Pollster.com

24% believe that republicans are too liberal? Man, I wonder how much more conservative they should get to make those people happy.

The tea baggers, birthers, turfers, are having an effect on how they view their own. The Armeys of the right have created a monster that is going to shred their party. How elegantly ironic.

You guys are funny...what about the 16 who think the Dems are to conservative? You cannot get any further left without actually being a communist than the current Dem party is. And Wong, take a look at whats going on, the Dems are self destructing over health care....they are split between the moderates and liberals.

10 months into total control b the Dems and all we have to show for it is a failed stimulus package....thats it, nothing more.

"You cannot get any further left without actually being a communist than the current Dem party is."

Stillow, you obviously have very little understanding of what communism really means. There are many degrees left of where the democrats are. 1) They could move more toward social democracy, which they haven't. That means they actually try to control the gap between rich and poor. The only countries remotely like this are Venzuela, and to an extent Norway, the rest of Europe pays it some lip service.

2) Then you could move toward socialism, which means government controls the means of production. The only country remotely like this is Cuba. Greece is starting to move in that direction.

3) communism means people don't own property. There are no countries like this. China gives it some lip service.

Well I'll give you this much, you could argue the current dems are closer to cummunists and socialists. So I should have mentioned both.

Since they are engaging in state run economy, state run health care, state run media, silencing the opposition, etc. So as usual aaron, its you who do not seem to quite get it.
If Bush were out there trying to silence certain media or asking certain media be rmeoved from access to white house interviews, you libs would be whining all about freedom of press, speech, balh blah...but when a liberal tries to silence speech, its ok....

communists, socialists, whatever you want to call them, the dems have moved to the point where they favor total state control over much of our industry, economy, health care and over all lives.

byw aaron, social democracy is a fancy word you libs like to use...the federal g'ment cannot contro lthe economy without controlling people. You cannot control the differenc ebetween rich and poor without the g'ment deciding who can be rich and who can be poor. Soical democracy is a sucker word....because saying slavery is just to offensive to people, but that is what it is. Why don't you libs just admit it, you want g'ment to have control over our lives, every aspect of our lives.

What we can earn, wha we can spend, how we earn it, how we spend it. How we get our health care, who we get our care from.

"The g'ment cannot control the economywithout controlling people" - Ronald Reagan

I did my math for the future Presidential Elections,it dont look good for the Gop,because the Democrats wouldnot need that high percentage of White voters,because of the rise of the minority vote,for example and 1956 the Democrats needed 49.2% of the White vote to win,and 1976,they needed 47.2% to win,and 1992,they needed,44.7% to win,and 2004,they needed,43.1,to win,but and 2012,the Democrats would only need,38.5% to win,and 2016,they would only need,37%,to win,and 2024,they would need only,34.2%,to win,and by 2032,the Democrats would only need,31% of the White vote to win.the Gop is an a world of trouble,they dont have the numbers,the Gop only hope of winning in the future, is if the Democrats split their vote,thats the Gop only hope.

Stillow,

I agree. What about the 16%. We haven't seen a government this far left since 1989, and in Russia. Pelosi, Frank, Dodd, Obama, Durbin; do you think these are the same "centrist" dems like JFK or Harry Truman? Give me a break.

These guys want socialism in this country, plain and simple. Its about power. The more people they can keep on the government dole, the more power they will have. That's why the democratic party will eventually become a one party system in this country. Then the whole country is lost.

@ Stillow

Reagan also said ketchup was a vegetable.

In terms of what you think you know about the capitalism/socialism divide, I suggest looking into the political economy literature on the varieties of capitalism (Hall and Soskice 2001). Here you will find that different types of coordination between the government and the private sector exists all over the world. It's not that some countries are capitalist and some are socialist, but rather that some countries rely more on the liberal market (like the US) while others rely on more coordination (like Germany). Saying the US is moving toward socialism (much less communism) is naive and wrong and neglects the extant distinctions between capitalist countries. You could try to make the argument that the US is moving toward more private-public coordination, but this too would be an unsatisfying argument when trying to compare the US to their more coordinated European brethren - who have a bigger hand in the government but where the people are just as free as in the US.

In short, you and Reagan are wrong and you've got some homework to do.

@Field Marshal:

Its true. But take heart, we are all individuals, but we are all linked...sort of like links ina chain. When we allow one link to have its freedoms removed or controlled by g'ment, it affects us all. Not all, but the solid majoirty of the Dem party are people who want to be controlled. There are libs on this site who would gladly give up every freedomwe have today in exchange for the bare necessities of life handed to them and paid for by someone else.

You have two types of liberals. The first is the one who wants to be controlled. This is usually the one who wants bigger and bigger g'ment and favors less and less freedom for people. They almost need someone to think for them and to take care of them or they simply cannot function in life. The other is the elitist liberal who maintains position and power in g'ment. They have an urge to control people and justify the removal of peoples freedoms based o nthe simple notion that people are incapable of taking care of themselves.

The entire liberal mindset is based on the management of peoples lives by a small highly enlightened group of people in a far off capitol. Just read many of the posts on this site from libs, its constant repeition of how g'ment must conrol this or that for it to work. Health care cannot function unless g'ment runs it for you. G'ment must control your life in every way. Look around, we see g'ment now dictating salaries, they are attempting to dictate your health care to you. They are attempting to shut down opposing voices such as Fox or talk radio.

For all the claims of tolerance libs make, it is actually liberals who are the most intolerant. If you do not march lock step with the liberal agenda, you must be silenced.

The only weapon conservatives really have is common sense...and the built in instinct which is programmed into all men of all races and backgrounds...and that is the desire for freedom and to control ones life.

Fundamentally, I do not think God created man unequally. There is no moral justification for one man to have control over another. All that a g'ment should do is provide and ensure equal opporunity, it simply lacks the means and the moral mandate to do anything else.

No man should have power over another to the extent you can tell him where to work, how much he can ear, if he can receive medical care or not, what he can or cannot eat, wheather or not he can drink alcohol or msoke, wheather he can marry a man or a woman....we are founded in th persuit of happiness, liberals see that persuit as unfair in there eyes as some will always succeed while others fail. Libs do not take into consideration the sacrifes one is willign to make to succeed or how much work and effort they put into that success. Instead they focus on assigning blame to the successful and to those who have reached happiness. Liberalism doe snot take into account your willingess to sacrifise, work hard or do what needs to be done. Liberals woudl rather see everyone poor and in poverty than to have some go with less than others.

It will fail in the long term because it goes against human instinct. For 5000 years human history has shown us that ruling bodies, wheather a king or g'ment cannot ensalve and control its people forever. Eventually the people demand their freedom.......this cycle has occured since the beginning of human history and will continue long into the future.

Stillow, if you familiarize yourself with the political science literature on democratization (try Boix 2003; Rueschemeyer, Stephens, and Stephens 1992; Acemoglu and Robinson 2007) you would understand that historically it has been those on the right wing which have supported dictatorships, while it has been the left (especially in the Rueschemeyer, Stephens, and Stephens account) which have advocated and pushed for democracy. Economic inequality, which increased during the Bush regime, is very bad for democracy.

Sorry to give you more homework, but your under-informed manifesto needs some empirical and theoretical support.

@ Stillow:

Your spelling and grammar are terrible. Don't you pay attention as you type? But I digress.

The simple fact is, your side's moment has passed. "Movement conservatism"--a radical form of reactionary (not "conservative") thinking that would take America back to the Gilded Age (and all its economic and social inequality)--is on the decline now and has been for the last decade.

Don't forget that Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000, and had the electoral vote stolen from him in a state where Republicans controlled almost every lever of power (except its supreme court). George W. Bush had every advantage going in to 2004 that an incumbent could ask for, and yet he was very nearly unseated by John Kerry. (Bush was the most narrowly re-elected incumbent in history, a closer shave than what Woodrow Wilson got in 1916!) In 2006 the GOP was routed in Congress much the same way as Democrats were in 1994, and last year America elects a black, Northern Democrat who campaigned virtually as an AVOWED liberal.

Your side might experience a brief uptick in 2010--after, midterms usually favor the party not in the White House, and the Right has a strong, apocalyptic-paranoid animus toward Barack Obama and all Democrats. But in the long term, the GOP's in deep trouble unless it tries to appeal to younger voters and non-whites (see Melvin's bit). And pandering to religious fundamentalists (who want to use government to force everybody to live what they think is Christain virtue) and free-market fundamentalists (who oppose expanding the safety net and want to "privatize" what's already there) isn't going to win them over.

Which brings me to my closing point--people like you always think everything's all or nothing, black or white. Either we have complete free-market capitalism or we have socialism/communism. It IS possible to have something in-between. You can have both a free market AND a welfare state. They do it in Canada and Western Europe--all fellow NATO countries who stood with us against communism. If you'd ever BEEN to those countries you'd know that they are heavily democratic, DO have free enterprise (although not as unregulated as it is here), and they have a strong social safety net.

PS. If virtually every other Western democracy is able to give all of its citizens decent health insurance, spend much less on health care per patient, and have higher life expectancies with lower infact mortalities--why can't we? Enjoy being # 37?

Moderator here is the perfect example with that post. He makes claims of the right doing these things because its what he has been told, probbly by his liberal intelectuals.

Lets take a couple of the larger threats in the 20th century. Soviet communism. Far left commies over there in russia.

The Nazi's...also known as the national socialist party. Liberal intelectuals will claim Hitler was a right winger, when in fact Hitler was pro nationalized health care as liberals are, state control over private business as liberals are, the banning of fire arms owned by citizens as liberals are, using the enviroment to force behavior changes on citizens as liberals are, the lsit goes on and on in how the nazi's beleived i nthe same stuff liberals do.

Take present day dictatorhsips, China - far left communists, venzuela, far left...cuba, far left, that list goes on and on also.

Again, you libs have been just told something...and as sheep you follow it it as fact. This is the expression of not being able to think for yourself.

I can cite so many more examples, but i am tired.

Stillow - education is not a bad thing. It helps people be more critical. It helps people understand the difference not only between black and white, but between the different shades of gray. You can assume that I (or liberals more generally) just repeat and rehash what others have told me, but that would be the assessment of someone who has not tasted the fruits of discernment, nuance, and healthy critique. Please, please, please do some reading and research about political processes, institutions, democratization, and political psychology so you stop saying such asinine things. For example:

"Take present day dictatorhsips, China - far left communists, venzuela, far left...cuba, far left, that list goes on and on also."

This simplistic statement neglects that 1) there are also right-wing dictatorships; 2) there are massive differences between these countries; and 3) that Chavez, whether you like him or not (I personally do not), was elected by a popular vote (more than once) and thus enjoys democratic legitimacy.

Seriously dude-bro, edumacate yourself and use Firefox's spell-checker.

Just on media freedom, Stillow, the US jumped 20 places this year on Reporters Sans Frontières' press freedom index. RSF blasted the Bush Administration's actual anti-press policies - like prosecuting journalists and raiding their offices - and applauded things like the increased likelihood of passing journalism shield laws to protect journalists' sources. Merely sniping at Fox News doesn't count as "state-run media", regardless of whether you think it's appropriate or not.

Cyril Washbrook:

Can you cite for me where Bush tried to silence a network critical of him? I cannot recall once where he asked all the media to ddismiss say msnbc as not a real news netowrk and shuldbe ignored. I don't recall Bush denying interviews to msnbc of WH officals. If I am wrong, please cite me an example.

Moderator

Do not confuse education with wisdom. There are some right wingdictatorhsips, but the 20th century was dominated by radical left wing extremism, from Stalin's russia to hitler's germany. They engaged in the same activities liberals do, from banning guns to state run health care. You have absorbed so much liberal propoganda you can no longer see facts. I have multiple college degrees in 3 different subjects, but I rely on common sense to dictate my poltical views.

Lets take antoher liberal lie that conservatives are racist. First it was a republican who engaged in a civil war to end slavery...putting the very eixstance of the union at stake to stop slavery. fast fwd to WW2...it was a liberal FDR who rounded up japanese americans and put them in camps based soley on race. Famours racists like Bull Connor, Wallace, etc....are democrats. Fast fwd, it is Dems who judge people by race with quotas, seperate sets of standards, etc.

This is what I mean, you hear soemthing, probably from one of your liberal intelctuals who lcaim be educated, but only function in theory and not reality and you just soak it in. Its because by nature you need to be controlled. you need to be told what to do. Where as I feel no man has the right to tell another man how can live his life. i should be free to do everything from marry whom I wish to own a handgun to protect my family. You have no moral standing to tell me I can not do those things. Nor do you have any moral standing to take my earnings from me at the rate you do so that it can be distributed to those who YOU feel need it.

Dependency replaced ambition for liberals. You claim to support freedom of choice, yet at every turn you support the erosion of my freedoms and choices. You accuse the right of tryig to control everything by way of dictatorship, when almsot every example of such dictatorhsips involve liberal agenda items...from state run business, to the banning of guns to g'ment run education to nationalized health care.

Conservatives beleive in freedom. With the exception of abortion, hwere I disagree with my conservative freinds, we beleive in freedom and choice. Each man is free to live as he sees fit and that g'ment has no place to dictate the temrs of his life to him. It is liberals who seek to run our lives, it is liberals who seek total control and power, dictatorships are slanted heavily to the left as I have cited several examples. Both in the past and present day.

Again, do not confuse education with wisdom. I have a masters degree and two bacherlors degrees, but I do not claim to be a all knowing intelectual...all my politcal beleifs stem from good old fashioned american common sense. And I am able to think for myself. You libs would never have stood for Bush doing some of the things Obama is doing....you are easily controlled and intelectually dishonest....and its a shame. Liberals used to question authroity, question g'ment and those in charge...now liberals cannot function without pure obedience to that which they used to be suspect of.

Again, I don't think Stillow has ever traveled outside of US and if he has he definately hasn't talked to regular people over there. He directly claims that social democracy is a fancy word for slavery. So I guess all us Finns and other people who live in Scandinavian countries are slaves. :D Yes Stillow, we are miserable little peasants with no freedoms and liberties. Maybe if you visited us some day you could actually see how our system works.

Oh and by the way, I don't want to sound too nationalistic (because I'm not) but Finnish school system has been ranked the best or among the best for almost a decade now by OECD. And I saw a study where people in Denmark where the happiest with their lives, followed closely by Norwegians I think. These studies don't prove much, of course, but they should give people an idea that there's something in "social democracy/slavery" that seems to work.

So Stillow, I know you will never change your mind (because that's how the partisan mind works) but if you call me a slave it's just too funny to ignore. I'm off to my government-ordered job now and maybe if the state allows me I'm able to drop by the mall before the curfew begins. I hope the IRS don't come though and tax my car away. See you.

@Stillow, again, you're making an assertion based on nothingness. The White House doesn't like Fox News, but it hasn't "silenced" it. It's conspiracy theory stuff to say that the White House is trying to shut off Fox News. All administrations play favourites in various ways; Bush cherry-picked interviewers on several occasions, and asked organisations like NPR to choose a different interviewer to the one that was originally nominated. Obama not appearing on Fox News is not equivalent to "state-run media", and in fact is a totally irrelevant conclusion.

You also didn't actually respond to my post. The Bush Administration repeatedly opposed shield laws for sources, instead sending reporters who wanted to retain their journalistic integrity to jail. RSF cites intimidation of journalists who expressed scepticism toward the "War on Terror", which saw America slip to 53rd on the rankings in 2006, alongside those bastions of media freedom: Tonga, Croatia and Botswana. Under the Bush Administration's watch, the chief media regulator - the FCC - tried to destroy all existing copies of a report which exposed the extent of television media concentration in America. It suppressed damning reports on media concentration among radio broadcasters. The FCC also became complicit in the Bush Administration's unauthorised wiretapping, refusing to investigate the behaviour of media and communications companies despite that being its job. And these are just the tip of the iceberg. It's for that reason that the US jumped from 40th to 20th in the RSF media freedom rankings: because of the likelihood of shield laws passing, and because of the fact that an administration - the Obama administration - has finally decided to launch a much-needed review of FCC policy and procedures.

Surprise surprise, Stillow disappears when confronted. Don't make ignorant comments Stillow or back them up. Please tell me, are we all Scandinavians unhappy slaves, poor and miserable?