In regards to politicians, Democrats are equally partisan and equally vitriolic, (Dick Durbin). They are just as willing to throw away principle and wallow in the mud as any mudracking Republican.
I have already stated that there are Dems who are partisan (vitriolic as well but that is another subject). My point is that proportionally there are more Reps than Dems with this quality. It can be seen in the 2000 and 2004 elections.
People willing to vote "Dem" have been shown much more likely to break from party ranks in order to vote based on platform (aka principle), and thus risk losing an election for the party, than the Reps who will rally behind the party even if it holds diametrically opposed principles.
I am sorry that this is what has been shown. I really am as I was hoping more americans in general were less devoted to the party system and more to their own principles.
To deny this in favor of the virtues of one party over the other is IMO the clearest example of TEAM mentality yet posted.
Good thing I didn't deny it then. But even if I had denied it, there has already been much clearer examples of team mentality posted. Read Paisano's post regarding never voting for a Dem.
What I find laughable is you specifically criticize people who have stated where they could or did break party ranks as being "team" players. That is by definition an example of not being a team player.
I haven’t seen anything that indicates a majority of Dems are more prone to voting their principles over party ticket than Reps are. How many democrats voted for Clinton based solely on his appearance and demeanor?
I have no idea and that still wouldn't matter. The only valid question is how many voted Dem because they only vote Dem no matter who is put as the lead candidate. That is what I am discussing.
You did see voters move away from the Dem party as Clinton shifted away from Dem positions especially in his later years. That is part of what caused so many people to be against Gore and created the growth of alternative parties.
However, when Bush failed miserably to produce results and clearly violated the most sacrosanct issues of the Rep party for the last 20+ years, he was treated to full base support. You had members like McCain vociferously saying how the values were being violated right up till election time and then he said "but I'm a Republican and now it is time to rally behind my party". After the election he went right back to saying how those on top were no longer Reps... the same ones he just helped keep in office!
This is pure partisanship and the numbers bear out the analyses... unless what happened is all the Dems became Reps to give Bush his victory and all Reps became Dems and there weren't enough?
The BBC documentary? C’mon, can’t anybody on the left post a definition of neocons that we can all look at?
Did you look at the doc before you made your statement? Did you look at what was said about the doc before you made your statement?
The documentary is composed primarily of statements by the "neocons" in interviews about themselves. While there are a few statements from people outside the neocons, including conservatives (which has a direct bearing on what is being discussed here), the neocons DEFINED THEMSELVES!
Let me say that again for the understanding impaired: the documentary has the people presently referred to as neocons DEFINING THEMSELVES AS NEOCONS!
The BBC shouldn't be slandered anyway, as they are pretty damn good, but in this case you are just proving your own self-enforced ignorance on topics.
So, in your opinion, are neocons primarily concerned with foreign policy or is it any and all issues? Is this thread a comparison between 2000 and 2004 Republican platforms?
Neocons could be said to be "primarily" concerned with foreign policy, more specifically the position of the US related to the rest of the world. They have very specific ideas of how that is to be achieved which have an impact outside foreign policy.
The thread's topic was reinforced just recently in post #30 where shraf concurred with my statement in #29 as being the point of discussion... here it is again:
"It appears to be a thread defining the ways neocons (who are currently in charge of Rep policy) differ from traditional Reps. For those that support this administrations policies, it is of interest to hear why they feel such a strong departure from traditional values is allowable, or a defence of why neocons are not departing from such values."
This thread should be as available to Reps as to Dems as to anyone else. There are already Reps who are discussing the departure from traditional values, so that is a nonpartisan issue.
How do the neocons fit in with development of the platforms? What issues did they affect?
I am more interested in their effect on policy than on platform, but the answer should already be obvious. They did not hold sway until after 9/11 when they rose to prominence as a "solution" to America's problems (at least for Bush). Bush turned against his original platform in 2000 and so when he ran again in 2004 he ran on his current running policies.
It doesn't take a genius to note that a person vociferously against nation-building and growing the gov't and deficit spending, has changed their platform when they next run on the merits of nation-building, growing the govt, and deficit spending.
They deny that they had any direct influence, despite having members directly within the President's policy making bodies, but do admit the President is acting as a neocon.
Is there no such thing as a neocon Democrat? What about the democratic platform? How did neocons affect their platform? Who were the individuals involved? Give specifics.
Hey, how about you just download and watch the documentary so you can get those answers for yourself from their own mouths?
Playing ignorant is just keeping yourself that way.
If specifics are not necessary, then the thread dissolves into: Neocons are bad, assholes, irresponsible, etc. If that’s the nature of the thread, then there's nothing to discuss.
Well that's not the nature of the thread so it shouldn't dissolve as you suggest. It is about differences between neocon policies and longstanding traditional conservative policies. One does not even have to say they are "bad" in order to recognize they are different. There is a question why traditional Reps would accept such deviances from tradition.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2