Why the Republican Party needs to get its act together

[BeAChooser]

YFrankly, if they needed a "bridge to nowhere," why didn't they pay for it themselves?

I tend to feel the same way about all this welfare that Obama is going to hand out in the next few years to people who by and large don't deserve it. If you think it's needed, why don't you pay for it yourselves? Liberals are the wealthest segment of the country. But of course data shows that liberals tend to be a lot more uncharitable than conservatives when it comes to spending their own money. Maybe that explains it.

 

[Roadtoad]

I tend to feel the same way about all this welfare that Obama is going to hand out in the next few years to people who by and large don't deserve it. If you think it's needed, why don't you pay for it yourselves? Liberals are the wealthest segment of the country. But of course data shows that liberals tend to be a lot more uncharitable than conservatives when it comes to spending their own money. Maybe that explains it.

I agree in part. It's one thing when you have people who cannot work. To my mind, a just society protects and assists those who can't help themselves. The problems come up when you start taking a hard look at who's on welfare, and why. The information on this is largely anecdotal; few people really want to examine who's on welfare, or why. At that point, you have to justify why you're examining such a thing, and the charges of "racism/sexism/hate" rear their ugly heads, whether they're justified or not.

Regardless of the where the money comes from, if you can work, you should. If you can help yourself, you should. Profiteering should be avoided. Taking what you don't need for people who don't need it is theft in my book. I feel the same way about Welfare as I do a bailout for corporate executives who squander their companies' money, and run them into the ground. (For God's sake, why the hell do we have Bankruptcy Laws if we aren't going to use them?)

 

[The Painter]

If you recall correctly, he promised to do just that. It's one of the reasons I voted against him

See!!! You just proved my point.

 

[BeAChooser]

(For God's sake, why the hell do we have Bankruptcy Laws if we aren't going to use them?)

On this we certainly agree. I've been reading that under Obama, taxpayers may be forced to fork over upwards of $250 billion buying houses for people who never could afford them in the first place. Now granted, the greed of executives of financial institutions (both democrats and republicans) played a role in that happening. But so did the buyers and the democrat organizations (like ACORN) that pushed them into such unwise purchases. Why do their bad decisions justify stealing money from people who were not greedy and didn't make bad mortgage decisions?

Is it because ACORN (the good friends of Obama) just announced that they will fight foreclosures with civil disobedience. They are advising the people to whom they forced banks and other institutions (like Fannie and Freddie) to make unsound loans, to refuse to move out of foreclosed homes and squat in those homes until the rest of us buy their homes for them. ACORN is training teams of "Home Savers" who they describe as "people ready and willing to mobilize on short notice to defend the homesteaders against attempts to evict them." Homesteaders? No. THIEVES.

 

[tanabear]

What happened to those Republicans? It seems like the party has been hijacked by religious fundamentalists, neoconservatives, partisan politics, and political stonewalling. I know a lot of former Republicans; not a lot of former Democrats.

For I believe, if the GOP continues on its present course, it will be marginalized and become irrelevant.

At that point, the Democratic Party will be the sole party in power in America.

A single-party system would be even worse than a two-party system. We've seen what happens across America, in cities and states, when one party gains complete control. We saw what happened when the Republicans were in charge of all 3 branches of the federal government. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

That is why an opposing force needs to be in American politics, to balance the system. That is why I want the Republican Party to have smart, rational leaders, willing to stand up for what they believe is right, but also willing to be bipartisan.

My $0.02.

I would say that the ills of the Republican Party are largely due to the influence of the neo-cons who have essentially used George Bush as their puppet during his tenure. As well, the Republicans seemed blindly loyal to President, and the right-wing cheerleaders(Hannity, Limbaugh etc) could never bring themselves to criticize such a seriously flawed leader.

The religious fundamentalists have been prominent in the Republican Party for quite sometime(Reagan in 1980, Republican Revolution in 1994) so their influence is probably not a major factor. The one constant thorn in Bush's side during his Presidency was the Iraq War which was entirely a neo-con initiative.

Of course, Bush's disastrous record goes well beyond that. Daniel Larison summed up the Bush Presidency best, “Imperialism, Immigration, and Insolvency”

None of these principles represent true conservatism, and neither does the Republican Party today. Therein lies the problem.

 

[Roadtoad]

So would you support the Libertarians? The problem I have is that their more vocal members seem to be borderline racists, claiming an end to Slavery was unconstitutional, that the South should have been allowed to secede, that laws against discrimination are unconstitutional and wrong. Frankly, they scare me every bit as much as the extreme left.

 

[Whiplash]

I would say that the ills of the Republican Party are largely due to the influence of the neo-cons who have essentially used George Bush as their puppet during his tenure.

And I get accused of just speaking in tired old memes.

As well, the Republicans seemed blindly loyal to President, and the right-wing cheerleaders(Hannity, Limbaugh etc) could never bring themselves to criticize such a seriously flawed leader.

This is not true. I don't listen to Rush anywhere near as much as I used to, but I specifically remember both he and Hannity standing against him at times. Like his ideas for immigration and clemency for illegals. And they were often agitating that we needed to be doing more in the war on terror, not less. More troops in Iraq. Get the job done. Even they got frustrated near the end.

The religious fundamentalists have been prominent in the Republican Party for quite sometime(Reagan in 1980, Republican Revolution in 1994) so their influence is probably not a major factor. The one constant thorn in Bush's side during his Presidency was the Iraq War which was entirely a neo-con initiative.

Another tired ole meme.

Of course, Bush's disastrous record goes well beyond that. Daniel Larison summed up the Bush Presidency best, “Imperialism, Immigration, and Insolvency”

None of these principles represent true conservatism, and neither does the Republican Party today. Therein lies the problem.

You are right in that Bush was not a Conservative. There are some good, real Conservatives out there however.

 

[Chaos]

So would you support the Libertarians? The problem I have is that their more vocal members seem to be borderline racists, claiming an end to Slavery was unconstitutional, *snip*

Have any of them ever been so honest as to put it like that? All I ever heard was the endless whining about "states´ rights", while completely ignoring those states´ wholesale violation of individual rights, in the form of slavery.

 

[Roadtoad]

Have any of them ever been so honest as to put it like that? All I ever heard was the endless whining about "states´ rights", while completely ignoring those states´ wholesale violation of individual rights, in the form of slavery.

A few have been. Generally, these are folks who are flirting with the fringe, but yes, they're out there.

(Scary, Chaos. You're in Germany, and you seem to be better informed about American politics than most Americans.)

As to Limbaugh, frankly, he's been losing influence over the years, partly because of his lust for an audience. Remember the bizarre comments he made about Donovan McNabb? Add in his ugly remarks that Colin Powell only supported Obama because both men are black, and his declaration that he hopes Obama fails. He's an attention whore, with an ugly streak in him. It was something a lot of us saw when he was here in Sacramento, as he was making remarks about Rio Linda, such as you could tell you were there when you saw the "Run, Jesse, Run" bumper stickers on the front bumpers of the pickups.

To my mind, he isn't funny, he isn't clever, his politics aren't that bright, his personal attacks against people who aren't in lock-step with him have become old, and even Dan's Bake Sale, one of the few things he ought to be able to be proud of, was a one shot because of his incredible monomania. For all that he takes news stories and tries to make hay of them, he doesn't get the facts straight, and on the few occasions that he does, it's more by chance than by design. He's inspired a whole mob of mean-spirited, underhanded, irregular critics who are contributing little to the debate, save for telling us what we shouldn't be doing, rather than inspiring people to move towards what they should.

One of Limbaugh's successors here in Sacramento was Mark Williams. Williams could be, and usually was, a pretty decent guy. But he crossed a line when he started telling Loaves and Fishes, a local charity which works to help the homeless, that they ought to leave, because no one wants them where they are, and it was questionable that anyone wanted them at all. After I picked up my jaw from the floor, I tried to call in to Williams to tell him he was wrong, but couldn't get through. I wasn't the only one with that opinion. (Just for the record: Williams was replaced by Bruce Maiman, who has now been replaced by Armstrong and Getty. KFBK, the local station where Limbaugh got his break, seems to have a revolving door regarding local talk hosts.)

I'm sorry, but I don't enjoy this kind of vicious chatter. And their close ties to the Republican heirarchy does nothing to inspire me to support the Right. If anything, when I think the Republicans are correct in what they're asserting, I find my support is done one handed, with the other hand firmly holding my nose closed.

If you want to recapture voters interest, offer something to move to, rather than merely away from. I don't agree with Obama's plans, but I would ask you what McCain offered in it's place. When it was all said and done, not much. Hard I can deal with. Non-existent, on the other hand, is a waste of my time.

 

[BeAChooser]

but I would ask you what McCain offered in it's place. When it was all said and done, not much.

Well, for starters, I'm pretty confident that the already passed stimulus bill and the proposed omnibus bill wouldn't have been as filled with earmarks as they are under Obama's *oversight*. Obama seems to think everyone is deluded enough to believe his lies in that regard (that they are "earmark free"). But then perhaps he knows Obamaites are indeed that deluded since they are busy regurgitating the lies he's already spouted at every opportunity.

 

[Chaos]

A few have been. Generally, these are folks who are flirting with the fringe, but yes, they're out there.

(Scary, Chaos. You're in Germany, and you seem to be better informed about American politics than most Americans.)

Not so scary at all. I´ve been friends with Shanek for years. (He´s a pretty nice guy as long as you don´t push his Libertarian Button) So I know the whole "states´ rights" thing well enough.

 

[tanabear]

So would you support the Libertarians? The problem I have is that their more vocal members seem to be borderline racists, claiming an end to Slavery was unconstitutional, that the South should have been allowed to secede, that laws against discrimination are unconstitutional and wrong. Frankly, they scare me every bit as much as the extreme left.

No, but which Libertarians are you referring to? It seems that many people become libertarians through the writings of Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, or Ayn Rand. None of them can be described as racists. Ayn Rand wrote this regarding racism,

"Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man's genetic lineage -- the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors."

Many libertarians, such as Barry Goldwater, were against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but not due to racist reasons. It was opposed because it was a violation of individual liberty and private property rights. Does the government have the right to tell private businesses who they can or cannot hire? Libertarians tend to favor free association. It shouldn't be the government's responsibility to force segregation or integration.

I'm not a libertarian, but that is probably how they think.

This is not true. I don't listen to Rush anywhere near as much as I used to, but I specifically remember both he and Hannity standing against him at times. Like his ideas for immigration and clemency for illegals. And they were often agitating that we needed to be doing more in the war on terror, not less. More troops in Iraq. Get the job done. Even they got frustrated near the end.

Did you hear them criticize Bush, or were they merely opposed to some of his policies? Did Rush/Hannity ever come out and say, "I hope Bush fails." Rush and Hannity might have been somewhat lukewarm about some of Bush's policy initiatives, but policy disagreements and actually criticizing him individually are two separate things. This is what Rush said about Bush,

“Long after we’re all dead and gone, when historians who are not yet born begin to write about this era, they’re going to place George Bush in the upper echelon of presidents who had a great vision for America, who looked beyond our shores, who didn’t just restrict himself to domestic policy niceties.”

Hannity said this to VP Cheney,

"For the better part of the presidency and vice presidency our economy has been strong, unemployment low, inflation low, interest rates low, and we have two great Supreme Court justices. I think it's a great legacy.

Not much criticism there.

Have any of them ever been so honest as to put it like that? All I ever heard was the endless whining about "states´ rights", while completely ignoring those states´ wholesale violation of individual rights, in the form of slavery.

Whining about something mentioned in the Bill of Rights:

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

[cwalner]

Have any of them ever been so honest as to put it like that? All I ever heard was the endless whining about "states´ rights", while completely ignoring those states´ wholesale violation of individual rights, in the form of slavery.

Whining about something mentioned in the Bill of Rights:

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Scroll down the document a bit.

Amendment XIV
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
...

So yeah, they're whining about states 'rights' to violate constitutional protections of thier citizens, specifically slavery which was outlawed by that self same constitution in the 13th ammendment, which specifically delegates to congress the power to enforce that ban on slavery with appropriate legislation.