View Full Version : Leaving the GOP
http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all-reflections-gop-operative-who-left-cult/1314907779
Very sobering, and I thought accurate, reflections from a now former Republican.
Yay. My father, a lifelong R, retired attorney, and kind, caring man left during Bush's second term. He refers to Mr. Bush as The Troglodyte... cannot even utter his name. The R's replaced sane and decent men like my father with lunatics like Ms. Bachmann & her supporters, IMHO.
Two sides to every story...I always wonder what happened to tradtional democrats, who have been replaced with Saul Alinsky-bots, training lackeys to trade votes for handouts, ALWAYS play the racecard, support union-organized thuggery, engage in fear-mongering among seniors over social security and medicare and hate Evangelical Christians...not like the true Dems of the South I grew up knowing
Yay. My father, a lifelong R, retired attorney, and kind, caring man left during Bush's second term. He refers to Mr. Bush as The Troglodyte... cannot even utter his name. The R's replaced sane and decent men like my father with lunatics like Ms. Bachmann & her supporters, IMHO.
I've seen Michelle Bachmann speak during two debates now and she seemed reasonable to me during both events.
I too was a life-long Republican, but left about the time Bush-Cheney lied us into invading Iraq. Their actions were a mass betrayal of everything I ever thought that the US stood for. I now consider myself an independent.
I don't know what traditional democrats were (My mom kept saying they were trying to ruin the country), but the ones of today are a heck of a lot saner than so much of what you see on the right - Palin, Perry, Bachmann.... egads.
You can also count me as one who thinks church and state should remain separate.
The 'true Dems' of the south are now registered as 'Republicans'. Winning them over was one of the acknowledged strategies (see Southern Strategy below) the vote-poor 'money' Republicans employed to start winning elections again. That plus later tossing activist Christians the abortion bone that they are still running with.
After watching this unfold over the years, un-coincidentally, many moderate Republicans became independents. It's not so much that we left our party, but rather our party left us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
Southern strategy
In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to the late-20th century Republican Party strategy of winning elections in Southern states by exploiting anti-African American racism among Southern white voters and appealing to states' rights. Though the "Solid South" had been a longtime Democratic Party stronghold due to the Democratic Party's defense of slavery prior to the American Civil War and segregation for a century thereafter, many white Southern Democrats left the party following the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and desegregation.
The strategy was first adopted under future Republican President Richard Nixon in the late 1960s and continued through the latter decades of the 20th century under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.[1] The strategy was successful in achieving its goals; it led to the electoral realignment of Southern states to the Republican Party, but at the expense of losing more than 90 percent of black voters to the Democratic Party. As the 20th century came to a close, the Republican Party began trying to appeal again to black voters, though with little success.[1] During the 2000s decade, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman formally apologized for his party's use of the Southern Strategy in the previous century. Michael Steele served as the party's first African-American chairman from January 2009-January 2011.
I watched the GOP debate tonight and it was really very scary to me. I have never seen or heard such extreme people vying to run for President. IMO, the only two that showed any measure of sanity at all were Huntsman and Romney.
If any of these people are successful it will be an environmentally catastrophic. They have absolutely no regard for our air/water or health and define success based solely on continued war and consumption. We you hear people seriously talking about whether evolution is real, that climate change not real, and the roar from the crowd in response to just a question about the Death Penalty it makes you wonder who these people are.
Frightening.
Peace
Two sides to every story...I always wonder what happened to tradtional democrats, who have been replaced with Saul Alinsky-bots, training lackeys to trade votes for handouts, ALWAYS play the racecard, support union-organized thuggery, engage in fear-mongering among seniors over social security and medicare and hate Evangelical Christians...not like the true Dems of the South I grew up knowing
What exactly is "the race card"? I have never understood this phrase.
I thought about this when former Senator Mark O. Hatfield died recently. I voted for him repeatedly when I lived in Oregon, along with Senator Packwood. Both were staunchly anti-war. My mother was a life-long Republican until Ronald Reagan finally pushed her over the edge and she changed her registration. I could happily vote today for the likes of Sen. Hatfield or Dwight Eisenhower. We thought Barry Goldwater was crazy back in the day--in fact the stock reply to his campaign slogan "In your heart, you know he's right" was "In your guts, you know he's nuts." But he looks statesmanlike next to today's Republican lineup, IMNHO.
What exactly is "the race card"? I have never understood this phrase.
An example would be when at the Texas GOP Convention they were passing out buttons asking if we can still call it the White House if Obama is elected?
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/26367/thumbs/s-GOP-PIN-IN-TEXAS-large.jpg
Peace
An example would be when Rush Limbaugh sings Barack the Magic Negro, or rants that 'we need to put this guy back in his place'.
Here's another lovely contribution to our civil dialogue by the left...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/07/video-game-targets-tea-party-zombies-fox-news-personalities/?test=latestnews
If you think this is funny or you would like to play...you are a.????
That video game is disgusting, as are all killing type video games. I never allowed any such game in my house. But this is a video game, hardly something coming from 'the left', unless you feel the need to assign party affiliation to virtually everything like other languages assign gender to every word.
Now come up with examples of leaders or politicians on the left encouraging violence. You know I can come up with plenty of examples from the right.
... But this is a video game, hardly something coming from 'the left', unless you feel the need to assign party affiliation to virtually everything...
Gosh the inventor of the game self identifies as a leftie, he doesn't need catwoman to do it.
Of all of that race stuff, I thought that the button about the White House was crude, but I laughed at the The Magic Negro song by Shinkman. It's a funny parody.
poetry_writer
9-8-11, 10:56am
I hate the think of the bashing and trashing of each of the candidates on either side. Its pointless and childish and stupid and the media will certainly do it. This forum is an example, of the silly and (untrue) comments made about candidates.
Gosh the inventor of the game self identifies as a leftie, he doesn't need catwoman to do it.
Of all of that race stuff, I thought that the button about the White House was crude, but I laughed at the The Magic Negro song by Shinkman. It's a funny parody.
So it's fair game to bring in anyone who self identifies as a conservative and tag them as a spokesperson of the right? Maybe Fred Phelps?
I never cared for this "guilt by association" thing. Carried to its conclusion, every group can be considered just a bunch of wackos.
I watched the GOP debate tonight and it was really very scary to me. I have never seen or heard such extreme people vying to run for President. IMO, the only two that showed any measure of sanity at all were Huntsman and Romney.
If any of these people are successful it will be an environmentally catastrophic. They have absolutely no regard for our air/water or health and define success based solely on continued war and consumption. We you hear people seriously talking about whether evolution is real, that climate change not real, and the roar from the crowd in response to just a question about the Death Penalty it makes you wonder who these people are.
Frightening.
Peace
Your summary of this event is peculiar. But let's get specific on at least one thing: can you summarize what was said when you heard "people seriously talking about whether evolution is real?" Voices in your head, me thinks, but please, enlighten me.
So it's fair game to bring in anyone who self identifies as a conservative and tag them as a spokesperson of the right? Maybe Fred Phelps?
I think that the inventor of the video game would have more credibility as only a businessman if his range of products didn't entirely vilify the right. He's made previous products along the same lines as this one.
edited to add:
But I don't consider him a "spokesperson" of the left. As catwoman said, he's part of tdialog in the public square. Pay attention to him or not, he is there. As is Fred Phelps.
I fond it very sad when the audience cheered and clapped when Perry was asked the death penalty question. I believe the death of anyone is no happy event. This again shows how far the Republican party has moved to the right.
gimmethesimplelife
9-8-11, 12:32pm
You know, this topic has really made me think, and to those of you who have followed my posts over the years, please don't have a heart attack here.....But there was a time in the history of the US when I might have actually voted Republican, maybe.....From the late 1940's throught the mid 60's when the American middle class was in it's heyday and by working hard you could actually pretty much be assured of accomplishing something and have some stability - I think under those conditions I could buy into the basic ideas of the Republican party better - free enterprise, hard work, personal responsibility, competition (tho in those days I don't think competition was so brutal as it is today). Under today's conditions for me personally the stance of the Republican party just does not work and I can understand why there would be those who would leave it. Just my two cents. Rob
In 1972 I manned the phone lines to help re-elect Richard Nixon. Fast forward to 2000 when I sent a campaign contribution to help re-elect GWB. Between those two points, voting was pretty much just pulling the Republican lever. Then came Iraq. That was the beginning of my disenchantment with the Republican Party. I didn't leave them--they left me.
In 1972 I manned the phone lines to help re-elect Richard Nixon. Fast forward to 2000 when I sent a campaign contribution to help re-elect GWB. Between those two points, voting was pretty much just pulling the Republican lever. Then came Iraq. That was the beginning of my disenchantment with the Republican Party. I didn't leave them--they left me.
Roughly 40% of Democrats in the House and 60% in the Senate voted in favor of the Iraq Resolution. Did they leave you too?
Roughly 40% of Democrats in the House and 60% in the Senate voted in favor of the Iraq Resolution. Did they leave you too?
Knowing everything you know now - you honestly do not believe that the American public and Congress were mislead on Iraq?
Peace
Knowing everything you know now - you honestly do not believe that the American public and Congress were mislead on Iraq?
Peace
I think that some of the intelligence turned out to be faulty. I think the real question is, was it intentionally faulty? It seems that many, after the fact, think so. I'm not one of them.
I too was a life-long Republican, but left about the time Bush-Cheney lied us into invading Iraq. Their actions were a mass betrayal of everything I ever thought that the US stood for. I now consider myself an independent.
Ditto!! And although I considered going back (to the dark side ;-)!) when McCain ran, he lost me once he choose Palin. Now I'm an Obama Mama all the way and will Ba"rock" the vote again ;-)!
I think the real question is, was it intentionally faulty?
Hmmm... Dick Cheney wouldn't "mislead" would he? And what about the Joint Chiefs? The CIA? Nah, they wouldn't "mislead" :-)! I'm a strong supporter of the military but even for me the Iraq invasion on so little (and so weak) intel was way over the top and out of line.
Hmmm... Dick Cheney wouldn't "mislead" would he? And what about the Joint Chiefs? The CIA? Nah, they wouldn't "mislead" :-)! I'm a strong supporter of the military but even for me the Iraq invasion on so little (and so weak) intel was way over the top and out of line.
You're implying something that is not in evidence.
The previous administration as well as many of our European allies thought Iraq was still in possession of WMD's. Were they all misleading us?
You're implying something that is not in evidence.
The previous administration as well as many of our European allies thought Iraq was still in possession of WMD's. Were they all misleading us?
I don't want to veer totally off topic but here (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html) is a link to the Senate Intelligence Committee's finding on Iraq. Take a little time and I think you might change your mind - but maybe not.
This is a direct quote from Sen. Jay Rockefeller, "In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent," the Committee chairman, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, said on releasing the 172-page report. "As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed."There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence," he added. "But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate."
Peace
Roughly 40% of Democrats in the House and 60% in the Senate voted in favor of the Iraq Resolution. Did they leave you too?
No, I think they were as misled as I was.
No, I think they were as misled as I was.
Was President Clinton misled in 1998? http://articles.cnn.com/1998-12-16/politics/1998_12_16_transcripts_clinton_1_saddam-hussein-unscom-iraq-strike?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS
Perhaps it was Saddam Hussein who intentionally misled the entire world's intelligence communities?
Was President Clinton misled in 1998? http://articles.cnn.com/1998-12-16/politics/1998_12_16_transcripts_clinton_1_saddam-hussein-unscom-iraq-strike?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS
Perhaps it was Saddam Hussein who intentionally misled the entire world's intelligence communities?
Did President Clinton attack Iraq? Did President Clinton try to cherry pick and fudge to make a case to attack Iraq? I'm sure President Clinton suspected a lot of things, many of which probably were true. But the big difference is, he didn't mislead the congress and nation to match the little voices in his head.
Did President Clinton attack Iraq? Did President Clinton try to cherry pick and fudge to make a case to attack Iraq? I'm sure President Clinton suspected a lot of things, many of which probably were true. But the big difference is, he didn't mislead the congress and nation to match the little voices in his head.
Actually, he did order air strikes in Iraq. Did you read the article? If not, it wasn't that long ago, were you just not paying attention?
He used the same rationale that his successor did. I don't understand why you would apply such a blatant double standard. Oh wait, yes I do. >8)
Did I trip out, or did they trip me out?
Peace
You're implying something that is not in evidence.
The previous administration as well as many of our European allies thought Iraq was still in possession of WMD's. Were they all misleading us?
As you said - faulty intelligence. However, the UN Security Councel had drafted and argued for more dipolmatic solutions rather than invasion UNTIL it could actually be proven that there were WMD. The US & GB (and segment of a couple of other countries) choose to go against the UN vote and invade. What I think was "misleading" was that the US National Security Council, along with the various sub-committees on Intelligence, CIA, DoD, etc.., mislead the Pres., Congress, etc... into believing that their were in fact WMD when they didn't actually have any more real proof then the UN did.
As you said - faulty intelligence. However, the UN Security Councel had drafted and argued for more dipolmatic solutions rather than invasion UNTIL it could actually be proven that there were WMD. The US & GB (and segment of a couple of other countries) choose to go against the UN vote and invade. What I think was "misleading" was that the US National Security Council, along with the various sub-committees on Intelligence, CIA, DoD, etc.., mislead the Pres., Congress, etc... into believing that their were in fact WMD when they didn't actually have any more real proof then the UN did.
So, given that, do you believe that the "Republicans", in general, and President Bush specifically, intentionally misled the American people?
So, given that, do you believe that the "Republicans", in general, and President Bush specifically, intentionally misled the American people?
Not the republicans in general and not even Bush, but yes, some of the Bush Cabinet - especially the military & intelligence leaders & Cheney. I do think it was intentional. IMHO they choose to "embellish" on intel that was, at that point in time, suppositional (sp?) rather than factual in order to justify an invasion that they wanted - or that they believed was needed. They probably did believe that there were WMD but there wasn't enough info at that time to justify an invasion so they embellished.
Not the republicans in general and not even Bush, but yes, some of the Bush Cabinet - especially the military & intelligence leaders & Cheney. I do think it was intentional. IMHO they choose to "embellish" on intel that was, at that point in time, suppositional (sp?) rather than factual in order to justify an invasion that they wanted - or that they believed was needed. They probably did believe that there were WMD but there wasn't enough info at that time to justify an invasion so they embellished.
So, in 1998, when President Clinton said (http://articles.cnn.com/1998-12-16/politics/1998_12_16_transcripts_clinton_1_saddam-hussein-unscom-iraq-strike?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS)....
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the
well being of his people, the peace of his region,the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with anew Iraqi
government a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government
that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time
and effort.We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of
Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.
The decision to use force is never cost free. Whenever American forces are
placed in harms way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused
on Iraqs military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.
Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harms
way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.
We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have
absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond
forcefully.
Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of
inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far
greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He
will make war on his own people.
And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy
them, and he will use them.
....and considering the terrorist threat at the time, Saddam's refusal to comply with UN sanctions, his firing upon aircraft attempting to enforce the no-fly zone, and the very real possibility that he may partner with Al-Qaeda in their joint efforts against the west, the Bush administration simply made a false claim in order to justify an invasion? That there was no compelling reason to take force to ensure that terrorists did not get their hands on whatever weapons he may have at his disposal and to ensure that he would not initiate further force against the western forces tasked with enforcing the UN's sanctions?
We know that he was warned as far back as the above Clinton speech what the consequences of those actions would be, and yet it's still a simple matter of "Bush lied, people died"?
If you were in charge and believed the truism of "the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction", what would you have done?
DocHolliday
9-9-11, 7:45pm
The 'true Dems' of the south are now registered as 'Republicans'. Winning them over was one of the acknowledged strategies (see Southern Strategy below) the vote-poor 'money' Republicans employed to start winning elections again. That plus later tossing activist Christians the abortion bone that they are still running with.
It's funny reading about the so-called "Southern strategy" and Presidential elections, Nixon won 32 and 49, Reagan won 44 and 49. That looks like more of a "National strategy" to me...
So, in 1998, when President Clinton said (http://articles.cnn.com/1998-12-16/politics/1998_12_16_transcripts_clinton_1_saddam-hussein-unscom-iraq-strike?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS)....
....and considering the terrorist threat at the time, Saddam's refusal to comply with UN sanctions, his firing upon aircraft attempting to enforce the no-fly zone, and the very real possibility that he may partner with Al-Qaeda in their joint efforts against the west, the Bush administration simply made a false claim in order to justify an invasion? That there was no compelling reason to take force to ensure that terrorists did not get their hands on whatever weapons he may have at his disposal and to ensure that he would not initiate further force against the western forces tasked with enforcing the UN's sanctions?
We know that he was warned as far back as the above Clinton speech what the consequences of those actions would be, and yet it's still a simple matter of "Bush lied, people died"?
If you were in charge and believed the truism of "the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction", what would you have done?
I think you are naive if you continue to support our invasion and continued occupation of Iraq.
Peace
I think you are naive if you continue to support our invasion and continued occupation of Iraq.
Peace
No need to get personal Ziggy. I've laid out a pretty good representation of the times, the actors, and their goals. What would you have done differently?
Nothing personal at all, Alan. I just find it naive.
Peace
....and considering the terrorist threat at the time, Saddam's refusal to comply with UN sanctions, his firing upon aircraft attempting to enforce the no-fly zone, and the very real possibility that he may partner with Al-Qaeda in their joint efforts against the west, the Bush administration simply made a false claim in order to justify an invasion? That there was no compelling reason to take force to ensure that terrorists did not get their hands on whatever weapons he may have at his disposal and to ensure that he would not initiate further force against the western forces tasked with enforcing the UN's sanctions?
We know that he was warned as far back as the above Clinton speech what the consequences of those actions would be, and yet it's still a simple matter of "Bush lied, people died"?
If you were in charge and believed the truism of "the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction", what would you have done?
I firmly believe that there were other options at that time then a full scale war/invasion to bring Iraq into complience with the UN inspections order. I don't believe there was an imminent threat to the USA nor it's allies. And given the info that had been gathered at the various inspections since the late 1990's, I don't think there was compelling evidence of WMD. So what would I do? Well probably the same thing we did in the CG when we got intelligence from a known a reliable source that a foriegn ship (lets say Russian) was smuggling some sort of contraband (lets say weapons). We didn't just hunt them down and lob rockets at them from a mile away until they sank based on that intelligence alone. We attempted to board them and inspected them. If they didn't comply, ran away or fired upon us we used reasonable force for the situation to make them comply so that we could inspect them. If that didn't work, then yes, we'd probably sink the ship. Much like Clinton did in his air bombings you mentioned - "Dudes, if you don't let us inspect your baby milk factory we're gonna assume you're hiding something and will blow it to Kingdom come". What we didn't do was attack and take over the entire Russian shipping fleet based on the "possibility" that a few ships WERE smuggling weapons. I have no problem with the enforcement of UN sanctions by the military force, but I don't believe that the situation warranted a full scale military assault of an entire country based on the limited intel they had, as well as the fact that not one inspector that DID get to inspect the sites ever found anything of note. Just my .2 cents - probably worth less :-)!
Just my .2 cents - probably worth less :-)!
Mine too! But when we put our two cents together, we've got more than what we started with.
It always just strikes me as lazy thinking when we overlook all the complicating factors involved with something and boil it down to something as simplistic as "Bush lied, people died", or blame the opposition party for something that crossed political lines given the best information at the time . If we're gonna discuss those issues, somebody's gotta play the devils advocate role just to keep the record straight.
Mine too! But when we put our two cents together, we've got more than what we started with.
It always just strikes me as lazy thinking when we overlook all the complicating factors involved with something and boil it down to something as simplistic as "Bush lied, people died", or blame the opposition party for something that crossed political lines given the best information at the time . If we're gonna discuss those issues, somebody's gotta play the devils advocate role just to keep the record straight.
Gee we're rich!! Oh, I forgot we gotta pay taxes on that 4 cents ;-)! I agree. To me it isn't a Dems vs. GOP thing though - I would feel the same (and did) when Clinton et al (who ever they were) made the decision to bomb Iraq - even though it was partially in defense. I'm one of those "innocent until proven guilty" people and ,even when proven guilty, still would choose to rule out all other options unless I was being directly attacked.
Did President Clinton attack Iraq? Did President Clinton try to cherry pick and fudge to make a case to attack Iraq? I'm sure President Clinton suspected a lot of things, many of which probably were true. But the big difference is, he didn't mislead the congress and nation to match the little voices in his head.
This:
"The December 1998 bombing of Iraq (code-named Operation Desert Fox) was a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets from December 16–19, 1998 by the United States and United Kingdom. The contemporaneous justification for the strikes was Iraq's failure to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions as well as their interference with United Nations Special Commission inspectors."
"On October 31, 1998 US President Bill Clinton had signed into law H.R. 4655, the Iraq Liberation Act.[2] The new Act appropriated funds for Iraqi opposition groups in the hope of removing Saddam Hussein from power and replacing his regime with a democracy."
"The Act also said that:
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act."
Section 4(a)(2) states:
The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for [Iraqi democratic opposition] organizations.
Maxamillion
9-11-11, 12:54am
I used to be Independent and even voted for Bush Jr. the first time around, but after 8 years of him and the Iraq business and the economy tanking...I'm very reluctant to vote Republican. I also find the current lineup of Republican presidential-hopefuls really repulsive and Perry most of all.
Well, it seems you are the exception to the rule in this forum, Max. Not sure what your age is, but this is clearly a Baby Boomer type forum and those folks picked sides in the 60s and 70s and care more about sticking to their "values" than anything else. Not ever changing is a "value" to both sides, as is opposing the other side's "values". Welcome to today's Congress. I can't wait until 2018 when they are all finally booted from office by the rising tide they neither understand nor appreciate. Batten down the hatches and hope we all survive until then.
ApatheticNoMore
9-11-11, 2:00am
Well, it seems you are the exception to the rule in this forum, Max. Not sure what your age is, but this is clearly a Baby Boomer type forum and those folks picked sides in the 60s and 70s and care more about sticking to their "values" than anything else. Not ever changing is a "value" to both sides, as is opposing the other side's "values". Welcome to today's Congress. I can't wait until 2018 when they are all finally booted from office by the rising tide they neither understand nor appreciate. Batten down the hatches and hope we all survive until then
The amazing thing is how many ways the sides are really similar when they get into office. Now I'm not saying one might not be marginally better (i'm generally more sympathetic with Dem ideals but not at all convinced the Dems are always even better representatives of them! really). And I'm not saying that even those who get elected even in our system don't have a few good ideas here and there. But on a lot of really important fundamentals .... lots of really similar policies.
I'm not sure what the rising tide is supposed to be. Generational change? I don't believe a generational shift will just magically bring about change. Remember the 60s were supposed to bring generational change (well I'm in my 30s, I don't literally remember either, but I've read a lot ok). And there were a lot of really brilliant great ideas in the 60s. I'm not saying every single idea was brilliant, but there was an intellectual fire (it was a far more intellectual country - read any book from back then and weep ....), and lots of ideas that could have led to a very different and I think much better society. What did we get, we got THIS. We got the world we now live in. This, really, this was the end result? *Face palm*. Quite frankly I think the world we live in gets in many ways worse and worse every year. And this is not about my life but rather looking at what is going on out there.
Actually, after careful reading of everyone's views, there are a surprising number of republicans-turned-democrat. I know I'm one. (yes, believe it or not) The republican party used to be fiscal responsibility with a social conscience, but now it isn't even recognizable. Nutters, religious and otherwise, have taken over the party, and I think real republicans have come to regret courting these folks. They saw a low information (not my term, I didn't invent it) voter group, easily manipulated by heightened rhetoric, and systematically groomed and courted them. But the beast has outgrown it's cage and now they are/will pay the price.
I know some of you don't believe it, but I am truly saddened by this change. I wholeheartedly embraced the republican ideals, but that ship has sailed and we are all poorer for it. I desperately wish the republican party would get serious for even a moment and try to govern this society like they actually belong to it.
When I see how republicans who I disagreed with even just a few years ago are desperately fighting for their political lives because they aren't 'right' enough, I am reminded of the Palestinians and Hamas. Their 'low information voters' voted them in just to prove a point, and pretty much everyone regrets it now.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/05/18/102-things-not-to-do/
102 things not to do if you hate taxes
Well, it seems you are the exception to the rule in this forum, Max. Not sure what your age is, but this is clearly a Baby Boomer type forum and those folks picked sides in the 60s and 70s and care more about sticking to their "values" than anything else. Not ever changing is a "value" to both sides, as is opposing the other side's "values". Welcome to today's Congress. I can't wait until 2018 when they are all finally booted from office by the rising tide they neither understand nor appreciate. Batten down the hatches and hope we all survive until then.
Wow... you're making some pretty big assumptions about age! Believe it or not, many people become more flexible in their thinking as they age, because we get better & better at self-reflection, as well as more & more open to differences. I'm a Boomer married to a Gen X-er, and we raised two kids, so our household has plenty of cross-cultural understanding in it, to the benefit of us all.
Your assumptions seem to lock you into one perspective - the very thing you decry.
I believe we moderate Democrats and Republicans are more and more alike these days...............
Former officer of NJ State Republican party, just left the Republicans:
http://www.nj.com/hudson/voices/index.ssf/2012/06/stafford_why_i_gave_up_on_bein.html
Well, it seems you are the exception to the rule in this forum, Max. Not sure what your age is, but this is clearly a Baby Boomer type forum and those folks picked sides in the 60s and 70s and care more about sticking to their "values" than anything else. Not ever changing is a "value" to both sides, as is opposing the other side's "values". Welcome to today's Congress. I can't wait until 2018 when they are all finally booted from office by the rising tide they neither understand nor appreciate. Batten down the hatches and hope we all survive until then.
This Boomer would be perfectly happy with all of the entrenched congressmen (maybe I'd make an exception for those who won in first time in the last election) to be booted out.
Former officer of NJ State Republican party, just left the Republicans:
http://www.nj.com/hudson/voices/index.ssf/2012/06/stafford_why_i_gave_up_on_bein.html
In a tit for tat kinda way:
Former congressman and Congressional Black Caucus member Artur Davis joins Republican Party.
http://www.theroot.com/views/artur-davis-why-i-left-democratic-party
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.