Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
Bush would have been a terrible president no matter what party he represented. The man's just not very bright.
And in reality, there is a great deal of difference between a true Republican, and the crooks who have been disguising themselves as Republicans for the last 30 years.
A true republican is fiscally conservative and pro business without expecting that all other considerations should be dismissed in favor of whatever corporations want. The neo-conservatives (who are not conservative at all) who've been in power since 1980 are fiscally irresponsible and put the interest of the corporation before the interest of We The People. I still have hope that the Republican party will return to thinking more along the lines of the party's roots.
But then I also have hope that the democrats will do their damn jobs instead of wimping out when the pressure gets turned up. Call me a hopeless optimist 
I thought Obama's speech was, typically, excellent. It would be interesting to get inside his head today. The mixture of emotions must be insane. Pride and excitement, obviously, but probably also a great deal of nervousness at the mammoth task he has ahead of him. |
This idea strikes me as two things: a no true Scotsman fallacy and a semantic discussion on what constitutes a conservative or Republican. I mean Bush is Republican. We can't shy away from that point. And as far as many were/are concerned, he's conservative. Do I think he's conservative? Not according to my historical understanding of the word, but my opinion is hardly an objective fact.
Years ago (over 4 years), I started a thread about what constituted a conservative.
It didn't go well. Immediately, people lashed out that conservative was just a word; a meaningless title. They were missing my point entirely, which I suspect is the point you're trying to make.