The Republican party must acknowledge the women's movement and accept science. Or it will go the way of the Federalists and the Whigs.
One can hope that the post-election debate on the future of Republicanism will point the way to a viable fact-based prudential party. But it will be difficult to achieve, since the conservative movement has stuck to George W. Bush like a limpet on all his discredited policies: Iraq, banning abortion, the block on stem cell research, income tax cuts for the wealthy, attaching Social Security to the Stock Market (!), repatriating 12 million illegal immigrants instead of offering them a road to citizenship (“amnesty”). All of these have been losers.
A major—perhaps insoluble—problem conservatives face is that the aggressive “social conservatism” of the Republican base and its activists does not appeal to moderates and independent voters.
The model for the revival of the Republican party should be the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower.
It is no good conservatives trying to revive Ronald Reagan, for whom I used to write speeches. Historians may rate Reagan as a near-great president. But our problems now are different from the ones he addressed. And “supply-side economics” is now widely recognized as nonsense. Let me try to advise them on how to rediscover a Republican party that is both viable and electable.
First, the Republican party must distance itself from evangelicalism as the policy preferences of evangelicals have only minority support. In 2000, Bush received 70 percent of the white evangelical vote, this becoming the indispensable base of the Bush Republican party.
America separates church and state by constitutional right: people can worship as they please in church, synagogue or mosque, which often have differing policy views. But public policy must be justified by fact and result, not by one or another religious doctrine.
Second, science today, empirically based, has great authority because of its manifold achievements, from the interior of the molecule and the human cell to the age of the universe (13.7 billion years). Therefore science also has cultural authority.
No administration has been so comprehensively hostile to science as the Bush administration. It has cut funding for research and development, manipulated data on global warming, and exaggerated uncertainties about climate change so that millions of Americans think global warming and its causes are matters of opinion.
Bush blocked federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and advocated teaching intelligent design along with evolution. Teaching intelligent design? Where? Biology class? Not since the 1920s has evolution been a subject of political controversy. Astonishing. Now it is controversial again because we are in what historians describe as the third evangelical awakening.
Third, both Bushism and movement conservatism forgot the founder of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke, who understood abstract (republican) theory as the basis for revolution in France, but also understood historical force of social change, as in the famous passage from Thoughts on French Affairs (1791), celebrated by Matthew Arnold:
If a great change is to be made in human affairs, the minds of men will be fitted to it; the general opinions and feelings will grow that way...and those who persist in opposing it will appear rather to resist the decrees of Providence itself than the mere designs of men.
That certainly could apply to the profoundest revolution of all time, the long revolution for women’s equality in the modern Western world. In America we can date the beginning of the women’s revolution to Fanny Wright’s Course of Popular Lectures (1820), which advocated women’s suffrage, free public education, more liberal divorce rules, and birth control. There in 1820 began the long journey to women’s equality. In Planned Parenthood vs. Casey the Court sustained Roe and observed that the availability of abortion allowed women to “participate equally in the economic and social life of the nation.”
Fourth, Burke and Leo Strauss are the indispensable conservative political philosophers and should guide the leaders of any form of modern conservatism. But the immediate paradigm for the revival of the Republican party should be the successful presidency of Dwight Eisenhower. I doubt Eisenhower studied much political philosophy at West Point, but he was a fact-based prudent realist, as any successful general must be: matching means with ends, making risk calculations, etc.
In 1953 Eisenhower ended the Korean war with a nuclear threat against Beijing, built the nuclear-powered navy and brought forward the unstoppable Polaris missile, initiated the U-2 spy-plane flights, began to build the interstate highway system, and also balanced the budget three times. He certainly would not have trapped an American army in Mesopotamia. He was practical, solid, and surely a near-great president.
In a recent poll, 98 percent of historians rated George W. Bush the worst president in American history. Bushism was a disaster, and the conservative movement that backed him in everything is now dead.
Movement conservatism, RIP. The common sense Republican party will rise again. It must. Or it will go the way of the Federalists and the Whigs.
Jeffrey Hart is professor emeritus of English at Dartmouth College. He wrote for the National Review for more than three decades, where he was senior editor. He wrote speeches for Ronald Reagan, when governor of California, and for Richard Nixon.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
First, Bush was not a conservative. He was his own element, and even isolated true conservatives from him.
Also, this is more of a determining time for the Democrats in my opinion. All this change mantra and Obama discipleship. Lets see what happens.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
Die preferably... the GOP i mean...
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
There is going to be a lot of pork in Obamanomics.
Posted by retiredat49 on :
I myself don't believe in or TRUST either party...
I hope they both die a quick and painful death...
Posted by Highwaychild on :
Talking Heads - Burning Down the House http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=st1lH8zcIuQ I was going to put it on the listening thread, but, it seemed like it fit this thread better... one more week.
Posted by Highwaychild on :
I bet all them G.O.P'ers are like... "G.W. jacked it up so bad it got 'those people' in there...lol Goin' all Sarah Palin on him now that it's(about) over.
Posted by raybond on :
. "President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale."--Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, testifying before Congress (Quick! Somebody phone Al Gonzalez and tell him there were no phones or electricity during the Washington and Lincoln administrations
This was Bushes favorite attorney
Posted by raybond on :
Bush was right wing to the point of almost a fascist.
I don't know what a person really means buy a conservative.
Posted by Highwaychild on :
You are absolutely correct that the GOP must change or they will certainly die. However, you are 100% wrong in the way they must change! If the GOP wants to survive, they MUST get back to conservative, common sense values. It is clear (as you said) that you don't have a clue what "conservative means". Let me make it simple for you and list the issues from a conservative standpoint.
Conservatives are:
Pro-gun Against abortion Against gay marriage Pro-Christianity Against handouts to the lazy Against the scam of global warming For drilling for oil in the United States Pro-Israel Pro-Democracy Against Socialism Pro-Capitalism Pro-creationism Pro-business For the right to PURSUE happiness - against a guarantee of happiness For equal rights for all - against quotas for minorities
If you have any other questions, please ask. I AM a true conservative.
Posted by jordanreed on :
sounds like a comedy routine...
Posted by Machiavelli on :
Sounds like a delusion of a madman's making lol and that is not "Democracy"... he's not a true conservative... he's a fascist lol
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: Raybond,
You are absolutely correct that the GOP must change or they will certainly die. However, you are 100% wrong in the way they must change! If the GOP wants to survive, they MUST get back to conservative, common sense values. It is clear (as you said) that you don't have a clue what "conservative means". Let me make it simple for you and list the issues from a conservative standpoint.
Conservatives are:
Pro-gun Against abortion Against gay marriage Pro-Christianity Against handouts to the lazy Against the scam of global warming For drilling for oil in the United States Pro-Israel Pro-Democracy Against Socialism Pro-Capitalism Pro-creationism Pro-business For the right to PURSUE happiness - against a guarantee of happiness For equal rights for all - against quotas for minorities
If you have any other questions, please ask. I AM a true conservative.
There is nothing wrong with taking sides with the list you made. The opposite?
anti-gun anti-business anti-israel redifining marriage stripping the rights away from the unborn anti-christian (because christianity is a threat to gay marriage and abortion)
I mean the list goes on forever.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:There is nothing wrong with taking sides with the list you made. The opposite?
anti-gun anti-business anti-israel redifining marriage stripping the rights away from the unborn anti-christian (because christianity is a threat to gay marriage and abortion)
I mean the list goes on forever.
EXACTLY! That is the wish-list of the wacko left!
Mike
Posted by retiredat49 on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: Raybond,
You are absolutely correct that the GOP must change or they will certainly die. However, you are 100% wrong in the way they must change! If the GOP wants to survive, they MUST get back to conservative, common sense values. It is clear (as you said) that you don't have a clue what "conservative means". Let me make it simple for you and list the issues from a conservative standpoint.
Conservatives are:
Pro-gun Against abortion Against gay marriage Pro-Christianity Against handouts to the lazy Against the scam of global warming For drilling for oil in the United States Pro-Israel Pro-Democracy Against Socialism Pro-Capitalism Pro-creationism Pro-business For the right to PURSUE happiness - against a guarantee of happiness For equal rights for all - against quotas for minorities
If you have any other questions, please ask. I AM a true conservative.
The GOP's stance on the issues that you have posted here PM IS the reason that they will most certainly DIE...
BTW...you are NOT a true conservative...you ARE a true idiot.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
retired what is wrong with siding with Israel against Hamas and Hezbollah? 2nd amendment? CAPITALISM?
Posted by retiredat49 on :
Nothing wrong with fighting terrorism or the 2nd amendment...I own a LARGE safe full of guns...
Capitalism only works for "the elite"
Posted by bdgee on :
Neither capitalism not socialism nor fascism nor monarchy nor whatever ideal as a form of government works completely or uniformly anywhere, anytime, anyway.
Demanding that any philosophical form of government be strictly adhered to guarantees that it will fail.
The system of government the United States has operated under since its inception is no one of those named above. Within the Constitution there are requirements that defy each and every one. One, monarchy, is specifically denied, in whole or in part.
There is no requirement in the Constitution that demands that the Nation practice pure capitalism and there is none that demands that socialism isn't acceptable in part.
Contrary to simple minded bumper-sticker mentality and jargon, neither capitalism nor socialism is the logical opposite or bare denial of the other. Indeed, in any practical or pragmatic sense, each accepts certain aspects of the other as essential for its own success and existence. For examples, in the most avid of Communistic societies, a man OWNS certain sorts of property, like his clothes and often his family and home and those things associated with that home, while in proudly capitalistic societies, certain things are purely under the control of the government, socialistically, like the mail (check out the U.S. Constitution) and the roads and the Court house and such.
In order to provide the best chance of benefiting all of its people, a government must be willing and able to evolve to work withing the political environment of the day, whatever it chooses to call itself.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
Here is my problem.
I started a business, and through 12-15 hour days, stress, and all the things that go into it I want to reap the rewards of it.
My dream will be penalized the better I do through a higher tax rate. No wonder businesses outsource so much.
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: Here is my problem.
I started a business, and through 12-15 hour days, stress, and all the things that go into it I want to reap the rewards of it.
My dream will be penalized the better I do through a higher tax rate. No wonder businesses outsource so much.
What you have just told us is that you have absolutely no understanding of tax law and tax brackets.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: Raybond,
You are absolutely correct that the GOP must change or they will certainly die. However, you are 100% wrong in the way they must change! If the GOP wants to survive, they MUST get back to conservative, common sense values. It is clear (as you said) that you don't have a clue what "conservative means". Let me make it simple for you and list the issues from a conservative standpoint.
Conservatives are:
Pro-gun Against abortion Against gay marriage Pro-Christianity Against handouts to the lazy Against the scam of global warming For drilling for oil in the United States Pro-Israel Pro-Democracy Against Socialism Pro-Capitalism Pro-creationism Pro-business For the right to PURSUE happiness - against a guarantee of happiness For equal rights for all - against quotas for minorities
If you have any other questions, please ask. I AM a true conservative.
they cannot get elected on that platform.
Pat Robertson never even came close running on that.
the real world has real problems that need real solutions.
Posted by bdgee on :
If the republicans insist on staying with those extreme positions, I'll prophesy that within a decade or so it will be replaced by a new party with a more reasonable and less judgmental platform, with the good sense to honor the wisdom of the Founders and maintain strict independence from any religion or religious leanings.
Posted by glassman on :
"We have learned that voluntary regulation does not work," said Christopher Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, in testimony on Thursday at the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. "It was a fateful mistake" that no one was given the authority "to regulate investment bank holding companies other than on a voluntary basis." http://www.economyincrisis.org/articles/show/1990
Christopher Cox, Bush appointee and former Reagan employee, during the second term of Ronald Reagan from 1986 to 1988, he served in the White House as Senior Associate Counsel to the President. His duties included advising on the nomination of three Supreme Court justices, the establishment of the Brady Commission following the 1987 market crash...
Posted by bdgee on :
It is a bit late for them to be growing up. The horse has been out for several years.
Posted by raybond on :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Propertymanager: Raybond,
You are absolutely correct that the GOP must change or they will certainly die. However, you are 100% wrong in the way they must change! If the GOP wants to survive, they MUST get back to conservative, common sense values. It is clear (as you said) that you don't have a clue what "conservative means". Let me make it simple for you and list the issues from a conservative standpoint.
Conservatives are:
Pro-gun Against abortion Against gay marriage Pro-Christianity Against handouts to the lazy Against the scam of global warming For drilling for oil in the United States Pro-Israel Pro-Democracy Against Socialism Pro-Capitalism Pro-creationism Pro-business For the right to PURSUE happiness - against a guarantee of happiness For equal rights for all - against quotas for minorities
If you have any other questions, please ask. I AM a true conservative. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats crazy that is not a consevative and since when is a conservative a christian only I would say you have it about half right if that.
You are the reason the party is doomed unles you leave it and form you own party Pro business who in america is not except the .commies and they are in there own party.
And while you are at it don't keep inferring you are the only one who is a christian just because you wrap it in the flag and want to make it the law of the land which is very unamerican.
Sounds to me what you discribed is something we kicked the hell out of hear in 1776 must of forgot a few and you guys multiplied
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
Republican women:
Enough said.
Posted by retiredat49 on :
Don't know about republican...but she could shoot my Mathews anytime...
Posted by wallymac on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: Raybond,
You are absolutely correct that the GOP must change or they will certainly die. However, you are 100% wrong in the way they must change! If the GOP wants to survive, they MUST get back to conservative, common sense values. It is clear (as you said) that you don't have a clue what "conservative means". Let me make it simple for you and list the issues from a conservative standpoint.
Conservatives are:
Pro-gun Against abortion Against gay marriage Pro-Christianity Against handouts to the lazy Against the scam of global warming For drilling for oil in the United States Pro-Israel Pro-Democracy Against Socialism Pro-Capitalism Pro-creationism Pro-business For the right to PURSUE happiness - against a guarantee of happiness For equal rights for all - against quotas for minorities
If you have any other questions, please ask. I AM a true conservative.
Reading this post only tells me one thing and that is that you are a true idiot.
Everything you posted is the problem with the Republican Party. It attempts to divide the nation instead of looking at things logically. I have yet to meet a person that is PRO Abortion though I know many that are for allowing a woman to have a choice over what goes on with her own body.
I also don't know anyone who is for giving money to the lazy but do know many that take the "Christian" attitude of helping your fellow man when he is down.
I could go on and on.
America became a great country because it's citizens pulled together not apart.
I guess you never heard the saying: "Divide and Conquer."
If we are to make it through this catastrophy, as a nation, we need to pulled together not apart.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: Republican women:
Enough said.
LOL, CCM she's cheating, she's using a release, real bow shooters use their bare fingers Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: Republican women:
Enough said.
LOL, CCM she's cheating, she's using a release, real bow shooters use their bare fingers :D
True, but here equipment is superb.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:...since when is a conservative a christian only I would say you have it about half right if that.
Your reading skills are sadly lacking. My post didn't say anything about a conservative being "Christian only".
quote:And while you are at it don't keep inferring you are the only one who is a christian just because you wrap it in the flag and want to make it the law of the land which is very unamerican.
Reading skills again! I didn't say or infer that I am the only one who is a Christian. There are at least tens of millions of Christians in the US.
quote:Sounds to me what you discribed is something we kicked the hell out of hear in 1776 must of forgot a few and you guys multiplied
Gibberish.
Posted by bdgee on :
"If we are to make it through this catastrophy, as a nation, we need to pulled together not apart."
wallymac,
I whole heartedly agree....in principle...
But, as seems to be the case with the great majority of Americans, I cannot and will not be part of a party that includes the moral likes of a PM. and, if the sentiment (and lack of rationality) he demands remains the that of the republican party, I'll watch it die from afar and shed not a single tear.
Posted by glassman on :
PM, what does "pro-creationism" mean anyway?
does it mean that you would ignore scientific evidence?
cuz beleif in creatioism also implies that the world (and people) is less than 10,000 years old.
Posted by raybond on :
It will be fun watching the idiots that have taken over the republican party die.
Maybe we should give them there own states cut off all federal funds to them and forget about them forever. Another words a banishment.
They have earned it
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:It will be fun watching the idiots that have taken over the republican party die.
Wow! I don't like what you lefties do, but I certainly don't hope you lefties die.
quote:Maybe we should give them there own states cut off all federal funds to them and forget about them forever. Another words a banishment.
They have earned it
That's a great idea! Let's give you socialists the coasts and let the capitalists have fly-over country. We'll build a 50 foot fence along the new border to keep you lefties out after your socialist economy collapses. Oops, too late, the socialist state of California is already on the verge of economic collapse.
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager:
quote:It will be fun watching the idiots that have taken over the republican party die.
Wow! I don't like what you lefties do, but I certainly don't hope you lefties die.
quote:Maybe we should give them there own states cut off all federal funds to them and forget about them forever. Another words a banishment.
They have earned it
That's a great idea! Let's give you socialists the coasts and let the capitalists have fly-over country. We'll build a 50 foot fence along the new border to keep you lefties out after your socialist economy collapses. Oops, too late, the socialist state of California is already on the verge of economic collapse.
That's the Socialist California run by a Republican Governer right? LMAO. You are an imbecile. No question about it! You seem to have quite the knack for defeating your own idiotic ideals. Way to go!! Posted by bdgee on :
Speaking of Propertymanager,Pagan says, " LMAO. You are an imbecile. No question about it!
Many an imbecile should rightfully resent that.
Posted by glassman on :
That's a great idea! Let's give you socialists the coasts and let the capitalists have fly-over country. We'll build a 50 foot fence along the new border to keep you lefties out after your socialist economy collapses. Oops, too late, the socialist state of California is already on the verge of economic collapse.
LOL. you prove that you know absolutely nothing about the distribution of the US economy.
the tax base in the middle of the country would be decimated.
the middle US GDP is less than half of either coast.
i know, i've lived in the middle portion of the country for a total of 11 years the left coast for 7 and the east for well over 20...
Posted by retiredat49 on :
can we get back to talking about the hottie shooting the bow please...
why spend another second of your life entertaining anything that PM has to offer...simply IGNORE IT and maybe IT will go away
Glass...almost all shooters today use a release...much better accuracy
Posted by glassman on :
yeah, i know, i have one, but i don't use it...
lost my glove about 15 years ago and learned how to do without... i shoot better without it...
Posted by raybond on :
Another republican moron
3. I think gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman" -- Arnold Schwarzenegger
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by raybond: Another republican moron
3. I think gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman" -- Arnold Schwarzenegger
comeon Bond, he's one of the good guys, it's not his fault he duzn't sprechen Anglizsh zo goot. Posted by CashCowMoo on :
Marriage is between a man and woman plain and simple. Just because a few crybabies want to force their views on the majority doesnt mean it should change. They should have the same rights as married couples, but the term should remain how it has been for centuries. That is one thing that really bothers me about liberals is how much they cry and bit** about everything.
BTW a vegetarian is indian for lazy hunter!!
Posted by bdgee on :
Sounds to me that the ones bytchin are the right-wingers.
What possible difference does it make to me or to you or to whomever if some couple want to call their marriage a "pairwise mutual contract" or a "leagized sexual relationship" or an "airplane" instead of a marriage?
Who gives a rat's azz?
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
This a good one...be sure to read it all...PRETTY MUCH COVERS IT...
__________________________________________
Judy Wallman, a professional genealogy researcher here in southern California , was doing some personal work on her own family tree. She discovered that Harry Reid's great-great uncle, Remus Reid, was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in Montana in 1889. Both Judy and Harry Reid share this common ancestor.
Harry Reid
The only known photograph of Remus shows him standing on the gallows in Montana territory. On the back of the picture Judy obtained during her research is this inscription: 'Remus Reid, horse thief, sent to Montana Territorial Prison 1885, escaped 1887, robbed the Montana Flyer six times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted and hanged in 1889.'
So Judy recently e-mailed Congressman Harry Reid for information about their great-great uncle.
Believe it or not, Harry Reid's staff sent back the following biographical sketch for her genealogy research:
'Remus Reid was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory . His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the Montana railroad. Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to government service, finally taking leave to resume his dealings with the railroad.In 1887, he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889, Remus passed away during an important civic function held in his honor when the platform upon which he was standing collapsed.'
NOW THAT is how it's done folks! That's real SPIN.
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: This a good one...be sure to read it all...PRETTY MUCH COVERS IT...
__________________________________________
Judy Wallman, a professional genealogy researcher here in southern California , was doing some personal work on her own family tree. She discovered that Harry Reid's great-great uncle, Remus Reid, was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in Montana in 1889. Both Judy and Harry Reid share this common ancestor.
Harry Reid
The only known photograph of Remus shows him standing on the gallows in Montana territory. On the back of the picture Judy obtained during her research is this inscription: 'Remus Reid, horse thief, sent to Montana Territorial Prison 1885, escaped 1887, robbed the Montana Flyer six times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted and hanged in 1889.'
So Judy recently e-mailed Congressman Harry Reid for information about their great-great uncle.
Believe it or not, Harry Reid's staff sent back the following biographical sketch for her genealogy research:
'Remus Reid was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory . His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the Montana railroad. Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to government service, finally taking leave to resume his dealings with the railroad.In 1887, he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889, Remus passed away during an important civic function held in his honor when the platform upon which he was standing collapsed.'
NOW THAT is how it's done folks! That's real SPIN.
First of all, being as this is America, not some European fiefdom, what the hell difference does it make who Reed's ancestors were or weren't or what they did or didn't do?
Second, isn't this one just another of those right-wing made up lies from the inner circle of far right-wing imagination and biased propaganda you are so fond of posting with no appropriate reference?
Third, there are more than just a few far right-wing extreme professional genealogy researchers spreading bull sh-t about non-republicans. (Yes, there are non-republican ones too, but the majority seem to be deep in the right-wing.) Claiming any validity or truth to your tale based on it supposedly being from a professional genealogy researcher is cheap spin of the worst sort. Why not toss in a claim of astrological precision too, while you are at it?
It gets old.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
There he goes again, a Keith Olbermann rant to any post that doesnt agree with super liberalism.
Posted by jordanreed on :
butch cassidy?...reids a folk hero!
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
This is just sick, and this is why im not some flaming liberal.
"Liberal Wisconsin capital would limit development, tree removal, fast food restaurants and parking to promote 'sustainability.' "
City of Madison, Wis. Eyes Draconian Zoning Ordinances to 'Adapt to Climate Change'
Call this a case of liberalism via central planning gone wild.
In one of the most politically left-of-center cities east of Berkeley, Calif., ideas put forth at city hall in Madison, Wis. would dramatically limit free enterprise and personal liberty, all in the name of environmental sustainability. According to the “Broad Strategies” section of a meeting agenda recently posted on the City of Madison Web site, an ordinance being considered would force city zoning to account for and mitigate climate change:
10. Zoning should adapt to meet the demands of climate change; use zoning to address ormitigate effects, or adapt to climate change; remove any barriers to mitigating the effects, adapting to climate change (trees, green space, mobility, renewable energy, land use).
Another item in the “Broad Strategies” section has a grim outlook for the future. It includes a proposal that spells out a doomsday scenario – allowing for the city to function should shortages in energy and food occur:
11. Write the code to allow the city to function when automobile travel will be severely limited and oil-related products, including food and heating fuel, become prohibitively expensive because of the scarcity and high-cost of fuel.
Other proposals throughout the document would push for use of alternative energies (solar, geothermal and wind), conservation, electric cars and urban agriculture. Other more Draconian regulations throughout the document would:
Limit waterfront development in the name of water sustainability, Require two trees to be planted if one is removed from your property Limit the “number/density of fast food outlets and drive-through windows” in the name of public health Discourage individual parking options to promote public transportation usage
Madison is the state of Wisconsin’s capital and home of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. With a very low industrial base and few blue-collar workers, it has a reputation for being politically liberal, based on a high concentration of government employees, academics and students within its city limits.
they also paint there faces green and wear cheese hats
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: Marriage is between a man and woman plain and simple. Just because a few crybabies want to force their views on the majority doesnt mean it should change.
Yah, like banning gay marriage would stop people from being gay And if anyone is forcing their views on anyone is anti-gayers...
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49:
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: Raybond,
You are absolutely correct that the GOP must change or they will certainly die. However, you are 100% wrong in the way they must change! If the GOP wants to survive, they MUST get back to conservative, common sense values. It is clear (as you said) that you don't have a clue what "conservative means". Let me make it simple for you and list the issues from a conservative standpoint.
Conservatives are:
Pro-gun Against abortion Against gay marriage Pro-Christianity Against handouts to the lazy Against the scam of global warming For drilling for oil in the United States Pro-Israel Pro-Democracy Against Socialism Pro-Capitalism Pro-creationism Pro-business For the right to PURSUE happiness - against a guarantee of happiness For equal rights for all - against quotas for minorities
If you have any other questions, please ask. I AM a true conservative.
The GOP's stance on the issues that you have posted here PM IS the reason that they will most certainly DIE...
BTW...you are NOT a true conservative...you ARE a true idiot.
Exactly... Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Neither capitalism not socialism nor fascism nor monarchy nor whatever ideal as a form of government works completely or uniformly anywhere, anytime, anyway.
.
Exactly, no system is perfect but a combination of systems works better and avoids disasters more imo.
Posted by wallymac on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: This a good one...be sure to read it all...PRETTY MUCH COVERS IT...
__________________________________________
Judy Wallman, a professional genealogy researcher here in southern California , was doing some personal work on her own family tree. She discovered that Harry Reid's great-great uncle, Remus Reid, was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in Montana in 1889. Both Judy and Harry Reid share this common ancestor.
Harry Reid
The only known photograph of Remus shows him standing on the gallows in Montana territory. On the back of the picture Judy obtained during her research is this inscription: 'Remus Reid, horse thief, sent to Montana Territorial Prison 1885, escaped 1887, robbed the Montana Flyer six times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted and hanged in 1889.'
So Judy recently e-mailed Congressman Harry Reid for information about their great-great uncle.
Believe it or not, Harry Reid's staff sent back the following biographical sketch for her genealogy research:
'Remus Reid was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory . His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the Montana railroad. Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to government service, finally taking leave to resume his dealings with the railroad.In 1887, he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889, Remus passed away during an important civic function held in his honor when the platform upon which he was standing collapsed.'
NOW THAT is how it's done folks! That's real SPIN.
Seems you like many of the far right persuasion are nothing but gullible and don't bother to debunk things that coincide with your extreme views. Took all of 2 minutes to find this.
"Comments: This may come as a shock and a disappointment to some (while others will be shocked that anyone could possibly be shocked), but none of the above is true. It's an old joke, as a matter of fact, a bit of homespun political satire that has been circulating in various forms since 2000.
The image is actually a historical photo of the hanging of a New Mexico outlaw named Black Jack Ketchum in 1901.
The punchline ("Remus passed away during an important civic function held in his honor when the platform on which he was standing collapsed" — i.e, he was hanged) was borrowed from an even older joke that made the rounds in genealogical circles in the mid-1980s. Here's a variant published in Fonda Baselt's The Sunny Side of Genealogy in 1988:
A family historian who was writing his family history was dismayed to find that an ancestor had been publicly hanged. In a moment of inspiration he wrote, "He died during a public ceremony, when the platform upon which he was standing collapsed beneath him." The joke first emerged in a political context when an anonymous wag invented a character named "Remus Rodham" to lampoon Hillary Rodham Clinton's family tree. And the rest is history. . ."
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: Marriage is between a man and woman plain and simple. Just because a few crybabies want to force their views on the majority doesnt mean it should change.
Yah, like banning gay marriage would stop people from being gay And if anyone is forcing their views on anyone is anti-gayers...
Where did I say anything about making people not be gay? Nowhere...so dont try to spin this as some sort of anti gay debate. I am saying keeping the term marriage between man and woman. That is the way it has been for what, thousands of years?! Now because a bunch are coming out of the closet and want to be in your face with it we all have to succumb? I dont think so. Equal benefits sure, but we dont need to go around changing things like this.
So sick of the agenda...the whole "were here were queer" attitude.
Posted by wallymac on :
Marriage vs. civil union
By Neil Schoenherr
Dec. 11, 2008 -- The following was written by Frank K. Flinn, Ph.D., adjunct professor of religious studies in Arts & Sciences. Flinn is author of The Encyclopedia of Catholicism (2007) and has frequently appeared as an expert in court cases involving church and state issues.
Frank K. Flinn In November, citizens in the State of California passed Proposition 8 upholding the idea that marriage is defined as and limited to the union of one man with one woman. This vote has given encouragement to many in other states who want to pass similar legislation. The United States is about to enter upon a period of legal upheaval on the question of marriage in the civil law. Our problem is that we as a nation have failed to distinguish clearly between marriage and civil unions.
There is a simple solution to our problem. The churches are clamoring for the right to rule over the meaning and conditions of marriage. I recommend that we give marriage to them. Marriage then belongs to the realm of theology. This situation necessitates that the state completely withdraw from defining and legislating what marriage means and leaves that task to religion. Conversely, religion must also withdraw from telling the state what is a civil union.
The state's primary interest is in how people live together in peace and harmony. Provided that the contracts among individuals conform to general law, the state has no other interest than in maintaining the terms of the contract. People can form corporations, cooperatives or collectives, joint living arrangements, or any other kind of social grouping. What they need from the civil authority is a license that commits them to the terms of the contract. If some people then want to get "married" in the religious sense, they are free to do so extra-legally according to their particular religious tradition's definition of marriage.
The civil state is not the arbiter of theological conflicts. As Justice Douglas said so eloquently in U.S. v. Ballard (1944), "Heresy trials are foreign to our Constitution." That the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman is a theological claim, and has always been a theological claim, is clearly demonstrated by the fact that polygamy has been approved in other religious traditions for millennia, such as Islam, African traditional religion, and South American tribal religion. Religious groups asking the state to determine the definition of marriage are inviting the state to settle theological disputes, that is, to conduct heresy trials.
The U.S. Constitution says absolutely nothing about marriage or the definition of marriage. However, marriage sneaked into the backdoor as a constitutional issue through the notorious case of Reynolds v. U. S. (1878). Basing itself on a U.S. Territorial Statute (Revised Statutes 5352) outlawing bigamy, the court stated that the Mormon polygamist George Reynolds could not use the defense of religious duty in warding off charges of bigamy. Reynolds implicitly defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
I believe that Reynolds v. U.S. was wrongly decided. First, marriage is simply not a Constitutional matter. Second, certain religious segments of the U.S. population have monopolized the term "marriage" and have endowed it with a restrictive theological bias. As a result marriage is no longer a concept defining a civil institution but a theological status being fought over not only between religions but also between denominations within religions. Third, the state's interest is solely in lawfulness along with civil harmony and stability. The internal form of civil unions is beyond the interest or the competence of the state, most especially when disputes about the nature and conditions of "marriage" entangle the state in settling theological arguments. The state's function is simply to insure that civil unions outwardly conform to the rule of law.
The political executive branch in the United States is not a pope with his curia. Legislatures are not church synods or councils. Courts are not ecclesiastical rotas. Judges are not the arbiters of what is valid or invalid before God, nor are they arbiters of what is legal or illegal before the Supreme Being. They are arbiters of what is lawful before the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution is not unalterable sacred scripture but a code of law handed on to us not by prophets or divinely-inspired lawgivers but by our Founding Fathers who foresaw that the law might need amendment from time to time.
My solution is simple: churches, synagogues, mosques, etc., are free to arbitrate "marriage" for their respective denominations, including monogamy, polygamy or same-sex marriage. This arbitration however is beyond the realm of the legal. Marriages are the business of the church; civil unions are the business of the state. The law should become blind to the theologically laden term "marriage." Posted by jordanreed on :
CCm...why does it matter, so much to you, if the definition of marriage changes?.. adapt,my friend, its no big deal. you will still be straight and everything in your micro world will stay the same. there is nothing to fear. when the human race advances with knowledge, we have to change some of the rules to accept our new found realities. This entire thing only concerns gays..you arent involved..so dont let it bother you.
Posted by bdgee on :
Good post, wally.....
It is bluntly obvious that "marriage", as it is defined by the religious right, who make up 95% of those demanding it be "between one man and one woman" (logically, they mean ONLY one man and Only one woman), whether knowingly or not, are being led to plea for that restriction not with any interest toward any end other than to force governmental recognition of a purely religious principle, thus defying the First Amendment of the Constitution in having the Government pass a law "respecting an establishment of religion".
On that basis alone, even the recently passed proposition in California requires that the Constitution Of the United States be ignored and is therefore illegal.
It is time to stop the attacks on the Constitution by these radical religious extremist. There is no proper place in our society for any group that aggressively seeks to destroy the Constitution or any part of it and it is time we made that known to them.
Teaching children to hate and despise our government by Christian fundamentalist is no more acceptable that the same efforts by Muslim fundamentalist.
Posted by glassman on :
Marriage in the Bible was not defined as one man and one woman...
several of the "high and mighties" in the Bible had lots of wives, and they were considered "good people" ...
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: This is just sick, and this is why im not some flaming liberal.
"Liberal Wisconsin capital would limit development, tree removal, fast food restaurants and parking to promote 'sustainability.' "
City of Madison, Wis. Eyes Draconian Zoning Ordinances to 'Adapt to Climate Change'
from your recent pix that you posted? my bet is that you are too
i walk thru most cities, they are dirty, and i don't just mean litter, ever look real hard at white buildings in most cities? they are covered in grime. that grime is primarily auto exhaust.
fast food? that's something i eat when i have no other choice. it's usually about ten times a year and because i'm on the road and in hurry...
the only real test is to let them do it and see if they prosper isn't it?
it migh tbe inbteresting to see if th epeople move there or leave based o nthose laws.
my bet is that people will move there and business will prosper...
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: This is just sick, and this is why im not some flaming liberal.
"Liberal Wisconsin capital would limit development, tree removal, fast food restaurants and parking to promote 'sustainability.' "
City of Madison, Wis. Eyes Draconian Zoning Ordinances to 'Adapt to Climate Change'
from your recent pix that you posted? my bet is that you are too
i walk thru most cities, they are dirty, and i don't just mean litter, ever look real hard at white buildings in most cities? they are covered in grime. that grime is primarily auto exhaust.
fast food? that's something i eat when i have no other choice. it's usually about ten times a year and because i'm on the road and in hurry...
the only real test is to let them do it and see if they prosper isn't it?
it migh tbe inbteresting to see if th epeople move there or leave based o nthose laws.
my bet is that people will move there and business will prosper...
Glass, I am not against the acts of cleanliness. I am not against a lot of things. However, making laws against businesses like fast food because fat people cant responsibly eat or because environmentalists dont want cars to idle at drive throughs....just blows my mind.
If they are so worried about cars idling then what about stop lights? Those produce most idling of all. It isnt an argument, but you can see how silly this stuff is getting. It is OVERKILL.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo:
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: This is just sick, and this is why im not some flaming liberal.
"Liberal Wisconsin capital would limit development, tree removal, fast food restaurants and parking to promote 'sustainability.' "
City of Madison, Wis. Eyes Draconian Zoning Ordinances to 'Adapt to Climate Change'
from your recent pix that you posted? my bet is that you are too ;)
i walk thru most cities, they are dirty, and i don't just mean litter, ever look real hard at white buildings in most cities? they are covered in grime. that grime is primarily auto exhaust.
fast food? that's something i eat when i have no other choice. it's usually about ten times a year and because i'm on the road and in hurry...
the only real test is to let them do it and see if they prosper isn't it?
it migh tbe inbteresting to see if th epeople move there or leave based o nthose laws.
my bet is that people will move there and business will prosper...
Glass, I am not against the acts of cleanliness. I am not against a lot of things. However, making laws against businesses like fast food because fat people cant responsibly eat or because environmentalists dont want cars to idle at drive throughs....just blows my mind.
If they are so worried about cars idling then what about stop lights? Those produce most idling of all. It isnt an argument, but you can see how silly this stuff is getting. It is OVERKILL.
Your arguments have been used before.
And just as inappropriately.
Once, almost in the same debasing and insulting terms, laws to stop deposits of horse crap along city streets was called silly and denounced as overkill.
Louis Pasteur's scientific evidence on the causes of diseases by bacteria and germs received almost the same illogical hatred and disdain in his day as you smear on global warming or whatever other scientific target you and your kind are attacking at the moment because the far rigfht-wing propaganda machine directs you to.
A few decades ago, almost every town in the country had some sort of law making spitting in public illegal. It wasn't, as it might seem to be on the surface, a move to stop tobacco chewing or lewd behavior, it was out of abject fear of how tuberculosis might be passed from person to person. At the time, it simply wasn't known how it is transmitted.
I was young before before Salk and when polio was rampant. No one knew what it was, let alone how it moved in the population and all sorts of inadequate proposals were brandied to slow it down, almost all nonsense, but inevitably a darling of the anti-science crowd and fundamentalist religious groups .
Recently, we had many many localities and religious groups jumping on the bandwagon to fight AIDS by all sorts of supposed ways, without the benefit of scientific knowledge, to stop its transfer. They didn't work.
Even within your lifetime, I'm certain you heard tons of propaganda claiming smoking wasn't the evil scientist said it was. It was called silly and overkill, just as you are describing things you don't understand now. Turns out, the scientist were right on target.
Think about it. Time and again acting out of political or wanna-be-truths has proved to be faulty and dangerous, and scientific data and interpretations turned out to be correct. The success record is not questionable. Yet, again and again, you chime in vociferously on the side of superstition and "political wants" to denounce solid scientific evidence. You clearly don't like the science and clearly can't understand it.
What you are is against science, zealously, loudly, insultingly, and bluntly, and nothing more and nothing less. You and your kind have a long long record of having been wrong, time after time, while science has the record of repeated almost perfect correctness. When its use is found to be incorrect, it is always because of misapplication, not failure of the science.
When you misapply the science behind global warming, you get nonsense....that doesn't disprove anything about the science behind global warming.
For example, Newtons laws were not incorrect. What Einstein's efforts did was not disprove Newton's work or any part of it. Einstein's work shows where Newton's equations cannot apply and proves that assuming they are correct in all conditions is a misinterpretation. Newton's equation remain 100% correct. Attempting to use or apply them where they do not hold is what is wrong.
Scientific "interpretation" is correctable. Dogma, due to its very definition, is not.
(By the way, Newton's laws holds exactly the same position in science as does the theory of relativity. They are both natural physical "laws" or "theories" and which term is used does not change them. The terms are interchangeable. That same thing holds for the theory of evolution. A scientific theory does not become questionable due to the use of the word theory, whatever or however the terms may be used or not used elsewhere.)
What you need to do is to either accept that you are not qualified to make judgments on science or learn enough science to stop misrepresenting it and attempting to apply it out of context.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
bdgee, my "kind" and your "kind" are much different. My "kind" built this nation, and your "kind" has been the one crying the whole way.
Sometimes there are just things that should be without using math or science to question it. There are many things that scientists have been wrong on. Your mindset is that of the typical liberal berkley professor type. Burnt out hippies drunk on "fighting the man".
Live a little you might not be as grumpy as you usually are. You are not a very happy person, and it is really sad to see you in such a angry state 24-7.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Quote Jordanreed:
"This entire thing only concerns gays..you arent involved..so dont let it bother you."
_________________________________________________
I can't agree there. At this point it has gone beyond just the gays.
That is part of the argument against it here in CA.
And worst of all they put it up for vote wasted all that money and now they do not like the decision.
It is not just about the gays, not sure it really ever was, it about the issues surrounding the issue.
Posted by jordanreed on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: bdgee, my "kind" and your "kind" are much different. My "kind" built this nation, and your "kind" has been the one crying the whole way.
Sometimes there are just things that should be without using math or science to question it. There are many things that scientists have been wrong on. Your mindset is that of the typical liberal berkley professor type. Burnt out hippies drunk on "fighting the man".
Live a little you might not be as grumpy as you usually are. You are not a very happy person, and it is really sad to see you in such a angry state 24-7.
come on, ccm..you cant really belirve that!
You're feeling a little intimidated and inferior at the moment..thats understandable. Beegs words were beautifully written and well thoughtout. He is obviously more knowledgeable than I, and (admit it) you too..and so you try to defend your position anyway you know how. But please dont...you're embarassing yourself.
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: bdgee, my "kind" and your "kind" are much different. My "kind" built this nation, and your "kind" has been the one crying the whole way.
Sometimes there are just things that should be without using math or science to question it. There are many things that scientists have been wrong on. Your mindset is that of the typical liberal berkley professor type. Burnt out hippies drunk on "fighting the man".
Live a little you might not be as grumpy as you usually are. You are not a very happy person, and it is really sad to see you in such a angry state 24-7.
"My "kind" built this nation, and your "kind" has been the one crying the whole way."
That's pure selfish crap! You are an egotistical self centered jerk!
MY kind has been the cornerstone of this country since before it was independent. (I am a direct decedent of Sam Adams, are you?)
"Your mindset is that of the typical liberal berkley professor type. Burnt out hippies drunk on "fighting the man"."
That's absolute and intentional insult as are 90% of your post. I have no idea what you might mean by "drunk on "fighting the man"", who might be this " man", or why anyone would want to fight him.
"Live a little you might not be as grumpy as you usually are. You are not a very happy person, and it is really sad to see you in such a angry state 24-7."
More of your name calling slander and hate and insult. I am now and have ever been quite happy. I plan to always be. I am open to almost anything for discussion or consideration, while you are determined to to slander and insult anyone or anything that doesn't adhere to your fundamentalist political religious mania.
You display always a radiance of hate and a vast wealth of ignorance.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
You wrote "That's pure selfish crap! You are an egotistical self centered jerk!"
My point proven!!!
Posted by bdgee on :
Yes " You are an egotistical self centered jerk!"
Glad you have accepted that you have proved it.
Of course, it isn't a matter of whether or not you understand it or can or can't accept it. It is a fact.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
The Left will not change, they remain as gullible and emotionally driven, mostly by vanity (theirs and the vanity of others which is deemed an attractive quality by those such as yourself) as they have been in decades past.
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: The Left will not change, they remain as gullible and emotionally driven, mostly by vanity (theirs and the vanity of others which is deemed an attractive quality by those such as yourself) as they have been in decades past.
Was it Ben Franklin that said it is bettrer to keep you mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and prove you are?
It can be very good advice. Also, it keeps your emotions from getting the best of you and getting you to insult people you know nothing about all the time as you have again.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
You are right bdgee, you are all knowing. You remind me of many congressmen. 55 year old men acting like 12 year olds.
You have the same sick mentality as liberals in Washington that think they know how to better spend American taxpayer money than the taxpayer themselves. The wolves of taxation are ready to feast.
Why is it always someone else's fault bdgee?
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: You are right bdgee, you are all knowing. You remind me of many congressmen. 55 year old men acting like 12 year olds.
You have the same sick mentality as liberals in Washington that think they know how to better spend American taxpayer money than the taxpayer themselves. The wolves of taxation are ready to feast.
Why is it always someone else's fault bdgee?
Three questions, cow.
1) Why is it always, according to you, those "liberals" fault?
2) What, exactly do you think a liberal is and what makes you think that is an adequate definition?
3) It appears that, to you, a "liberal" is simply anyone that doesn't ride astraddle the far right-wing fanatically fundamentalist cayuse and you think calling them "liberals", intending it as an insult, is proper etiquette. Why? Why is it acceptable for you to intend to insult others?
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: The Left will not change, they remain as gullible and emotionally driven, mostly by vanity (theirs and the vanity of others which is deemed an attractive quality by those such as yourself) as they have been in decades past.
That's funny, was my thoughts exact about the Right wing lol
Posted by bdgee on :
The right, defined over the last three or so decades to be the republican party, because they insisted on having it that way, had better change or it will die and I don't like the possibilities of a one party government.
Posted by retiredat49 on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: The right, defined over the last three or so decades to be the republican party, because they insisted on having it that way, had better change or it will die and I don't like the possibilities of a one party government.
In reality...there already is a one party government
Posted by glassman on :
In reality...there already is a one party government
it always amazes me how many people don't see this.
President-elect Obama won. The country wants to see him succeed. And I think it's important that he succeed. It's important for our country.-Rep. John Boehner House Minority Leader, R-Ohio
To figure out our government, all you have to do is follow the money. When corporations are booming, they put money back into the government to ensure they get the candidates they want into office so they can make more money. In other words, they hold the government by the testicles through control of it's leaders. However, when the greed catches hold, and the people at the top of the corporate world and the government are done and have run off with the money, and have "broken" their corporations, the government prints more money steps in and throws the money at the corporations in hopes of a big return. Since the financial health of the government is dependent on Wall Street being able to do well, these corporations, again, hold the government by the testicles.
The sad part of all of this is that, even though it is the government getting "squeezed," it's the taxpayer that somehow gets neutered in the end.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
Obama's inauguration is going to cost up to 160 MILLION....yeah, when Bush's cost more than half less than that the left was up in arms. Shows how much there is a double standard going on in the Democratic party.
Spend more! Spend Spend Spend!
Posted by rhwdetroit on :
quote:President-elect Obama won. The country wants to see him succeed. And I think it's important that he succeed. It's important for our country.-Rep. John Boehner House Minority Leader, R-Ohio
After Bush, how can he fail? If you feel that the media was too hard on Bush, the very opposite could be true of Obama. Whether you like the job he does or not, the media will make him look good (except for maybe fox-in which case nothing he will ever do will be right). My worry with Obama is that he will try to come from the "center" often, be a good president, and then get beat up by his own party.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
I noticed NBC is owned by general electric. Makes a lot of sense now these connections.
Posted by bdgee on :
"when Bush's cost more than half less than that the left was up in arms."
Who says?
Are you sure you are not imagining things and reporting nonsense without any facts or basis.
Posted by wallymac on :
Many visitors to http://www.allpresidents.org/ have been asking this question or some variation of it. There are two primary costs of inaugurations. One is the cost of the swearing-in ceremony, which is paid for by taxpayers; the funds are appropriated by Congress; in 2001, George W. Bush's swearing-in ceremony cost $1 million. Second is the cost of the balls, the candlelight dinners, the parties, the concerts -- all the festivities that surround the swearing-in ceremony, which are paid for by private donations.
If there is criticism of how much a modern inaugural costs, it is usually directed at this latter cost, the parties and festivities, even though the burden is not borne by taxpayers. Going backward in time, from the most recent to the most distant inaugurals, here are the private-sector costs of the festivities surrounding some inaugurations:
George W. Bush's 2nd inaugural will cost in the neighborhood of $40 million. That's what the Presidential Inaugural Committee is trying to raise through private donations and ticket sales to the nine balls and three candlelight dinners.
George W. Bush's 1st inaugural in 2001 also cost nearly $40 million.
Bill Clinton's 2nd inaugural in 1997 was comparatively lean by the inaugural standards of the times, $23.6 million.
Bill Clinton's 1st inaugural in 1993 cost approximately $33 million.
George H. W. Bush's inaugural in 1989 cost approximately $30 million.
Ronald Reagan's 2nd inaugural in 1985 cost in the neighborhood of the 1981 inaugural, around $20 million.
Ronald Reagan's 1st inaugural in 1981 cost $19.4 million, significantly more than his predecessors. One reason is that inflation had been sky-high between Carter's and Reagan's inaugurations. A second reason is that several balls were added to the festivities. A third is that the swearing-in ceremony was moved to the west front of the Capitol. Because of topography, that aspect of the building is much more dramatic than the east front; it was also symbolic of Ronald Reagan's western roots.
Jimmy Carter's inaugural in 1977 cost $3.5 million. Elected in the wake of the Watergate scandal, he deliberately downplayed anything that appeared to aggrandize the presidency.
Richard Nixon's 2nd inaugural in 1973 cost $4 million. Bob Hope, a Nixon supporter, joked that the three-day extravaganza commemorated "the time when Richard I becomes Richard II."
Lyndon Johnson's inaugural in 1965 cost $1.5 million.
Woodrow Wilson's inaugural was relatively lean since on his orders there would be no ball. He disliked dances. Congress appropriated $30,000 for the event.
James Madison's inaugural ceremony in 1809 cost more than previous inaugurals in part because it was the first to include a ball. Dolley Madison, the federalist era's social maven, had also served as hostess for President Jefferson.
![[Wall Bang]](graemlins/wallbang.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[BadOne]](graemlins/headbash.gif)
![[Good Luck]](graemlins/goodluck.gif)
And if anyone is forcing their views on anyone is anti-gayers...
![[Were Down]](graemlins/weredown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
