On 31 Oct 2002 at 14:25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Well, I'd be the first to admit that the Democrats can "spin" with the > best of them. And certainly, wealth and prosperity are > interconnected. But I'd say that we need to look to the Republicans' > own ACTIONS, as well as to their platform, to see where at least a > portion of their interests lie. And I see those actions--on > environmental issues, on regulation of business in general, on various > positions on capital gains and the estate tax--as more vigorously > alligned with aiding business and maintaining wealth than I do the > actions of the Democrats. >
I think it's worth taking a good hard look at the ACTIONS (NAFTA, the Telecommunications Act, welfare reform) of the administration under Clinton before making this declaration. (Or the actions of Gray Davis.... some of my diehard Democrat friends in California said that they would have happily replaced Davis with Republican Richard Riordan.) And likewise the actions of Bush. Last I heard the Department of Homeland Security could become one of the biggest parts of our federal government and one of its biggest spenders. There are many conservatives lamenting that Bush is less conservative than Clinton when it comes to expanding government. > As with all spin, there's an element of truth to both parties' > "positions," as you put them from the presumed perspective of the > other. The Republicans, as I see it, DO protect wealth, and the > Democrats ARE willing to "tax and spend." But of course, neither > caricature goes far enough. The Democrats ignore that wealth can--it > does not always--bolster and support general prosperity. And the > Republicans ignore that some investments in our present and future are > worth paying for, even if it hurts now. They decline to ask: tax and > spend *for what*? Is it worth it? Can some things be done best, or > done only, by government? Certainly, some things can be done only by government, some are better done by local government than federal government and vice versa. I think that Republicans do ask that question, at least that's my firsthand experience in local politics. But I really don't think that one can generalize about either party in this way and have it be productive. Both parties operate in degrees and those degrees can vary widely from federal to state to local governance. > > In all, I, too, wish there were a lot less "spin" and a little more > truth in our public political discourse. But until that day > arrives--and I'm not holding my breathe that it will arrive anytime > soon--those with ears to hear will simply have to find it for > themselves. It sounds like we're doing a good job of trying to do > just that on this list. > We don't need that day to arrive. We, as citizens just have to care and inform ourselves. There is so much information available to us outside of the mainstream media - it's astounding. I think that fact that so many Americans actually consider themselves moderate or slightly conservative, is proof that most people do not buy the extremes that are presented on either side. > Mary P. > > > Let the floodgates open for comparable examples of Democratic > dishonesty! ;-) I prefer not to go there; I'd rather talk about what we have in common rather than criticize each side for their lies. My view is that being partisan is fine but partisan attacks are counterproductive. B ------------------------------ Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous.
