This is a semi-serious question: Why are you still calling yourselves "Republicans?"
Republicans supposedly were the party of limited government, adherence to the Constitution, and fiscal discipline. Remember those days? Seems like a long time ago, doesn't it?
For eight years, you betrayed every principle you stood for. You backed a president whose administration doubled the Federal deficit without a single qualm.
You backed a president who championed widespread intrusions on the part of into the lives of all Americans. From collecting the telephone calls, faxes and e-mails of all Americans to using the power of the Federal government to directly interfere with the affairs of a single family, at every step along the way, you did not oppose the Bush Administration.
You backed a president whose conduct was antithetical to the Constitution. Bush and Cheney claimed the right to arrest and imprison anyone, at any time, and forever with no need to justify that imprisonment. By the statements of the Bush Administration's lawyers, President Bush could order the arrest and detention of anyone he chose, without giving the person detained a right to challenge that arrest and detention, if only the Administration muttered the magic words: "War on Terror."
Your sole objective seemed to be supporting that microcephalic president in whatever he did. That leads me to conclude that you had no principles other than a naked desire for power.
So: What do you stand for? And if you indeed stand for limited government, fiscal discipline, and the rule of law, how can you call yourselves "Republicans?"
Lack Of Register Meets Not So Closed-Minded
2 hours ago
4 comments:
That leads me to conclude that you had no principles other than a naked desire for power. That's exactly right. The betrayal started with Nixon, not shrub, in that power was the objective, not governance. It continued with Reagan and Bush I; shrub was just the pinnacle of "If republicans do it, it is by definition right and good." If you haven't read John Dean's "Conservatives Without Connscience," I strongly recommend it. I'm paraphrasing, but his recommendation for improving the country? Under no circumstances vote for a republican for national office; they have shown that they are unable and unwilling to govern. This from a self-proclaimed conservative, and he backs up your supposition that modern republicanism is utterly about power and greed. Nothing else.
I'm perplexed at how the "rules for being a good American" change. When Bush was President, we were supposed to respect the office and support the person who held the office - no matter what.
Now that a Democrat holds the highest office in the land, the Rules have changed. It's okay for Republicans to say things like they hope the President fails, etc.
Curious, huh?
Lisa, Yeah and that's a topic in my mind for a blog post/rant, too.
Now that a Democrat holds the highest office in the land, the Rules have changed. It's okay for Republicans to say things like they hope the President fails, etc.
Not this Republican. While I don't think Obama's economic stimulus plan is going to really help, I do hope it works.
I do suspect his election has already improved foreign relations and expect them to strengthen in the next 4 years. I have no idea what he could do to make them worse. The "buy American" rule with bailout funds might be a bad move, but I'm not keeping tabs on that one. He might have backed out already. I don't know.
The Republican party, when actually given power at the national level, has demonstrated that it no longer represents my main interests. Low taxes, low spending, and leave the Bill of Rights be. After 6 years of Republican rule taxes were still too high, spending was out of control, and we had crap like the PATRIOT ACT, NSA wiretaps, etc.
To answer the original question, as to what I'd call myself now, as the 'Repblican' moniker doesn't really apply is a 'Ron Paul Republican.' While I disagree with some of Dr. Paul's stance on a few things I agree with the overall message and direction. For instance, getting rid of the income tax would have been half as costly as the current bailout plans passed by the previous and current administrations.
I didn't like Bush 43, I didn't like Clinton, I didn't like Bush 41, and I didn't like Reagan. The list goes on.
I probably won't care for Obama very shortly.
Post a Comment