George F. Will: OCR's New Direction (There IS A Difference Between Republicans and Democrats!!)

Sacramento Bee ^ | May 26, 2002 | George F. Will

[Recovering_Democrat]

WASHINGTON -- Gerald Reynolds is serene about the failed opposition of Senate liberals to the president's appointment of him to head the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights. Reynolds, 38, is used to liberals' vehement opposition to African-Americans who escape from liberalism's intellectual plantation and become conservative. Of such vehemence, he cheerfully says, "I don't have cable. This is my entertainment -- life."

[Recovering_Democrat]

Fellow FREEPers, take note: there IS a difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Mr. Reynolds helps prove the case: I hope the RNC invites him to speak at the next National Convention: seeing prominent black conservatives is crucial to showing voters of EVERY ETHNICITY that Republicans are the truly inclusive Party.

The Democrat Party is the one that discriminates and holds people down.

[claptrap]

This is pure claptrap, there isnt any difference, look at nincompoop Bush evidence:Farm Welfare, Suicide Forigen Policy, Steel Tariffs, Education (rip-off) Bill, Non-Enforcment of Immigration Laws need I prattle on? Why does Colin Powell sound like some spineless jellyfish? Conservatives were duped, hoodwinked, fooled into voting for this goof mainly because he misrepresented himself !

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Now, about the other 90% of what the President is dealing with successfully during war with a Senate determined to cancel the American Revolution and put the power not into the "peoples'" hands, but into the hands of the powerful and judicial activists. November, we're taking back the Senate. You can take your ball and go home while others risk their lives to defend the real world.

[poet]

Wake up and smell the coffee. bush is a one worlder new world order advocate just like daddy.

ALL these restrictive laws are designed against the lovers of freedom and nothing else. These laws are not designed against terrorists because we have laws on the books against what they did on 9/11. These new laws and powers granted to LE are designed to forestall future freedom fighters.

[poet]

And what are we going to do when "we" take back the senate?

Continue to embrace the dem's domestic programs and spend BILLIONS more than we are.

"we" had the senate in the lowlife's term and "our" wonderful senate put on a farce relative to the impeachment.

"we" have the congress now. What are they doing but being a rubber stamp in the madness of spending our money. Spend, spend, spend is followed by tax, tax, tax

[goodnesswins]

"WE" do NOT have the Congress now....we have the HOUSE - it is NOT the CONGRESS....it takes the Senate AND the HOUSE to get things through CONGRESS (or blocked)

[poet]

That is true, however, I respectfully submit that they are not us and I'm talking about the repubs and dems.

They have continually violated the constitution with their votes. I repeat, with very few exceptions, they are not us.

[Lower55]

The most common difference is the direction of the check.

[mrustow]

Of course, there's a difference. Democrats talk socialism, and pay off "bad" blacks; we talk capitalism, increase the welfare budget, and pay off our, "good" blacks.

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

"The political process, as long as there are no barriers to participation in the process, should be the main vehicle used to decide how scarce resources are allocated."
Not really that big a difference. The song remains the same.

[zerosix]

Thanks for the intersting observation.

Another observation - Dems stick together when the going gets tough, i.e. Clinton's betrayal of NAFTA, GATT, Welfare Reform, just to name a few. Another observation - Dems(Socialists)realize the hard fact is that change comes with baby steps in the direction you desire to go.

While Bush appears to be going in the opposite direction most conservatives wanted to go, I believe that he is a realistic pragmatist in that he had no mandate (election too close to call), House held barely by Repubs (and many of them liberals from either coast - but mostly knowing they had to run again in 2 years)and lastly, Senate held by liberals of both parties, so nothing would/could be accomplished.

Right now Bush is probably more popular with independent types and Dems enough to be elected no matter who runs against him!

Speaking as a recovering purist, it is not better to elect a Democrat than a Republican that you disagree with (observe the beloved Ronaldus Magnus - not matter how pro-life he was, there was never a movement to ban abortion - even Partial Birth Abortion.)

Pro-lifers who went for small victories such as identifying the horror of Partial Birth Abortion, have gained many people who thouoght themselves "Pro Choice". Even these people, many of whom are feminists and ardent "Pro Choicers" cannot stomach the thought of what actually occurs with late term abortion, no matter how much they wish to protect a "Women's Right To Choose."

Polls also showed that the American public (an ignorant, hedonistic, selfish lot)oppose support banning Partial Birth Abortion and elected officials know it and care more than being relected than babies being ripped apart.

[Charlotte Corday]

VERY nice catch (the "political process" quote). Two sides of the same coin......

[seanc623]

Of course, there's a difference. Democrats talk socialism, and pay off "bad" blacks; we talk capitalism, increase the welfare budget, and pay off our, "good" blacks.

Amen!!! If there really was a difference, Republicans would be abolishing this unconstitutional monstrosity, not changing personnel.

[Red Jones]

If you'd been a loyal republican the last 20 years rather than a loyal dem, then you'd have it in for the Republicans instead of the Democrats.

I'll tell you why both parties are slimebuckets. Because the unemployment rate today is more than triple what it was 40 years ago, both parties made that happen and both parties are happy about it. That's why.

Neither one of them serves the american nation, they each serve special interests. George Bush is no Ronald Reagan, that's for sure.

When Reagan came on the scene father bush was extremely critical of him. After Reagan won the primaries and was all set to get the nomination Jerry Ford held a press conference to tell everyone that Reagan was unfit to lead, this was even after it was decided that he'd be the Republicans' leader. The Republicans very strongly dislike conservatives. They represent rich people, just like the democrats accuse them of.

We should all forget party loyalty. We should instead vote against 70% of all incumbents regardless of parties. This is the only way for the population to assert itself. Otherwise, we'll just be slaves by letting them have their way.

[rdb3]

Yeah, I see.

"Claptrap" is apropos.
Hint: Double entendre.

[rdb3]

mrustow F RTR List.

[rdb3]

You know, there is an inescapable truth in life here at FR.

Take a thread, any thread, and watch it for about 5-10 posts. In that short of time, the topic of the thread is no longer addressed.

You have a car speeding out of control at 100mph. Can that car reverse directions in a fraction of a second? Or does that car at least have to be slowed to make an emergency U-turn?

This is how I view the new head of the OCR. He raised some valid points about our schooling system, yet no one had raised these points. You even have your garden variety bigots popping off at the mouth (as usual), and making complete fools of themselves.

Those who think that they have the right prescription for the rest of us (far-left/far-right) are a worrisome lot. They define issues downward rather than get into the meat of the matter.

They disrupt and they destroy. Then they go off and pound on their pectoral muscles and yell like Tarzan and have that "righteous" feeling about themselves.

Sad, really.

As my man CaptBlack once said, "Black conservatives, watch your back." The Left is gunning for us, and so is the far-right. I'm shown what they really think about us, and being conservative doesn't matter to them in the least. It's not a popularity contest, and it most certainly not a philosophy adopted to curry favor. Yet and still, they show what they truly think.

[Wolfstar]

Oh really?!!!! One decision (of many) puts the lie to what you posted: The decision by President Bush to withdraw from the treaty creating the International Criminal Court, which Clinton signed, but which was not ratified by the then-Republican senate. Democrats would bind us to Kyoto, and they would draw us ever closer to being snared in the global government the Europeans are attempting to create (largely to replace the world power they lost due to the first and second world wars). President Bush turned us away from that direction, thank God.

[BeAChooser]

.it takes the Senate AND the HOUSE to get things through CONGRESS

No it doesn't, as the Contract With America proved.

[poet]

I do not lie! I stated an opinion. As for kyoto, I also said they throw a couple of nuggets our way while passing more and more restrictive laws and giving LE more and more powers.