Alarming News

January 29, 2004

The role of parties

Jonah writes that they do matter, above and beyond the candidates they produce:
Now, many conservatives have been writing me in recent weeks, in response to my increasingly critical comments about President Bush, to say that maybe conservatives shouldn’t vote for him. I think that’s silly. On any issue of major importance to conservatives, there isn’t a Democrat running who wouldn’t be an order of magnitude worse. Indeed, even if, say, Joe Lieberman’s Joe-Mentum had caught on, and he won the nomination, he would still be filling his administration from a Democratic bench. The gravitational forces of the party largely determine the course of policy. The Democratic dogma is instinctually to err on the side of government action. Republican dogma, at least for now, is to err on the side of individual initiative and the market.

Posted by Karol at 01:40 PM |
Comments

I’ve always said, that 2000 election ironically solidified my Republican party loyalty. I voted for Bush, of course, but moreso for all those nameless-to-me other (R) candidates on the ballot. And the Florida controversy proved this: voting for a party is not about one candidate. It is about getting your people in place, year after year, time and time again, so when the time comes when you really need them, the right people are in the right place at the right time.
Florida & the SCOTUS had Right/Republican people in the right place at the right time.
Think about that next time you (not you Kashei) consider abandoning your party.

Posted by: Scott S at January 29, 2004 at 4:31 pm

Finally, a republican willing to admit Bush stole the election. I find that refreshing, believe it or not.
But Cheerios, your quote says, “The gravitational forces of the party largely determine the course of policy. The Democratic dogma is instinctually to err on the side of government action”
That is, if you will pardon the expression, a big, steaming, stinking pile of crap. the Republican “dogma” used to be (oh, so long ago) to keep government small, to limit spending, to balance the budget. With Clinton in the White house, those goals were pursued and met with alacrity. Now that there is an (R) administration, we have a government growing and spending out of control. It seems odd to me that so many moderate republicans are showing such strong party loyalty at a time when their party has done less to advance their goals than the previous democratic administration did. I honestly can’t see why anyone other than the very wealthy and the “religious right” would put their support behind this administration. Do that many people value party loyalty above good government?

Posted by: Rick Blaine at January 29, 2004 at 7:19 pm

You have me wrong. Stole, hardly. Decisions had to be made, the Dems were clearly grasping for straws, and insanity was on the brink. It took rational and responsible judges to make the tough decision. And, as evidence shows, the right decision.

Posted by: Scott S at January 30, 2004 at 9:03 am

Party loyalty… hmmm. Try looking that one up. I think it might say something like never abandoning your own? Seriously, you think policies contrary to our beliefs will make us quit? Switch sides? Give me a break. The party is not Bush’s, it is ours. We can be critical, motivate, get active and enact change. But we would never leave “our” party.

Posted by: Scott S at January 30, 2004 at 9:05 am

Rick, only to a Democrat would getting more votes equal stealing an election. That 6 Dem 1 Ind Florida Supreme Court wasn’t biased at all, right? As Gore said when the Florida debacle began ‘the campaign continues!’

Posted by: Kashei at January 30, 2004 at 10:32 am

Fight for your [right to] Party!

On Monday, I suggested that all Democrats join the Republican party, because party loyalty and supremacy — i.e., “winning” seems to have become more important to many Republicans than good

Posted by: Rick's Cafe Americain at February 4, 2004 at 11:55 pm
Post a comment