It is true that by some measures that Bush was more liberal than Clinton.
Bush's prescription drug program was a massive expansion of government. In
contrast, after midterm defeats in congress for democrats, Clinton did sign some
very conservative bills when he was president with a republican House and
Senate.Despite this the directions of both parties has never been so
different. Democrats are leaning toward a more socialist style big government
and republicans, with the wake up call they received from the Tea Party, are
headed for fiscal responsibility and a more limited federal government.
If "liberals PROpose, the conservatives IMpose"... how do you explain
the Obama supporter and Leftist Union big-wig Andy Stern saying on MSNBC,
"If we can't convince the people with the power of persuasion,
we'll use the persuasion of power"? (google it and watch it)I think all sides IMpose when they can. That's why the founding fathers
setup our political system to almost require consensus of BOTH parties and
guarantee a balance between the two... not power completely controled and
consolidated in one party (like we had the first two years of the Obama
Administration)The parties really aren't that different when
@Joe BlowIt sounds like you might agree with this saying: "That which
the liberals PROpose, the conservatives IMpose."Mr. Larsen,You have come to a correct conclusion, but your reasons are not the
fundamental reasons the parties are the same. You must evaluate their
fundamental beliefs.The two parties share this foundational
premise: you are your brother's keeper.No candidate from
either party would ever say "no one is his brother's keeper".If it is considered moral to be your brother's keeper and immoral
not to be, then you can justify almost any policy, any tax, any spend as long as
it's for your brother, for your neighbor.The Republicans'
position is almost always weaker than the Democrats because when they try to
stand against some Democrat proposal, they have no grounds upon which to do so;
they have too often capitulated to keeping their brother. How then can they say
"no" to the new proposed manner of keeping him? It is very hard... and
becoming harder.We need candidates who stands up for not keeping and
not being kept.
@MidvalieanIn addition to your premise, consider the fact that
outside of Ginsberg and Breyer, ALL justices of the SCOTUS who served during
that 2001 to 2006 Republican majority period were appointed by Republican
Presidents.And yet, no repeal of Roe V Wade.
LDS Liberal,I agree NIETHER party wants to FIX their WEDGE issues... They
NEED them.If they SOLVE Them... what will they use to get elected
NEXT go round?Like you said... BOTH parties have them. And NEITHER
party wants them fixed. They just want to TALK about them. The need them
around to use as a tool in the next election. Don't plan on party really
trying to fix these issues. They are party dogama and re-election rhetoric
@MidvalienAll the state abortion measures and the federal repeal of
DADT suggest that this they seek progress on the issue. Only a senate vote
blocking it stopped Blunt/Rubio from allowing any employer to deny healthcare
coverage for any medical procedure/issue they don't care for.
2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UTI liked you comment about
“wedge issues” the most. Both sides have them, and use them.The fact is neither want them fixed, it’s the only soap box they
have.But keep in mind, choosing the “lesser” of 2
evils – is still choosing Evil.
I agree that party_partisan politicians are pretty much the same (regardless of
the party they are partisan for). It's true that Democrats are not very
different, or any "better" than Republicans (just based on their party).
But there ARE individuals who are WAY different... but you can't find them
by just looking at the letter by their name. There are good people that share
my concerns and values in both parties. The PARTYs aren't really that
different when you get down to it, but individuals are. The trick is putting
the party_partisanship asside and finding the good individuals.I
like to think I'm an "independent", but there are never any
"Independent" candidates that are viable, mainly becuase independents
are not as groupable as party_partisans and therefore they can't muster
partisan support like the big_two by just pulling out a traditional wedge_issue
(like Abortion, Taxes, Immigration, 2nd Ammendment, Welfare, Government
Spending, etc). I admit I usually end up voting for a Republican. Because
while there is LITTLE difference between the two... the areas where there is a
little difference... are very important to me.
Both parties are in a race to see who can destroy the constitution the fastest
and the most efficently
@atl134Although they have different stances on social issues, a closer
examination shows us that they do little or nothing about them. In Bush's
presidency the GOP held the house the senate and the Presidency. This was their
chance to put money where their mouth was, and make abortion illegal. Nothing
of the sort happened. Business as usual for decades. War, corporate interests,
lining pockets, pork. Who is the new boss, same as the old boss. What they say
isn't what to pay attention to, what they do is.
Raplh Nader was right when he said that the only difference is the speed that
their knees hit the floor when the lobbyists come calling.Isn't
it great that all the liberals and conserviates on this page agree. I align
with the Democrats view of compassion and helping little people. But the
Democrats have not really wanted to help the little people -- or at least, only
after the paying campaign contributors have been taken care of.The
Republicans problems is that they are either to dumb to have recognized the huge
value hole in America's politics where the Democrats used to be, or they
are too tied to their special interests to take advantage of it.
No differences?Obamacare, medicare, tax increases/decreases,
regulation/deregulation, alternative energy/drill baby drill, environmental
regulation/get rid of EPA, prochoice/pro-life, contraception coverage/bosses
controlling it, gay rights, citizens united... the idea that the two
parties are the same is absurd.
The only difference between the current breed of politicians is their outward
appearance, under their skin they are all businessmen with the personal goal of
self enrichment. The problem of that is they are willing to deprive
other Americans, along with the rest of the world, of life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness in order achieve their goal. The best example
is the way they have prevented government by the people by restricting the
ability of people to vote and by making government representation a mater of
who’s got the most money.The kind of world they are proposing
is like the world just south of our southern border, private interests are the
rulers and not the people’s government. It’s much like the world we
fought the revolutionary war to escape.
The **only** difference is what special interests keep each party on a short
There is a whole lot in what you say, Clark.In deficit spending,
bailing out big banks, warmongering, contempt for the people, defunding of
social security, and general unreliability and hypocrisy, it's tweedledum
and tweedledee.There are honorable exceptions in a few individual
They are the same. They use Buzz words to incite votes, but when push comes to
shove, they do nothing except go to war.
"True, Republicans and Democrats are very different when it comes to issues
such as taxpayer money, government regulations and certain social
issues,"That is where you are historically wrong.The
GOP TALKS a good fiscal game, but history has shown that they are just as quick
to spend taxpayer money and to promote Govt Regulations.Examples
-Spending - Medicare Part D. Passed by complete GOP control.
Largest entitlement program since Social Security. And UNfunded, I might
add.Govt Regulation- - Insurance Mandate was a GOP idea
first put forth by the Heritage Foundation and supported by vast majority of
Republicans (including Hatch)- CFL Light bulb ban and Low Flow Toilets -
GOP signed legislation- Mandated medical treatment at Emergency Room -
Signed by ReaganThere is very little historically between how the
GOP and the Democrats govern.And it is much greater than just how
they treat religion.
Bruce Bartlett, a senior economic adviser to Ronald Reagan and a top Treasury
Dept. official in the administration of George Bush Sr. described the difference
between the parties this way: Republicans are insane, Democrats are spineless
wimps who won't stand up for themselves.