While the Democrats are not my party I think it was pretty cool how they didn't throw the U.S. into a big ol' quagmire by a series of lies/ghastly mistakes.

I think the GOP should be proud of the whole Delay thing, testicles that big should be a source of pride.

Posted by: salvage at November 19, 2004 08:09 AM

didn't throw the U.S. into a big ol' quagmire by a series of lies/ghastly mistakes Color me confused, weren't Kennedy and Johnson Democrats? Eisenhower had the good sense not to jump into Vietnam and despite what you thought of the man, Nixon did manage to clean it up.

Posted by: billhedrick at November 19, 2004 08:35 AM

I love people who still credit the 1990's ('our long nightmare of peace and prosperity') on the GOP Congress. Notice that they haven't exactly covered themselves with honor or glory in the past few years. Now, what has changed?

Posted by: Barry at November 19, 2004 09:15 AM

Barry,

The '90s were certainly fun - in part because the GOP Congress reined in Clinton (who governed from the left his first two years). It was a "decade of peace" largely because Clinton mostly ignored the gathering war, including the long series of Quaeda attacks during the nineties.

Stock bubbles, phony peace - yep. Quite a legacy.

The GOP has behaved honorably; show me where it hasn't (in any fashion that doesn't spring purely from easily-disposable spin, that is).

Posted by: mitch at November 19, 2004 09:34 AM

"The GOP has behaved honorably; show me where it hasn't"

My God, are you serious?

House GOP changes rules so that an indicted Rep. can still hold on to leadership poistions (a rule the GOP originally put in place to punish Democratic Reps who were also under indictment)

GOP President politicizes premier intelligence gathering agency. Apparently, the independence and truth of intelligence is not as important as loyalty to the Executive branch.

House GOP changes law so that is is now not a requirement to inform consumers of the country of origin of produce (to benefit large food processors). The larger food processors lobbied against the law because it put them at a disadvantage vis-a-vis samll producers, who thought the 'Made in USA' might actually mean something.

And that's just the last week.

Posted by: The_"Truth" at November 19, 2004 09:49 AM

Are you honestly claiming that the CIA wasn't politicized until last week?

Funny how the CIA is only independent and truthful when it attacks a GOP administration. How do you square "independence" and "truth" with the fact that much of the WMD intelligence Bush relied upon from the CIA (and other organizations, of course) turned out to NOT be a "slam dunk?"

Posted by: Steve Gigl at November 19, 2004 10:02 AM

All right. An answer.

A largely incorrect one, but it's a start.

First - I'd tend to agree re the first point, if the "charges" against DeLay weren't the result of a politically-motivated witchhunt. But they were.

As to the CIA - Oh, puh-leeze. The CIA politicized themselves; the upper echelons of the CIA are a clacque of Ivy-League professional bureaucrats who've been using the insularity of their civil service status to stonewall the President since the day he took office. When you have your "premier intelligence agency" (actually, I suspect DIA and NSA are the "premier" agencies these days) actively attacking you - approving hatchet-job books, leaking damaging information, etc - there's a problem. Remember two things; the CIA works *FOR* the Executive Branch; Bush is *their boss*. He CAN fire them. And since they've been incredibly incompetent for decades, it's high time he did.

Food labelling; I don't disagree, but if I were a small producer I'd start packaging my products in American Flag wrappers and pointing out the reason in my ads. Opportunity knocks.

Go back as many weeks as you want. Politics is politics, but the GOP has, as an institution, vastly more integrity than the opposition, month-in, month-out.

Posted by: mitch at November 19, 2004 10:04 AM

Nixon did manage to clean it up

Ahahahhhaha!

Are you a professional comedian?

Posted by: salvage at November 19, 2004 10:14 AM

politically-motivated witchhunt?

Too bad Delay didn't lose money on a land deal or cheat on his wife. That's the stuff of crime.

Posted by: salvage at November 19, 2004 10:20 AM

It's amazing how so many Republicans continue to view Mr. Delay as their savior, and condemn anyone who dare question this ruffians questionable ethics.Even fellow conservatives (who IMO would be doing themselves a huge favor by removing Delay from power now that they have a chance. Heck, Trent Lott got removed for much less).

Is there any hint, that Delay is just the innocent target of a partisan attack?

And have there NEVER been partisan attacks on Democrats?

Posted by: Ben at November 19, 2004 10:22 AM

I’m proud of the Democratic Party for being a party that represents and supports Progress and growth:
• Space exploration
• Huge advancements in the treatment of people with down syndrome
• Northern Ireland peace advancements
• Middle East peace agreements- Oslo Agreement (it was a start)
• Stem cell research
• Clean air acts

I’m also proud of the Democratic Party for not having an image focused around religion, which is:
• Provincial
• Controlling
• Created numerous wars throughout history

Posted by: dee at November 19, 2004 11:03 AM

Family Medical Leave Act
Elimination of WMD from Iraq
End of conflict in Kosovo
Israel-Egypt peace accord
Welfare reform
NAFTA
Reproductive privacy
Irish peace accords
Voter rights act (only 39 years ago)
Removal of a corrupt president
Doubling of NIH budget
Balanced budgets
Funding for the creation of the internet

That's a pretty good start.

Posted by: BJJB at November 19, 2004 11:07 AM

OK, let's get started here:

• Space exploration [30+ years ago, and hardly monopartisan]

• Huge advancements in the treatment of people with down syndrome [That was a *Democratic Party* thing?]

• Northern Ireland peace advancements [The end result of decades of bipartisan US efforts]

• Middle East peace agreements- Oslo Agreement (it was a start) [So was the Versailles Treaty]

• Stem cell research [Too vague. Adult and placental stem cell research is looking like a better bet than fetal - and the GOP's been pushing that...]

• Clean air acts [To the extent they made sense (not pointless overregulation), sure - and they were a LONG time ago!)]

"I’m also proud of the Democratic Party for not having an image focused around religion, which is:
• Provincial
• Controlling
• Created numerous wars throughout history"

Er, what does "provincial" mean in this context? Another jibe at ignint red-state rubes? Pffft. Remember - religion (specifically Judeo-Christianity) was behind the Renaissance, most of the scientific advancements that led to the Industrial Revolution, and was behind the creation of societies that were capable of fostering democracy. And while conflict *between* religions has caused many wars, atheists have killed many more. Religion in America today is behind most of the productive charitable work in this nation, much of the best education - calling it "provincial" is self-congratulatory bigotry at best, transference at worst.

Family Medical Leave Act [You're proud of an unfunded mandate?]

Elimination of WMD from Iraq [Really?]

End of conflict in Kosovo [Very good. Too bad Clinton couldn't have dealt with a situation that actually affected US interests]

Israel-Egypt peace accord [huh-what? In 1977?]

Welfare reform [Clinton's triangulation of a GOP initiative]

NAFTA [Ditto]

Reproductive privacy [As re juveniles, largely a bad thing]

Voter rights act (only 39 years ago) [True, and supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats, but why quibble? And 39 years is the same as forty, and the VRA was one of the things I was using as the cutoff for the last really noble Democrat effort]

Removal of a corrupt president [No, you guys all voted to keep Clinton in office]

Doubling of NIH budget [So you're proud of a giveaway program? Academic welfare!]

Balanced budgets [Thanks purely to a booming economy and the fiscal restraint imposed by post '94 congresses]

Funding for the creation of the internet [DARPANET was a Nixon initiative]

Posted by: mitch at November 19, 2004 11:37 AM

Oh, yeah - as re the Israel-Egypt accords, the work was already done before Carter got involved. He was a glorified meeting planner. Nothing to be embarassed about, but not exactly a triumph of Democratic party will, either.

Posted by: mitch at November 19, 2004 11:38 AM

"End of conflict in Kosovo [Very good. Too bad Clinton couldn't have dealt with a situation that actually affected US interests]"

Not to mention that it did not end under Clintons watch. US troops, largely reservists I might add, had been continuously depolyed there until about a month ago. Talk about a Vietnam like quagmire. That's really something to be proud of.

Posted by: Jarhead at November 19, 2004 12:18 PM

"Er, what does "provincial" mean in this context? Another jibe at ignint red-state rubes?" Mitch are you putting words in my mouth? I thought you said you were going to stop doing that.

As a whole I think religion can be limiting, and thus presenting the perfect reason for not accepting others. Example- I think Born Agains believe only people who accept Jesus as their Saviour will enter the Kingdom of Heaven (no I don't talk like that but I had a BA tell me that once on a beach). Sounds a bit limiting, don't you think? (Isn't Bush a BA, oh never mind I digress). So provinical equates to narrowminded, limiting. Something I don't see myself as, and something I don't want to be associated with.

Posted by: dee at November 19, 2004 01:20 PM

""And while conflict *between* religions has caused many wars, atheists have killed many more.""

Wow. Just...wow. Prove it. I want numbers. Hard facts. Personally, from a purely historical standpoint, I think you're wrong. The crusades contributed a LOT to the numbers being higher on the "religion" side of that equation. Not to mention most of the crap in the middle east, afghanistan, Kosovo, etc etc. And while you're counting up the dead, don't forget all the people killed in smaller, less memorable actions like the Jewish massacres in England in the 1200's. Oh, and please, if we're speaking of the dead, let's not forget the people in the U.S. of Muslim faith that have been killed in hate crimes in the past few years. I think you'll find that killing in the name of "religion" is a far FAR more popular sport than you seem to think.

""Religion in America today is behind most of the productive charitable work in this nation, much of the best education""

100% correct. But, I think that you are not thinking of religion in the broadest sense here. I may be wrong (and please forgive me if I am) but are you thinking of only the Judeo Christian religions here? Don't forget all the good works being done by your Muslim, Bhuddist, Shinto, Pagan, and whatever other brand o' worship you can think of.

Oh. That's right. Those don't really count, do they? Not according to G.W. and congress they don't. Because believe you me, if I went and put a display up in our courthouse of the Wiccan Rede there would be a big ol' bonfire and stake waiting for me. But the ten commandments, now that's another thing altogether isn't it?

Religious freedom my ass. The GOP's thinking IS provincial in that they aren't thinking about anyone BUT the christian right when they speak of religious tolerance etc etc. It makes me sick to hear them talk as if everyone in this country follows their god. And woe betide you if you don't - then you are against them AND America too. The constitution seperated church and state for a damn good reason. Because they knew that the holier than thou righteousness of religious zealots is more dangerous than anything else on earth. (See above reference to the deaths caused by such...)

The villification may now begin.

Posted by: BDL at November 19, 2004 01:54 PM

Peace Dividend?! So Reagan's efforts were the sole reason for the fall of the Soviet Union? Nearly 70 years of presidents before him must have just been wasting time waiting for the Chosen One.
Anyways, the question "What have they done lately" is totally asinine. Turn it around: what has the GOP done lately? War, deficits, recession, job loss?

Posted by: Mike at November 19, 2004 02:05 PM

Has anyone mentioned Medicare and Medicaid yet? If not, add that to the list (mets the less than 40 years criteria).

Posted by: dee at November 19, 2004 02:09 PM

I have no interest in vilification; I'm a Republican in Minnesota, I get enough of it.

"Wow. Just...wow. Prove it. I want numbers. Hard facts. Personally, from a purely historical standpoint, I think you're wrong."

You could pile all the deaths caused by all the wars of religion in history, and you'd have a hard time getting close to the pure numbers killed by governments driven by overtly or covertly atheistic philosophies. Hard numbers? The Soviets murdered 60 million of their own people. The Nazis - who co-opted the German churches to a great extent, but were at their core atheists - murdered 11 million more in the camps. The Germans and Russians fought a war that ate up another 20-odd million people. The Red Chinese, atheist to the core, murdered a minimum of 20 million more. How would any of those nations been any worse if motivated by religion?

" The crusades contributed a LOT to the numbers being higher on the "religion" side of that equation."

111 million?

" Not to mention most of the crap in the middle east, afghanistan, Kosovo, etc etc."

Leave aside the Moslems for a moment. Kosovo was political; the religions involved were figureheads over political squabbles that ran much longer and deeper than the actual faiths involved. But that's picking nits.

"And while you're counting up the dead, don't forget all the people killed in smaller, less memorable actions like the Jewish massacres in England in the 1200's. Oh, and please, if we're speaking of the dead, let's not forget the people in the U.S. of Muslim faith that have been killed in hate crimes in the past few years. I think you'll find that killing in the name of "religion" is a far FAR more popular sport than you seem to think."

And I think if you use the real numbers, you'll find it's not a drop in the bucket compared to the wars among and within and against atheistic philosophies. I counted up 111 million dead, above, an estimate that some would consider conservative. Add up the death tolls from all of your wars - every one of them. If they come to a tenth of the toll from the last century's wars - to which atheistic philosopies were key contributors - please explain how.

"100% correct. But, I think that you are not thinking of religion in the broadest sense here. I may be wrong (and please forgive me if I am) but are you thinking of only the Judeo Christian religions here? Don't forget all the good works being done by your Muslim, Bhuddist, Shinto, Pagan, and whatever other brand o' worship you can think of. "

Partly because the question was in the context of the US, and Judeochristianity is by an order of magnitude the dominant faith in America. But fair enough. Although I challenge you to show me a meaningful pagan charity. Also, Buddhism is for the most part highly non-charitable.

"Oh. That's right. Those don't really count, do they? Not according to G.W. and congress they don't. Because believe you me, if I went and put a display up in our courthouse of the Wiccan Rede there would be a big ol' bonfire and stake waiting for me. But the ten commandments, now that's another thing altogether isn't it? "

I dunno. Try it. Lots of people have to earn tolerance the hard way.

"Religious freedom my ass. The GOP's thinking IS provincial in that they aren't thinking about anyone BUT the christian right when they speak of religious tolerance etc etc."

a) You're wrong.
b) You're not ENTIRELY wrong, because the Christian Right is where their votes are. As a Christian who is a conservative, I don't don't mind the fact that a party is receptive to me. So go out and get a party to be receptive to you. That's how it's done.

" It makes me sick to hear them talk as if everyone in this country follows their god. And woe betide you if you don't - then you are against them AND America too. The constitution seperated church and state for a damn good reason. Because they knew that the holier than thou righteousness of religious zealots is more dangerous than anything else on earth. (See above reference to the deaths caused by such...)"

And see above reference to show that the institutionalized abnegation of faith is worse.

Posted by: mitch at November 19, 2004 02:15 PM

Delployed, yes. But fighting??? No.

Hey if you want to give Regan credit for ending the cold war for being in the Oval Office at the time when Gorbechav instituted reforms, then yes, Welfare Reform and NAFTA are democratic accomplishments.

Besides, the GOP has shown the their whole "fiscal conservatism" is a farce. Pork has gone WAY up since they've taken over Congress. I'm talking pork, not war spending.

Posted by: ABACAM at November 19, 2004 02:41 PM

Re Gorby's "reforms": They were intended to preserve communism as a valid system. Tearing down the wall, pulling out of Eastern Europe and abjuring nuclear weapons were not among his ideas.

Posted by: mitch at November 19, 2004 02:47 PM

Not being the party responsible for the Iran-Contra Scandal. And I know this is 40+, but we can't overlook the Cuban Missle Crisis.

Posted by: dee at November 19, 2004 02:51 PM

Getting back to something I wanted to address earlier:

""Religion in America today is behind most of the productive charitable work in this nation"" Well thank God they do something for the people with all the money they receive. Have you been to the Vatican and seen all the solid gold lamps? And what about all the secular acts of charity? You’re saying that the religious charitable work exceeds this, or that secular charitable work isn’t productive?

Posted by: dee at November 19, 2004 03:24 PM

Talk about a Vietnam like quagmire?

Sure, that'd be Iraq then.

Some facts you seem to lack:

Vietnam:
Hostile deaths: 47,359

Kosovo and Serbia:
0

Iraq:
1,217

Now I'll let you do the math, which one is more like the other?

Posted by: salvage at November 19, 2004 04:39 PM

""I have no interest in vilification; I'm a Republican in Minnesota, I get enough of it.""

LOL! Nice...:)

""How would any of those nations been any worse if motivated by religion?""

I dunno, seriously, I don't. Are you implying that they would have been better as non-secular governments? Feh.

"111 million?"

A brief summation of dead throughout history:
(Note: This is the stuff I could come up with quickly and using only my memory of what religious wars happened in the past. Give me some time, I'll do a thorough overview for you.)

I came up with 66 Million dead just quickly.

1.5M Crusades
17.8M Christian slave trade (purpotrated by a VERY Christian government who thought they were in the RIGHT becuase they were god fearing folks.)
19M Muslim slave trade
100,000 "Witches" burned at the stake (low estimate)
8800 in the Inquisition
36,000 Hugenots
698200 Muslim expansion
6000 jews in Morocco (don't have numbers for all the Jews at the time period)

and all the numbers for the religious martyrs that were killed by OTHER religions which can be found here:

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatv.htm#Martyrs

I have not gotten into the early history stuff. Nor have I gotten into Afghanistan under the Taliban, the Iraq/Iran war, the Kurds in Iraq, or anything like that.

""Leave aside the Moslems for a moment. Kosovo was political; the religions involved were figureheads over political squabbles that ran much longer and deeper than the actual faiths involved. But that's picking nits.""

Okay: 1) I won't leave aside the Muslims for a moment. You are asking me to leave out THE LARGEST (and fastest growing) religion in the world if i do that. Nope. You can't discount it.

2) As far as Kosovo goes, yeah, the religion there was a thin veneer over other things. But look at the TRUTH behind every OTHER religious war and you'll find the same damn thing. So, I don't buy it. That's ALSO why mixing religion and state sucks - you HAVE A SIMPLE EXCUSE to do shit like that.

""Add up the death tolls from all of your wars - every one of them. If they come to a tenth of the toll from the last century's wars - to which atheistic philosopies were key contributors - please explain how.""

I did. I got more than a tenth. Y'all have got population numbers on me though in the modern day. Now...if we wanted to get really silly we could start comparing the percentages of the population that were killed. LOL! I'm not going there - I hate figuring stats.

""Partly because the question was in the context of the US, and Judeochristianity is by an order of magnitude the dominant faith in America. But fair enough. Although I challenge you to show me a meaningful pagan charity. Also, Buddhism is for the most part highly non-charitable. ""

http://www.livejournal.com/community/eclecticpagans/38427.html

Is that meaningful enough for you? It's not HUGE or making millions of dollars but it is helping people in that particular neighborhood.

Or were you thinking more along the lines of "meaningful" in a big flashy sense? I dunno, there's not a lot of pagans out there that have banded together like that yet (that i know of...). I'm sure they will eventually.

"Oh. That's right. Those don't really count, do they? Not according to G.W. and congress they don't. Because believe you me, if I went and put a display up in our courthouse of the Wiccan Rede there would be a big ol' bonfire and stake waiting for me. But the ten commandments, now that's another thing altogether isn't it? "

I dunno. Try it. Lots of people have to earn tolerance the hard way.

Um, I do. I am frank with my religious beliefs to those who ask me about them. And I'm genuinely interested in good conversations about faith and the positive impact it can have in one's life. However, I am constantly bombarded by people who think they need to "save" me or told I am going to hell. Or even told I am unamerican because I don't think that religion has a place in government. Or worse, that I'm a commie. Now, how does that work exactly? heh.

""a) You're wrong.
b) You're not ENTIRELY wrong, because the Christian Right is where their votes are. As a Christian who is a conservative, I don't don't mind the fact that a party is receptive to me. So go out and get a party to be receptive to you. That's how it's done.""

I have. It's called the Democratic party, who has not once made me feel like i need to convert to someone else's idea of faith to be a part of it. And that would be what i'm thankful for - TOLERANCE. Yeah, lots of people have had to work hard for it before. We'll continue working hard for it now, too because the government as it stands now is NOT tolerant at all.

""And see above reference to show that the institutionalized abnegation of faith is worse.""

Well, I certainly don't think one should outlaw religion. Just that you shouldn't start thinking that you're in power because some god or another wanted that. That kind of mandate gets you walking on crazy, shaky, ground.

And...are you saying that if the communists had jesus they wouldn't have killed those people? *falls down laughing* whooo! *wipes eyes* that's a good one!! (and yes, i know that isn't what you are ACTUALLY saying...:) )

Posted by: BDL at November 19, 2004 05:00 PM

Since Oliver Willis is interested in pointing out the wonderfull positions, past and present, of the Democratic party, I thought I'd help him out and make some posters of my own. See them at my URL, www.thanksantaween.com/wordpress/

Posted by: Terry at November 19, 2004 06:22 PM

>

We don't have space exploration thanks to the Democrats huge spending programs that suck away all the money.

>

Thanks to the Democrats, most babies with Down's Syndrome are burned alive by saline solution while they are still in their mother;s uteruses. The Democrats are butchers.

>

One for Clinton.

>

Dead end.

>

This is like bragging about the nifty lampshhades the Nazis made out of Jewish skin after the Jews were gassed. Sick.

>

The Democrats gut the clean air acts not enforcing the CAFE standards.

>

Bad policy

>

They were taken out of Iraq when Bush sent the Army to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

>

What a joke. We had to invite the Serbia Army back into the nuetral zone to kill the Kosovars so they would stop attacking us.

>

Vetoed by Clinton twice. Repoblican perseverance paid off.

>

Republican initiative.

>

You are really ignorant. This was passed by the Republicans. The Democrats voted against it.

>

And the keeping of a more corrupt President (800+ FBI files)

>

Repubilcans.

>

Due to Reaganomics

>

Developed by Republicans for Defense.

Posted by: Me at November 20, 2004 04:35 AM

What, really, is there to be proud of other than the fact that what used to be is now no more??

To paraphrase Disraeli, it is the tone and tendency of Democrats to attack the institutions of our country under the name of reform, and to make war on the manners and customs of our people under the pretext of progress.

The zenith, of course, was the progress made by Democrats in elucidating the true meaning of "is," and what does and does not constitute sexual relations. They made perjury okay. And, at certain times, it is perfectly all right --as a matter of policy-- to burn down the compound with the children inside, shoot that woman in the back through the door, and put a machinegun to the head of a six-year-old boy and march him right back into the gulag.

All in the name of progress, of course, and all for our benefit. Nevermind the bombings.

Posted by: Eracus at November 21, 2004 02:20 PM

I'm interested in what you think the Republican party has done.
A list would be great. And, I'd like to hear a little more about the defense of Tom DeLay.

Posted by: Jill Bryant at November 22, 2004 03:02 PM

I'm proud of the Democratic party for not deciding that the way to win elections is to demonize minorities. They certainly have the option. There are those who say that Kerry would have won if he'd engaged in a little verbal gay bashing, but no. Democrats, for some reason, don't ask people to sink to their basest prejudices. Republicans do.

Haven't heard much about terrorism since November 2. Wonder what happened to that?

Posted by: shamanic at November 22, 2004 06:10 PM