Today's GOP
 

I was wondering what the conservatives on this board think of today's GOP (and its prominent politicians). I find my political leanings to correspond frequently to what once was the moderate wing of the GOP, but this faction of the party has disappeared or has been marginalized/disparaged as RINO's by the ever more reactionary GOP of today.

Do any of you conservatives here actually prefer today's GOP to the more moderate one of days past? If so, why?

I think I'll go get a beer and just lurk for a while.

I'm with you for the most part Fin. I registered as an R when I turned 18. I've been an I since about the age of 20 iirc.

I'm no fan of the new bunch of not so conservative conservatives in the GOP and their hard line approach. I'd be far more pleased with them if they took a real fiscal conservative stand and worked on that instead of worrying about what Jim is smoking or what he's doing in his bed with Ron or Jane or Ron & Jane, or.........

Love or hate Reagan he a a very real opponent in Tip O'Neil and they learned to work together. Wonder why the same cannot be done today?

As a real conservative I would not touch that lot with a stick.

I think a lot of it goes back to religion. During the Reagan era religion still had an influence over American culture. Notions of right, wrong, teamwork, etc. were stronger.

As the war on religion progressed those notions were replaced with others. On the Christian front we saw a growth of, I don't know what to call it, maybe wealth evangelism. The story told in that camp is that if you do good then God will reward you with wealth. While that may be true even under classical Christianity the classical is hard to pervert. With wealth evangelism a parishioner can easily rationalize that if he makes more money by whatever means then it is God's will. That makes it easy for them to hold the Bible in one hand and the atheist Atlas Shrugged in the other and not feel any guilt or mixed feelings.

On another front we have citizens that have never been exposed to the church or to philosophy in general. Those people then attended college and became indoctrinated with the pseudo-philosophy of Ayn Rand and were taught that dog-eat-dog is good and religion is evil. Those lessons can really play hell with a society.

In any event both of those mechanisms play hell with our form of self government. For our government to work it requires the most of us in a moral sense. On the other hand if we treat our government as a tool to serve our self interests then it quickly becomes an ever changing gibberish of legislation. That is what we are seeing today. Everyone is changing the rules to suit their self interest. The corporate leaders see it as freedom. Sure they whine to the voters but that is only to make useful idiots out of them so that they vote to give the corporations even more slack in the rope.

The situation is a real mess. I firmly believe that Ayn Rand was a Soviet spy and we are dealing with the consequences of her societal engineering.

Rooting out whatever ails us is going to be a bitch.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/...oncern-America

** Note: My discussion of Christianity should not be construed as a belief that Christianity is superior. I firmly believe that the unadulterated teachings of every religion, Hindu, Jewish, Sikh, Muslim, whatever, provide just as sound of a moral basis as Christianity. Every religion has their kooks and that minority should not be taken as an example of the whole.

I'm curious about the war on religion. Heard of it but never seen it. Can you describe it and relate any manifestations of it.

It's usually referred to as Calvinism.

John

Funny, I don't recall this being the case. If anything, labor relations were far more combative.

Dave

Thank you, John. I'm thinking this is like the "War on Christmas". Anytime some atheist complains about his neighbors manger scenes, or some retail chain decides to not have Santa Clause in the mall, it's;

":eek:OMG, THE MONGOL HORDES ARE COMING TO CONFISCATE OUR BIBLES AND FORCE US TO WORSHIP GOATS!!! QUICK VOTE REPUBLICAN AND SAVE AMERICA!!!!:eek:".........:rolleyes:

That manipulative BS I've seen far too much of.

Dave

Labor relations is a different topic. This thread is about what conservatives think about the modern GOP.

That's not to say that I don't have an opinion on labor relations then and now, it's just that this isn't the thread.

You mentioned "teamwork" as in we , as a nation worked better as a team. No, we didn't.
Or, are we referring to the compliant Democratic Party of the day? I'll give you that.

I wasn't able to glean this from you long response, as interesting as it was.;)

I tend to ramble.

I think the major problem with the GOP is that they are trying to convince younger voters that such things as Social Security and Medicare will not be around for them...
yeah we can debate whether it will be or not but they are always saying these things won't be around...then poof your 65 and thank god they are still with us. So younger voters who tend to believe this falsehood start voting for people who claim that they will "fix" everything for them by getting rid of the programs that we will all need eventually. Thus we have the young dashing Paul Ryan who is going to take away a very good program for all if he gets his chance....
Basically a lack of education. You can fix the debt problem without destroying the country...there has to be cuts on defense...a balanced approach. Of course Ryan will not do that. So we will be like those third world countries with well a fed military class and hungry citizens without health care.
That is what is wrong with the GOP selling a self-fullfilling prophecy to younger voters who do believe the sermon.
If you are under 55 and vote for Ryan you are basically voting to cut two more years of your life out of medical coverage (67 instead of 65) and for having to pay more out of your own pocket. Since most people on medicare over 85 (i think) are women you are also making the life of your surviving spouse alot more difficult because of premium support. Young people are not thinking of this and the GOP leadership is counting them not to know better.
That is what is wrong with the GOP.

IMHO, a post like this demonstrates what's wrong with the political dialogue in this country. We tend to reflect the talking points of the end of the political spectrum we gravitate to and close our minds to ideas or opportunities that might exist outside of that limited perspective.

For example, you may or may not realize that the "Ryan Plan" for Medicare already exists. Its typically referred to Medicare Part C or Medicare Advantage. It was enabled as part of legislation passed in 1997 under the Clinton administration. It was later expanded under Medicare Part D in 2003.

The practice of Medicare giving grants to private insurers to offset the cost of coverage has been in practice, and has been pretty successful in the market for years. Under the program, Medicare - eligible subscribers can choose from difference packages of plans offered by private insurers that are partially subsidized by Medicare funds, and allow the insured to purchase enhancements to the basic, subsidized coverage that meets their needs.

An expansion of that program is what Ryan is calling for. Contrary to current political advertising, the plan is relatively popular, albeit a bit confusing to some when it was rolled out. It has also not resulted in seniors eating dog food to be able to afford their medicines, and there are no know occurrences of Paul Ryan or any other politician pushing grandma off a cliff, as we've seen in some political commercials.

Political debate and dialog has devolved into repeating talking points or rehashing the extreme themes and messages that politicians or their surrogates foist onto the American people. The biggest failing of the GOP, IMHO, is that after many years of this kind of negative campaigning, they've yet to find away to effectively respond to it.

The response of Romney's camp to the Dem's drumbeat about tax returns - as if one's personal wealth is a qualification for the office - is a great example. Its a great trickbag for the Dems to try to place Romney in. If he doesn't turn over his tax returns, then the Dems can continue to try to exploit that as a campaign issue. If he does, you can bet that a team of tax attorneys will be at the ready to generate demagogic press releases and campaign commercials about those tax returns. Of course, this also allows the Dems to continue to avoid talking about the last 4 years, and keep the Romney camp on defense.

The other issue the GOP has is that they were entirely complicit in the expansion of government that occurred from 2001 - 2008. Now that the Tea Party has taken aim at the GOP as the party most likely to respond to reform and most likely to lead any charge for regaining control over the growth of government spending, it creates an opportunity for the Dems, with no plan of their own to restrain spending or deal with the growing public debt, to paint the GOP as hypocritical.

They Dems have also been successful, at least with the mainstream press, or painting the Tea Party as angry radicals. Meanwhile, the average Tea Party demonstration looked like a church picnic compared to the OWS activities. Yet, media coverage of OWS was far more favorable than that received by the Tea Party. Meanwhile, the GOP, resistant to giving up too much of the status quo, has failed to fully embrace the Tea Party movement.

Now, you might be critical of the Tea Party crowd because their beliefs don't comport with your own. To that, I simply ask this: Where is the Dem plan to regain control over the ever - expanding and crushing Federal Debt? Where is the Dem plan to wrest control of the Federal budget and restrain the growth of each year's budget which is increasingly financed by debt each year?

We may have differences in political views, but if we can't agree that government spending is not sustainable at current levels, and that we must start actually paying down principal on the Federal debt and not just make token interest payment, we're all toast.

EDIT - if you respond to the questions above by suggesting that the Dems have hitched their wagon to Simpson - Bowles, be very careful. First, where is there any Dem sponsored legislation requiring implementation of the commissions findings? Then, of course, you also have this:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/e...003642883.html

I looked up Calvinism on Wiki. That looks like different stuff than what I am referring to with regard to wealth evangilism. By wealth evangilism I mean preachers with a drumbeat that says if you follow the way then wealth will come to you. Olstein comes to mind, as does Meyer. There are probably a few more players on the airwaves that I'm not familiar with. I'm not saying these are bad people. I'm just saying that their message is a departure from what I would consider to be the classical teaching of if you live the way then you will be saved. Monetary wealth didn't play a part in the original.

I'm just talking out loud as if we were around a table. I'm no expert on this stuff.

In any event, I don't know if war on religion is a common term. It's just one I used to desccribe what I think I'm seeing.

My perspective of religion is a little more contrasted than most Americans so maybe my recent American religion history is skewed. I grew up for the most part in Bavaria. In that region of the world the church plays a big part in daily life. The churches are at the center of towns. They are solid stone, half a millenia old, covered inside with gold, and saints are entombed in the floors. Believe in religion or not there is at least an aura that some deep thinking happens there. The church also provides the cadence of life with bell tolls on the hour. The church has a peaceful presence even if not everyone follows it or tithes.

When I got a whiff of quote-unquote American style religion on TV I was shocked. There were people getting healed, preachers wearing Rolexes, Tammy Faye Baker. Gott damn it was crazy. Christianity had been turned into a carnival freak show. Even though I was not a member of any relgion I still felt like the native indian that cried when I saw the garbage marketed to Christians on TV.

I can see how the Atheist movement gets a skewed picture of religion and seems to have grown in numbers and conviction.

The good news is that what I saw on TV could be contrasted against the more staid Christian practices of neighbors with european roots. The older Germans, Italians, Poles, and the like of Detroit still carried the humility and tranquility of the homeland churches. I suspect they also brought those qualities to politics. While politics may have been just as challenging at least they got it done.

Since that time the Atheists seem to have gotten a stonger foothold and battled the churches. Similarly more people seem to be agnostic. Those effects might well be caused the Circus churches of the 1980s. For sure the was a war against religion during the 2008 election. That's when Glenn Beck urged Christians to leave their church if it had social tendencies. Rush Limbaugh probably did the same as well as a host of people on Fox news and conservative talk radio. Of course those people were also urged to turn to Ayn Rand with her atheist objectivism and self-dealing. Humility and teamwork were repainted as weakness and statism.

So that's the way I see the difference between Reagan era or old Republicans and the new class of Republicans. While their party name is the same their ability to work with the other side and the directions of their internal compasses are notably different.

The current Medicare plan is so popular among seniors that Ryan and the GOP are excepting them from his plan because of insurmountable opposition.
He wants you and me (under 55) to take a plan that is not nearly as good and ends Medicare as we know it. If his plan was so good why is he not making it for everyone? I say this with all due respect Whell. You are being sold a bill of goods and you are going vote against your own self- interest.
You go ahead and make your eligibility date 67, and plan on your spouse having to pay more in premiums for her health care after you are gone (most likley she will outlive you, I hope u both live a long time). If you are under 55 why would you short change yourself?

I think the 65-67 age thing is really a moot point and just a suggestion at
this point. We need SOMEONE in charge of the checkbook and Ryan appears
to be the only one willing to take on that challenge. We have to live within
our means now that we are in this world economy so some things will have to
be cut including military spending. If someone is healthy and 65 years old
with a job and insurance why would he think about quiting anyway?
If he's sick and disabled he's covered any way right? I doubt that will ever
pass but just the fact that someone is willing to have some ideas about
fiscal responsibiliy shows promise. Something we have none of at the moment.

Oh, yes, of course, Mike. The GOP is ever the hapless, innocent victim of negative campaigns and misinformation.

If the Tea Party is merely "painted" by the Democratic Party as "angry, misinformed radicals", then how come nearly every Tea Partier I encounter here and in other venues------appears to be just that; Angry, misinformed and very radical. And, where would you say such misinformation eminates from? Little birds wispering in their windows while they sleep? I don't think so. Not unless Rove & Friends have managed to invent robotic little birds.

We get the notion that the rights ultimate goal is to eliminate "social safety nets" entirely from the leadership itself. "So(c)ialist Security", "Ponzi Scheme", "Welfare Queen", "...sucking the unemployment teet" are phrases of demonization we've heard coming directly from the mouths of prominent Republican politicians.

I know the OP of this thread called for the opinions of conservatives, but after reading your post, I felt compelled to comment.

In summary my opinion of the GOP is that it is has become a wolf in sheeps clothing. The modern day, far right has managed to convince half of the people in this country that they are honest, well intentioned, squeaky clean and pure Christian do-gooders that only want what's best for everyone.....and nothing could be further from the truth.

Regards,
Dave

Rather selective perception, if you ask me. I think there's a whole large cross section of Americans - from the left, right and center - who are angry about what their government has become. You don't get to a Prez below 50% in polling, and a congress that polls below 10%, without some folks being a bit pissed off at the status quo. If I read some of your own posts, there's no question in my mind that there's anger in some of them.

If I were in politics today I'd be advocating to my peers that we damn well better find a way to harness that anger and steer the energy behind it into something productive and positive. Instead, the message managers continue to focus on the issues of the day that divide us, rather than those issues that impact all of us. Its a bloody waste and it maintains a paralysis the governed while the governing class continues to do whatever the hell they want.

And yes, just as you might suggest that the bulk of the negative politicking and campaigning originates from the right, I see most of it coming from the left side of the aisle. Maybe that's suggestive of a reality that has all of them full or crap, and we need to wipe the slate completely clean and start over....as soon as we find our way past the moneyed interests that keep all of them in Washington.

That was much more sensible. However, the conservative majority SCOTUS has further solidified the connection between our politicians and the "monied interests". So, I don't see that happening any time soon. If ever.

Thanks,
Dave

While I agree with a number of your points and found your post informative, this deserves to called out as BS. For the most part, the negative campaigning we're experiencing now was largely developed by the Atwaters and Roves of the GOP (Willie Horton, McCain's black love child in SC, swiftboating, Obama as Muslim/Kenyan/Soci@list ...).

For better or worse, what's occurring this time is that Obama's team has chosen to fight fire with fire (or slime with slime, as it were) and the GOP has rarely been on the receiving end of the kind of negativity that they themselves pioneered and routinely use in campaigns.

Calling on Romney to release his tax records is pretty much fair game compared to the items I cited parenthetically above, and is an effective proxy for the conversation about the fairness of our tax structure, particularly when the Ryan budget would reportedly result in Romney paying 0.82% income tax if enacted.

Because, ice, folks are making these decisions TODAY, and doing quite well with them. Unfortunately, Medicare, even with its current cost structure, is paid for in part with deficit spending. Medicare is becoming the largest driving in annual deficit spending. You can blame whomever you want about how it got there, but once we get past the politics of playing the blame game, placing blame must start to taking a back seat to addressing the structure of the program.

And no, i don't think that a fix is spending an increasing share of the budget on it, or raising taxes to make up the budget shortfall. Medicare spending is growing at a rate of 10 - 12% per year, which will increase the spending required annually under Medicare by a commensurate amount. I don't think the money is there if we continue to look at 2% growth on average in GDP, to increase Medicare funding to make it sustainable.

I'm 50 this year, so I'd be below the threshold that would face no changes to the current system. That gives me about 15 - 17 years to make other plans, and I'm fine with that. Hell, I'm also in favor of phasing out the other unsustainable program - Social Security. Just give me the option of staying in Social Security and continuing to pay Soc Sec taxes, or agree to take no money out of Soc Sec when I retire in exchange for phasing out my future Soc Sec tax liability over a period of the next 5 years. I'd take that deal in a heartbeat, and I suspect a number of folks would.

I say that just to give you some perspective on my take on all this, but also to suggest that I am fine with some form or reform to reduce the cost of the current Medicare system so that it is sustainable. Make it sustainable so that there may be a level of benefits left for future grandparents that doesn't crush their future grandchildren with debt.

Ryan voted for every military spending increase during the Bush years and voted for both wars and the Bush tax cuts. He is not a fiscal conservative.
Ask any one who is 65 or older whether it is a moot point. Once again the GOP is scaring you about some vague notion about a government checkbook that has to be balanced and asking to give up your Medicare in return. That is what is wrong with the GOP...your post speaks volumes.

And yet for years we've had the unending refrain from the left that republicans want dirty air and dirty water (even though Nixon gave us the EPA), that republicans want to starve children and make grandma eat dog food. Republicans have wanted to destroy Medicare according to the left all the way back to the Newt Gingrich years in the House. Republicans want to hurt seniors and make them choose between eating and paying their rent as a matter of policy.

My point is, again, we continue to get sucked into all this crap. It keeps us fighting with each other, and while we're not watching the political class continues to hock the country to the Chinese to pay bills that we can't afford.

Neither side has been shy about invective and it gets bloody boring after a while. The comments about Medicare C and D are a poor joke if I may say so. Medicare B costs each of us $96.50 per month. With each of us having supplemental policies the yearly bill is over $11,000. Take that out of the average SS payment and there is not a lot left, and cat food is not that cheap either.

I worked until age 73, was forced to take SS at 65, forced to take minimum withdrawal from my 401k at 70 and 1/2. Would to God my tax rate had been only 13%.

This country has its collective head so far up its rear end they can see their tonsils. Our greatest resource is our citizens, should we not husband that resource? Instead we put the profits of Big Pharma and Healthcare companies ahead of our citizenry.

If it were not for the honour of a good company that has fully funded my pension we would be up the proverbial creek looking for a paddle.

The other thing we have in over abundance is middlemen - DearGod, must there be a bloody middleman for everything, it's a bloody wonder two people can make love in private without a bloody middleman.

Religion? Frankly my dears I don't give a damn, the church left us years ago with their sole attention to their own survival rather than teaching what Jesus asked. Now we simply know that where two or more are gathered in His name, there He is also. Christmas? Well it was a pagan festival that the church pre-empted for its own purpose so I don't know what the complaints are about.

All of those assertions have a kernel of truth to them, unlike McCain's lovechild, Obama as Muslim/foreigner, Vince Foster's "murder," and the Swiftboat allegations. Accordingly, I would characterize most of those Dem assertions as hyperbole, rather than outright lying. Plenty of seniors do indeed have to choose which drugs to give up in order to eat and pay rent, for example.

Am I happy with the current state of affairs WRT political campaigns? No. However, the umbrage of Romney's campaign about Obama's attack ads (when his in the GOP primary were just as bad) and the GOP's history of outright fabrication of some pretty hostile stuff makes the "outrage" of Romney and his operatives ring a bit hollow.

Whell, it's interesting to see you use a lefty term in your post - "moneyed interests." And I'm not really gigging you there. You have pointed out that there is some anger all along the political spectrum. Clearly some of that anger comes from the perception that the politicians don't have our interests at heart, but are for sale to the highest bidder.

The question is what do we do about it? If you can use a lefty term, maybe I should consider an idea originally emanating from the right - term limits. I can see advantages and disadvantages, but it would at least remove some of the attention of the elected representatives of constantly campaigning for re-election.

Regards,

D-Ray

15 -17 years? The future is unwritten...just do not get sick or die right now brother thats all I am telling you....perhaps you are wealthy enough to get by without SS and that is great. But for the vast majority of folks that is the only income they are going to have when they are old.

I can't live my life being afraid of the future or things I can't control. And it increasingly appears that unsustainable government solutions should't assuage anyone's fears either.

Case in point; Watch the Tea Party backed Republicans. These guys were supposed to be going to Washingiton to straighten out the GOP and take on the Dems.....Change the way Washington works, etc., etc..............

Are they refusing congreesional perks and privledges? Are they refusing lobbyist and Superpac money and favors? Huh?

Oh, my how we have taken to doing as the Romans do, once we have entered into Rome.................:rolleyes:

Dave

I will take the New Deal over Paul Ryan anytime...the New Deal has been tested and effective believe it or not. It has been your world since you have been born. Paul Ryan? He is just pedestrian graduate of an overhyped MAC university. I would know...I graduated from Kent State;)

Then you are going to have a very difficult life.

Dave

I'd like to make a point here. Condemning Medicare as 'government solution' while supporting a tax structure that is extraordinarily favorable to the wealthy, by any measure a 'government solution', is simply hypocritical.

Moreover, Paul Ryan is no more a fiscal conservative than I'm the second coming of Eldridge Cleaver. A true fiscal conservative would not have supported George W. Bush's tax cuts while at the same time voting in favor of a two front war that was going to balloon the deficit. That's not fiscal conservatism by any measure. A true fiscal conservative would have insisted that the wars, assuming they were necessary, be paid for.

Except that the actuarial assumptions that supported New Deal programs such as Social Security are no longer valid, and haven't been for years.

Could you expand/expound on this?

Is that right? How do you figure that a tax structure where the wealthy have the greatest share of the total tax burden is somehow unfair to them?

Does not make Social Security less real or less necessary....you have noticed not even Ryan will bring Social Security up as an issue to be debated. He has his sights set on his assumption that people like you will believe his plans about Medicare, and will be foolish enough to let him devolve it, so he can cut taxes for the people he really cares enough about, the people in Romney's financial circle. Oh and remember, Medicaid funds alot of elderly care for people in nursing homes. He is going after that too.
He is using the 55 and below argument as a smokescreen to end Medicare as we know it for our generation not granny. Go ahead cast a vote against yourself....you have only been paying taxes for Medicare for what? 30 years?
Why lowball yourself?

The top 5% pay 40% of income taxes. The also earn 37% of all earnings. This "unfairness" is addressed by the Ryan budget which would reduce the rich's tax liability considerably, resulting in a budget that won't balance for several decades and would tax people like Romney at less than 1%. How exactly is that fiscally conservative?

I'm not enamored with either party. I dislike the collectivist attributes of the democrats and dislike the neo-religious attributes of the GOP. Interestingly, John Stossel recently said this:

I concur with his position in that I prefer to be left alone and not bothered by the wants of either party. In essence, I want a small fiscally conservative government and one not concerned with the promotion of religious ideals together with a myriad of midsize businesses competing amongst themselves. Currently, I believe it's more expedient to keep the GOP out of the bedroom than the Democrats out of the wallet.

We probably would all go for those ideals if they worked. But they don't anymore. They might work if we were all farmers or other manual laborers that woke up every day with something to do. But that's not the way it is anymore.

What we have now are machines that make stuff really fast. Management tries to predict how much stuff to make and if it doesn't sell then inventory piles up. At some point inventory piles up so much that management has to turn off the machines. People get laid off. At that point the taxes paid into unemployment get paid back to the workers to tide them over until demand comes back and management turns the machines back on.

It's not a bad system. In the auto industry the cycle used to be on a ten year cycle with about nine good years for every year that went to pot. That used to be called decent economic management since it used savings to smooth boom and bust cycles.

The modern right seems to say to workers, look man, management totally screwed the pooch on market forecasts. You are stupid for working for them and therefore should have done better. No soup for you. In the meantime management says hmmm, we should get a retainer bonus for sticking around to fix what we broke and oh, by the way, thanks workers for paying taxes to bail us out.

That kind of thought is a recipe for disaster, as in worker revolt.