Here's one more thing i would like to add in response to your post - you gave credit to the GOP for voting for the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act etc. Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act ON PRINCIPLE - after all this was a person who worked for the ACLU, not to mention his support for the NAACP's initiatives.
His principled stand was that states were best left to deal with this situation no matter the morality behind the issues. Of course, people may question him for taking such a stand given the incredibly painful and tortuous history of the African American community and how "states rights" was used as the main tactic by white slave owners to deny them freedom or equal treatment later on.
But he was not a racist and a radical as he was wildly distorted out to be. He explains his position in the "Conscience of a Conservative" very honestly. He believed that people would eventually come around to seeing that equal civil rights for blacks was truly representative of American ideas of human liberty.
One can question Goldwater as to how long black people were going to "wait" till southern whites came along. And more importantly why should they wait ??
But let us put Goldwater's stance on this issue in perspective - he was truly one of those people who stood up for something he believed in - he was no crowd pleaser.
And of course we know that he lost in a landslide in that election.
See comments from Mr.Still liberal
"Wake up, think for yourself! The mantra of Republican failure as the result of not being conservative enough won’t sell to anyone but the far right ideologues. Your time in the wilderness only grows longer as long as you stick to this myth."
I am stuck by how much distorted people's view of conservatism is, STILL. This was how bad it was 44 years back.
Still Liberal does not understand that when people say that the GOP is conservative enough, we are talking about fiscal responsibility, limiting the excesses of Government promoting the rule of law, and of course allowing people the freedom to enjoy the fruits of their labor rather than coercively moralizing about redistributive justice.
As far as Still Liberal is concerned, "more conservative" means more racism, more tax cuts for the wealthy and more hunger for international disputes.
And you know what - i bet there are a lot of people like STill Liberal who think that way - i dont agree with them of course. But this is the ugly reality conservatives are facing today.Comment Posted By Nagarajan Sivakumar On 1.11.2008 @ 12:11
Jessi Di Santis,
You need to take your medications more regularly.
Here's wishing you good mental health.Comment Posted By Nagarajan Sivakumar On 1.11.2008 @ 08:30
This site's URL is rightwingnuthouse.com - not dailyKos.
I ve always been AMAZED by people like you who talk all so knowingly about the "government hating" zealots and religious nuts...blah..blah. Have you met any of these people whom you think you know ? Have you ever debated with a conservative on such platitudes like " we need regulation" ? Do you know that this country is one of the most regulated when it comes to the financial sector ?
Its VERY VERY hard to debate with platitudinous liberals. No wonder you are backing Obama.
Progressive taxation ?? Progressive according to who ? Who gets to decide what's fair ? What "social contract" are you talking about ? Who exactly signed on to this "social contract" ?
There's NONE. The Constitution is meant to provide an individual's maximum liberty - not maximum Government or a solution to your favorite gripes about society.
If the Republicans did half of what you recommended, we dont need a two party system - we might as well have a dictatorship.
Because of the great "social contracts" FDR and LBJ envisioned, the Government faces a fricking 53 trillion dollar deficit. And you are asking Republicans to be lambs that play ball. You might as well ask for one party rule with one set of ideas.
It is telling how people like you are the main reason behind Obama's standing in the polls. Empty mouthed and platitudinous people have got their candidate of "change".Comment Posted By Nagarajan Sivakumar On 28.10.2008 @ 20:37
"If Obama is to be judged solely by the politics of a portion of his “associates” from years past, then shouldn’t he logically be judged by his current associations? Warren Buffet, Robert Rubin, Paul Volcker? Why cherrypick? Why do some associates count and others don’t?"
I keep hearing this again and again - Michael, we could very easily turn back the question and ask why do you brush away his associations with Wright, Ayers et al as merely poltical ?
What exactly gives you the confidence about a person who has now been exposed twice in the last 2 weeks calling for "redistributive" justice and "spreading the wealth" around ?
Saying that Buffet,Volcker support Obama does not mean a thing when you cannot refute the fact that he believes in socialist redistribution - it does not mean anything if he is going to sign card check into law - increasing the power of unions and creating more problems between management and labor.
Support of these men does not mean a thing when he is retarded enough to increase capital gains taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes.. and that too in this economy. After all some one needs to pay up for those middle class handouts already on top of the reduction in tax rates Bush implemented.
If any one thinks that the worst will be over when the Bush admn is out of office, you aint seen nothing yet.Comment Posted By Nagarajan Sivakumar On 28.10.2008 @ 00:12
It is kind of sad that you started out by saying we need two parties and then went on to say "your party has bankrupted the country". Full disclosure, I am not a Republican- heck, I am not even a US citizen.
I also noticed that you did not come close to approaching the issue of 53 trillion dollar deficit that is facing this country. On top of this you would like national health insurance too. Have you tried to find out how national health insurance works in countries like England and Canada which have about a 10th of the total US population ?
I am not all impressed by the people who back a candidate. I watch what the candidate himself/herself has done in office. We are talking about a person who has zero accomplishments as a legislator till date, a person who has never taken a tough stance on a critical issue against the entrenched interests of his own party - i dont agree with Warren Buffet at all on his stance on tax rates for rich people. It is nothing more than pure class war fare. Due to Bush's tax cuts, Buffet has had a chance to keep more of his money than before. Money that he is free to invest in what ever he wants to, be philanthrophic as much as he want to. I'd much rather trust his investment instincts than that of the Federal Govt.
At this point, all that i have indeed is "hope". Hope that Obama is a moderate. The swiftness with which the Orwellian named Employee "Free Choice"act and "Fairness" doctrine is enacted will be an indicator of his supposed moderation.
As far as Pakistan/Afghanistan goes i have not seen a more naive candidate than Obama. His belligerent statements on Pakistan only serve to increase people's paranoia about how the US never respects the sovereignity of an Islamic nation. And i am not talking about Pakistani extremists but average Pakistanis. If you have noticed the democratically elected govt of Pakistan has been openly signing peace deals with terrorists, continuing Musharaff's policies.
The situation is very complex and does not lend itself to sounbytes of neophyte politicians who want to show how "tough" they are.
And as far as your comments about not minding being taxed more by Obama, you have to remember that you only speak for yourself. I absolutely mind having my taxes increase for no fault of mine and for having to cover up inefficiencies of a bloated Federal Govt. For having to pay for entrenched interest groups in the political system.
Increases in Capital gains taxes, payroll taxes are all absolute killers of economic growth, especially in this envirnoment. I dont care if Volker, Buffet support this insanity - it still is insanity.
Well, it does not really matter now, does it ? Obama is going to win in the next 10 days and I am bracing myself for more big government and more socialism.Comment Posted By Nagarajan Sivakumar On 26.10.2008 @ 19:43
Responding to some of your comments.
"You seem angry at the prospect of a 40 Rep Senate. It’s not my party’s fault that your party has decided to commit suicide."
Angry? No.Disappointed ? Yes. Concerned by a Democratic behemoth absolutely having its way in every possible issue ? Absolutely.
By the way you never understood my question about what you intend to do - i understand that you make political contributions and all that, but the point that i was trying to make is that your party is now more liberal than it was and there is no real place for any moderation here.
"But we have a two party system. A yin and a yang. The job of Democrats is to push for more inclusion and a bigger safety net. Sometimes our silly little ways work out pretty well."
I disagree on the very idea of a Government mandated safety net. Saftey nets should not be for people who can afford to save for their own retirement. Michael Jordan, Petyon Manning, Wall Street bankers will one day be receiving social security benefits... ITs a JOKE. But you know what ? This joke is going to crumble under its own weight when 70 million boomers retire. And i have not even approached the issue of Medicare funding deficit.
" We championed civil rights, women’s rights and gay rights. We were right on all three, as most Republicans now acknowledge."
The GOP in the 60's was still more of a northern oriented party. Republicans supported civil rights legislation. George Wallace was a Democrat -he opposed civil rights more than any one else. Of course after the legislation passed, Southern Democrats switched to the GOP in droves - but lets give credit to the GOP where it is due.
Womens rights/Gay rights movements have been progressive causes and i will readily admit that. How ever it has also promoted an environment of "you have to think like us" - any woman who does not support the views of progressives on abortion is immediately branded a traitor. The same thing happens to black conservatives. The treatment meted out to Clarence Thomas was downright shameful.
Same thing could also be said about the gay movement - when a prominent gay conservative like Andrew Sullivan was at TNR he was relentlessly attacked for being a sell out - of course now that he is an Obamophile, these feelings have subsided.
"The point of a two party system is to allow for a push and pull. I don’t want the GOP dead because what a functional GOP does needs doing."
When Card Check, Fairness Doctrine, and Government intervention in 401K plans passes in a Pelosi-Reid led Congress within the first year, it will prove that the GOP is indeed dead.
The party has a loooong way to go. For now, it is not even existent let alone functional.
"We’re not enemies. We’re fellow Americans living in a state of dynamic tension, both sides trying to do what’s best for the United States of America, the country both sides love."
Tell that to Obama, Pelosi and Reid. Watch if they listen.
"When you guys pull on your end of the rope and we pull on ours we make things happen."
Vaguely rhetorical - what was this supposed to mean.?
"When either party loses its freaking mind (Democrats circa McGovern, let’s say, or Republicans the last 8 years) we get nowhere"
I agree. But Michael, we are at a point where the Democrats are busily preparing themselves to lose their mind.
Employee Card Check, Capital gains tax increases, Income tax increases on the highest 20% of income earners, payroll tax increases on employers and plans to take over 401(K) will have even more negative consequences for the economy.
I will end by saying that political thinking in this country is pretty much bankrupt. On both sides.
This nation has a 53 trillion deficit for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security alone - and on top of this Government is now going to spend more on health care ?
I have heard a lot about how the Iraq war is costly etc. It's costs are absolutely dwarfed by what is coming up in the next 3 decades. And NOT a single question was asked of either candidates as to how their "plans" would worsen these deficits.
"Fun" times ahead.Comment Posted By Nagarajan Sivakumar On 26.10.2008 @ 11:52
"As a moderate Democrat I rely on the GOP to rein in my party. Barney Frank wants to cut military spending by 25%. We need the GOP to yell when that kind of nonsense starts."
Hmmm.. Michael.. i hope you dont mind me asking you this question. But why are you depending on the GOP to reign in the Democrat party when Frank wants a 25% cut in defense spending ??
What exactly would YOU do as a self professed moderate Democrat ? And what exactly happens when a 40 Senate GOP and a 180 member GOP Congress cannot DO A DAMNED THING and are sure to get stream rolled when Frank's "IDEA" is sure to come up in the next Congress ? Will you now blame the GOP for having lost the elections so disastrously ?
Just curious.Comment Posted By Nagarajan Sivakumar On 25.10.2008 @ 15:20
Thanks a lot for opening up the comments again. I do feel queasy about trying to weigh the moral equivalence of an abortion clinic bomber to that of a terrorist.
Both of them try to send a political message, no matter what the cost in innocent lives. Both of them are convinced that they are doing the right thing for society in large.And of course both of them rely upon intimidation.
My biggest bone with people like Brian Williams is how they never question the likes of Obama/Biden on the question of abortion - when exactly do these people think that life "begins"?
Biden is on record saying that he thinks that life begins at conception - wouldnt abortion be murder then ? Has Brian Williams ever asked Biden about this ? Instead, he wants to see if he can sandbag Palin knowing fully well that she is a staunch pro-lifer.
As far as Obama is concerned, it was "above his pay grade" and he does not "presume to know the answers" to "theological questions"!!! Hmm.. does he atleast know the biology if not the theology ??
Rick,i have never seen any post from you vis-a-vis Biden/Obama's stance on abortion and their moral cowardice.(in my opinion). Or did you post about it ?
Thanks,Comment Posted By Nagarajan Sivakumar On 25.10.2008 @ 15:13
You are missing the point entirely here. Just like Noonan did. Obama has been running for President for the last two years - and he has come up with a tax policy which is punitive liberalism at its finest. His stance on Iran is all over the place ( ranging from "i will meet Ahmedinejad without pre-conditions" to "Ahmedinejad may not even be the President when I want to talk" to " never mind, the real power is in the hands of Khoeimini").
Do you know what exactly is his stance on Iraq if say for example the SoFA does not get finalized by this year end? Do you know that he is not going to stray away from his 16 month withdrawal timeline no matter what the conditions on the ground are?
I did not see Peggy Noonan, David Brooks or just about any of those who jumped ship ask these questions about Obama? All that i have heard is how greatly intellectual he is and that he knows Neihbur !
If Noonan wants to scrutinize policy positions of candidates running for office let her do so. But this is a two way street - she did not exactly do this exercise with Obama, did she ? Have we ever read a column from her where she tries to study Obama's position on the major issues of the day and whether she agrees with them or not ?
Correct me if i am wrong, but I Have'nt.Noonan would have some ground to stand on if she gave a little more scrutiny to Obama's positions in the last one year than what she has given to Palin in the last 8 weeks.Comment Posted By Nagarajan Sivakumar On 25.10.2008 @ 15:32
Another point i would like to make in response to Gustav's long laundry list
"1.Support for research and development for his latest plumbing equipment."
LOL ! latest plumbing equipment !! discovered by the geniuses running Govt? and that which possibly cannot be discovered by private enterprise ??
2.Well-funded top notch public education so he can have a well-trained work force.
Please...give me a fricking break... you get educated because you want to get ahead and live a successful life - not because you have an altruistic attitude in providing man power to businesses.
Wow, what's next ? you breathe in oxygen so that the trees can get the CO2?
3.Markets so he can raise capital.
It seems Governments create markets - and i thought that people did. well, Govt certainly does everything to distort and regulate it to hell.
4.Police and firefighters so his business is protected.
This is a neccessary function of any decent Govt.The question is "why does Joe the Plumber" have to pay more to get these services? You know why ? Not because he owes some "special" debt, but because without his money, that dreamy society that you talk about wont exist.
Talk about slapping the hand that feeds you. And then asking it to feed you more.
5.Health care so the employees who helped him build his business can stay on the job.Comment Posted By Nagarajan Sivakumar On 16.10.2008 @ 21:44
Some people want to live in the United Welfare States. This above statement alone is proof of that.
Govt run health care for every business.... i shudder.