[CS-FSLUG] [PD] Are Democrats to Blame for Gun Control? (was They have started already... HR6257 To Reauthorize the Assault Weapon Ban)

[Fred A. Miller]

On Sunday 16 November 2008 22:45:15 Timothy Butler wrote:
> > Your absolutely right. This discussion has slightly taken a
> > different path.
> > Like you and Ed said about the Democrats and Republicans "the
> > differences are
> > nil".
>
> 	Actually I should clarify, I did not say that. I think they are more
> similar then we think, but I do think there are more significant
> differences than Ed does.
>
> 	I was specifically trying to argue against that idea in what I was
> saying about bad apples and such.
>
> > In my eyes, the guys that reintroduced this bill are the "bad
> > apples" of the
> > Republican party and that is what I think Fred should have
> > acknowledged
> > instead of flatly blaming the Democratic party as a "whole". This is
> > why I
> > mentioned "totalitarianism".
>
> 	Clearly they are the bad apples. I think Fred called them RINOs
> (Republicans in Name Only).
>
> > All in all, I think, I and all the Conservative Democrats on and off
> > this list
> > are owed an apology.
>
> 	Let's try a different, useful question that I've always wondered. Why
> be a conservative Democrat? Given that the party, by and large, does
> not advocate conservative policies... (it isn't the case of bad
> apples, but the major bulk of the party).
>
> 	I'm just curious. When a conservative Democrat runs in my district,
> I'll vote for him (or, if the case occurred, her) to reward them for
> thinking different, but I also scratch my head. Why not join the party
> that is closer to their values? Why help by caucusing with the
> Democrats (or putting them in office) to get Democratic congressional
> leaders who are decidedly not conservative? That is, if you vote for a
> "Blue Dog" conservative Democrat, they may be pro-small government,
> pro-fiscal conservatism, maybe even pro-life, but they are still part
> of the caucus that puts Nancy Pelosi in charge. Pelosi isn't anywhere
> near the values of the Blue Dogs.
>
> 	So, I think, if all the Blue Dogs became Republicans, they'd help put
> in leaders they actually agreed with. They are essentially "DINOS" but
> they still help give the Dems power.
>
> 	I do agree that both parties are too similar on too many issues.
> Nonetheless -- there are a great deal of issues that do arise in which
> I think a person will find one party speaks to them better than others.
>
> 	For me, the view of the purpose of government and the view on issues
> like abortion certainly tilts me in a particular direction. Not for
> love of party, but because by-and-large that party agrees with my
> principles more.
>
> 	(My wish is that both parties would split. Conservative Republicans
> and Blue Dog Democrats, if they were separate parties, would probably
> be able to form alliances with each other to fight big government
> parts of both parties by forming a coalition government...)

Now, that certainly would be an improvement! ;)

Fred

-- 
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong
enough to take everything you have.
 
   -Thomas Jefferson