Is there a liberal or conservative out there that will admitt that their party has made recent mistakes?

Question

Being a conservative, I will start by admitting that the Republican party turned it's back on its constituency (as they do quite often), and they paid the ultimate price for doing so. The last election prooves this

Bad Samaritan is right....My party (Republicans) have become a bunch of whimps!

"Chainsaw"...you are right on, too! Republicans have followed the Democrats, "tax and spend" philosophy!

Very well said, Kelly B.......!

Screamingradical, as much as I hate to say this, you are dead nutts on, at least on this question!

Answer 1

The Republicans did not ACT like Republicans when we controlled the Congress and I think that is one of the reasons we lost it.
They are NOT cutting down on PORK and they are doing little to stop illegal immigration.
They are doing a great job fighting the War on Terror despite the Democrat's resistance.

Answer 2

Political parties never make mistakes. It is always the other person's party. if you read carefully everything the republicans did in their time in office was also done by democrats when they were holding the reins. this has been going on and on since i was a child that is more years than i care to remember. I voted in 13 presidential elections.
An excellent example of this is the Foley Case involving the page boy. He got caught and should have been in jail by now. The democrats were putting their hypocrical self righteous miens and demanding apologies from him.
however look back at Studds from Massachusetts. He committed the same felony and never apologised, was never censured, was not required to leave office and never got prosecuted. My personal opinon is that Foley should get whatever the law allows, but Studds should have gotten the same
In the long run all politicians are the same.just lusting for power.

Answer 3

Yes, I think the Dems posturing about the war has been a bad mistake.

Listen, they never intended on cutting funding for the war. It was a political ploy to place blame on the Repubs and Bush in particular.

But the perceived notions of a lot of Americans are that Dems want to screw the troops when this couldn't be further from the truth.

They should have called for the end of the war, no strings, no gimmicks, and no pork attached to the bill.

In my opinion, Dems have far too often been weak and wishy washy on the issues, possibly swaying in the wind to see where most of the voting will land on any number of bills.

I hope Obama keeps his strong, steadfast persona and rides it all the way to the White House.

Answer 4

Both parties failed with taxation and education issues.

Major tax reform is needed before Globalization kicks into hyper-drive. Our largest corporations are taking advantage of the USA tax and trade laws in a way that doesn't benefit the citizens of this country. Corporate lobbying controls our politicans more than the citizen's interest.

The "No Child Left Behind" Education Reform Program left many children behind. The USA now rates DEAD LAST of any industrialized nation in education. And the high school drop out rate is higher than before the program started.

Answer 5

I'm an extreme progressive, but I'll answer your question none the less. I don't consider the Democratic party liberal. It's as establishment as it can be. It's just as establishment as the Republicans, but maybe just a touch more sensitive to the average American citizen.

Both the Democrats and Republicans have been disloyal to the principles that our founding fathers established for this country. Both parties must be loyal to corporate power to keep their vaulted positions.

Bush's philosophy is spend, spend, spend, which some argue is better than tax and spend. But both parties are voting for laws undercutting civil rights and both parties are voting to spend, spend, and spend.

Answer 6

I don't really associate with left or right, but if I had to choose, I would choose left. I admit that the left cannot start its own agendas. The left depends upon the right to make their own plan, and then the democrats do the opposite and call it their own.
This is one of the contributing factors to republican victory in the White House for the past two terms.

Answer 7

There is no liberal or conservative party in the US.

Yes, it does appear that the Republican party has turned its back on the main stream constituency. Probably because the neocons have been running the party. Unfortunately they have scarred the GOP for many years to come.

In the 1970's and 1980's the Democrats were in a similar situation.

Answer 8

Oh, Lord, YES! The Bush administration has made *plenty* of mistakes.

I just get pissed off at people blaming 30+ years of stupid foreign policy on one person.

The spending pisses me off, but the illegals...that pisses me off even more.

But - there is a phenomenon called...I think it's "the sixth year curse" that has hit every two-term President in this country. According to the paper, the last election was a trend that started quite some time ago. Search for it - it's pretty interesting.

Answer 9

They've all screwed up. Trust me, Liberals have not been happy with Democrats, or anyone for that matter, for a long time. A lot of what needs doing isn't happening and if it is happening, it isn't happening fast enough or it is only being done partially as some kind of compromise.

Answer 10

Is there a difference????

The agenda of both parties is identical.

I think 2008 Presidential Candidate Ron Paul put it best when he said:

A North American United Nations?

Globalists and one-world promoters never seem to tire of coming up with ways to undermine the sovereignty of the United States. The most recent attempt comes in the form of the misnamed "Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America (SPP)." In reality, this new "partnership" will likely make us far less secure and certainly less prosperous.

According to the US government website dedicated to the project, the SPP is neither a treaty nor a formal agreement. Rather, it is a "dialogue" launched by the heads of state of Canada, Mexico, and the United States at a summit in Waco, Texas in March, 2005.

What is a "dialogue"? We don't know. What we do know, however, is that Congressional oversight of what might be one of the most significant developments in recent history is non-existent. Congress has had no role at all in a "dialogue" that many see as a plan for a North American union.

According to the SPP website, this "dialogue" will create new supra-national organizations to "coordinate" border security, health policy, economic and trade policy, and energy policy between the governments of Mexico, Canada, and the United States. As such, it is but an extension of NAFTA- and CAFTA-like agreements that have far less to do with the free movement of goods and services than they do with government coordination and management of international trade.

Critics of NAFTA and CAFTA warned at the time that the agreements were actually a move toward more government control over international trade and an eventual merging of North America into a border-free area. Proponents of these agreements dismissed this as preposterous and conspiratorial. Now we see that the criticisms appear to be justified.

Let's examine just a couple of the many troubling statements on the SPP's US government website:

"We affirm our commitment to strengthen regulatory cooperation...and to have our central regulatory agencies complete a trilateral regulatory cooperation framework by 2007"

Though the US administration insists that the SPP does not undermine US sovereignty, how else can one take statements like this? How can establishing a "trilateral regulatory cooperation" not undermine our national sovereignty?

The website also states SPP's goal to "[i]mprove the health of our indigenous people through targeted bilateral and/or trilateral activities, including in health promotion, health education, disease prevention, and research." Who can read this and not see massive foreign aid transferred from the US taxpayer to foreign governments and well-connected private companies?

Also alarming are SPP pledges to "work towards the identification and adoption of best practices relating to the registration of medicinal products." That sounds like the much-criticized Codex Alimentarius, which seeks to radically limit Americans' health freedom.

Even more troubling are reports that under this new "partnership," a massive highway is being planned to stretch from Canada into Mexico, through the state of Texas. This is likely to cost the US taxpayer untold billions of dollars, will require eminent domain takings on an almost unimaginable scale, and will make the US more vulnerable to those who seek to enter our country to do us harm.

This all adds up to not only more and bigger government, but to the establishment of an unelected mega-government. As the SPP website itself admits, "The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America represents a broad and ambitious agenda." I hope my colleagues in Congress and American citizens will join me in opposing any "broad and ambitious" effort to undermine the security and sovereignty of the United States.