On Tue, 24 May 2005 21:34:54 -0400, JDG wrote: ...
> Of course, Bill Clinton's record on these things is only possible > thanks to the efforts of Republicans like Newt Gingrich and Phil > Gramm. If Bill Clinton's actual policies had been enacted over > Republican opposition, this would not be the case. In other words, > the above are as much Republican achievments of the 90's as they are > Democratic achievments of the 90's. David wrote about conservative values, not non-progressive values. Yet it seems to me that the above tries to squeeze politics into that polarization. Must everything be either conservative or progressive? David is hardly advocating such polarization. Can we rise above the two choices available from the major U.S. parties? Seems like a good idea to me, considering how poorly both seem to be serving us. This is just an Internet mailing list -- we're not writing party platforms here. > This is classic conservatism, how? Based on what? And in any > case, the transfer of responsibility to the allies has been occuring > under Bush, not Clinton. We'll have a transfer of responsibility when the soldiers being killed and injured in places like Iraq and Afghanistan come from the whole world, rather than mostly from the United States. What I see the Bush administration doing is abandoning responsibility to other nations, not transferring their share of it. Nick _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
