My Democratic Mantra...
I'm reprinting these comments to provide a better understanding of the driving force behind this site, and my ambitions. Reprinted from the comment annals of the Neo Con Blogger:
Poldark Maximus said...
To observe that Mr. Mountjoy occassionally shares turf held by our leftist bretheren would be the same as to suggest your boy Mark Warner could run as a Republican.
Potentially not a bad idea -- what possible turf does Warner share with Howard Dean? Turn a new leaf, Mod Vet, and power up with the True (Republican) Believers. Bring Warner with you. Poldark Maximus.
Brad said...
To some degree, I agree with you, PM. I think my reasoning may be slightly different, though... So correct me if you agree with what I say.
Mark Warner could fit the idealist Republican mold as a bastion of fiscal accountability. As a Democrat, he emphasizes the most sane and effective face of the party of the left, while still appealing to the honest sensibilities of the mainstream right. However, one must face the fact that the current section of the right wing in power doesn't so much comply with traditional Republican or conservative ideology. I'll refer you, for one point, to this:
http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?t=4626
It's a better explanation by far than my meager skills could forge without many hours of cramming and research. While Warner might work well as a Republican, to do so would equate him in the eyes of many with the current administration, which is to some degree born of broken liberalism. 'Tis sad, I think, as I'd be more than satisfied voting for him no matter which party he aligned himself with. As far as Howard Dean goes, he has let down his brethren to a nauseating degree. We thought we were getting a warrior; we thought we were choosing a master and commander of liberal thought, willing to challenge the hard right with steadfast resolve. Instead, we got a wimp. I would also like to clarify for you this: That I support the true right even as a Democrat, regardless of whether I agree with some of their ideology. This is what makes me a moderate. I cannot however, in good conscience, willingly support the travesty that composes the sect of the right that currently holds power... Also, I'm still by a significant degree more a liberal than a conservative on most issues. My greatest ambition is to create policies that fall in line with my slightly-left ideology but are also built to draw the broad support of both liberals and conservatives. To achieve true bipartisan policy is my goal, my passion, and my driving force.
-Mod
*Edited for typos*
Poldark Maximus said...
To observe that Mr. Mountjoy occassionally shares turf held by our leftist bretheren would be the same as to suggest your boy Mark Warner could run as a Republican.
Potentially not a bad idea -- what possible turf does Warner share with Howard Dean? Turn a new leaf, Mod Vet, and power up with the True (Republican) Believers. Bring Warner with you. Poldark Maximus.
Brad said...
To some degree, I agree with you, PM. I think my reasoning may be slightly different, though... So correct me if you agree with what I say.
Mark Warner could fit the idealist Republican mold as a bastion of fiscal accountability. As a Democrat, he emphasizes the most sane and effective face of the party of the left, while still appealing to the honest sensibilities of the mainstream right. However, one must face the fact that the current section of the right wing in power doesn't so much comply with traditional Republican or conservative ideology. I'll refer you, for one point, to this:
http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?t=4626
It's a better explanation by far than my meager skills could forge without many hours of cramming and research. While Warner might work well as a Republican, to do so would equate him in the eyes of many with the current administration, which is to some degree born of broken liberalism. 'Tis sad, I think, as I'd be more than satisfied voting for him no matter which party he aligned himself with. As far as Howard Dean goes, he has let down his brethren to a nauseating degree. We thought we were getting a warrior; we thought we were choosing a master and commander of liberal thought, willing to challenge the hard right with steadfast resolve. Instead, we got a wimp. I would also like to clarify for you this: That I support the true right even as a Democrat, regardless of whether I agree with some of their ideology. This is what makes me a moderate. I cannot however, in good conscience, willingly support the travesty that composes the sect of the right that currently holds power... Also, I'm still by a significant degree more a liberal than a conservative on most issues. My greatest ambition is to create policies that fall in line with my slightly-left ideology but are also built to draw the broad support of both liberals and conservatives. To achieve true bipartisan policy is my goal, my passion, and my driving force.
-Mod
*Edited for typos*
posted by Mad Mod at
1/05/2006 11:47:00 AM
3 Comments:
Thank you. I'm enjoying checking out yours at the moment...
Sweet. I hope you're right, as well, as I can see a little more aisle-reaching if your vision becomes reality.
-Mod
PS: Don't even try to tell me I'm as liberal as Crow, or I'll have to whoop some ass (yes, Crow, you're still my pal!)
Sacman - You don't have to cold nuke me over the head.. just talk to me. You didn't even try to discuss the information I gave. And BTW.. the info I provided on Russian WMD capabilities was not just from my 'favorite professor". I can gladly back up my facts.. Here are some references if you would like to check them out.
1. U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, The START Treaty, S.Hrg.
102-607 (Parts 1-2), S.Exec. Report 102-53, 1992.
2. U.S. Governmental Affairs Committee, Evaluation of the U.S. Strategic Triad, S.Hrg 103-457, 1994. U.S. General Accounting Office, The U.S. Nuclear Triad: GAO's Evaluation of the Strategic Modernization Program
(plus 8 classified volumes), GAO/T-PEMD-93-5, 1993.
3. C. Weinberger, New York Times, June 28, 1993.
4. R. Perle, introduction to Beyond the SALT II Failure, J. Lehman and S. Weiss, Praeger, New York, 1981.
5. National Academy of Sciences, The Future of the U.S.-Soviet Nuclear Relationship, National Academy Press, 1991.
6. D. Hafemeister, "Breakout from Arms Control Treaties: A Sensitively Analysis of the Threat to National Security," in Arms Control Verification, ed. by K. Tsipis, D. Hafemeister and P. Janeway, Pergamon-Brassey's, Washington, DC, 1985. M. May, G. Bing and J. Steinbrunner, "Arsenals after START: The Implications of Deep Cuts," International Security 13, no. 1, 90-133 (1988).
7. T. Stefanick, "The Nonacoustic Detection of Submarines," Scientific
American 258, no. 3, 41-47 (1988) and 268, no. 2, 32 (1993).
8. A Cahn, "Team B: The Trillion Dollar Experiment," Bull. At. Scientists 49, no. 3, 22-27 (1993).
9. C. Lerch and CIA Team B, "Soviet Low Altitude Air Defense: An Alternative View," In Intelligence Community Experiment in Competitive
Analysis, December 1976 (partially declassified Sept. 16, 1992).
10. S. Kull, Minds at War: Nuclear Reality and the Inner Conflicts of Defense Policy Makers, Basic Books, NY, 1988. L. Nelson and G. Beardsley, "Towards an Interdisciplinary Model of Barriers to Nuclear Arms Control," Social Science Journal 24, 375-388(1987).
11. S. Schwartz, et al, "Four Trillion Dollars and Counting," Bull. At. Sci. 51, 32-52 (Nov. 1995). The U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project, Atomic Audit: The Costs and Consequences of U.S. Nuclear Weapons,
1940-1995, Brookings, Washington, D.C., to be published, 1997.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home