. Longer vacations, shorter workweeks, etc. Despite the misinformation out there, the French unemployment rate is only a few points higher than ours, and a far less percentage of French citizens live at or under the poverty level than citizens in the US. They have a lower divorce rate, too.
I just think the French generally live under less stress than we do here. But then now we're getting into policies you will surely consider Socialist - i.e, paid for higher education, daycare, health care. At any rate, these services are paid for with higher taxes, but apparently that is greatly offset by not having to pay for the three things I mention above.
That kind of worry is lifted from their minds, and they can go about their lives and pursuit of different employment without constantly worrying about losing their "benefits." In fact, that may be why they have a slightly higher rate of unemployment than we do. They can actually leave their jobs and take time off because they have something saved in the bank, their healthcare is paid for, and so on.
August 20, 2008
11:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
In all candor, let me just state none of my opinions are based on the actual first-hand experience of living in Europe. For all I know, I might end up hating the place if I lived there.
But, like many of us on this forum, I form my opinions on reading, talking with folks who hail from other countries, and so on.
August 20, 2008
11:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
Interesting. Do you not believe those things are socialistic policies?
Also, I'm surprised you included an unsolicited brief encomium to France. I don't want to get into a pedantic debate on France vs. America. But, some of your statements deserve a response.
"the French unemployment rate is only a few points higher than ours,..." - MTS
Without getting into the details of how unemployment is calculated across different countries, I'll grant you that it is "only" a few points higher than ours. Ours is, what, 5.5 or 6%? And this is considered hard times for America and economic reporters from AP/Reuters constantly tell us we are in a recession. When this country was considered to be in a strong growth phase just a short time ago, our unemployment rate was around 4-4.5%. So, a few points up or down in the unemployment rate causes a lot of concern among folks. But, for some reason, when it comes to France, it is no big deal that France's unemployment rate is "only" a "few" points higher than our recessionary rate of 5.5-6%. This puts France at about 7.5-8.5%. That rate is not part of a French recession. That is ongoing average rate for a long time now.
"and a far less percentage of French citizens live at or under the poverty level than citizens in the US." - MTS
I do not know what the poverty rate is in France. But I do know that poverty is relevant to a country's overall wealth. The French have a much lower per capita income than Americans. So I highly doubt that what we consider poverty in America is the same benchmark for French poverty.
"They have a lower divorce rate, too." - MTS
If that is true then that is surely a good thing for France. But, what is their birthrate? I believe the French are having less children than Americans. This means they will have a lot of trouble maintaining their socialist programs as the population grows older.
"In fact, that may be why they have a slightly higher rate of unemployment than we do. They can actually leave their jobs and take time off because they have something saved in the bank, their healthcare is paid for, and so on." - MTS
Does the government pay their rent and mortgage when they "take time off"? The French do not want to be unemployed. In fact, the main reason why the unemployment rate is so high is because the French government has implemented very strict laws in terms of employment termination; it is very difficult to fire an employee. This means employers are reluctant to bring on new employees since they know they will be stuck with them. In fact, when the government attempted to ease those restrictions a few years ago, the young French protested and rioted for several weeks.
August 20, 2008
11:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
"But, like many of us on this forum, I form my opinions on reading, talking with folks who hail from other countries, and so on." - MTS
Fair enough.
August 20, 2008
11:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
On an anecdotal note, I worked with a guy from France once. He was a total a-hole. He fit the snobbish stereotype of a Frenchman to a T. Occasionally, when our company would buy us bagels for breakfast, he would scoff that he would never eat such junk and that the French eat croissants for breakfast.
He was a staunch lover of French culture. Yet, he left France for a home in California. He hated American culture but he sure liked American money.
On another anecdotal note, I also worked with a guy who emigrated to France. He was a strange guy. Apparently, his family left him with a lot of money. So, he bought an old mansion in France and moved his family there. When asked why he was leaving America, he replied that he's always been a "francophile". Good riddance.
August 20, 2008
12:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
justfacts264 writes:
to John_II:
There is a fundamental difference: America never had a universal health care system, while it was once controlled by the english crown. So the US never learned that a universal health care system is bad while it learned that democracy is better than monarchy.
You also said "Western Europe largely adheres to the socialist ideology". Wow, what a definition of socialism. Go to Wikipedia and look it up. And then compare the definition to