Leave a comment

Comments 4

macdaddyfrosh December 9 2005, 02:03:37 UTC
So, my generic political musing of the day:

Why is it that the Republican Party (nominally about small government, individual rights, etc.) is the one pushing the bill that restricts individual freedom and expands government powers?

That seem a bit backasswards to anyone else?

Reply

mtbg December 9 2005, 02:43:10 UTC
Republicans very much don't want to be seen as weak on national security, and the USA PATRIOT Act (a fucking brilliant piece of creative acronyming if there ever was one) is nominally about preventing terrorism.

Awesome that Murkowski is one of the senators looking to block the vote, though. Makes a certain amount of sense; Alaska Republicans (though not necessarily their elected officials) tend towards libertarianism. I'm kind of sad I'm not one of her constituents anymore.

I'm still not really attuned to California politics yet; can someone more informed speculate on what positions Boxer and Feinstein are likely to take?

Reply

cubetime December 9 2005, 02:59:35 UTC
Boxer and Feinstein have turned "selling out" into an art form.

Reply

pmb December 9 2005, 03:58:35 UTC
the republican party is no more about those things than the democratic party is. republicans want more social control and less business control and democrats want the opposite. "small government" has never been about having a smaller government. it's about cutting business taxes and social programs, while at the same time beefing up defense spending.

At the extreme ends, we've got fascists in the Republican party, and moderates in the Democratic party. I can't call them socialists, because they aren't actually advocating things like "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs", but the fascists are definitely looking for an estado corporativo. http://pnac.info/

Reply


Leave a comment

Up