There was a time when, if someone told me he or she was a Republican, I didn't have an immediate, negative visceral reaction. That time was before the Bush-Cheney regime and a couple of wars ago. After the trashing of the constitution and Tom DeLay, with his plans for a "permanent Republican majority," I came to regard conservative Republicans as next kin to Nazis. They were not people I wanted to see in my neighborhood or around my children. As pundits like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter became more popular, I came to think of conservative Republicans as lepers.
It wasn't always this way. At one time, I saw being a Republican as a personal preference, rather than a profession of faith in the destruction of civilization. A person could be a Republican and still be a good person, just like one could be a woman or Irish and still be a good person. Dwight Eisenhower wasn't a bad president or a bad person. Gerald Ford wasn't particularly evil, either.
Then came Ronald Reagan. This man almost single-handedly turned the Republican Party into a gang of reverse Robin Hoods. His ideas about how to save money in government always involved the people with the fewest means anteing up the most and making the biggest sacrifices. By the time George W. Bush came to power, I was avoiding Republicans and hoping that whatever was wrong with them would not infect my family and friends. Now, however, it seems that some Republicans are coming to their senses.
Maybe it is simply that some Republicans have seen the hand writing on the wall. Perhaps they realize that rigid ideology loses elections. Some are trying to strike more reasonable positions, hoping to connect with real people who have real problems. Whatever has gotten into Republicans like Colin Powell and Governor Jon Huntsman of Utah, I hope it lasts. Sanity seems to be trying to return to the Republican Party.
To be sure, Republicans have allowed mouthpieces like Limbaugh and Coulter to paint them with a broad brush. They have come out looking like the party of rich, white, corporation-loving, diversity-hating ideologues. Fortunately, some Republicans are fighting back. Huntsman claims publically that the Republican Party must move toward the center if it wants to win national elections. Naturally, there are plenty of Utah Republicans who disagree and promise to move even further to the right.
These Republican extremists do not see any significance in the fact that they lost the last presidential election. The president's popularity is in no small part due to his willingness to hear all sides of issues rather than only those he agrees with. If the Republican Party wants to continue to influence politics, it should consider distancing itself from its more strident members. After all, the vast number of Americans are not extremists of any sort.
Americans are growing tired of the kind of politician who claims that everyone who disagrees with him or her is an enemy of the American way of life. Many will be happy for the end of name-calling and all-or-nothing politics. Democratic ideals require the stake-holders to compromise. Compromise had a bad name for a long time, but times may be changing.
Then I can stop classing conservative Republicans with cannibals.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 73
Ann, very well said. I was thinking this last night when I saw the Reps backtracking a bit and becomng more moderate, cheyney is trying to keep the hate alive and who knows if he and his ilk will succeed, I doubt it, hope it is not so. Eisenhower was the last good Republican., pity he aligned himself with Nixon though!
Reagan and Maggie Thatcher in Britain (Regan in drag) made people very elitist, the privialiged few. Disgusting!
i was thinking last night also, that I never had the knee-jerk reaction to Republicans I have now, nor the Christians!
I figured everybody had some religion of some brand and so did I, now I find myself cringing at the sight of anything Christian, all because of the Fundamentalists and their hate-filled rhetoric. It isn't good, driving the right way to appreciate religion away from the people!
I think a lot of Democratic voters just got fed up with being beaten over the head with the jawbone of the RR. We took a hellacious beating for most of the Bush years.....being flogged constantly with the little Chinese made flags, the car decals and lapel pins that they took as their personal badges of patriotism and which advertised their perfect faith which they believed was shared by Bush! Took them quite awhile to see thru that load of Bushit......what we must deal with now is the 20 percenters that just can't bear to step away from that illusion! We just have to remember........
"Winners need not be concerned about what losers do. Winners only need continue doing what caused them to be winners in the first place"
Unfortunately the hate will always be alive. I know too many people who can't be changed. We just have to hope the haters stay in the minority and stay out of power.
Funny. With me, it's the liberal/socialist Democrats whom I never wanted poisoning my kids.
Well, that would be nice, but I wonder how you can think that given that the Democrats have swung so far the right. I think it is just an optical illusion. I just heard Bill Maher say in an interview that the Republicans are off in the fringe right wing, and Democrats are where the Republicans used to be. We need a new party to be the new Democrats, because there is no left.
There is no single-payer health insurance option at this point, Obama has ruled it out ... that's Obama the Democrat. A discussion will soon ensure about whether we will have social security anymore since the economy is bad, and the budget has been mismanaged for so many years.
A real Democrat would say let the people who stole the money replace it. But with 1/2 billion dollars being speny on squashing health care and the whole long range Republican plan coming true just as they forsaw it, I hardly think it is the Republicans that are in trouble. As long as they get to keep their money power and the stranglehold over everyone else - what do they care what we call them?
And people wonder why I want to move to Europe...
Why?
My problem with America is the people. Americans are great as portrayed by Jimmy Stewart in the movies, but we have become the country of reptiles, eating our young so to speak, and on quite a self-destructive jag. What good is democracy to a people who do not care about their own survival or make good decisions. People all over the world are getting better educations and social integration than America. Of all places India is shaping up to have a much stronger democracy than America. We have to start admitting we have succumbed to the elite royalty that was the fear of our founders, and do something about it if we still can. I'm pretty pessimistic. Imagine that the US on many fronts now is saying we're right to the rest of the developed world, trust us, we are right on all these things, and look at the shape we are in. Ugh, it makes me feel ill.
Ann, I agree that Eisenhower represented a different brand of Republican, but I think that the Limbaugh block does not want that brand of moderation. It's a bad word for them. And Colin Powell is strongly disliked now by the majority of the Republican core, because of his endorsement of Obama.
I like to be hopeful of a change in Republican values, but I don't see it. I think we are going to see a couple more years of sniping between the Cheney/Limbaugh forces and the Powell/Ridge forces. But I don't see the Cheney Limbaugh forces losing that fight, not in the end. Moderate Republicans always look so good, right up to the end of the nomination process- then they either disappear, or they get nominated only to lose to a Dem.
Eisenhower had a choice when he retired, and he CHOSE Repulicanism. I, for the life of me, cannot imagine why. I was only ten when he was elected, but by the time his second tour as President was over, I could pretty well see that, great war leader that he may have been, he was a truly poor, do-nothing president.
Nixon was forced upon him by the wing of the party we would today identify with the insanity of Sean Hannity and the Bloviations of the Blowhard of EIB. When his VP ran, Eisenhower was nowhere to be found. He KNEW what Nixon was.
Republicans swinging to the center? Mebbe - about as much as the Democrats did after the debacle of McGovern. There will always be a very visible, very vocal, wing of extremists for either party. For the past twenty-five years or so, the Republicans' crazy wing has dominated the party.
There was a time, a very long time, in fact, in which I would not even speak to a known Republican.
The sheep swing to center because they think it is their only hope and they are right.
Featured in the The Triple Name Club
An interesting perspective. At one time, the Democrats were considered to be the progressive, peaceful, liberal party. Now they are the party of death and rigid thinking.
Your comparison of Republicans and Nazis surprises me. I believe the Democrats are the party with no respect for human life. The current president has the largest fold of sheep in history. I hope the shepherd can be trusted.
Thanks for posting to Fugitives from Ignorance, Conformity, and Peer Pressure
Key words are the giveaway and reveal the fRight wing religious bias in your remarks. We didn't elect a Priest we elected a PRESIDENT.............make a note.
What channel does Jan watch the new on?
Democrats have no respect for human life? More American soliders were killed in Viet Nam in the first 4 years of the Nixon administration. Was that his "secret plan" to end that war? Who started the unnessary war in Iraq?
What party is working overtime to try to kill the pubic option in health care? People die because they don't receive medical treatment. Sometimes simple medical treatment is all that is needed to give better quality of life and extend a life span.
No, Jan, you're all hung up on the abortion issue, aren't you? An issue which comes down to an invidual's choice. Not YOURS. That's the Republican way - make sure they're born, even into poverty, so they can support the wealthy. Don't even give me that b.s. about Republicans respecting life.
Jumping to conclusions is foolish, but don't let the truth stop you if that's what you want. I have never declared a party preference or voted a straight party ticket in my life, nor will I. I value my freedom and the right to life for all.
I don't believe that anyone has the right to choose whose life has more value and whose does not. Assisted suicide and involuntary euthanasia are legal and spreading widely in Europe. I'm over 50 and don't want the government to be empowered to choose to end my life because my health care is too expensive. Sounds way too close to death camps to me.
I don't need TV news for health care information. I've worked for many years in health care administration and am well aware of the costs, the problems, the obstacles and all of the proposed models of single payer health care to date.
Are you informed about these plans? There was no government input on these models. Experts in health care disciplines have been working on this issue for decades and I have been a part of the process. Although I am retired, I try to keep abreast of the trends by reading journals. Personally, I think it is possible to implement an imperfect system and fix it as we go along. It would allow health care for all, beginning with the most needy.
Please don't make assumptions about my beliefs. In turn, I will respect yours.
"Assisted suicide and involuntary euthanasia are legal and spreading widely in Europe. I'm over 50 and don't want the government to be empowered to choose to end my life because my health care is too expensive. Sounds way too close to death camps to me."
So it's better to let Kaiser Permanente or Scott & White decide whether your health care is too expensive, when their sole responsibility and motivation is profit? I'll take my chances with the government.
Where is the involuntary euthanasia?
It's legal in every European country except Germany. Germany still bears the stigma of the concentration camps, so they've held off.
I hope to live until I die naturally. Last summer, there was a wave of deaths of elderly folks in Europe mostly due to family members and paid caregivers going away on vacations. They left their elderly people to die.
There is a profit for the government in euthanasia. Dead people don't need Medicare or social security. This sounds paranoid, but it's true. As you can imagine, I truly hope to be proven wrong.
A little research tells me that health insurance companies are already practicing involuntary passive euthanasia in this country. Involuntary, in that the patient is not given a choice; pasive euthanasia, in that live-preserving treatments are withheld, e.g. withholding chemotherapy from cancer patients.See: Euthanasia.
Scary, isn't it? Euthanasia is legal in Oregon and Washington. I think the subject deserves a separate posting and discussion, but I think that patients who are terminal have the right to refuse treatment. It should be the patient's choice, not the family's, the government's, the insurance companies' or the physician's. I know that's a hot issue about which people have varying views. Let's just keep an eye on upcoming legislation.
Assisted suicide and involuntary euthenasia are two TOTALLY different things. I believe in a person's right to die, however they choose. If they choose hospice and a DNR, that's fine, if they don't want to do that, and they want someone to help them with a lethal shot or something, that's fine too.
As Ann stated, we already HAVE involuntary euthanasia in this country. Insurance companies make MILLIONS off of the lives of people. They deny coverage, or deny treatment, or find some other way not to pay claims.
Now, if you are REALLY interested in everyone being covered you should check out the Bill Moyers Journal from this last Friday on PBS, and go to WWW.PNHP.ORG Physicians for a National Health Plan, and get some information there as well.
Obama's "Stimulus" package was and is a Republican idea. Gas prices are up because Obama put a stop to off-shore drilling and big oil leases here in this country (makes one wonder why he had such support from Sauda Arabia) Obama kicked out the Single Payer health plan because he wants it run by the government.
Neither Republicans or Democrats in the most part are interested in what is good for the country. Tlheir only interest is in a one world government. Only a few real Democrats are left and only a few genuine Republicans.
I am told there are more people listing themselves as Independant now than Republican or Democrat COMBINED. There is a reason for that - They have both done us bad.
unfortunately we have to keep with the democrats, it is the only hope for the planet!
I was watching "Diamonds' a new mini-series on ABC last night. There was an Independents campaign headquarters, when the call came through that she had won the nomination and that the dems were backing her. After a little rally speech she said "OK people lets make sure the Republicans stay in power!"
That is what happens, people voting for Independent candidates try to make a point and all they do is take votes away from democrats and give the Republicans an edge. It isn't the way to do it, unless you are a closet Republican and hope they will beat the democrats!
Jan, The abortion issue is a moot point. Who can take care of all these kids being born to the overly-fuitful masses?
Worry more about the loss of life in Iraq, for oil, killing people with personalities, not babies, less than babies, who haven't any invested place in the scheme of things. Fetus' don't know anything thill after they are born and can survive outside the womb!
Col. George, gas prices are up because (a) it's vacation season and demand is up, (b) the planet is running out of oil, (c) G.W. Bush started a war and destabilized the region from which most of the world's oil comes, and (d) China and India are competing for resources Americans are used to having for themselves. Obama did not cause this.
(b) "the planet is running out of oil"??? Says who there are new discoveries nearly every day and new methods of extracting oil from fields that were un productive.
(a) Yes it usually goes up a few cents but this time it is more of a rush to get those prices up to where they were at around $3.00
(d) and (c) the very reasons we need to exploit our own oil fields and uncap a lot of capped oil wells. i.e. Alaska
Col., type "peak oil" into a search engine.
There is no excuse, absolutely none, for destroying the planet to extract energy. One does not poke holes in the life raft in which he rides.
I'll do that Ann. Your comment makes no sense. We have been poking holes in Mother Earth since time began. All of our minerals come from that as well as all of our oil. Until something better comes along that is what we must do. We may be able to free ourselves from using oil but until we can replalce better than 20,000 products we get from oil we will need it and the best place to free our country from buying it from other countries at high prices is to use our own. We have plenty of it to last the next 200 or so years without any importing.
Ann- You skipped right over the major evil influence that began it all - Richard Nixon. He and J. Edgar Hoover gave us the foundation for the invasion of the bastard administration of Bush/Cheney. Had Nixon gone to prison and Hoover been exposed for the crimes he led the FBI to commit against American citizens, the Republicans may have gotten the message earlier.
It remains to be seen if they will come to centrist politics. They've spit on the hand extended to them by the Obama administration. They continue to dig up their dead idol, Ronnie Raygun and squawk 9/11 and try to keep the American people afraid.
We're moving on.
Em Jay, have you read Nixonland? I'm reading it right now and I'm fascinated with how many of the vile things he did have come back around 30 years later with GWB and his crooked merry men. I'm reasonably well versed in politics but I had no idea how far back it reached.
No, Kris, haven't read that. Just finished watching "The U.S. vs. John Lennon." If given the chance, I would grind a joint out on G. Gordon Liddy's forehead right now.
I've been reading it since about March -- it's very long and dense, but absolutely worth it. I highly recommend it, although I can only read a chapter or two at a time because there's so much going on.
That was a terrific movie. I wouldn't mind seeing it again, come to think of it...
The books sounds interesting, but those accounts tend to make me want to piss on graves.
I LIVED Nixonland. I seriously doubt the book comes even close to the true evil of the man. I could spend hours naming parallels with Shrub and Cheney. At least Cheney never let anyone see him take a bribe in his office.
No HTML ... control-b changes text to bold and another control-b turns it off, while control-i changes text to italic and another toggles it off. For Macs it is the command key.
Thanks, Bruce. I FINALLY figured it out yesterday AFTER posting this.
We attended the 20th Anniversary Memorial Day Concert on the lawn of the US Capitol last night. I find it VERY telling that General Colin Powell was in attendance, yet I could not find DICK Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Rice, Limbaugh, or Hannity anywhere at this most honored event!
It's also amusing to come back and see the same ignorant "Santa Claus" God worshippers spewing their hatred of anything they disagree with! LOL
I can't say 'never' because for a long time I didn't really put a brand on how or why things were going so wrong. But for some time now I've felt similarly about my children; which is why I put them into private schools as soon as I could. Couldn't afford it with the first one ... but back then things weren't so bad and violence by idiot children in school was only getting it's start when ours graduated and got away from it --- our other two went private. Now we can't even trust the teachers or school system to mind their own business and let us mind our children, so whatever we might have to do to keep the grandkids in private school; that's what we'll do.
Funny. With me, it's the liberal/socialist Democrats whom I never wanted poisoning my kids.
Marilyn M. May 25, 2009, 8:34pm EDT
It's SO good to know that people are raising their kids to know how to say, "You want fries with that"!
My children know how to ask for fries in English and Spanish. Does that count in your unnecessarily-insulting worldview (as evidenced by this particular comment of yours)?
They all have good jobs and they all actually take classes to continue learning on the job - doing all they can to make sure they don't lose their jobs. I won't go into specifics of their jobs because it's not necessary or prudent; but I will tell you that even if they only had jobs at Mickey D's I'd be proud of them since that would mean they were not voluntarily on the public dole like so many these days. Like so many seem to think they deserve to be. Like so many seem to aspire to be.
It's SO good to know that people are raising their kids to know how to say, "You want fries with that"!
Spartan * May 25, 2009, 11:17pm EDT
Golly, shucks...my world view is "insulting"...and SO many people "aspire" to be on the "public dole"? Wow! That's a lot of presumption on your part. Do you have any facts or figures regarding the numbers of people "aspiring" to be on the "public dole" or are you just regurgitating what idiots like Brannon Howse have to say?
BTW...if you kids learn 4 more languages they will just about be equal to Dutch or Belgiun students who speak five languages BESIDES their native language!
I remember Nixon, too well, and I left the country and lived abroad for 12 years during all the Reagan bs and all the rest of it. Too many of my friends had disappeared in body, or mind after Viet Nam, a pall had covered America and with the death of the make love, not war, peace and love time, the Tate/LaBianca murders had a lot to do with the ending of trust from then, it was time to see where the origins of our western culture emerged from, and the eastern cultures who created civilisation before that.
The problems in schools and kids killing each other is a product of this 'bring more children into the world' thing. The women who have these babies, live in poverty, no respect for human life, and trying to claw their way out of their circumstances they get killed, kill others, no matter, they will have more. Better to not bring them into the world in the first place that to linger for twenty or less years killing and maiming others and leaving a family heartbroken.
Georgiana said:
The problems in schools and kids killing each other is a product of this 'bring more children into the world' thing. The women who have these babies, live in poverty, no respect for human life, and trying to claw their way out of their circumstances they get killed, kill others, no matter, they will have more.
Georgiana,
That's just not true.
Personal experience. The school my daughter attended was not populated exclusively by poor kids (although I'm sure there were many who came from poor families). Most were middle class. Some were quite wealthy.
In any case, regardless of whether they were poor or wealthy, most of the children were very good, respectful, fun, sweet, involved, happy. But some thought the world owed them a living and were fuzzy on morality and lacking character - lacking the learned/taught ability of being able to tell right from wrong, "rights" from what was right.
It's not a matter of having too many children or of being poor. (And your blanket characterization of the poor is offensive).
There are many families, poor and rich, who teach their children right from wrong; and more fundamentally (if I can use that word without someone having a total fit) ... more fundamentally, there were then, and still are rich and poor parents who teach their children that there actually is a difference between right and wrong, no matter who one is or what circumstances one finds oneself in.
No, it's not "a product of this 'bring more children into the world' thing," it is a matter of personal character of parents and their ability or desire to pass that character on to their children.
It's also a matter of mushy-brained kids having too many "rights" and knowing it. It's a matter of parents who are absent for one reason or another- too busy, too selfish, too stupid to be parents in the first place; all of which can afflict rich and poor alike. And /or it's because the government has all but pre-empted a parent's right to parent and the school's right to discipline.
I remember Nixon, too well, and I left the country and lived abroad for 12 years during all the Reagan bs and all the rest of it. Too many of my friends had disappeared in body, or mind after Viet Nam, a pall had covered America and with the death of the make love, not war, peace and love time, the Tate/LaBianca murders had a lot to do with the ending of trust from then, it was time to see where the origins of our western culture emerged from, and the eastern cultures who created civilisation before that.
The problems in schools and kids killing each other is a product of this 'bring more children into the world' thing. The women who have these babies, live in poverty, no respect for human life, and trying to claw their way out of their circumstances they get killed, kill others, no matter, they will have more. Better to not bring them into the world in the first place that to linger for twenty or less years killing and maiming others and leaving a family heartbroken.
Georgiana S. May 25, 2009, 11:21pm EDT
I don't know where you live Lee, but here in L.A. it is the gangs that run the streets in many areas. Poor people, giving birth willy nilly, not being there, because they have to work, so leave the kids unattended or worse, they leave them with older kids, these kids have no respect for human life, they can make upwars of $30,000 a week trafficking drugs and the parents, in most cases accept the money they acquire. These kids have come to respect the almighty dollar more than Jr. over there, and have some 6 or 8 year old sibling muling drugs around town for them. They get shot, they shoot back, They have no family so the gang life replaces that.
Offensive about the poor? I feel for the genuinely disenfranchised, but many are playing both ends toward an explosive middle and Marie Antoinette, or whomever when told "the peasants are revolting" was correct in exclaiming, "They certainly are"!
And Colin Powell is strongly disliked now by the majority of the Republican core, because of his endorsement of Obama.
Supporting Obama was just the outward expression of his inner self - no big deal. It was just 'the next step' for him, like having the baby is the next step after getting through the labor. +shrug+
Personally, I don't know why he still thinks he is a Republican; he's in the home stretch he might as well go on over the finish line and switch parties. He'd be happier. And I'm sure Conservatives/Republicans can make do without him.
And Colin Powell is strongly disliked now by the majority of the Republican core, because of his endorsement of Obama.
I like to be hopeful of a change in Republican values, but I don't see it. I think we are going to see a couple more years of sniping between the Cheney/Limbaugh forces and the Powell/Ridge forces. But I don't see the Cheney Limbaugh forces losing that fight, not in the end. Moderate Republicans always look so good, right up to the end of the nomination process- then they either disappear, or they get nominated only to lose to a Dem.
Chris W. May 25, 2009, 8:56pm EDT
Colin Powell is a conservative, and when he was Secretary of State, he counseled against Bush's military exploits, to no avail. No wonder he supported Obama. Bush, who couldn't show up for National Guard duty ignored military advice from a general. Splendid use of expertise.
No, Colin Powell may be a Republican, or he may think he is; but he is not or is no longer a conservative, else he would not have supported such a liberal guy for president.
If supporting Bush was a problem while he was serving, Powell could have put his concerns into an open letter to Bush and resigned sooner of his own will, giving specific reasons. He could have taken a bold, public, no return stand on principal. As far as I can tell, he never did that - for whatever reason, he never took a public stand against Bush. In fact, apparenty he agreed with his policies for the most part ... until he was asked for his resignation (a phone call saying 'the president would like to make a change' sufficed for him to know his resignation was expected).
He could have run for prez himself, or supported another one of the many republicans who ran. But he chose to support someone who is the antipathy of Conservatism. No, he is no Conservative.
He wouldn't have had to support either Bush or McCain ... he had many paths to take that wouldn't have taken him to a liberal totally left leaning prez IF he was conservative or had any conservative leanings in his heart of hearts.
Bush overspent etc and if Powell disagreed with that or had some desire for a more fiscally responsible prez, he had other choices; if he had a problem with the war .. well, there were others who he could have supported who had closer beliefs to his than Bush's. Or, again, he could have run for prez himself ... many would have voted for him. But he chose not to or was told not to. So, either he is liberal at heart if not in name, or he voted for Obama for some other reasons. +shrug+
Colin Powell is a conservative, and when he was Secretary of State, he counseled against Bush's military exploits, to no avail. No wonder he supported Obama. Bush, who couldn't show up for National Guard duty ignored military advice from a general. Splendid use of expertise.
Ann Weaver Hart May 26, 2009, 10:23am EDT
I like to be hopeful of a change in Republican values, but I don't see it.
Lee says - From your keyboard to God's monitor ...
And Colin Powell is strongly disliked now by the majority of the Republican core, because of his endorsement of Obama.
I like to be hopeful of a change in Republican values, but I don't see it. I think we are going to see a couple more years of sniping between the Cheney/Limbaugh forces and the Powell/Ridge forces. But I don't see the Cheney Limbaugh forces losing that fight, not in the end. Moderate Republicans always look so good, right up to the end of the nomination process- then they either disappear, or they get nominated only to lose to a Dem.
Chris W. May 25, 2009, 8:56pm EDT
Your article reminds me of something that I heard Bill Maher say in a CNN interview. He said that the Democratic Party today has become so much like the Republican Party used to be and the Republican Party has become so much like the Democratic Party used to be that we need two new parties to put things back in order again......
That is not what Bill Maher said at all. He said the right wing Republicans are off the charts on the right so far as to be irrelevent, and that the Democrats have moved to where the Republicans used to be and that we needed a new party to take the place of the Democrats.
Here is the link: Bill Maher on CNN the relevent passage is at 3:00.
I think we both have misquoted him, Bruce.....
Here's what he actually said:
"This is despite the fact that Obama has not said boo, to his discredit, by the way about gun control. You see, this is my point about the Democrats. We don't really have a party that represents me or any progressives. The Democrats really are what the Republican Party used to be. I think the Republican Party, which is at record low levels, that should go away entirely. The Democrats are what the Republicans used to be -- a corporatist party that represents big business and doesn't stand up for progressive issues. And then we need a whole new party that is what the Democratic Party used to be, because, again, Obama has not done anything about gun control. Ever since Al Gore lost Tennessee in the year 2000, the Democrats have not had the... KURTZ: They have shied away." TRANSCRIPT LINK
Oh well, so sue me.........
Thank you, Bruce. Let's keep it "real."
Berf: Still not yet. But, if it makes you feel better? Okay then.
W
Same old silly Kathy...LOL!
The Dems were once the liberal party. They were the champions of peace, acceptance of ALL people, defenders of the Constitution and freedom. They were always in the forefront at protests and demonstrations. Now they favor government oversight of everything from Internet use to medical records. They used to warn us about Big Brother. Now they ARE Big Brother.
I think we need all new political organizations and let's not call them parties. Our country's future is at stake and there is no time for parties. Both elephants and donkeys have gone the way of dinosaurs. We need serious, well-qualified, patriotic Americans in office to bring our country's economy, education, production and quality of life to the best possible standard. I pray it will happen for my children and grandchildren.
So true ..."now they ARE big brother." Whatever Bush did or didn't do irt this same subject, the left and Obama are surpassing.
Have you heard about the new census questions this admin is trying to slip past the public notice (possibly administered by ACORN people)?
The Dems were once the liberal party. They were the champions of peace, acceptance of ALL people, defenders of the Constitution and freedom. They were always in the forefront at protests and demonstrations. Now they favor government oversight of everything from Internet use to medical records. They used to warn us about Big Brother. Now they ARE Big Brother.
Jan S. May 28, 2009, 8:34pm EDT
Well said, Ann. And I must say, until you pointed it out, I had forgotten that I didn't always have such negative feelings or response to the Republican party. In fact, when I lived back in Iowa, I often voted for Republicans because they were the best choice. Now, I wouldn't even consider it!
Reagan certainly started the party down the road of greed, but the Bush family has single-handedly destroyed it with the lust for power and greed.
I am sure, especially after listening to Colin Powell yesterday that a new branch of the GOP will eventually evolve. However, that won't happen until someone within the party as the nerve to stand up to the likes of Cheney, Limbaugh and the extreme right wingers. Powell made a start yesterday, but as of right now, he appears to be a lone voice in the woods.
If they want to survive at all they will have to move toward the "common sense" of people like Colin Powell and away from the pseudo religious nutjobs and meglomaniacal blowhards like Limbaugh!
Just a cursory viewing of comments here and you can spot the fruitloops a mile away!
Ann: Another exceptional article. Thank you for sharing this with us.
"Then came Ronald Reagan. This man almost single-handedly turned the Republican Party into a gang of reverse Robin Hoods."
Blessings,
Wilka
Very well said.
I do have anti-republican sentiments myself, although I do also try to keep things in perspective; and realize there's plenty of them who aren't this way. I agree, that they have seemed to get farther and farther right since the 80's; when reagan was elected- and the inception of right wing talk radio. I think there's plenty of republicans who realize how much credibility and power they've lost, that's why they're so eager to paint Obama in the worst possible light they can; they see that people aren't falling for the same old divisive crap like they used to- so they're trying to up the ante. They'd probably have a decent future if they followed Colin Powell's lead.
"Republicans swinging to the center?"
Nope don't think so.
The Republicans know that the only way to regain the support of the American voter is to return to traditional conservative values.
Be watching on July 4th for a larger TEA party turn out calling for the reigning in of government spending.
Will they call for learning the difference between "reining in" (which makes sense) and "reigning in" (which doesn't)?
After reading all the comments I almost forgot what the article was about...
Ann, I have an ex-brother-in-law who has stopped talking to me because I would point out the lies, mistakes etc. that Rush Limburger would make. Of course it isn't all that hard to find his lies, mistakes and other trash he regurgitates from the Republican talking (trash) points. He was always calling me a "Liberal" like it was some dirty word. I've always said I would rather have an open mind about a subject than to follow blindly someone else's folly.
:O)
Ann, well said! It is refreshing to hear moderate Republicans speak up. Colin Powell hit the nail on the head. Republicans need to open their tent or perish. Of course, it was nice to hear a Republican speaking his mind and to know that there was no way he would be on the phone the next day apoligizing to Rush Limbaugh!
I agree that to become a great politician, you have to see all sides to a story, and make sound decisions based on that.
thanks!
The Republicans have an identity crisis. What's the one word most often applied to Republicans? Conservative. It used to be their hallmark, but they've turned 180 degrees from that. The last Republican Congress that worked with Geo Bush practically doubled our national debt, sending spending bill after spending bill to the Republican president who, for five and a half years, signed every one of them. They used to call the Democrats "tax and spend Democrats" but they became the borrow and spend Republicans. Conservative on foreign policy? That went way out the window when the Bush administration came in. We had a VP, Sec of Defense, Undersecretary of Defense, Ambassador to Iraq, and about 15 other top positions in the Bush admin filled with radicals (180 from conservatism) who had already signed on to the Project for the New American Century statements describing the objective of world domination by seizing resources. What is conservative about these guys anymore, aside from the blue serge suits with red tie and flag lapel pin? Even more extreme, is the "conservative" talk show hosts and pundits who are anything but conservative.
I have to agree on the aversion to Republicans. Over the last few years when someone tells me they're a Republican their stock, in my eyes, drops like a lead balloon. Reminds me of the Larry David Curb your Enthisiasm episode in which Larry's wife grants him one marital infidelity token for a milestone birthday. Larry sets sight on his curvacious blond actress associate working with him on a play. Finally he convinces her to take him back to her room. They end up in bed and Larry's dream is almost ready to unfold between the sheets when larry looks over and notices a framed photo of Geo Bush on the wall. Disgust washes over his face. He gets up and walks out.
What really tanked my trust and support for anyone Republican is the combination of dismissive condescension towrds non-Republicans, and the requirement to be perfectly and blindly loyal to the party by its members. Cheney himself said that the reason he doesn't see Colin Powell as Republican anymore is because Powell endorsed Obama; a non-Republican. Furthermore, about a decade ago I noticed our state government dominated by a heavy handed speaker of the house who kicked Republicans off of committee assignments because they had dared criticize some policy that the speaker wanted pushed through. From my view, that action was an undermining of the righteous powers representatives wield, because they were installed by local voters, over personal and inter-party grudges.
Republicans may want their leaders to rule with iron fists, and for the populous to unflinchingly acquiesce under every whim of these leaders, but that is not the way most Americans want to be ruled. Most Americans want more individual freedom than this approach to governance provides; and most Americans want policy issues to be hashed out in open forums, rather than decided only by one party's leader.
I, for one, am completely unwilling to be ruled at all. (Maybe that's why I was punished for sitting down during a pep rally at school.) I cooperate very well but I don't obey hardly at all.
Nicely said.
I see several here who are like me. I have no Republican friends. We are too unlike, especially when it comes to the heart.
A major downfall of the Republican Party is the party's embrace of the religious right wing. There are not enough rich voters to elect a Republican; thus, the party kowtows to the fundamentalists for votes. Should the Party alienate the right, it will fall further into despair. And I see that that as likely to happen. (Goody.)
I cannot name one vile person in the Democratic Party to equal Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Beck, Larry Miller,, and ten score others. Republicans are simply smug and arrogant.
Well, the last few years they have become the P.T. Barnum party too. A lot of PR and slogans. How many Republicans do you thing said the exact words: "We're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here." That heavy propaganda schtick only goes so far.
And then there's the conflict between their self-righteous moral exclamations and ethical issues like changing the ethics rules so Tom DeLay could stay in - until he resigned the next day.
How long can anyone push an extreme agenda by wrapping it in God and the flag?
What is all the talk about Colen Powel? Ron Paul has been pushing for common sense and the origional ideas of Republicanism for thirty or more years. Just because the Bush & Co bunch messed up does not mean the party is all that bad. It is just like hating all people of another race because some are bad.
Ron Paul is the quintessential batpoop crazy right-winger. Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush th' Shrub turned that party from nothing into sumthin' crazed and vicious.
Yeah that crazy right-winger had the gaul to suggest that we operate under the Constitution.
"So it's better to let Kaiser Permanente or Scott & White decide whether your health care is too expensive, when their sole responsibility and motivation is profit? I'll take my chances with the government."
But when markets are actually free, the only way to make a profit is by efficiently allocating scarce productive resources so as to satisfy the most urgent consumer needs and demands. When someone makes a profit, its a sign that they are benefiting society.
Its only when Kaiser Permanente or Scott & White are able to utilize the coercive power of the state to intervene in the markets, to accrue to themselves special privileges or unearned profits through compulsory transactions of wealth or capital, that anything unjust or antisocial has occurred.
Saying that you'd rather "take your chances with the government," than live in a free society under economic liberty, is just saying that you'd prefer that our rights as individuals be repudiated, and that one group of humans be empowered to coercively direct the interpersonal relationships of others from the political center, using force to compel one part of the population to labor at the behest and explicit benefit of another part of the population.
"Ron Paul is the quintessential batpoop crazy right-winger."
Yeah, seriously. The guy even suggests that the law should protect the rights of all individuals equally. Can you imagine? What a crackpot! All that crap about liberty and equal justice is just insane. Just batpoop crazy, I tell ya.