 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Re: Cronkite's reduces the Democratic Party to 10 points. Hopefully. by Lizard_King 08/31/2003, 2:17pm PDT | ||||
 |
 |
|||
Senor Barborito wrote: Look, when assaulting the constitution is a bipartisan hobby, I don't think I see that statement coming from either side any time soon except when attacking the person in power (algore style). Gun rights, hate speech, racial preferences etc will continue to be sticking points for the Dems when it comes to how they choose to violate the constitution. Re 2nd amendment: you and Howard Dean will still be a tolerated fringe element in that issue. Rest of Liberal America, meet Senor B. Yes, all of them think guns are naughty, and it will continue to be the ad populum reflex in the Democratic Party. And from what I recall on our last spat over guns, yours is a categorically limited, highly utilitarian vision of gun rights. Better than nothing, but not that great. Until I start hearing people like you say things like the burden of proof for restricting gun rights has to rest on the government producing concrete evidence rather than the people rationalizing why they need x, you and I will never really agree. 2. That we would match defense dollars with peace dollars to promote democracy abroad, and that we would conduct our foreign affairs in such a manner that other nations would wish to emulate our example and need not be bludgeoned into accepting our leadership. Ho ho ho. Tell me another one, Walter. Bludgeoned or not, peace dollars haven't done shit for America's image. I would much prefer to see this replaced with "we will not give money to countries that for all practical purposes are our enemies". It would still be idealistic, but at least it would be a step in the right direction, to have a focus on our security/general interests before we start dishing out funding. 3. That deficit financing is bad business, Yes. Can't be said enough. and that taxes must be fairly imposed, with the heavier burden placed on those most able to contribute. Why don't you start by limiting the role of government to what it can now afford, and then we'll talk about taxing the shit out of rich people after a cost/benefit analysis of what that will do. Until then, all he's saying is that he wants to spend spend spend, and he will subsidize it at the (further) expense of citizens. Just one whisper about tax reform, particularly as it pertains to corporations, would make this a whole lot more credible. 4. That our Social Security and health services would be reformed so that no American need fear that mismanagement in Washington will bankrupt his or her pension funds, and equally that every American is guaranteed not just adequate health care but care worthy of this nation's medical profession. I'm sorry, no one is ever going to sell me on the idea that the problems with government medical care will be dealt with this sort of approach. Some recognition that mismanagement is part and parcel of the chosen style (ie noncompetitive, free of incentive, etc), and therefore you must either be willing to accept that and find a way to fund it, or come up with concrete alternatives (not just "reform"). Not that universal health care is ever likely to garner my vote, but I would at least like to see some realism injected into that side of the debate. 5. That in all federal programs no excuses will be tolerated and all citizens will be treated equally as we know they were created What does that even mean? "No excuses"? Boy, that's really going to the root of the problem, the whole excuse thing. And I am always horrified by what leftists really mean when you ask them to define equal treatment. I'll give Cronky the benefit of the doubt, but I fail to see how unequal treatment (especially without reference to what the basis is for that inequality) is the real epidemic afflicting federal programs. 6. That we realize that the success, indeed the preservation, of a democracy depends on an educated citizenry, and that teachers, on education's front lines, must be paid commensurate with their responsibilities. Super. More money down the education black hole. While more money is surely not a bad thing per se, I don't think this statement takes into account the real problems with our educational system. Now, I'd respect the sort of candidate from any side that had the balls to point out that the mediocrity we witness is the logical consequence of the universal, egalitarian approach to higher education, and that perhaps it is time to start thinking about what it really means when we make bank tellers have a (meaningless) college degree they don't need, which they got alongside future schoolteachers or something that really do need college. 7. That "no child must be left behind" is a commitment, not a campaign slogan. Oh, please. I can't believe that even in your most overmedicated moments you consider this anything but a load of crap/justification for whatever crackpot scheme comes their way. Do we really need ONE MORE DEMOCRAT screeching THINKABOUTTHECHILDRENOHMYGODTHECHILDREN!!!!!!!!!? What's next? It "taking a village" to make sure that child isn't "left behind". 8. That our environment shall be fully protected, and that the fortunes of no industry or special interest shall interfere with that mission. Again, I would have to see what he means by fully protected. When politicians start raising concrete environmental issues, such as the depletion of fisheries and the need to consider fish farming, or the generalized problem that irrigation and water supplies present, or alternative energy plans that don't simply involve oil hysteria, I'll listen. Until then, all I see is "we'll punish the other team's pac's and reward our own". 9. That in the pursuit of a cleaner environment and a more rational economy, the government will undertake the massive program required to develop substitute fuels that will relieve our dependence on foreign oil and diminish the environmental danger from the byproducts of fossil fuels. Fantastic. Does that include nuclear power in its modern iterations? Oh. Well, what kind of power are we talking about? Still, I think rationality in this will only be found if both sides can get over their party base hang ups (Save the Caribouuuuu). 10. That Democrats will lock the door against the naysayers, pessimists and political cowards who will maintain that these Democratic goals are only the dreams of idealists. What the crap? Does this mean Walter Mondale is getting dug up again? How about resurrecting McGovern? I look forward to it. WE KNOW WHAT'S BEST. SURRENDER BEFORE THE REVOLUTION. |
||||
 |
 |
|||
|
