January 28, 2008
GOP Bashing GOP, Join The Crowd
In the last 24 hours on C-Span I have witnessed the neo-cons ‘diss’ and distance themselves from the Bush administration. I have watched speakers at AEI openly and ardently condemn the Bush administration as not being conservative, and completely botching the Iraq situation. What’s up with all this?
It was the neo-cons, the AEI members, and the GOP and its supporters, donors, and voters that selected, elected, and reelected President GW Bush. How, can they now hold GW Bush responsible for their own actions? And since the neo-cons, conservative think tanks, GOP, and its cadre have egg all over their faces, and their ardent support and defense of GW Bush is like wallpaper on the internet from 2001 through 2006, is it not the height of hypocrisy and lack of integrity to now scapegoat GW Bush as the great deceiver?
AEI's David Frum now writes in the name of Republican foreign policy wonks: "And is it too much to ask you social conservatives to support a presidential candidate with some kind of background in foreign affairs, maybe one who can find Pakistan on a map?" But, this is the same David Frum, a former Bush speech writer who once wrote a book lauding GW Bush as “The Right Man.
Everyone is entitled to a mistake. But, reelecting a mistake is making it more than once. The Grand Old Party is rapidly descending into chaos, as the social conservatives point fingers at the foreign policy conservatives and the foreign policy conservatives point fingers at the economic conservatives. The morass will not end until the Republicans in a majority point the finger at themselves and admit collectively, we screwed up, let's admit it, and not make the same mistake again.
But, what was their mistake? Actually, it was a very simple mistake. They followed a basic American prescription for elections, put up a candidate who is blood to a previous president. Adams, Roosevelt, Kennedy (almost), and Bush are family names which advantaged an easy name recognition blood relative to nominate for president. They overlooked qualification for electable. Some argue the Clinton Democrats are making the same mistake.
Dynastic presidencies however, don't sit well with American history which revolted against dynastic monarchy of England, unless, the family candidate is obviously and preeminently qualified. Republicans took GW Bush's resume' entry; Gov. of Texas, as qualification. That was their first great mistake. Even before the 2000 election, critics of GW Bush were protesting Bush's history and his role in Texas as eminently disqualifying. But, few in the GOP listened, since these voices were not from within.
It is just plain embarrassing. Condoleeza Rice before the World Economic Forum alluded several times to America not wanting to be boxed in by the past. The references however, read like an apology for GW Bush's gross ignorance of history, repeating so many of its mistakes. At one point in Rice's speech, while making such a reference, it sounded as if her voice choked on the words. As her references later indicated, she is acutely aware of the vitally important role of history as educator.
The contradictions continue, the apologies are every where implied, and the humble pie has yet to be eaten. The GOP had created a truly unprecedented majority party in 1994. And, when their opportunity came to seize complete control of government arrived at the end of Bill Clinton's 2nd term, they could not resist the advantage of a second Bush president's name recognition, and leaped at the advantage. The GOP elected a president who would not, and could not, possibly satisfy even one major constituent of the new coalition party they created. They put power before qualification, politics before ability, and name recognition before record of accomplishment.
All these might have been forgiven, had the great repudiation of GW Bush as incompetent, stubborn, and insufficiently educated to run for a second term been adopted, and another GOP candidate brought forth with those qualities evident. But, the fear of 'changing horse in mid-stream' was too great to overcome. Now in the last year of his second term, Pres. Bush is eyewitness to the complete unraveling of the coalition GOP so carefully and meticulously nurture and developed from the Reagan era by the likes of Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, and Howard Baker.
While many conservatives are scapegoating Pres. Bush, a few others came to their senses and owned up to the responsibility for the dissolution after the 2006 election as discussed in an article in USA Today. "For the first six years of the 12 years, we were focused on policy and principles, and politics was secondary," says Rep. Zach Wamp of Tennessee, a member of the 1994 class who won his seventh term this month. "The second six years, politics became primary: raising money, going negative, consolidating power."
"We did more good work the first 12 hours we were in Congress than the Republicans have done in the past five years," says Joe Scarborough, a class of '94 member who resigned in 2001 and is a talk-show host. "Republican leaders who took us to the point we are right now should be ashamed."
In time, it is safe to say, they will be! Humble Pie is a dish eaten slowly, and very grudgingly. And the long term costly effects of Republican control will be slow in receding in memory. It is now up to Democrats to prove they aren't equal in incompetence, misjudgment, and power lust, forsaking the the needs of the people and their children's future.
Posted by David R. Remer at January 28, 2008 08:34 PMThe government is set up as a business with a CEO(chief executive officer), CFO, Board of directors (congress and the house), and the works. Every time they make a decision money is spent. it is about time that we had a businessman running the largest business in the world and not a life long politician like mccain, HillBilly or Obama.. Romney is the best man for the job! Vote Romney!
Romney’s background not only make him the best candidate for a slumping economy but his international business background make him the best person for negotiating and dealing with foreign affairs! Vote Romney!
slvvn, Let’s pretend we are General Motors. Oh wait…I think we’re actually doing that now, since major business decisions have shifted large workloads out of the country. And how is that working for us???
Posted by: Jane Doe at January 28, 2008 10:45 PMDavid,
When you’re right you’re right! I’ve often spoken of the succession of Bush’s and Clinton’s as a pursuit of “monarchy”. I was wrong, the perfect term is DYNASTY!
Even during the Kennedy years we (the populace) seemed to love the idea of having our own “Camelot” here in the states.
I’m physically incapable of continuing the conversation, but I think you get my gist.
Suffice it to say, “I agree wholeheartedly”!
Posted by: KansasDem at January 29, 2008 03:00 AMslvvn,
So, eight years of a president who was in the hip pocket of Big Business wasn’t enough for you? Romney is Bush with more brains, more charm, more money, and less morals. He is a prime example of what David Remer mentioned one column over, a Republican who is willing to say anything to get elected and who will do whatever he pleases once he is. Is that really what you want?
L
slvvn, we will just have to agree to disagree. Thank you for joining in though.
Kansas Dem, thanks for the comments.
Jane Doe, not working for us, working great for the Chinese and Saudi’s though, and of course the wealthy American investors in the international corporations growing over there. You are spot on!
leatherankh, reference an writer is guaranteed to win the writer’s smile. Thanks.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 29, 2008 09:57 AMBush implemented the policies of his party. They still haven’t recognized this, and are running right now on the same dangerously dangerous ideas Bush ran with.
Posted by: Max at January 29, 2008 11:52 AMMax, the policies, Yes. The Party’s platform, mostly, No!
This is why the GOP electorate is coming unglued. Their representatives are not, and have not, been following the Party Platform since around 1998, and diverged from the platform ever more as they gained more power.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 29, 2008 12:39 PM
As far as Republicans are concerned, a Republican president with a Republican Congress that couldn’t destroy the New Deal has got to be considered a failure. They also failed to deliver on their promises to the religious conservatives who are a vital part of their coalition.
The only one’s who actually got what they wanted from the Republicans were the corporations and their shareholders and they, because of their greed have driven our economy into the gutter.
Posted by: jlw at January 29, 2008 01:36 PMDavid wrote: And the long term costly effects of Republican control will be slow in receding in memory.And that is partly why I’m no longer a Republican.
But, there was no reason to repeat the mistake and become a Democrat.
The IN-PARTY is always more corrupt. The Republicans simply did it very quickly, and blew it in a very few short years.
David wrote: It is now up to Democrats to prove they aren’t equal in incompetence, misjudgment, and power lust, forsaking the needs of the people and their children’s future.Good luck, if the last year was any indication.
Most (if not all) in Congress don’t give a damn about most Americans, or the nation.
Because if they did, why are they doing just about everything possible to destroy it?
And when they aren’t actively chipping away at the nation’s future and security, they aren’t doing much of anything (aside from giving themselves another raise, like the 9 raises between 1997 and 2007).
The Democrat majority in Congress has not done much (if anything) since 07-NOV-2006, to effect an exit from Iraq, despite many campaign promises to extricate the U.S. from Iraq.
Another BIG reason Democrats won control of Congress in 07-NOV-2006 was because they campaigned against corpocrisy, corporatism, NAFTA-style trade scams, selling out American workers, etc. Yet, Pelosi and 108 Democrats joined G.W. Bush in the passage of another trade scam (this time, with Peru), giving another victory to G.W. Bush and Corporate America (over the People of America).
In fact, it has been amazing to see the Democrats:
- vote to allow continued wire-tapping without civil oversight,
- approve Mukasey who doesn’t know that water-boarding is torture and illegal based on both the Geneva convention and U.S. law, and believes that Bush has the inherent power to ignore American laws.
- refuse to do anything to extricate the U.S. from Iraq or set any time limits whatsoever,
- continue to ignore Habeas Corpus,
- continue to ignore Eminent Domain abuse,
- continue to ignore Article V,
- continue to ignore war profiteering,
- continue to ignore huge hedge fund operators, tax loop holes, and scandals,
- continue to ignore a tax system that is obviously regressive,
- continue to ignore the growing plutocracy; government is FOR-SALE
- continue to ignore the AMT tax that will help to hammer the already beleagered middle-income-class,
- continue to do nothing to stop these 10+ abuses hammering Americans for the last 30+ years
The Democrat politicians have not only failed to stand up to several Bush power grabs, but have actually helped him continue to do it! (especially by passing laws to allow spying on U.S. citizens without civil oversight).
And of course, almost ALL Democrat politicians are diametrically opposed to the majority of Americans on illegal immigration. The Democrat politicians want an amnesty before the Nov-2008 election. Nothing like despicably pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for votes and profits from cheap labor. It’s funny how the Democrats avoid illegal immigration in all of their debates. They can’t decide if the want to give illegal aliens drivers’ licenses or not. Perhaps that’s because it will be unnecessary just as soon as the get another shamnesty BILL passed like the shamnesty BILL of 1986 that more than quadrupled the problem.
Yet, they are all agents of change? The only change they want is the change in your pockets. More like agents of the status quo. Besides, we hear this “agent of change” stuff every election, and the status quo continues to fuel the decline of the U.S. in many areas (inflation, falling dollar, unfair taxation, illegal immigration, debt, regressive/oppressive systems, etc.).
If Americans really want change, it won’t ever come about by repeatedly rewarding incumbents in the Do-Nothing Congress with 95%-to-99% re-election rates.
After all, no one for several years now has been able to name 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, or even 268 (of the 535) in Do-Nothing Congress that are responsible and accountable, that aren’t FOR-SALE, that want to enforce immigration laws, that seriously want to address these the many abuses hammering the majority of Americans for over 30 years.
Posted by: d.a.n at January 29, 2008 05:04 PMjlw said: “The only one’s who actually got what they wanted from the Republicans were the corporations and their shareholders and they, because of their greed have driven our economy into the gutter.”
Right about the corporations and wealth investors who can afford to hire good managers of the investment funds. Our economy however, contrary to popular perception, is not in the gutter, at least not according the summary of empirical data, so far.
It could go there, especially if the credit card industry bubble busts before we fully correct from the sub-prime mortgage bubble. But, that remains to be seen. The stimulus for business beyond the mom and pop family business, is a hoax.
What is hurting business is a pull back in consumption by consumers. The best stimulus would have been that which put money into the hands of the poorest. Democrats and Republicans however, decided to compromise them out of the House’s plan. (Most poor people don’t vote and the politicians damn well know it, and it now shows.)
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 29, 2008 09:24 PMd.a.n said: “Most (if not all) in Congress don’t give a damn about most Americans, or the nation.”
I think they care to the point of putting Americans on their priority list, maybe 7th to 10th rung down. Problem is Congress tends to deal only with 3 to 4 priorities maximum at a time, and of course, campaign donations and reelection backing always occupy the first and second priorities. Diminishing political opponents is always in the top 3 depending on the time and issue.
So, the people and the nation’s future integrity continue to be left unattended on their priority list.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 29, 2008 09:28 PMSome argue the Clinton Democrats are making the same mistake.
Ya can bet your last dollar they are.
Republicans took GW Bush’s resume’ entry; Gov. of Texas, as qualification. That was their first great mistake
You’d think that after the likes of Carter, Reagan, and Clinton folks would get the idea that just because someone managed to get themselves elected as Governor of some state doesn’t make him qualified to be President.
Reckon they might have the idea by now?
It is now up to Democrats to prove they aren’t equal in incompetence, misjudgment, and power lust, forsaking the the needs of the people and their children’s future.
Only thing is they’ve already proved their incompetence, misjudgement, and lust for power over the year they’ve had Congress. Give them the White House and they’ll prove their gross incompetence complete lack of judgement, and vulgar lust for power as fast as they can.
Just like the Republicans did once they got the White House.
Posted by: Ron Brown at January 30, 2008 12:19 AM
Ron Brown said: “Reckon they might have the idea by now?”
If Florida’s GOP primary is any indication, I think they might. Romney’s Mass. Governor credentials weren’t what he’d hoped.
I truly don’t understand why voters would ever permit a multi-hundred millionaire to buy his way into elected office through slick and manufactured advertising, and public relations firms selling him the way Exxon/Mobil sells itself as a Green environmentally friendly company.
It they want a businessman, there are plenty of qualified business people who are not mega millionaires, who really would be closer in values and experience to the voting American than someone like Mitt Romney, born and bread for money and power, power and money. As if those were the values closest to American voter’s hearts and minds.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 30, 2008 04:05 AMDavid wrote: I think they care to the point of putting Americans on their priority list, maybe 7th to 10th rung down.Think so?
Hmmm … I think most Americans are on the incumbent politicians’ very last rung of priorities, because the bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress are very aware that the incumbent politicians have very cu$hy 93%-to-99% re-election rates (since year 1980). Almost all American voters are totally unaware of it.
David wrote: I truly don’t understand why voters would ever permit a multi-hundred millionaire to buy his way into elected office through slick and manufactured advertising, and public relations firms selling him the way Exxon/Mobil sells itself as a Green environmentally friendly company.90% of elections are won by the candidate that spends the most money (usually the incumbent; but there is not an incumbent in the presidential election). That is probably why Romney is doing well. Money. He’s already spent $30 Million of his $220 Million. He has also raised more money too.
The true problem isn’t only do-nothing, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians.
It’s the voters that repeatedly reward the incumbent politicians for all of it, too …
INCUMBENT POLITICIANS:
- Incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress (Democrats and Republicans alike) create problems and then campaign against them.
- Incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress then spend much of their time convincing voters that none of their messes are their fault. And most voters fall for it.
- Incumbent politicians in BOTH of the parties in the two-party duopoly cooperate in this fraud, and unfortunately, most voters fall for it.
- If both incumbent Democrat and Republican politicians are against deficits and debt, why do we have so much of both?
- If monetary policy and inflation are the responsibility of the Federal Reserve, what the hell is going on with the falling U.S. Dollar, and a U.S. Dollar from year 1950 that is now worth less than 11 cents?
- How can incumbent politicians complain about deficit spending, and then sneak tens and hundreds of billions in earmarks (pork-barrel, corporate welfare, subsidies, graft, and waste) into every BILL?
- And where is the President’s veto pen?
- If both incumbent Democrat and Republican politicians are for lower taxes, why is the current federal income tax system effectively REGRESSIVE, such that Warren Buffet, the 2nd wealthiest person in the U.S., pays a lower tax rate (e.g. 17.7% on $46 Million in year 2006), than his secretary (who made $60,000 and paid a 30.0% income tax rate)?
- Why, if all incumbent politicians are against inflation and taxes, both are so high (and regressive)? It must be because they like it that way.
- If both incumbent Democrat and Republican politicians care about healthcare, why do they have superior healthcare and insurance, while tens of millions of Americans have none?
- If both incumbent Democrat and Republican politicians are concerned about spending, why is there a $9.2 Trillion National Debt (and growing fast) ?
- If both incumbent Democrat and Republican politicians are concerned about jobs, why do they despicably pit Americans and illegal aliens against each other ?
- If both incumbent Democrat and Republican politicians know there were no WMD, and the pre-emptive war was based on lies, why do they not hold someone accountable ?
- If both incumbent Democrat and Republican politicians want our troops how, why aren’t they ? It must be because they want them in Iraq.
- If both incumbent Democrat and Republican politicians know government is bloated, why do they keep growing it ever larger to nightmarish proportions ?
- If both incumbent Democrat and Republican politicians are against Constitutional violations, why do they continue to do so (wiretapping without civil oversight, torture, Article V, starting wars based on lies, Habeas Corpus, eminent domain, refusing to enforce immigration laws, etc.)?
VOTERS:
- How is it, with all of the above, all of the incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress can still enjoy 93%-to-99% re-election rates?
- How is it that voters express their disdain for so many serious problems (e.g. the war in Iraq, regressive taxation, inflation, illegal immigration, etc.,) and then repeatedly reward incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress with 93%-to-99% re-election rates?
- How is it that voters can give Congress and the President dismally low approval ratings (as low as 11%) and still repeatedly reward incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress with 93%-to-99% re-election rates?
- Seems like incumbent politicians are irresponsible, corrupt, and incompetent, and the voters don’t like it. So, why do the majority of voters continue to repeatedly reward incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress with 93%-to-99% re-election rates?
What does that say about the electorate?
Do-Nothing Congress needs a good flush, and it is now time, before it is too late, for the voters to vote-out as many incumbent politicians as possible, clean up this filthy, disgusting, stinking cesspool, make the corrupt, Do-Nothing Congress police its own ranks, and stop creating and then ignoring serious problems with the real potential to threaten the nation’s future and security.
At any rate, the voters will get their education one way or another, and the voters will have the government that they deserve.
Maybe the voters will be less complacent, apathetic, blindly loyal, and prone to wallowing in the distracting partisan warfare when the voters are jobless, homeless, and hungry?
The only consolation, a built-in self-correction mechanism of sorts, is that the voters will eventually do something when doing nothing becomes too painful.
And some of that pain is already in the pipeline (such as these 10+ abuses that have been hammering most Americans for the last 30+ years).
Perhaps, when it finally becomes too painful, enough voters will understand that it is up to the voters, because:
- corrupt incumbent politicians will never do it for the voters,
- but incumbent politicians will be more than happy to keep doing it to the voters.
David,
One 1994 “policy” that was dumped as soon as office holders could was the thing we thought most important at the time- term limits. From there the platform has been something officeholders regarded mostly with disdain, and we kept voting for the bastards anyway. In other word the mess we’re in is our fault.
Secondly, though, it wasn’t just conservatives who couldn’t pull the lever for Kerry. We’re only about a quarter of the electorate. Democrats just seem to be tone-deaf when it comes to picking someone who appeals to people other than avowed socialists and their addicted hangers-on. From that standpoint it seems Republican’s idiots play better than Democrat’s idiots at election time.
Posted by: Lee Jamison at January 30, 2008 11:04 AMDavid Said: I truly don’t understand why voters would ever permit a multi-hundred millionaire to buy his way into elected office through slick and manufactured advertising, and public relations firms selling him the way Exxon/Mobil sells itself as a Green environmentally friendly company.
Because the AD and PR firms are good at their jobs. They can make the devil himself look like the nicest guy in the world. They’re in business to make folks believe something or they need to buy something they have no use for.
David Said: It they want a businessman, there are plenty of qualified business people who are not mega millionaires, who really would be closer in values and experience to the voting American than someone like Mitt Romney,…
But are those folks running for President?
I’d love to see a small business person run for President. I think they could relate to the American public and it’s concerns a whole heap better than the likes of what we’ve had in the past. And I know a whole heap better then the current bunch on both sides of the ticket.
I must be learning to spell better. Just ran a spell check and didn’t have any mussspelt wrods. :)
Posted by: Ron Brown at January 30, 2008 12:41 PM
I would like to see a coal miner or a secretary elected president.
David R.: The House version of the stimulus package gives $6oo rebates to low income workers, including illegal immigrants who paid taxes on at least $3000 of income.
Since illegal aliens use fake Social Security numbers, and the Social Security administration seems to be unaware of which are real and which are not, how can they avoid sending rebate checks to illegal aliens?
Besides, most (if not all) incumbent politicians want those illegal aliens to get rebates too.
Used to be, incumbent politicians could pit voters against each other. Now they can pit Americans citizens and illegal aliens against each other too. And why shouldn’t they? The voters will re-elect 93%-to-99% of them anyway.
Posted by: d.a.n at January 30, 2008 02:43 PMAhhhh yes the grand old party of, I hate our government, I hate our country, I hate the people of this country, let the private sector do our job since we hate it so much!!!!!!! Get out of the government, you are the reason that government is bad and it is failing!!!!!!!!!
At this date and time we are living proof that their economic policies, foreign policies and their policies on government agencies are all complete and total failures!!!!!!!!
You can not just turn our country and the treasury department over to some greed stricken corporation like Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater, Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, Exxon etc. etc. and expect that there would be anything left for us to salvage after 8 years!!!!!!!!!
They where handed a strong economy, a peaceful world and a country paying down its debt!!!!!! The free trade needed to have some adjustments to make it fare trade.
But they where like a pack of hogs that broke down the fence to the corn field!!!!!!
Now they are back with the same old song and dance that got us in this mess!!!!!!!
We can not trust the private sector (insurance companies) to turn our failing healthcare system into an affordable functioning system. We can not trust the pharmaceutical companies to give us affordable prescription drugs because they had laws made so that we can not negotiate to get lower prices!!!!!
We have a government agency called the EPA. It has one of the private sector people running it. He does not know what EPA stands for!!!!!!! It means to some us Environmental PROTECTION Agency!!!!!!! Not the automotive industry protection agency!!!!
Now the department of justice is reduced to a corrupt branch of the grand old party of I hate my country!!!!!!
Does any one think that the next wing nut will admit they where wrong and try some common sense for a change????????????????
Does any one think that the next wing nut will admit they where wrong and try some common sense for a change????????????????No. I’m sure which ever wing wins, they will fly around in circles.
And voters are very likely to continue to reward the incumbent politicians for all it with 93%-to-99% re-election rates … at least until that becomes too painful. The question is, how much abuse will Americans tolerate, and for how long? I suspect whenever it is, it will be too late.
Posted by: d.a.n at January 30, 2008 03:27 PMOutraged,
Nope. Mc-LAME will get the nod, and then a democrat will win, because they’ll be able to show how he’s really just a democrat who has mildly conservative foreign policy.
He wants U.S. Funded Attorneys for all known and captured terrorists, and he wants them prosecuted under our laws of citizenship!?!?
McCain is being “ushered in” somehow, and if you ask me, something stinks. You don’t spearhead the biggest American backstab in a decade less than 6 months before a general election primary and win the nod.
I really do believe we are getting shisted.
And our precious country and liberty and happiness and lives will have to go to hell, truly, all the way to scary-gestapo-hell, before we will collectively pull our heads out of our asses and put a stop to it. And it makes me sad to have a 2 beautiful little girls growing up right in the middle of the worst.
Shame on us for letting things go this far.
Posted by: Yukon Jake at January 30, 2008 03:31 PMYukon Jake
I know your brother Yukon Jack very well!!!!!!
I hope it is not too late and I hope that people are waking up and they get out and make a change in the next elections!!!!!!
Good luck to you and your two beautiful little girls!!!!!!!
So is it possible McCain took Florida because Dems switched sides, since their votes wouldn’t count? Yukon is right about this, Dems will unmask and devour McCain in the general election. I don’t think we’re being “shisted” though. I am still hopeful Romney will make progress in states where primaries count in both parties.
Remember the days when people used to hope folks like Lee Iacocca or Jack Welch would run? That’s because government IS a big business, like slvvn says. Romney has been very successful in business and is as close as we’ll come to an Iacocca or Welch in this election. Don’t blow it and put in a career politician. Please?
Posted by: Greg Kirchman at January 30, 2008 05:17 PMYukon Jake wrote: And our precious country and liberty and happiness and lives will have to go to hell, truly, all the way to scary-gestapo-hell, before we will collectively pull our heads out of our asses and put a stop to it. And it makes me sad to have a 2 beautiful little girls growing up right in the middle of the worst. Shame on us for letting things go this far.There is a simple solution.
Simple in theory, but elusive in reality.
Why?
Becaues, as you say, we can’t or won’t …
Yukon Jake wrote: collectively pull our heads out of our asses
Only the voters can solve it, because the incumbent politicians will not.
Of course, incumbent politicians are corrupt and irresponsible.
Power corrupts.
But it is more irresponsible (if not stupid) to repeatedly reward incumbent politicians with 93%-to-99% re-election rates.
- Unfortunately, too many voters are too apathetic, complacent, delusional, or blindly loyal to THEIR party to see the very simple solution right under their very own noses.
- Unfortunately, 40% to 50% of the 200 million eligible voters don’t even vote at all.
- Unfortunately, too many of those that vote are too fond of wallowing in the circular, mindless, divisive, and distracting partisan warfare, and too fond of blindly pulling the party-lever.
- Unfortunately, too many voters elect (90% of the time) the candidate that spends the most money (usually the incumbent).
- Unfortunately, while voters don’t like money in campaigns, they do a strange thing, and elect (90% of the time) the candidate that spends the most money on their campaign.
- Unfortunately, while most voters polled give Congress dismally low approval ratings (as low as 11%), they repeatedly reward Congress with 93%-to-99% re-election rates.
- Unfortunately, most voters are sheep, or don’t care, or are delusional and have misplaced loyalties.
Whoever becomes president, the voters should not saddle that new president with the same corrupt, FOR-SALE, Do-Nothing Congress ?
Either way, the voters will have the government that they deserve.
Posted by: d.a.n at January 30, 2008 06:26 PMjlm, quite right, nothing for the those unemployed who have used up their benefits in places with 12% or 14% unemployment. Nothing for those parents who did not have $3000 income. You know, the very poor.
Kind of reminds me of the truism about getting a loan. You can’t have a loan unless you have income and don’t need a loan. But, if your income demonstrates you don’t need the loan, then you can have one.
That is what this stimulus is about. You make $75,000 per year, you can have a stimulus rebate, because you don’t really need it, except to do some extra shopping, put a little more away in savings, or buy down a credit card balance sooner. But, if you are on food stamps or disabled on Medicare/Medicaid, or unemployed the last 26 weeks, “So Sorry, you really need money to spend money, so you can’t have any.”
Nice! Eh?
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 30, 2008 07:01 PMBut illegal aliens will receive a rebate.
Democraps are screaming, vote for me !
Incumbents in both parties are a fraud.
Yukon Jake “And our precious country and liberty and happiness and lives will have to go to hell, truly, all the way to scary-gestapo-hell, before we will collectively pull our heads out of our asses and put a stop to it.”
Yukon we have been heading to scary gestapo hell since ‘94 and the conservative revolution. Remember smaller government, less intrusion yadayadayada.. well rule one is whenever a conservative politician says anything they do the opposite and their track record proves it. A more conservative candidate is the problem not the solution. Think 1984 and reaganspeak.
And then there are guys like Greg that still think “Remember the days when people used to hope folks like Lee Iacocca or Jack Welch would run? That’s because government IS a big business, like slvvn says.”
Careful what you wish for Greg we got that businessman from Texas the past 8 years and if that hasnt taught you the difference between government and business then what will. Do you really want to try it again?
“McCain is being “ushered in” somehow, and if you ask me, something stinks. You don’t spearhead the biggest American backstab in a decade less than 6 months before a general election primary and win the nod.”
“So is it possible McCain took Florida because Dems switched sides, since their votes wouldn’t count?”
Spoken like true conservatives, cant be their fault or the party they support, it has to be the dems. Get a grip guys. Please realize that once the shine came off the conservative movement apple and people saw it for what it is not what they have been told it is they vote for a more centered candidate.
Posted by: j2t2 at January 30, 2008 08:39 PMj2t2,
1) What do you consider ‘centered’
2) Let me know when one enters the race…
Posted by: Rhinehold at January 30, 2008 09:14 PMSpoken like true conservatives
Spoken like true conservatives? Conspiracy theorists maybe, but that has nothing to do with being conservative or liberal (lawsuit in NV over caucuses in casinos).
And j2t2, how would you suggest running the government if not as a business? I DEFINITELY would take 8 more years of what we have over what the dems have put up as options. So you are aware, I work for the bureaucratic leviathan called government. What about you?
Peace, though, bro. I know we all want a better country. I’ve just become a conservative over time by watching the liberals (like I used to be) around me fail miserably. They are good people with great hearts, but you can’t lead with a heart - you need to make tough decisions and develop strong fiscal plans. You also can’t be a career politician or it will always be the highest paying special interest group’s plan. Vote for someone who isn’t bought.
Posted by: Greg Kirchman at January 30, 2008 09:30 PMGreg “Spoken like true conservatives? Conspiracy theorists maybe, but that has nothing to do with being conservative”
Greg I have observed many times how conservatives have sought to blame anyone but themselves for the downfalls of conservatism. This comment looked like one of those to me.
“And j2t2, how would you suggest running the government if not as a business?” Like a government not a business. The concept that just because you can run a corporation you can run a country doesnt work in my mind. They are 2 different skill sets. A corporation is not a representative democracy, and a CEO is not an elected representative. In fact a CEO is often more of a dictator. Corporations do not have a constitution to uphold. The purpose of a corporation is to make money for its shareholders. The government has a much higher responsibility. Bush has demonstrated the problem of a business executive running the federal government. Lets see, the Katrina lack of a response for one. I know there was no money to be made by sending FEMA into N.O., but it is something a true leader would have done.
“I DEFINITELY would take 8 more years of what we have over what the dems have put up as options.”
Sorry to hear that Greg. If your satisfied with the likes of Bush, Cheney, Delay, Lott, Frist et al then rest assured Im one of those guys working towards making sure your very unhappy the next 8 years. Maybe you want to read Yukon Jakes comment again “And our precious country and liberty and happiness and lives will have to go to hell, truly, all the way to scary-gestapo-hell, before we will collectively pull our heads out of our asses and put a stop to it.”
“So you are aware, I work for the bureaucratic leviathan called government. What about you?”
Not that it is relevent but no I work for a small business.
“I’ve just become a conservative over time by watching the liberals (like I used to be) around me fail miserably.”
Well I was all in favor of the change in government in the ‘80’s and then with the contract with America and fell for the line of crap the conservatives were running the same as most all those with a radio in the country did at the time. As busy as I was it took a while for me to stop and think about what they were saying and then observing what they were actually doing. I still dont see the difference between conservatism as it is practiced by those that claim to be conservative and fascism.
“but you can’t lead with a heart - you need to make tough decisions and develop strong fiscal plans.” See IMHO you also need to make smart decisions and your fiscal plan needs to be a plan that works for all the people not the privilaged few. See even a foolish leader can make the tough decision to pick a fight with a small ill equipped country and spend our resources unwisely for years. It takes a smart leader to avoid the pitfalls and to fight the right battles to protect the Country. This is just one example where the conservatives have fallen short.
“You also can’t be a career politician or it will always be the highest paying special interest group’s plan. Vote for someone who isn’t bought.”
I agree Greg but I would also add corporation right next to the special interest group. And IMHO they are all bought thanks once again to conservative logic on the money as free speech issue. The thing that really causes me to wonder is why they then complain about the politicians being bought. Its the only way they can run for office. Both parties make sure of that.
Posted by: j2t2 at January 30, 2008 11:25 PMGreg,
While I don’t disagree that one can’t lead with only a heart, one cannot lead without a heart, either. It’s easy to be cycnical in a cynical world, but a cynic is doomed to a forgone conclusion of failure, and ignores the least of us at his own, and our peril.
Your post rings of the angry white male syndrome (I have no idea about you personally). Given the likely outcome of this election, I suspect that he still has a bit to learn about fairness and advantage.
Fiscal soundness does take strength of character, but also requires an historic understanding of the balance between individuals of means and the rest of us. Hungry, angry people have a way of devouring their failed leaders.
Posted by: googlumpugus at January 30, 2008 11:31 PMRhinehold asks,
“1) What do you consider ‘centered’”
Rhinehold I consider McCain to be more towards the center politically that Romney or Huckabee. His attempt to do something about the political bribery problem with the McCain Feingold act makes me think he is salvagable. Hell some repubs even call him liberal but I dont think he’s that good. The other 2 candidates seem to be unable to talk decently about the dems and liberals while McCain seems to be able to cross the aisle to accomplish something from time to time, which would IMO be an asset for a President.
While he did suck up to Falwell a while back he doesnt wear his religious beliefs on his sleeve like the other 2 candidates. His position on the Iraq debacle is… well he’s no Ron Paul , ah your right Rhinehold on second thought the centered comment was not that smart was it. But I guess I needed this exercise to come to that conclusion.
2) Let me know when one enters the race…
Well Lets see what the Libertarians offer up for President this year.
If Congress and Bush want to stimulate the economy all they have to do is give me about $1 billion and I’ll sure enough stimulate the economy. :)
d.a.n
Now just why aint it surprising me the Demos want to give illegals a rebate on taxes they never paid? Actually it surprises me that the Repubs aint jumpin on the band wagon.
It’s crap like this and other BS coming outta DC and the Presidential hopefuls that I’m suffering a severe case of ED. Electile Dysfunction = The inability to get excited about any candidate of either party.
Ron, the very definition of rebate means they DID pay taxes. You are aware that employers currently employ illegal aliens and deduct Federal Tax Withholding from their pay, aren’t you? That is at the heart of the problem.
Of course the underground illegal workers may or may not pay taxes. Some landscapers operating on a cash only basis for example, deduct federal withholding from the illegal employee’s pay, but never report their income or the withholdings to the IRS. Sweet profits for god fearing, red blooded, American patriots fighting the “good” fight against taxes.
Several of these can be found in Idaho and Montana where some would just as soon abandon federal government altogether, or at least, overthrow it.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 31, 2008 04:26 AMit is about time that we had a businessman running the largest business in the world and not a life long politician
I distinctly remember Dubya promising to run the country like a business…and he is doing just that…he never said he would do it well, but he is certainly making money for his supporters!
So what is your objection??
Posted by: Rachel at January 31, 2008 08:42 AMJ2T2, thanks for responding and googlumpugus, thanks for not judging. I am not an angry white male. I am simply a government worker trying hard to make a change for the better. Unfortunately, I continue to see liberal bureaucrats climb through the ranks with no management expertise and with no idea how to handle budgets. The government (not the people) needs strong oversight from someone who has experience in these areas.
Also, this forum is for 3rd party/independents. IMHO, of all the candidates we have to choose from, Romney is the most independent. The rest are a part of the political establishment we need to move away from. We really need someone who hasn’t been bought.
Again, thanks for your responses and for not judging me personally. We all have reasons for falling where we fall on the political spectrum. I like to think mine is due to first-hand experience. I’m sticking with Romney.
Posted by: Greg Kirchman at January 31, 2008 09:03 AM
Dan and Ron: The admendment to give rebates to some illegal aliens was placed in the House version by the Republicans. The Senate Democrats removed the admendment from the Senate version. However, Mitch McConnel(R.Ky.) and the Republicans are insisting on the House version.
Ron Brown wrote: It’s crap like this [rebates for illegal aliens] and other BS coming outta DC and the Presidential hopefuls that I’m suffering a severe case of ED. Electile Dysfunction = The inability to get excited about any candidate of either party.Funny. Sort of.
We can all discuss rebates, the Constitution, Article V, torture, a myriad of broken laws, taxes, a monetary system that is a pyramid system, massive debt, etc., etc., etc., etc., endlessly … but none of it will ever get better by repeatedly rewarding corrupt, incompetent, irresponsible, incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress with 93% to 99% re-election rates.
This should be the voters’ first and most important goal, because corrupt incumbent politicians have not, and will not reform themselves:
- Stop Repeatedly Rewarding Them with 93% to 99% Re-Election Rates !
That is truly the only thing the politicians will ever understand, because the politicians are all too aware and confident that the voters will continue to repeatedly reward them with 93% to 99% re-election rates. So, ask your friends, family, and associates to think about it.
Let’s not saddle the next president with another worthless, corrupt, irresponsible, and incompetent, Do-Nothing Congress.
Either way, voters will get their painful education and the government that they deserve.
Posted by: d.a.n at January 31, 2008 12:33 PMjlw wrote: Dan and Ron: The admendment to give rebates to some illegal aliens was placed in the House version by the Republicans. The Senate Democrats removed the admendment from the Senate version. However, Mitch McConnel(R.Ky.) and the Republicans are insisting on the House version.They’re both crap.
It’s just that Democrap politicians have more nefarious motives (i.e. pandering for votes). Few (if any) politicians in either party in Do-Nothing Congress can be trusted. Lawlessness is growing. Crime rates are increasing. Constitutional violations are increasing. And many of these pressures are for one purpose: to make the rich richer, and the rest of us poorer.
Republicrap politicians want cheap labor, and Democrap politicians want cheap labor and votes.
They are BOTH despicable for pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other. Unfortunately, most of the other 50 states don’t understand what is happening in the border states.
And that is why we should stop repeatedly rewarding them with 93% to 99% re-election rates !
Posted by: d.a.n at January 31, 2008 12:44 PMjlw, that is not what the Senate conference committee said. They noted that the House version simply made no provision for identifying illegal alien taxpayers in order to exclude them.
If an illegal alien worked a legal job, they paid federal taxes. The IRS does not prescreen tax refunds or rebates for legal status. Therefore, it was not necessary for Republicans or anyone to do anything to allow illegal aliens working legal jobs to receive the rebate.
What is the source of your information?
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 31, 2008 02:11 PMGreg said: “We really need someone who hasn’t been bought.”
Right. But, is voting for the highest bidder to the office like Romney the appropriate route? Bill Gates could outbid Romney, does that make Bill Gates more Independent? How about Warren Buffet who thinks raising taxes on the wealthy is a good idea?
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 31, 2008 02:14 PMGreg “Unfortunately, I continue to see liberal bureaucrats climb through the ranks with no management expertise and with no idea how to handle budgets. The government (not the people) needs strong oversight from someone who has experience in these areas.”
Greg Of course without the particulars its hard to defend the vague liberal bashing you choose to participate in. The Bush administration has placed the different department heads the past 7 years. It seems strange that they would bypass conservatives in favor of liberals as they are noted for McCarthying liberals throughout the government. In fact Bush is famous for installing unqualified conservatives in high offices. Remember well done Brownie? One of those business decisions that seems to prove my point. Besides after this past 7 years of a repub house and an administration with a businessman as the Prez do you really want to bring up strong oversight and experience? Seems corruption and neglect would be more appropriate.
“IMHO, of all the candidates we have to choose from, Romney is the most independent. The rest are a part of the political establishment we need to move away from. We really need someone who hasn’t been bought.”
Well what about Ron Paul on the repub side? Greg any candidate that supports political bribery as free speech, which Romney does has been bought. BTW is there any difference between Romney and Bush?
“We all have reasons for falling where we fall on the political spectrum. I like to think mine is due to first-hand experience. I’m sticking with Romney.”
well Greg after “I DEFINITELY would take 8 more years of what we have over what the dems have put up as options.” somehow Im not suprised. For those of us that are ready to accept 8 more years of what we have Romney really isnt an option, of course neither is the republican party. So once again it seems to be the lesser of two evils
BTW do you really think if Romney makes it he will put a stop to those liberals bureaucrats moving up the ladder?
Of course that should be “For those of us that aren’t ready to accept 8 more years of…”
Posted by: j2t2 at January 31, 2008 03:16 PMI’ve been listening to the Democrap’s (Hillarious and Ohbama, and they are so messed up on immigration, it is ridiculous.
Vote for me! Vote for em!
And McCain is no better.
Posted by: d.a.n at January 31, 2008 08:47 PMDavid Said: You are aware that employers currently employ illegal aliens and deduct Federal Tax Withholding from their pay, aren’t you? That is at the heart of the problem.
But are the employers sending those taxes into the IRS? I somehow doubt it which would mean that the illegals actually didn’t pay taxes.
I had an employer right after I got out of service that deducted taxes from our checks. But he never sent them in. The IRS didn’t care one bit that the taxes were deducted from our checks. As far as they were concerned we never paid taxes and wanted their money. With penalties. Sense by the time this was discovered my former employer had skipped town guess who got to pay the taxes and penalties? I didn’t get hit that hard sense I only worked for him for a couple of months. But anyone who had worked for him much longer sure enough got the shaft.
jlw
I don’t give a rats behind who put the amendment in the bill. It’s still a stupid idea. If the Senate Democrats took it out their version then they finally got something right. Now if we can only keep them doing things right. But I seriously doubt they will.
d.a.n, McCain is better on this illegal immigration issue because he is committed to halting the flow at the border. Unlike Obama and Clinton who give lip service to border security and then vote in the Senate to eliminate funding for the border barriers. McCain voted for the amendment to add funds for the border barriers and other border security measures where needed.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 1, 2008 05:42 AMRon, there are certainly many, and I mentioned that. But, most legitimate employers are afraid to risk income evasion and theft conviction, and cannot profit from a cash only business.
Cash only businesses required payment from their customers in cash which they may not report, and then can also not report the wages for the illegals who served that customer. If the customer pays by check or credit card, IRS has a paper trail to convict.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 1, 2008 05:45 AMj2t2, Ron Paul hasn’t a clue about a lot of what he talks about. It sounds like it makes logical sense, but, when real logic and math are put to most of his ideas, the entire nation collapses.
No federal taxes at all, for example. Anarchy, suffering, and chaos would ensue. That is, of course, if he could Congress to play along, which is a near guaranteed impossibility, for both good and selfish motives.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 1, 2008 05:48 AMDavid, I’ve heard he talks about a return to the gold standard, but really is there a snowballs chance in hell he could ever pull that off? I liked the way he spoke up at the CNN Q&A regarding the real issue on the Iraq debacle. He doesnt seem as “bought” as some of the others.
Posted by: j2t2 at February 1, 2008 09:35 AMDavid wrote: d.a.n, McCain is better on this illegal immigration issue because he is committed to halting the flow at the border. Unlike Obama and Clinton who give lip service to border security and then vote in the Senate to eliminate funding for the border barriers. McCain voted for the amendment to add funds for the border barriers and other border security measures where needed.If he can be believed. After all, he voted for the shamnesty BILL.
I think McCain still wants an amnesty, and if passed, it will quadruple the problem again like the shamnesty BILL of 1986 did.
McCain has more compassion for illegal aliens than these Americans.
McCain and the other clowns in Do-Nothing Congress don’t mind despicably pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other.
1 Million immigrate to the U.S. annually per year.
Why, when another 4 Million come here illegally?
Why? Greed and selfishness. The politicians want cheap labor for profits, and to depress wages, and the Democrat politicians want votes.
Unless the existing laws are enforced, the fence alone won’t help much.
We need both internal enforcement AND border security.
And what about enforcing existing laws?
As you know, Border security alone is not even half of the solution.
I don’t think any of the presidential candidates are serious about illegal immigration.
Also, McCain is just another Bush, but worse.
McCain is like Bush on many major issues, and the few things Bush was right about, McCain was wrong. I hope Nader runs.
Otherwise, I’ll have to write-in Mickey Mouse for president.
Politicians don’t care what MOST Americans polled want (laws enforced and borders secured).
But, why should they when most voters repeatedly reward irresponsible, arrogant incumbent politicians with 93%-to-99% re-election rates?
At any rate, the voters will have the government that they deserve.
Posted by: d.a.n at February 1, 2008 12:54 PMd.a.n. that victims of illegal aliens site you link to is staggering. Its hard to justify not pursueing this problem immediately. I would think that any plan would have to include modifications to NAFTA in order for the plan to be successful.
Posted by: j2t2 at February 1, 2008 01:48 PMj2t2 wrote: David, I’ve heard he talks about a return to the gold standard, but really is there a snowballs chance in hell he could ever pull that off?Probably not.
A gold, silver, or commodity backed currency has some obvious problems (i.e. it is not flexible enough since more of the commodity must be obtained to adjust the money supply), and it is not really required.
All that is required is a stable currency.
A stable currency can be achieved by eliminating usury.
Usury creates a mathematical problem that dooms the system to a vicious cycle with all sorts of bad side-effects.
Usury requires the money supply to grow continuously, to stay ahead of the inevitable collapse.
But money is created as debt.
So, the debt must grow.
But there’s interest on the debt, and often many times larger than the principal.
So, more money must be created.
But that causes inflation, and rising prices, which erodes the value of the currency.
Hence the falling U.S. Dollar against all major currencies.
Hence, the $150 Billion economic stimulus package.
So more money must be created.
It’s a vicious circle that creates bubbles and economic instability that harms most people (excluding the very wealthy that can preserve wealth with real estate, gold, corporations, buildings, land, and other real assets).
But all of this creates pressures to increase growth, increase GDP, increase productivity, depress wages via legal and illegal immigration, pressures on healthcare systems, regressive taxes, lawlessness, etc.
The current Federal Reserve banking system is a pryamid scheme (a 9:1 fractional system, where up to 90% of each new loan is new money created out of thin air).
A stable monetary system and long-term economic stability can not be achieved that way, and creates many pressures and abuses to stave off the inevitable collapse.
j2t2 wrote: d.a.n. that victims of illegal aliens site you link to is staggering. Its hard to justify not pursueing this problem immediately. I would think that any plan would have to include modifications to NAFTA in order for the plan to be successful.It is despicable the way our politicians are pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for profits from cheap labor and votes.
Thousands of Americans are murdered every year … all crimes that could have been prevented, had our do-nothing, look-the-other way politicians did their job to enforce existing laws and secure our borders (per their duty as stated in Aricle 4, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution).
It’s getting ugly out there, and the lawlessness and crime is increasing.
Posted by: d.a.n at February 1, 2008 02:13 PMd.a.n said: “I think McCain still wants an amnesty, and if passed, it will quadruple the problem again like the shamnesty BILL of 1986 did.”
Frankly, if the borders are first secured, I don’t much care what humane approach either party takes toward the illegals already here, deport, put at the back of the line, or provide a path to citizenship.
The key to preventing even more from coming is not what we do with illegals already here, but, securing the damn borders against unlawful entry and invasion. You know, one of the most basic functions of ANY government on Earth. American politicians are such traitors to our Constitution it is abhorrent, all in the name of power and wealth.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 1, 2008 04:00 PMBorder security is important, but it won’t stop illegal immigration any more than it drug smuggling, unless existing laws are also enforced to stop the illegal employers.
BOTH are needed:
- (1) Border security
- (2) and eliminate magnets (enforce existing laws)
As for being humane, the ONLY illegal aliens (if any) that should be given a path (not amnesty) to citizenship is the truly innocent persons, which are a small percentage of persons that:
- were brought into the U.S. illegally by their parent(s) when young
- and have lived over N years of their life in the U.S.,
- and are no longer dependent on their parents.
This will be a painfully difficult and costly process, but one that will only get more costly and difficult until the borders are secured and the illegal employers are stopped from employing illegal aliens. Another broad amnesty is not the solution. Our politicians already failed to secure the borders and enforce existing laws after the last amnesty of 1986, so they can not be trusted again, and must first secure the borders and enforce existing laws before considering a path to citizenship ONLY for the truly innocent persons.
As for the rest, they should be grateful for what they have received thus far, and leave ! We can even offer to provide their transportation.
Again, if you don’t eliminate the magnets, border security alone will NOT work. Unless existing laws are enforced too, illegal employers and human traffikers will continue to smuggle illegal aliens into the country.
Posted by: d.a.n at February 1, 2008 04:54 PMJ2T2 Says: “BTW do you really think if Romney makes it he will put a stop to those liberals bureaucrats moving up the ladder? “
No, that’s why we need someone with business expertise to oversee them.
Posted by: Greg Kirchman at February 1, 2008 09:40 PMGreg said “No, that’s why we need someone with business expertise to oversee them.”
Well Greg using that logic Mitt should not be CIC if he has no military experience should he.
See Greg it used to be the President would appoint competent derpartment heads to run the different operations of the government. Then Bush came along and threw competent out the window. So I can see where your coming from, but when the current administration is finally removed from office there may be a chance we can get competency back into the leadership of this Country and fix your concern.
HTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
<strike>strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation.
