http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all...ult/1314907779
Very sobering, and I thought accurate, reflections from a now former Republican.
Printable View
http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all...ult/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
I've seen Michelle Bachmann speak during two debates now and she seemed reasonable to me during both events.Quote:
Originally Posted by redfox
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
Quote:
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
What exactly is "the race card"? I have never understood this phrase.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catwoman
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by redfox
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen...EXAS-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...est=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.
Gosh the inventor of the game self identifies as a leftie, he doesn't need catwoman to do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by peggy
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.
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Iris lily
I never cared for this "guilt by association" thing. Carried to its conclusion, every group can be considered just a bunch of wackos.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zigzagman
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by creaker
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.
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.
Roughly 40% of Democrats in the House and 60% in the Senate voted in favor of the Iraq Resolution. Did they leave you too?Quote:
Originally Posted by Florence
Knowing everything you know now - you honestly do not believe that the American public and Congress were mislead on Iraq?Quote:
Originally Posted by alan
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zigzagman
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 ;-)!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gina
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by alan
You're implying something that is not in evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartana
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by alan
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
No, I think they were as misled as I was.Quote:
Originally Posted by alan
Was President Clinton misled in 1998? http://articles.cnn.com/1998-12-16/p...PM:ALLPOLITICSQuote:
Originally Posted by Florence
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by alan
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by peggy
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by alan
So, given that, do you believe that the "Republicans", in general, and President Bush specifically, intentionally misled the American people?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartana
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by alan
So, in 1998, when President Clinton said ....Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartana
....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?Quote:
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.
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?
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gina
I think you are naive if you continue to support our invasion and continued occupation of Iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by alan
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zigzagman
Nothing personal at all, Alan. I just find it naive.
Peace