Rep vs. Dem Differences

Ok, let me give it a try:

Republicans -
Social - Conservative rhetoric, hypocritical execution. No limits
to gov't control.
Economics - Maximize wealth at top (trickle-down theory). Works
well for top, worse for others.
Morality - Big talk, too close to Church (monoculture), poor
performance.
Personal Responsibility - Via criminal regulations and laws (tends
to Police State).
Aviation - Restrict until only for the ultrawealthy and congress.
Terrorism - Crapshoot, poor record.
Unity - Very divisive, extremism driven policies, poor to mixed
record.
Honesty - Great rhetoric, poor performance.

Democrats -
Social - Less government involvement. More volatility.
Economics - More spread of wealth. Unclear how to execute this
properly, very mixed record.
Morality - Big talk, usually arms-length from Church, poor
performance.
Personal Responsibility - Via civil regulations and laws (tends to
over-regulation).
Aviation - Regulate until only for the ultrawealthy and congress.
Terrorism - Crapshoot, poor record.
Unity - Better rhetoric, mixed record.
Honesty - Great rhetoric, poor performance.

Both -
Subject to change over time, even reverse roles.


(Honest) modifications/additions welcome. Flames to /dev/null/.

Peter Gottlieb wrote:



Both -
Subject to change over time,

Yes, quite obviously. If Zell Miller is what democrats used to be I can
see why they had the House for 40 years. He made the democrats look
like the morons they have become over the last 20 or so years. One of
the best speeches I have seen in a long time. And what he did to Chris
Matthews last night was priceless.

We bought the peace, but at an incredible price to our own people.

Did we buy peace, or indifference/surrender?

The end result is the same.

I don't care if the Europeans appreciate us or not, just so long as they
don't drag us into another stupid World War.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Newps" wrote
And what he did to Chris Matthews last night was priceless.

I watched most if not all of each of the conventions, flipping back
and forth between PBS, MSNBC, FOX, and CNN. I watched
MSNBC and PBS the most as it didnt seem as slanted as the
other two. But I've lost a lot of respect for Matthews for the
above and other stunts he's pulled compared to his Dem
convention coverage. At least with Hannity/Colmes or O'Reilly,
you know where they're coming from (left/right), they dont deny
it, and you get pretty much what you would expect from them.
The idea of his supposed "hardball" type of interviewing would
be great if it wasn't slanted. He was defending his style on
Bill Maher's show, but along with his hinting that anyone who
would vote for Bush must be uneducated and misinformed, failed
to mention how he goes quite "softball" on certain types of
interviewees.
The other thing I havent appreciated is his, IMO, total lack of
respect for those of opposing views in his interviews right
next to a heavily slanted crowd. Whether it be celebrities
or congressmen, he knowingly puts them in front of an
obviously hostile crowd who call them all kinds of names,
and Matthews adds fuel to their fire with his pointed questions,
followed up by interrupting their answers, and a roaring crowd.
Maybe it's just me, but if I was in that crowd and my worst
idea of a politician was 10 feet in front of me trying to give
an interview, I'd have the respect to let the guy answer a
question and not call him a "murderer" or taunt him. Off hand
I can think of Bo Derek, Zell Miller (via monitor), Larry
Gatlin (?, not into country), Alan Simpson (Sen-WY) and
I'm sure others as I don't watch every minute.

Then again, like I said, maybe it's just me.
Chris

--
Steve Bosell for President 2004
"Vote for me or I'll sue you"
www.philhendrieshow.com

"Newps" wrote in message
...

Yes, quite obviously. If Zell Miller is what democrats used to be I can
see why they had the House for 40 years. He made the democrats look like
the morons they have become over the last 20 or so years. One of the best
speeches I have seen in a long time. And what he did to Chris Matthews
last night was priceless.


What did he do?

Newps wrote:

If Zell Miller is what democrats used to be I can
see why they had the House for 40 years.

I moved out of Georgia in '81, but I liked Miller a lot back then.

The Democrats used to be as pretty diverse bunch -- a Southern Democrat was very like
a Northern Republican until a bit after the campaign finance reform acts in the late
'70s. After the courts got through interpreting those, the only place candidates
could get large amounts of money was from the national party. Both parties used that
lever to establish national planks. The Dems really made their members toe the line
in this regard during the late 80s and 90s -- in particular, this led to many changes
in the attitudes about gun control amongst Democratic party members.

I heard today on NPR that the Republicans just put a statement in their platform to
the extent that it's ok for party members to diverge from the party line if they
want. Of course, the issue that was discussed on the air was abortion, but the
language in the platform document isn't that specific.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

In article , "Peter
Gottlieb" wrote:

Ok, let me give it a try:

Republicans -
Social - Conservative rhetoric, hypocritical execution. No
limits
to gov't control.

to the contrary, the limits to the government are spelled out
in the constitution.


Economics - Maximize wealth at top (trickle-down theory). Works
well for top, worse for others.

Maximize wealth at top isn't the Republican thing. Republicans
want people to retain more of their earnings. That is, money
doesn't belong to the government

And "maximize wealth at top" trickle down


[snip]

Democrats -
Social - Less government involvement. More volatility.

if you want to claim Conservative rhetoric above, then add
Liberal rhetoric with hypocritical execution to the democrats



Economics - More spread of wealth. Unclear how to execute this
properly, very mixed record.

unclear by "more spread of wealth" and wouldn't "take from haves and
give to have-nots" be more accurate?

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...

to the contrary, the limits to the government are spelled out in the
constitution.

Our connection to the Constitution is now tenuous at best. I wish your
statement, in practice, was correct though. The present Republican Justice
Department is leaning very strongly toward removing Consitutional
protections. This is not so much judgement on merits but observation.

Maximize wealth at top isn't the Republican thing. Republicans want
people to retain more of their earnings. That is, money
doesn't belong to the government

The present administration has been spending like a drunken sailor.
Deficits are way up. A tiny tax cut does not show they want people to
retain more of their earnings, the ONLY way to do that is to cut government
and spending, not increase it! This administration puts the Republicans at
the top of the list of expansion of government.

Or you could be saying that this administration, although Republican by
name, are not acting as such? I am unclear as to your meaning.

And "maximize wealth at top" trickle down

Not exactly, but pretty darn close. What do you see as the difference?

if you want to claim Conservative rhetoric above, then add
Liberal rhetoric with hypocritical execution to the democrats

I think you are saying the Democrats speak more "liberal" than they are.
Perhaps, you may be right, thinking about it I can think of some examples of
that.

Economics - More spread of wealth. Unclear how to execute this
properly, very mixed record.

unclear by "more spread of wealth" and wouldn't "take from haves and
give to have-nots" be more accurate?

No, not exactly. I am more thinking about opportunity. To say "take from
haves and give to have-nots" is both assuming that one group rightfully owns
something, which is a separate debate, and that the advocates want a forced
redistribution, which I do not believe. What I meant to get across is that
this group endeavors to spread opportunity to others than the biggest
players.

How about the other areas? Any comments on those?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message

What did he do?

I didn't see the entire interview, just the part where Zell got really
****ed. From what I can gather, Matthews asked Miller about his "spitball"
comment, asking him did he really believe that Kerry would arm the military
with spitballs. Miller responded that it was a metaphor and that had he ever
heard of a metaphor. Then Matthews kept interrupting Miller repeatedly
trying to make him answer that question, as dumb as it was.

Miller told Matthews that he wished he was in the studio with him so he
could get in his face and when Matthews would'nt let it drop, Miller said he
wished these were the old days when he could challenge him to a duel! Very
entertaining! Matthews met his match and then some.

-Trent
PP-ASEL

In article et, "Steven P.
McNicoll" writes:

He made the democrats look like
the morons they have become over the last 20 or so years. One of the best
speeches I have seen in a long time. And what he did to Chris Matthews
last night was priceless.


What did he do?


Among other things, challenged him to a duel.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG