What it means to be a GOPLifer

Untitled-blank2Over the years this blog has been deeply, sometimes sharply critical of the Republican Party inspiring many to wonder about its title. Why would a dedicated, lifelong Republican be so unhappy and if so, why stick around?

You don’t become a GOPLifer because of your mindless enthusiasm for our team or your unflinching hostility toward the opposition. The term “lifer” is borrowed from prison slang. A lifer has no place else to go. Being a GOPLifer doesn’t reflect any particular sense of commitment. It comes from a lack of options.

I became a Republican in a forgotten era in which the party stood for urban, commercial, business values. When I was first learning about politics, Republicans still campaigned in cities. The inner suburbs of New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and Los Angeles were the party’s core. Some of the country’s most powerful Republican Senators came from California and the Northeast.

The center-right Republican coalition that took shape in the ‘60’s after William F. Buckley chased off the Tea Party of his era stood for the power of markets, the vital importance of personal liberty, and the need for American global leadership. Those values were tempered by an interest in tangible outcomes that rises from authentic patriotism and hard-headed business pragmatism. The insufferable drama queens who staged a phony debt ceiling crisis last year would have been kicked swiftly to the curb by the GOP in the ‘80’s. Once upon a time, ideology was secondary to results.

For two decades that vision led the Republican Party to the White House in five out of six elections. It edged the whole country and our culture toward the right and made the party competitive again at the national level.

An emphasis on the value of markets, trade, and a confident, assertive American presence in the world gave us the richer, freer, far more peaceful planet we now enjoy. Markets are not perfect. Business is not altruistic. The pursuit of personal greed does not always lead to optimal outcomes. American military force is not necessarily a force for stability in every case. However, the Republicans of the late 20th Century re-opened possibilities for American enterprise and power that had previously been closed.

With feet planted firmly in reality and a willingness to examine our failures we could have continued the momentum away from the straightjacket of big central government toward an ownership society. We could have made American power a lasting force for liberty, stability, and prosperity in the world. Twenty years ago we had every reason to expect that a generation of Republican dominance would build a new order at home and abroad, expanding personal freedom and opportunity.

Those who once embraced that dream are still around, but there is no political party for us to call home. We began in the Republican Party and traces of this heritage are still apparent in the party’s foundations. But today there is no major national political force that still embraces this optimistic view of American economic and diplomatic power.

To be a GOPLifer means clinging stubbornly to a vision of what might be, in spite of what you see all around you. After all, this lost dream of a Republican agenda remains in some sense its inevitable future.

Fear is to politics what meth is to truck driving. It will help you deliver in a pinch, but the more you come to depend on it the more dangerous your next run becomes. And then your teeth fall out.

That older, more practical, optimistic version of the Republican Party is still hanging in the air, waiting to be refined for a new era. As the party’s fear-binge approaches its inevitable conclusion, perhaps sometime in the near future there may once again be a meaningful place in the Republican Party for a GOPLifer.

Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.

Tagged with:
Posted in Republican Party, Uncategorized
215 comments on “What it means to be a GOPLifer
  1. rucasdad says:

    Yikes…are things ever going to start looking up for the regressive tea people….

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/27/lawmakers-no-stand-down-order-given-benghazi/

    However, please take a moment to read a few of the comments following this story and see exactly how this fantasy land that tea people live in, are able to contain it. Especially when facts come extremely close to penetrating their bubble.

    • Texan5142 says:

      Rand Paul lied about it the other day, nothing can penetrate the bubble.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      You will be able to keep your doctors.

      I didn’t learn about Benghazi until I saw it on the news.

      I didn’t know about the IRS until someone told me.

      And yet you liberals just adore the liar and chief.

      • rucasdad says:

        Not necessarily adore him but we simply haven’t made up a caricature of him like you guys have. I criticize him when I see fit.

        “You will be able to keep your doctors.”

        I guess that subtle jab was suppose to mean something, who knows?

        As for the rest of your vague comments, please come find me whenever you reach the point you’re attempting to make.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        And yet no response (because you likely fully agree) to Dan’s historical whitewashing of Watergate and a REAL Constitutional crisis as “Nixon’s attempt to cover up a meaningless break-in”.

        Yup, no blind partisan hack bias whatsoever from you buzzy.

        Give it a rest already. You are, have been, and apparently always will be on the wrong side of history.

        Your grandchildren and great grandchildren will look on in shock, horror, and utter disbelief of your hateful words and attitudes as do the current generation who have never experienced firsthand, view newsreel footage of the Civil Rights Movement of the 60’s.

        Proud of yourself buzzy?

      • bubbabobcat says:

        I should clarify that the shock and disgust is for the ugly actions and words displayed by those opposed to integration and equal rights for all in the 60’s. Just like their equivalent continue to oppose equal rights for all to this day in more insidiously less blatant ways.

  2. rucasdad says:

    I would like to take an off topic moment to thank Boehner for showing true leadership and doing his job for once. Time to stop pandering to a small extreme fraction of the house and time to get back to reality. Nice to see symptoms of a functioning government…such a sight for sore eyes.

  3. CaptSternn says:

    On a side note, Obama is once again running away from his signature legislation. He wasnts to delay the employer mandate until 2016. He knows the legislation is bad. He knows it will harm people rather than help. He is hearing the democrats scream in panic over what they have enacted. They are afraid of the coming elections.

    But it is only words, just like Obama backpeddling on having insurance companies to keep offering illegal policies. They can’t because it is illegal to offer those policies, to contine those policies. The only way they could do so is if the law is changed, and democrats won’t allow that.

    Of course they will go back to blaming republicans. It is the fault of republicans for failing to block the legislation, for failing to repeal it, for failing to defund it, for failing to delay it, for failing to change it. They failed because the GOP establishment republicans caved. The type of republicans Lifer supports.

    • Crogged says:

      Insert yawn here and learn to write with ellipses. You said, “He wants to delay the employer mandate until 2016.” Your period should have been replaced with “……” because you decided to not specifically state what is delayed, which even Fox News has to report, five paragraphs down from the lead. When you want to honorably misstate something the ellipse is the way to go.

      http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/11/administration-announces-another-delay-in-obamacare-employer-mandate/

      • CaptSternn says:

        Didn’t specify what is delayed? What ppart of “employer mandate” did you not understand? It is even part of the link you posted.

        Then again, if you really supported the PPACA and thought it is a good thing, you would be angry that it so much of it keeps being pushed out, delayed. Of course, it really isn’t being delayed. The law is the law, and it has not been changed. All this really shows is that democrats are terrified of their own handywork.

      • Crogged says:

        Really, the ‘entire’ mandate is totally gone, which is what one would assume from reading your unsubstantiated claim? Again, you only argue from principles and beliefs, abstractions which don’t mean anything until they are put into discernible reality.

        “As a result of the delay, the administration will let employers with 50 to 99 employees off the hook in 2015. They’ll be required to report on how many workers are covered but will have until 2016 before being required to cover full-time staff or pay a penalty. Americans would still be required to obtain health insurance through what’s known as the individual mandate.

        Under the changes, employers with 100 or more workers will be required to provide health insurance to full-time staff next year. However, the new rules will only require them to cover 70 percent of workers at first; and then 95 percent the following year and beyond.

        As before, companies with fewer than 50 employees will not be required to provide health coverage.”

      • CaptSternn says:

        What is it with the reading comprehension here? At no point did I say the mandate was gone or removed. I said “delayed”.

        de·lay [dih-ley]
        verb (used with object)
        1. to put off to a later time; defer; postpone: The pilot delayed the flight until the weather cleared.

        2. to impede the process or progress of; retard; hinder: The dense fog delayed the plane’s landing.

    • rucasdad says:

      I believe fortune cookies have more credibility than the Capt.

    • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

      Maybe we could go with, “delayed some components of the employer mandate” or “delayed some provisions of the employer mandates for smaller companies”.

      Or we could go with some very accurate and not at all misleading headlines.

      Ted Cruz leaves the Senate (to go do another television interview).

      Doctors confirm Dick Cheney has no heart (for a brief time during his heart transplant).

      Bill Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman (unless you consider oral sex to be sexual relations).

    • kabuzz61 says:

      Captain, this fine piece of s_er I mean legislation that was so championed by those commenters here while greatly stating it is needed NOW and conservatives saying that the law is very much flawed were shouted down. Now the author of this law continues to delay down the road parts or most of the plan. Because democrats are scared of the upcoming election with this albatross hanging over their heads, but delaying it will not keep conservatives from reminding voters how their dem representative championed the bill. Bad law is just bad law.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        No matter how much you delusionally rant buzzy, it will never make sense or be factually accurate. The ACA is the law and here to stay. The Supreme Court has validated it. The country and voting public have accepted it. And Congress has accepted it despite the wingnut minority in the House delusionally tilting at windmills and failing 42 times to repeal it.

        Deal with it.

  4. Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

    I think I can rationally understand the arguments about the constitutionality of issues and the liberties being infringed.

    At some point, I think it just boils down to that I do not care about those issues as much as I care about other issues.

    Requiring private businesses to serve everyone, regardless of race, color, religion, etc., requires that the commerce clause, interstate trade, and a few other constructs undergo a fair amount of torture to make fit.

    The country is better off for it. I care more about that than I care about the rights of the idiot restaurant owner in Enid, OK who does not want to serve disabled folks and Muslims.

    If curly lightbulbs and low-flow toilets are better for the country, I’m OK with that loss of those freedoms.

    Obamacare is generally a hot mess, and I would have been more on the single-payer side, but if it is better for the country to have universal health care and having an individual mandate makes that possible, then I’m OK with it

    The slippery slope arguments generally do not sway anyone. The “what if Republicans were in charge and implemented things you didn’t like” arguments do not move me much. I think it was Chief Justice Roberts who pointed out that we have things called elections to reverse things we do not like.

    The country is not abiding by Stern’s and many Tea Party members view of the constitution and what is right. So what? It probably isn’t a good idea to try to lock-step follow a 200+ year old document’s guidance while operating in a 2014 global environment.

    General framework for how to run a successful gov’t? Sure thing.
    Detailed plan for administration of said gov’t? Not a chance.

    • CaptSternn says:

      Free speech and freedom of religion are overrated, right HT? It would probably be better for the country if we had a national religion and church. Sure would help the morality, and you obviously have no problem legislating morality.

      The slippery slope is a problem. Democrats create new powers, allowing the government to micromanage the people. What will you think when conservatives come back into power and use those powers against you? That’s the problem. Republicans threatened the nuclear option, but enough conservatives said no because democrats could use it later. Democrats did impliment it, now that power will belong to republicans.

      You want Bush43 and Cheney deciding that you don’t deserve some health care? How about the elderly, they are no longer producing, so they aren’t worth treating. How about s sickly newborn or baby? They might be saved, but also might never be productive as others, always a burden on society. Is that a chance worth taking? Maybe better for the country if they are not treated, certainly would save the nation money on health care. Euginics and euthanasia, HT?

      Yes, the slope is quite slippery. Can you imagine what future politicians could require us to buy if congress decided it had that power and the courts agreed that we can be forced to purchase goods and services? Do you think it is right that people cannot sue gun manufacturers for the harm their products are capable of? How about not being allowed to sue fast food restaurants?

      Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        And the sky might fall down, too!

      • CaptSternn says:

        The leftists always think the sky is falling. They run from one crisis to another, the things they create, then blame republicans and conservatives.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Bullshit. Anyone with an ounce of honesty recognizes Republicans as the party built on fear: fear of immigrants, fear of crime, fear of gun control, fear of atheists, fear of homosexuals, fear of socialism, fear of the United Nations, fear of terrorist attacks, fear of Muslims, fear of sharia law, and on and on and on.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Anyone with an ounce of common sense and observation knows that the left bases all on fear. Fear of guns, fear of personal responsibility, fear of freedom, fear of Christians, fear of capitalism, and on and on and on.

      • CaptSternn says:

        By the way, let us look at your examples. Imigration, no problem. Illegal imigration, big problem, but not fear. Crime is real, not based on fear. Loss of rights? Of course, the left wants to destroy rights and liberties. Atheists and homosexuals, doesn’t bother us, just stay out of our business. Same with Muslims, Jews, etc.. The UN? LOL Now that is funny. The UN fears us.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Sternn, what *you* think doesn’t matter. You are utterly irrelevant, and so far out of any mainstream as to be pointless.

        However, Republican campaigning, fundraising, and mass media are overwhelmingly based on stoking and exploiting those fears.

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        Stern…this year marks 50 years since CRA 1964, and other than an odd push by the “moral majority” in the 80s and 90s, we’ve managed to avoid a national religion and free speech seems to be doing well as on any given day I see folks here calling Obama all sorts of names without fear of arrest.

        Curly lightbulbs and low flow toilets to eugenics and euthanasia. Your slope has neither the angle nor the moisture to get there in a single paragraph

        I’m assuming your comment that I have no problem legislating morality applies to the CRA not letting a business discriminate against Jewish folks? I’m not sure how that legislates morality. I do not care about the business owners morals. If he or she is open to the public and is thus a public accommodation, the business has to play by public rules. There is absolutely nothing stopping the business owner from making his/her establishment a highly profitable private club (see Augusta National Golf Club) and thus limiting his/her association with people he/she does not like. This is such a firmly established aspect of American life and business that it is possible that only you and Rand Paul even give this a moment’s thought.

        Maybe the slope is slippery. Maybe all of this is leading to the eventual downfall of the Republic. However, if it took us 40+ years to go from CRA 1964 to curly lightbulbs, I think we have at least a few more good years left.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Let’s see LBJ shows a video of a little girl in a flower garden getting blown up by a nuclear bomb claiming this is what happens if Goldwater is elected.

        The left tells America’s senior citizens the Reagan will take away their SS. (they still repeat that one)

        The left claims republicans hate black people.

        The left claims we hate brown people.

        The left claims we hate homosexuals.

        The left claims we are racist.

        Yet owly spews the usual excrement that the GOP runs campaigns on fear. By the way, I can add dozens more examples very easily.

        And of course since Chris Ladd is a ‘republican’ you hate him also, correct?

      • CaptSternn says:

        We are already here, HT. Governemnt dictating what kind of light bulbs we must use, even forcing us to purchase goods and services. Yes, we may have a few more years of some freedom left, but it won;t be around for your grandchildren. Not that you care about them, it is obvious your greed excludes your descendents. You desire to legislate your morality on others will leave your grandchildren in a nation without freedom.

        Like you said, you don;t care about the rights of others. Just as long as you get what you want, no problem. That is a common theme with the left.

      • Crogged says:

        We could get into some dirty analogies when discussing ‘slippery’, but Congress and the Executive branch are elected and the way up any imagined slope of dictatorial overreach is called voting.

      • CaptSternn says:

        It’s called enforcing the law, Crogged. The highest law of the land is the U.S. Constitution. Sadly, because of people with your attitude, that law, and many others, are no longer enforced or even valued.

      • John Galt says:

        And has been mentioned here many times, Sternn, your peculiarly fundamentalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution is not shared by terribly many people. Most notably, it has not been shared by the Supreme Court for basically any part of this country’s history and it is really the interpretation of those nine august robes that matters. Most of the rest of us are fairly happy that Texas does not have the last word on local environmental laws, Alabama does not have the last word on representative voting laws, New York does not have the last say on immigration laws, and Delaware does not have the last say on corporate finance.

      • CaptSternn says:

        John, I do not believe that the courts are infallible. Especially after the turn they took under the FDR administration. Up until then they had done a fairly good job of protecting the constitution. Then again, I am capable of thinking for myself and doing my own research and study.

      • Crogged says:

        So the next time you are pulled over for a traffic violation insist that the officer not exercise any discretion and issue you a ticket because you respect the law. Freedom, liberty and enforcement aren’t determined in the abstract, many ‘laws’ are not enforced.

      • CaptSternn says:

        If you get pulled over, the law is being enforced. Then again, driving on public roads is not a right.

      • John Galt says:

        Sternn, the broad interpretation of the enumerated powers by the SCOTUS goes back to the Marshall court and has never been reversed in any meaningful way. And, frankly, that is the way the founders intended, since most of them were still alive while Marshall was shaping the court.

        “if the letter of the Constitution is strictly adhered to, and if no flexibility is allowed, no power could be exercised by Congress, and all the good that might be reasonably expected from an efficient government would be entirely frustrated. ”

        That was the opinion of James Madison. You know, the guy who wrote the Constitution.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Yes, John, I know about the differences between the Federalists and anti-Federalists. Riddle me this, Batman: Why was an amendment required to ban alcohol but not for the later ban of hemp, or marihuana, as the politicians at that time called it?

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        Stern…you are talking about freedom of speech, freedom of religion, eugenics, euthanasia, and they saying “we are already here” when talking about curly lightbulbs and a mandate to purchase insurance. I think you can see the difference.

        You are right, my greed (of wanting to use low flow toilets and overly bright lightbulbs???) causes me to not care about my imaginary grandchildren. Dang it, I hate when people point out what a scoundrel I am.

        I am fascinated by the morality you think I’m legislating. Seriously, to what are you referencing?

        If my kids mimic their father’s later in life foray into having kids, my grandchildren will arrive in 40 to 50 years. Let’s give them another 10 to 20 years to grow up enough to learn about their freedoms (or lack thereof).

        I think I’d happily wager that we will still be a happy and prosperous nation 50 to 70 years from now.

        Sure, we’ll have universal healthcare and a livable minimum wage, gays will be getting divorced just like straight folks, and medical abortion will be legal and wonderfully rare, so maybe that will mean we are all communists and thus you are right that the Republic will have ended.

      • John Galt says:

        Why was an amendment required? Because the narrow moralists called the temperance movement thought that laws could be repealed, but certainly amendments wouldn’t? It does nicely illustrate that with some arm-twisting and back room deals, some staggeringly bad ideas can get through the amendment process. Then we resorted to mere laws to pass drug prohibition laws that were also staggeringly bad. What’s your point?

  5. Turtles Run says:

    Seems like another Republican decides to leave the party that left them.

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/florida-lawmaker-leaves-republican-party

  6. John Galt says:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/technology/republicans-are-wooing-the-wired.html?_r=0

    An interesting article on attempts by the RNC to capitalize on some of the social media magic that contributed to Obama’s elections. A subtext to the article is the difficulty of the RNC recruiting talent. The former Facebook executive hired to lead this efforts admits, “the best engineers…don’t see the Republican Party as the most modern place to work.”

  7. glennkoks says:

    This world just keeps on changing but the GOP has not. Conservatism and rugged individualism in the rural agrarian based economy many of us grew up in was a perfect fit for the GOP.

    However the problems faced in the cities today where more and more people are living, commuting and working together offer challenges that the GOP has been slow to address.

    Tax cuts and more guns are not “solutions” and it’s pretty much all the Republicans run on nowadays.

    • Owl of Bellaire says:

      Exactly. Here’s a great map demonstrating the limited Republican appeal (which offers them power only due to gerrymandering and the tendency of our antiquated federal system to give unbalanced power to sparsely populated states).

      http://www.fastcodesign.com/1671294/infographic-a-3-d-map-of-where-votes-were-cast-most

    • CaptSternn says:

      Um, that’s why cities have governments, to take care of the issues facing those cities. That is something the left seems incapable of grasping (along with paying their own bills directly to the providers), different levels of government with different powers and responsibilities.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Sternn, we don’t all live in a dingy trailer in an unincorporated area where we can comfortably ignore the rest of the world.

      • Crogged says:

        So City 1 has an earthquake–do we depend on the benevolence of City 2 or have a federal system which aggregates the risks and the benefits of life? You mightily fight the idea of equality, which was as much a motivation behind the authors of the Constitution as was ‘liberty’.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Pshaw, Crogged. The Constitution does not specifically authorize FEMA, therefore it shouldn’t exist, right? (!!)

      • CaptSternn says:

        Equal rights, not equal outcomes or equal wealth. Other things the left can’t quite grasp.

        Owl, urban and rural areas have different needs. One size does not fit all. What works for a West Texas town wouldn’t necessarily work for Houston.

      • Crogged says:

        Equality in opposition to privilege Captain, the founders did not think all people had equal rights.

      • CaptSternn says:

        They had the right ideas, Crogged, though they did not fully put them into practice at the time. Took the nation a while to set things straight. Only now we have another class of people that are denied their very humanity and basic human rights.

      • Crogged says:

        I disagree about the new class of people not getting their rights, unless that guy isn’t selected in the upcoming NFL draft.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Why don’t pregnant women have to buy two movie tickets?

        Should a pregnant woman be able to drive her car in an HOV-2 lane?

        Can you declare a fetus as a dependent for tax purposes? What happens if there’s a miscarriage after the tax year is over? And what about the Census? Should pregnancies count for purposes of congressional representation?

      • Tuttabella says:

        Owl, an infant flies for free on airlines, since he/she doesn’t need his/her own seat. The same principle would apply to the pregnant lady who attends the theatre or a movie. She need purchase only one ticket.

      • Turtles Run says:

        But the HOV lane?

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        And taxes and the Census?

      • Tuttabella says:

        We could analyze this every which way, working within the present system, looking at it, for example, from the tax perspective — Did the fetus live with the mom (yes) and did she provide for his/her upkeep for at least half the year (do prenatal care and eating for 2 count?); and from the traffic perspective — Will the fetus be readily visible in a camera shot of the car? No, but I would certainly support allowing pregnant ladies the privilege of driving in the HOV lane, to make their lives easier. Kind of like providing special parking spots for them at the grocery store.

        In any case, these examples are nothing more than red herrings and distractions, because they are man made, often arbitrary, and sometimes profit-based. At any time, airlines can decide to start charging extra for expectant moms, just as they can decide to charge extra for obese people, simply for taking up more space, just as movie theaters can start charging admission for kids under the age of 2, and just as restaurants can revoke senior discounts, or decide to let kids eat at half price. This is just business, and it doesn’t mean that a kid is only half a person, worthy of being only half a dependent on his parents’ tax return. Same with the census and tax returns. Our government has decided what counts as a person, for these purposes, and it could change. I would not be at all surprised if at some point in the future the fetus is allowed to be claimed as a dependent.

      • Tuttabella says:

        We could analyze this every which way, working within the present system, looking at it, for example, from the tax perspective — Did the fetus live with the mom (yes) and did she provide for his/her upkeep for at least half the year (do prenatal care and eating for 2 count?); and from the traffic perspective — Will the fetus be readily visible in a camera shot of the car? No, but I would certainly support allowing pregnant ladies the privilege of driving in the HOV lane, to make their lives easier. Kind of like providing special parking spots for them at the grocery store.

        In any case, these examples are nothing more than red herrings and distractions, because they are man made, often arbitrary, and sometimes profit-based. At any time, airlines can decide to start charging extra for expectant moms, just as they can decide to charge extra for obese people, simply for taking up more space, just as movie theaters can start charging admission for kids under the age of 2, and just as restaurants can revoke senior discounts, or decide to let kids eat at half price. This is just business, and it doesn’t mean that a kid is only half a person, worthy of being only half a dependent on his parents’ tax return. Same with the census and tax returns. Our government has decided what counts as a person, for these purposes, and it could change. I would not be at all surprised if at some point in the future the fetus is allowed to be claimed as a dependent.

      • Tuttabella says:

        Sorry for the duplicated post. This format takes a bit of getting used to.

      • Tuttabella says:

        My point is that you can’t really define personhood based on something as arbitrary as the price of admission.

  8. Crogged says:

    Hmmmm, funny what a week can accomplish in comprehending information.

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/02/how-obamacare-became-the-new-welfare.html?mid=rss

  9. texan5142 says:

    Another line from the movie that sounds like a description of the GOP forgeign policy of today.

    Grandpa Martin Vanderhof: Lincoln said, “With malice toward none, with charity to all.” Nowadays they say, “Think the way I do or I’ll bomb the daylights outta you.”

  10. Texan5142 says:

    I said yesterday that the 1938 movie “You Can’t Take it With You” has some similarities with today’s politics, here is just a few examples.

    Alice Sycamore: You ought to hear Grandpa on that subject. You know he says most people nowadays are run by fear. Fear of what they eat, fear of what they drink, fear of their jobs, their future, fear of their health. They’re scared to save money, and they’re scared to spend it. You know what his pet aversion is? The people who commercialize on fear, you know they scare you to death so they can sell you something you don’t need.

    and

    Grandpa Martin Vanderhoff: Penny, why don’t you write a play about Ism-Mania?
    Penny Sycamore: Ism-Mania?
    Grandpa Martin Vanderhoff: Yeah, sure, you know, Communism, Faschism, Voodoo-ism, everybody’s got an -ism these days.
    Penny Sycamore: Oh
    [laughs]
    Penny Sycamore: I thought it was some kind of itch or something.
    Grandpa Martin Vanderhoff: Well, it’s just as catching. When things go a little bad nowadays, you go out, get yourself an -ism and you’re in business.

    Some things never change.

    • Tuttabella says:

      Texan, this sounds more like a liberal tendency — “The people who commercialize on fear, you know they scare you to death so they can sell you something you don’t need.” Like health insurance with mandatory levels of coverage. Or in the case of: “Fear of what they eat, fear of what they drink” — resulting in the limiting of portion sizes of drinks.

      The medical establishment is also guilty, of inducing “fear of their health” — leading to unnecessary medical testing and treatment.

      It could even apply to Apple, and consumerism in general: You MUST have the latest iPhone, or else . . .

      • Tuttabella says:

        It would seem it all comes down to consumerISM . . . Oh, no, I think I just fell into the ISM trap!

      • CaptSternn says:

        Have we fallen into the ismism zone, Tutt?

      • Texan5142 says:

        LOL Tutt.

        I just thought it was funny that some of the things in the movie still hold true today. It is both a liberal and conservative trait to sell fear, but it is more of a conservative trait to “Think the way I do or I’ll bomb the daylights outta you.” when it comes to foreign policy in my opinion.

  11. BOB says:

    I find it hard to follow all republicans. Here we have the president changing law passed by the congress and senate and signed into law. Yes he is changing the bill how many times now?

    This is unconstitutional. I guess the oath of office means nothing to either party.

    I am tired of both parties as they have left us citizens to their followers and campign contributors.

    • rightonrush says:

      Please expound on what you are talking about regarding what/which laws the President has changed.

    • Owl of Bellaire says:

      The executive branch gets to execute the laws passed by Congress.

      Last I heard, execution of complex projects usually requires the ability to make decisions and respond to changing circumstances.

      You seldom hear conservatives squawk when the Department of Defense revises the requirements for a submarine or airplane that Congress has authorized.

      Oh, right: military contracting exists in an entirely separate universe from everything else.

    • CaptSternn says:

      Execute and enforce laws, not change or create laws by decree.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        What law have they created?

      • John Galt says:

        Like most laws, the PPACA has a number of provisions that state that the details, requirements, dates or regulations are to be decided by the executive branch, in this case designated as the Secretary of HHS.
        “The Secretary shall establish a minimum interval…”
        “The Secretary may develop guidelines…”
        “The Secretary shall promulgate regulations…”

        Those are three sentences in the first three sections of the enacted PPACA (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf). In total, the word “secretary” appears more than 1,000 times in this legislation (my browser stopped counting at 1,000). What Sternn and other conservatives bleat apocalyptically as anti-democratic tyranny is actually the letter of the law passed by Congress.

      • Turtles Run says:

        JohnGalt

        My browser stopped at 3,053 when looking for the word secretary.

      • CaptSternn says:

        All the more reason to repeal that train wreck, John.

  12. glennaa says:

    As a Texan, I have been a registered independent for 20 years now. Unless one is really involved in politics, I don’t understand what the benefits are in registering for either party. Seriously, for the average person, what does registering a party affiliation get you in Texas?

    • bubbabobcat says:

      Not sure about the average person, but the primaries ensure a fringe group like the teabuggers to hijack the Republican party to be nearly guaranteed a loss in the general election when they are outnumbered by more relatively rational voters. Like the majority of the country.

      And to pre-empt the typical wingnut factless retort of “you guys do it too!”, please provide the evidence of a groundswell of “left wing loonies” trying to oust “DINO’s” from the Democratic party. Where are our Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, Christine O’Donnell, Sharron Angle doppelgangers?

      Cue the wingnut delusional manufactured facts.

    • DanMan says:

      I’d like to know where you registered. I sure hope you didn’t give up an personal information when you signed up for whatever list you put your name on because we don’t have to register to vote in Texas.

      Where in Texas do you live to not know this?

      • desperado says:

        Yes you do. Whichever primary you vote in you are “registered” with that party.

      • DanMan says:

        and when has anybody ever gotten registered as an independent? glennaa is another out of stater exposing herself as a fraud, much like our host

      • glennaa says:

        I turned 18 in Louisiana, where party affiliation was required. 4 years later I registered in Texas, and have been registered in Texas since then, with just change of address forms filled out. I thought there was originally a checkbox for party affiliation in Texas, but I see that that isn’t the case. Was there originally one?

      • desperado says:

        Texas has never had registration by party, at least since I started voting in ’74 they haven’t. Your registration card is stamped according to the primary you vote in.

      • glennaa says:

        I’ve been registered in Texas since 86. I could have sworn I had to make a party affiliation, but I guess that’s my memory of my first time (Louisiana).

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        And everyone says that you never forget your first time!

        Oh, they don’t mean voting? 🙂

      • Tuttabella says:

        Glenn, you may not be from Texas, but you “came” as fast as you could!

  13. lomamonster says:

    Chris, I too grew up deeply allied to Republicanism as an unshakable concept of governance and felt the confidence and assurance of all that you mentioned as being a reasonable and vital path to American success for all. That ended for me abruptly with the Nixon fiasco, and I have not seen any efforts from the party to deal with the corruption and heal itself since that which amounted to more than just mere facade and fake to the right.

    Our economy has routinely been raided by the Republicans in their pursuance of power, and it has been up to the Democrats to restore any kind of economic balance in the face of caustic obstructionism and partisan sabotage. Now, we have enough data to indeed indite the Republican Party for what it presently is and what it has done to embroil our nation in a myriad of terrible situations from which we might never recover the balance that you spoke about so longingly. I share your thoughts about that longing.

    But that was for another time, and we are too far forward and committed to present difficulties to recover the civility that is required to even begin to discuss the greater good of our nation. We are spiraling toward that moment of closure that you mentioned and it is not something that we should think will yield another chance for reason to prevail again. Rather, it just might portend the unthinkable.

    Other than that, I’m glad that you got to see Belize and throw all of this stuff in your back pocket for awhile. It’s always refreshing to see how the rest of the world operates from time to time!

    • Tuttabella says:

      Loma, I don’t know if you’re referring to the political landscape or to the media, but it’s never too late to recover civility.

    • Tuttabella says:

      As the President said, we are the ones we have been waiting for.

      Civility starts with us.

    • DanMan says:

      This is a rich one. Completely lost all respect for repubs over Nixon’s attempt to cover up a meaningless break-in (recall this is where the statement “It’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up” came from). It was members of his own party that tapped on his shoulder and told him “It’s time Mr. President”. Note today Obama claims he is less liberal that Nixon.

      But today, we have a president that enforces some laws and ignores others, pushes out EOs that conflict with law, has been shown to lie about Benghazi (4 dead), Fast & Furious (2 known American LOE dead and hundreds of Mexicans and still rising), the targeting by his IRS of political foes and his entire Obamacare fiasco that is so toxic no dem wants him to campaign with them, yet you can find case for criticism.

      Not lot sure what a lomamonster is but I can tell they love to lie to themselves and anybody that will listen.

      • DanMan says:

        can’t find find

      • desperado says:

        Watergate was about more than the break in at the hotel. It was the whole web of excrement that was uncovered as the cover-up unraveled. Like Nixon’s attempt to stifle a free press for one, but you don’t care about that. If Obama has done all these things that surpass Nixon, Republicans control the House, bring articles of impeachment.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        “A meaningless break-in.” Talk about rich. More willful ignorance, stupidity, and self delusion from the Dan the Richard. Why is that not surprising?

        – Breaking and entering a psychiatrist’s office to find dirt on a leaker. With the direct knowledge of and on orders by the President.

        – Wiretapping the offices of the Democratic National Committee (putting a political rival on par with the “evil empire during the height of the Cold War). With the direct knowledge of and on orders by the President.

        – Nixon via 3rd in line Robert Bork (yes, THAT Robert Bork) fires Archibald Cox after the Attorney General and his Deputy refused Nixon’s orders and “resigned” in protest in the infamous Saturday Night Massacre. Nixon also abolishes the office of the special prosecutor investigating him.

        – House Judiciary Committee starts impeachment proceedings.

        – Supreme Court rules Nixon is required to turn over his audio tapes. 2 are missing and one discussing the brakin and coverup have an “18-1/2 minute blank gap”.

        – Nixon resigns in light of the overwhelming evidence and likelihood of impeachment and conviction by Congress.

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/watergate/timeline.html

        http://www.authentichistory.com/1961-1974/6-nixon/3-watergate/timeline/

        http://watergate.info/chronology/brief-timeline-of-events

        http://www.foxnews.com/story/2005/05/31/timeline-watergate-scandal/

        Know your real history Dan the Richard.

        All this naked power mongering and dictatorial consolidation of authority in a purported Constitutional Democracy absolved by Dan the Richard yet all this vile hate for Obama. Nope, no irrationally deluded bias whatsoever…

        Have at it also Cappy; chime in and go through your convoluted contortion of logic and facts find a way to “constitutionally justify” this outright power grab and trampling of the Constitution, judicial system, and just plain law and order and right and wrong. I know you’re champing at the bit and will do it.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Reposting with only one link so no approval is needed:

        “A meaningless break-in.” Talk about rich. More willful ignorance, stupidity, and self delusion from the Dan the Richard. Why is that not surprising?

        – Breaking and entering a psychiatrist’s office to find dirt on a leaker. With the direct knowledge of and on orders by the President.

        – Wiretapping the offices of the Democratic National Committee (putting a political rival on par with the “evil empire during the height of the Cold War). With the direct knowledge of and on orders by the President.

        – Nixon via 3rd in line Robert Bork (yes, THAT Robert Bork) fires Archibald Cox after the Attorney General and his Deputy refused Nixon’s orders and “resigned” in protest in the infamous Saturday Night Massacre. Nixon also abolishes the office of the special prosecutor investigating him.

        – House Judiciary Committee starts impeachment proceedings.

        – Supreme Court rules Nixon is required to turn over his audio tapes. 2 are missing and one discussing the brakin and coverup have an “18-1/2 minute blank gap”.

        – Nixon resigns in light of the overwhelming evidence and likelihood of impeachment and conviction by Congress.

        http://www.authentichistory.com/1961-1974/6-nixon/3-watergate/timeline/

        Know your real history Dan the Richard.

        All this naked power mongering and dictatorial consolidation of authority in a purported Constitutional Democracy absolved by Dan the Richard yet all this vile hate for Obama. Nope, no irrationally deluded bias whatsoever…

        Have at it also Cappy; chime in and go through your convoluted contortion of logic and facts find a way to “constitutionally justify” this outright power grab and trampling of the Constitution, judicial system, and just plain law and order and right and wrong. I know you’re champing at the bit and will do it.

      • lomamonster says:

        The “Greater Good” strikes again…

  14. kabuzz61 says:

    Welcome back Chris.

    I don’t buy your GOP story at all. Not a word. Writing it or saying it is easy but living it? That is where the rubber meets the road and you my friend are not a GOPer or ever was.

    Jack Kemp makes very good speeches as all those that have no responsibility do. Obama makes the right speeches of course but they are all lies. So hang your hat on speeches while the rest of the grown ups focus on execution of promise and policies.

    • Owl of Bellaire says:

      Few people think the Tea Party has any promise, and most are horrified when they actually think about the consequences of their touted policies.

      • CaptSternn says:

        It is the tea party movement. Lower case. Some have gotten on my case for the lower case “D”emocrats and “R”epublicans. But let it be known that the “t”ea party movement is definately lower case. We are a grass roots movement, not a political party. Yes, you have tried the Coffee Party, the No Label Party and the Occupy Wall Street Party, people that publicly defecate on polic cars. That is your lot. Not ours.

        We support the U.S. Constitution. Oh, the horror you feel at that, Owl. And the conequences of personal responsibility. Yes, that horror.

        And so much for me being logged in and my avatar. This format is crap.

      • CaptSternn says:

        This format sucks.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Try the reader version. It is much better than the standard format.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Sternn, so far as I can tell you aren’t a legitimate authority on anything at all: only an object lesson on the folly of modern navel-gazing, self-satisfied conservatism.

      • DFC says:

        CaptSternn notwithstanding, there is no “Tea Party” and there is no “tea party.” There is no movement. There are no grass roots. There are vast hidden sums from the Kochs and their network financing Astroturf media.

        While CaptSternn presumes to say what his imaginary movement is about, no one is empowered to say what the so-called “movement” is about because the movement is a paradox: people united together in defense of every individual’s interpretations of what it’s about. They have to live in abstractions like “We support the U.S. Constitution. And the conequences of personal responsibility” because the moment any actual test arises between their interpretations of the Constitution and personal responsibility arise, they inevitably disagree, Two earnest spokespeople like CaptSternn will sooner or later decide that the Constitution does and doesn’t endorse gay marriage or abortion or ACA any other issue that arises. They are doomed to fall apart because their most authentic expression of fidelity to the movement is to believe their own interpretation of an issue regardless of what anyone else in the movement feels.

        What illusion of unity they have comes from any single philosophical wellsprting, but instead from the centralized financing and publicity of groups like Americans for Prosperity who front for private interests.

        They will fall apart, and it’ll be ugly and costly. While no political dogma unites them, they are remarkably uniform in belligerence and vindictiveness, and they will seek targets. They will do maximum damage to the GOP because the Republicans created them and then betrayed them. Meanwhile, the interests that purport to support and endorse the illusory “movement” will exploit its energy until it doesn’t have a dime left.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Very amusing the extreme leftist Owly chides the good Capt. about not being an authority on anything yet the extreme lefty seems to know all about the TEA Party. Doesn’t get much better. When someone is making their case from ignorance, which so many on the extreme left do, just feed them rope.

        Chris, you have never convinced me that you ever supported republicans. Did you use a different name in the party primaries?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Ah, so DFC is outed as a Soros minion. Your attempts to answer the tea party movement have not worked. The Coffee Party … fail. The No Labels Party … flop. The Occupy Wall Street movement … not only did it fail, but it showed the world what the left was really like. The need for anti-rape tents, the theft, the murders, publicly defecating on police cars … yeah, nice job there.

        No, republicans did not create us. The GOP establishment fears us. Just read the things Lifer says and you will see the truth. Then again, you already know, but your master, George Soros, has sent you your talking points and you will repeat them as often as you can. The old saying, lies repeated often enough will eventually be taken as truth.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Sternn, the more repetitive and strident you get, the more ridiculous you appear.

        You’ve clearly fallen right off the edge of reality into your own navel-gazing conservative la-la land, where words and facts mean only what you want them to mean and history is infinitely mutable for personal convenience.

        ‘Cause you sure as heck don’t inhabit the same rational universe as the rest of us.

    • desperado says:

      Good idea, buzz. Don’t worry about having someone on your side who makes purdy speaches and can intelligently articulate an idea. Just keep screaming liar and communist and dictator. That’s a winning strategery if ever there was one.

      • rightonrush says:

        You might be watching too much Fox News if:

        1. You are OUTRAGED at how Obama has shredded the Constitution but can’t name any rights you’ve lost since January 20, 2009.

        2. You think record breaking cold weather in the middle of winter disproves “Global Warming.”

        3. You think record breaking cold weather in the middle of winter disproves “Global Warming” but record breaking heat waves in the summer are just a fluke.

        4. You hate Obama for the almost 1700 American lives lost in Afghanistan under his watch but have no idea how many died in Iraq before he took office (Hint: more than 4000).

        5. You call Afghanistan “Obama’s War” but ignore the entire first eight years of it.

        6. You think there’s no way Chris Christie knew about the scandal unfolding in his own office but Obama clearly knew what a small IRS office in Cincinnati was up to.

        7. You think 4 Americans dying in Benghazi is “the worst tragedy since 9/11.“

        8. You denounce Bill Clinton as an adulterer but give a pass to David Vitter and Mark Sanford because they apologized.

        9. You are both convinced Obama is a secret Muslim and still go into a frenzy when someone mention Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

        http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/01/27/50-signs-watch-much-fox-news/

      • CaptSternn says:

        RoR, lets start with the first on your list. We have lost the right to choose what level of health insurance we desire to purchase, even to purchase none at all. Doing so is now a crime.

        Really, that’s all that needs to ber said, because the left always comes back with, “Well, you shouldn’t have had that right to begin with.”

        But why not? You think a couple of hurricanes in 2005, and because the summers are hot, it proves that human beings control the climate and weather, solar activity, the earth’s orbit around the sun and the tilt of the axis.. Christie was wrong and should be held accountable. The Afghanistan surge is Obama’s. Benghazi was not the result of a youtube video.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        “We have lost the right to choose what level of health insurance we desire to purchase….”

        Please, oh Mr. Constitutional Scholar, where in our founding document does that right appear?

      • CaptSternn says:

        9th and 10th amendments, Owl.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        So, just to be clear, that means that OSHA, the FDA, the NTB, the FAA, and every other federal regulatory organization is also unconstitutional and illegal? If not, why not?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Yes, even the Air Force is unconstitutional.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Thanks again for the proof that slack-jawed Tea Party idiots have as their main policy goal to drag the United States straight back to the eighteenth century.

        The majority of us prefer modernity. You will always be on the lunatic fringe.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Amend the constitution, Owl. Not real hard to understand. But then again, the left has no value for the constitution or what it stands for.

      • rightonrush says:

        No Sternn, you don’t HAVE to choose to have health insurance. Just like you don’t HAVE to choose to use seat belts. Climate change is the real McCoy and anyone with a HS education should realize that. It’s amazing that you are privy to the intelligence regarding the state dept. A man as smart as you is wasting his time here, you should be in Washington. Why not run for office?

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        The Constitution doesn’t need to be amended for that, Sternn; everyone with any wit knows that it entitles the federal government to do what needs to be done to maintain a modern nation-state.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Oh, Sternn: are you claiming that the ACLU is a hard-right organization?

        They seem to place great value on the Constitution.

        Or maybe you’re just blathering inanely. Again.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Sure, RoR, just like a person can choose to rob a bank. It is still a crime, only the PPACA mess in itself is a crime against the people and the nation.

        Owl, the constitution grants congress specific and limited powers. Those powers not granted by it, or denied by it to the states, belong to the states or the people. Plain enough for you?

      • rightonrush says:

        Sternn it’s damn silly to equate robbing a bank to paying a fine because you CHOOSE NOT to have insurance. Plus, no American is denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition, guess that’s criminal too. You just don’t make sense.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Sternn — So plain and nuance-less that it’s clear it comes from a simple-minded cretin who idolizes the morally and militarily defeated Confederacy, belabors his gun fetish to the point where he wants every American armed like a soldier, and thinks brains are utterly unimportant to a human being compared to a genetic sequence that mostly reads like a chimpanzee’s.

      • CaptSternn says:

        RoR, first you claim no freedom or rights have been lost, then when faced with the reality you twist, squirm and spin like a top.

        Owl, well, yes, maybe your DNA does read mostly like that of a chimp. You claiming that means you are not a human being? Then again, you have never been able to prove that you are a human being.

      • Turtles Run says:

        “Owl, the constitution grants congress specific and limited powers. ”

        The Constitution also gives the federal government broad implied powers and stated in the “Necessary and Proper Clause” and supported by the 10th Amendment.

        Why the 10th Amendment because the founding fathers in living the failure of states with their own sovereignty they made sure the amendment did not “expressly” limit the power of the federal government like the Articles of Confederation did.

        We live in a changing world and it is impossible to run a nation based on ideals from the 1780’s. They meant for our nation to adapt not shrivel up and that is what would have happened to our country. We would be some banana republic versus the superpower we are today.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Sternn, your DNA reads mostly the same as mine.

        Of course, I forgot to add “scientific ignoramus” to your list of other faults.

      • CaptSternn says:

        No, Turtles, there are no “implied powers”, only those specifically granted. If there is a need for additional powers or changes, there is the amendment process. You know, the process the original authors set up because they understood changes might need to be made later on. Maybe you think the whole concept of free speech is outdated as well? After all, that was put in there in the 1780s.

        Oh, and Owl, I have never said that every citizen should be armed equal to the infantry. That is you just making up lies as you go. Your Standard Operating Procedure, as usual.

      • rightonrush says:

        Sternn arote”RoR, first you claim no freedom or rights have been lost, then when faced with the reality you twist, squirm and spin like a top”.

        I ask you AGAIN, what rights have you lost? You can pay the fine and go on your merry way insurance free and mooch off the rest of us. Should you have a catastrophe and require long term hospitalization & care I’ll bet you don’t have the solvency to pay up front. You aren’t living in reality, you live in your own make believe tri-corner hat la-la land.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Oh, please, Sternn. Have the cojones not to crawfish so blatantly.

        You’ve said many times over on the *Chronicle* that the “true” purpose of the Second Amendment is to enable a citizen uprising against the government. And you’ve also said that, in order to allow that to be practical, citizens should be permitted to fit themselves out with weapons equivalent to those of a modern infantryman.

        I mean, renouncing cherished beliefs just because you’ve realized they make you look like a loon is almost rational-sounding. And I hardly expect that of you.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Permitted, Owl, not required. Words really do have definitions, but you go on trying to crteate your own definitions.

        RoR, same reply as before, people can and do commit crimes, that doesn’t equal being free to commit those crimes. If a thing is a crime, then we do not have the right any longer. Understand?

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        And I never said “required”.

        So are you dishonest or just incompetent at reading?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Fine, Owl. I have never said I want everybody to be armed equal to the infantry.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Owl, he means those that live in a world of fear, those that think the broccoli police are coming to take their guns (manhood) and make them gay marry.

      • John Galt says:

        You most certainly have said you think that any citizen who wishes to be armed similarly to an infantry soldier has the right to do so.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Yes, John, I have. That is a far cry from being required or even suggesting that I want all people to be so armed.

      • Turtles Run says:

        CaptSternn

        Comment on Ted Poe: New York politicians shouldn’t lecture Texans on guns
        1/25/2013 5:25 PM CST
        2 of 7 people found this helpful

        Reasonable would be to follow the intent of the authors of the constitution, that the people should have access to the same weapons that the best equipped infantryman would carry into battle.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Turtles, still a far cry from thinking it should be required or that I even think all should be so armed.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Once again, no one said you did.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Noone but Owl, Turtles. It helps to read the discussion if you are going to jump in.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        I did not either, unless you are driven to parse things to your own satisfaction rather than to the intent of the writer, in order to produce a satisfying sense of martyrdom.

        Which Sternn is well known for.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Owl of Bellaire says: February 10, 2014 at 11:55 am – “belabors his gun fetish to the point where he wants every American armed like a soldier”

        Try again, Owl. Here, so far, you can’t delete your comments.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Owl also wrote “permitted” but you seem to have ignored that.

        And you’ve also said that, in order to allow that to be practical, citizens should be “PERMITTED” to fit themselves out with weapons equivalent to those of a modern infantryman. (emphasis mine)

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        And he proves my point.

  15. zcar says:

    I have been reading your blog for a while and I am amazed with what you write. While I am not sure I agree with some of your viewpoints, I tend to agree with your facts. I have been telling my Republican friends much of the same of what you have been writing, but they do not want to hear it, although they reluctantly agree. They would much rather repeat the same “Republican good, Democrat bad” mantra. I believe it is in this country’s best interest to have a strong Republican party. This would, however, mean working for the country’s good, rather than doing and saying what they need to stay in power. Please do not take this to mean Democrats are immune to pandering – the Republicans are just more willing to call it governance. For all those that think the Republicans are doing their best for the country there are a few things I remember. One, Mitch McConnell stated over and over he wanted to make Obama a one term president. I do not think it would make any difference which Democrat was president, he was stating he would not work with them. Two, have heard quotes from several Republicans that compromising meant the Democrats coming to the Republican side. Not exactly compromise as I understand the word. Third, when sequester was signed off on Boehner was asked why he was smiling. His words were because he got 94% of what he wanted. That does not sound like Obama saying my way or the highway, which is what I have heard from Republicans. It sounds like the establishment Republicans have finally figured out the tea party is their albatross, not their savior. Hopefully, this will lead them to doing their jobs and help lead the country in the right direction. How amazing would it be for the U.S. if both houses of Congress realized their job was to lead the country, not stay elected.

    • CaptSternn says:

      The compromise is always to the left. Denocrats suggest they want all of our freedoms, but will compromise and only take half. Tomorrow, they will compromise and only take half of what is left. The next day they will do it again. The GOP establishment has caved over and over. Now there is a movement to stand up to this and start to take back our liberty and rights, to start reining in the federal government instead of ever expanding it further and further from its constitutional bounds.

      • rightonrush says:

        What freedoms have they taken away from you Sternn?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Already answered you on that, RoR. The freedom to choose what level of health insurance I might want to buy, or to have none at all.

      • Turtles Run says:

        You do not have the freedom to force people to pay for your irresponsibility. We as a nation have long decided that allowing people to needlessly suffer is unacceptable. We are not a nation of anti-social psychotic deviants that do not have any regard for their fellow citizens.

      • CaptSternn says:

        “You do not have the freedom to force people to pay for your irresponsibility.”

        It is law now that we must be forced to pay for your irresponsibility. It is called the PPACA.

  16. zcar says:

    Sorry, but the rantings of the misguided, misinformed do not “prove” anything.

    • DFC says:

      Call CaptSternn indicative, then. Proof can be obtained in statistically significant quantities every day all over the Web and on Conservative talk radio.

  17. Bart-1 says:

    Here’s a great “bircher” Kemp quote Despo. “I believe in civil liberties for homosexuals. I guess I’d have to say I’d draw the line at letting them teach in the schools.
    Jack Kemp

    Still want to claim he’s not a tea party type? O.K. here’s another. “Affirmative action based on quotas is wrong – wrong because it is antithetical to the genius of the American idea: individual liberty.
    Jack Kemp

    • Owl of Bellaire says:

      Kemp’s comment was unbelievably liberal for the 1980s, when AIDS was a “gay plague”.

      Who’s to say that, like the American culture at large in recent years, he wouldn’t have moved toward a greater acceptance of homosexuals, including, say, a belief in marriage equality?

  18. texan5142 says:

    Watching “You Can’t Take it With You” as I type this, and thinking about Lifers post. A lot of similarities with today’s political views in the movie.

    My apologies to the Captain for jumping down his throat about the constitution . Your knowledge of the constitution is commendable. I am sure the definition and meaning and/or intent of certain parts will be up to debate long after you or I am gone.

    Peace
    Frozen in Minnesota( my sister in law tells me in Pearland it is going to hit 70, enjoy)

  19. geoff1968 says:

    I volunteered for Pat Buchanan’s campaign back in ’96, but that was long ago and far away. The programming failed and all I got was freedom of mind, which is actually pretty cool. As far as I can tell there’s nothing conservative about the TEA Party. Remember Augustus’ saying make haste slowly (festina lente)? That’s what I consider conservative. Measured, careful, change over time.

    I can’t even imagine what disaster would befall the United States if the TEA Party were given control, or rather I don’t want to imagine what might happen. We’d probably end up like Mexico under Diaz or something. Malnurished children roaming the streets selling chewing gum. Toxic air and water. Lawlessness. Anarchy.

    That can’t happen. That’s why the TEA Party has to get along, get with the program not the pogrom, or get out.

    • CaptSternn says:

      Obama is the wanna-be dictator. Rule by decree, bypass or eliminate congress and the rule of law. Tell us, why should freedom loving U.S. Citizens just go along with that when that is what the founders of this state and this nation fought, sacrificed and died to free us from?

      • fencesitter says:

        Capt… he has used the executive rule less than others, you can google that.
        let your argument be realistic

        with your libertian views, do you agree with the belief of free movement of human capital?

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Silly fencesitter: obviously you’re still stuck in the “reality-based community” which Republicans abandoned sometime around the second Bush administration,

      • CaptSternn says:

        Fence, it isn’t the number of times it has been used, it is what it is used for. For example, his orders and policies restrict the free movement of human capital and promote dependence and servitude.

      • Turtles Run says:

        In your opinion. Some could argue that the Executive orders under other Presidents were more aggressive. It seems the issue is with the person issuing the Executive Orders not the orders themselves.

        Since you have clearly demonstrated your ignorance of economics and most other subjects, your comments ring pretty hollow.

      • Turtles Run says:

        It doesn’t even qualify as that.

  20. DFC says:

    A well-reasoned argument, Chris. I suspect you’ll be hearing shortly that your right to call yourself a Republican has been revoked.

    Your cardinal sins are “feet planted firmly in reality and a willingness to examine our failures.” Neither of those is welcome on the Right. Never did the movement’s founders ever try to make Conservatism realist or rigorous. They indulged in the seductive ambguity of vagaries. They insisted that Conservatism really couldn’t and really shouldn’t constrain itself with definition. It was for Kirk “a body of sentiments” and for Weaver “a paradigm of essences: and for Buckley “yelling stop,” which let them open their high-minded, elitist movement to low-minded lowlifes, the ones Buckley called “Janissaries” whose votes and money were essential and whose boorish, proud ignorance could be managed.

    Those boors flocked to Conservatism precisely because it eschewed “feet planted firmly in reality and a willingness to examine our failures.” Reagan and the GOP elevated Republican louts to sanctity, told them they were all just fine just as they were, kowtowed to their worst aspects and washed them clean of any failures, even future ones. Who needs reality when spin salved the soul? Who needed “a willingness to examine our failures” when God and American Exceptionalism told us that we never had failed and never could fail–that any failures in this country were the fault of someone else’s subversive, unAmerican unGodly wrongheadedness?

    Republicans like you are paying a terrible price as Conservatism diverges from Republicanism. Today’s Conservatism is just a feeling, just an attitude that disdains realism and accountability and dwells in Karl Rove’s fantasyland outside the “reality-based community” Conservatives burned the tools of political reasoning—consensus, concession, reasoned argument, empirical thinking, “feet planted firmly in reality and a willingness to examine our failures” have no place in the Right-wing fortress-churches where xenophobia, ideological fanaticism and unconditional Narcissism are on the altar. No true Conservative would realistically examine failure as have, for example, Huntsmann and Portman and McCain. They’re RINOs, apostates. They insult the True Faith. Marco Rubio tried being realistic. Chris Christie used realism briefly. They became quick blood sacrifices. Even Reagan–the faith deified Reagan but the man wouldn’t make it as a Conservative today

    It’s a tragedy, but it seems the most authentic Conservative on your site, and the emblematic Republican, is this troll DanMan, who understands what today’s Conservatism really means: shallow snark, victimhood, mindless anger, speed, pride, and impervious stupidity. His ilk stands on the parapet. They can spot a reasoned argument coming over the horizon and attack it with passion, clichés and endless repetition until it goes away. The sole political purpose that thinking can serve is being played out every day: simple obstruction. They do nothing because yelling Stop is all they know. They aren’t a Loyal Opposition. They are passive-aggressive secessionists. Warning these people about the hazards of fear or meth is pointless. You have to remember, for the addicted user, fear and meth are fun.

    I’m afraid the GOP is heading for another Goldwater moment. The party is cracking along old fault lines and new expectations. You can hear it when the Georgia Tea Party splits from Americans for Prosperity over nuclear energy, and when Chattanooga gets the first gigabit broadband service in the U.S. Gerrymandering and unlimited money are doing more to wreck the Republicans than they are to help them. Meanwhile, yelling Stop hasn’t stopped technology or the markets or people’s thinking, so Conservatism is embalming itself instead of evolving as any living organism needs to do. Their truest true believers choose to live in a myth of themselves as the world moves on.

    • CaptSternn says:

      When it comes to the destruction of individual liberty and rights, where is the problem yelling “STOP”? When it comes to promoting more welfare and dependence on the federal government, where is the problem with yelling “STOP”? When it comes to being required to buy government approved brocolli in government approved amounts, where is the problem with yelling “STOP”? When it comes to stopping the advance of socialism and appointing self-avowed communists, where is the problem with yelling “STOP”?

      “Warning these people about the hazards of fear or meth is pointless. You have to remember, for the addicted user, fear and meth are fun.” Government control, government welfare, goverment handouts, government subsidies, “STOP”!

  21. way2gosassy says:

    If you allow those right wing extremists to silence your voice or misconstrue your intentions then you have effectively allowed them to win. Winning in that context would be to see the end of the Grand Ole Party as we know it.

    This country needs a strong two party system with both parties working together to balance both the needs of it’s people and it’s economy. Never being for something is not getting anyone anywhere.

    • Owl of Bellaire says:

      I beg to differ. What this country needs is a strong MULTI-party system.

      The modern world is too complex to be faced by a simplistic duopoly. In human beings, we view being bipolar as a mental illness; I see little improvement when the description shifts to governments.

      • way2gosassy says:

        We already have a a MULTI-party system! If you count all the factions of the current Republican and Democratic parties. Add to the mess we have now you can include the Green Party and Independents. What we really need are people in politics who remember the definitions of words like compromise, consensus and tolerance, to name a few.

      • Tuttabella says:

        Owl – Probably not the best analogy. If bipolar disorder is bad, wouldn’t multiple personality disorder be worse? With your analogy, the one-party system would be the ideal. No conflict, no disagreement whatsoever, total unity. That’s not accepting complexity and ambiguity. That’s calling for simplified conformity.

      • way2gosassy says:

        Tutt! You’ll have Capt in a spin suggesting such a thing as anarchy!

      • Tuttabella says:

        Owl, so mental illness is probably not the best analogy, since the fewer personalities, the better. Not so with the political system.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        True enough; my analogy was poorly chosen.

        I still feel that allowing voters to choose, from multiple parties, one most consonant with their personal beliefs, rather than having to choose from two over-broad coalitions which muddle together a variety of stances on all issues, would be superior to the sloppy duopoly we have today.

        Those who are “socially liberal but fiscally conservative” should have an effective political home. No, Libertarians don’t count; under our current system which relentlessly favors the existing duopoly, they simply aren’t an effective national political force.

        It’s worth pointing out that our Founding Fathers naïvely discounted the role of “factions” while writing the Constitution; later political scientists had more experience with democratically elected legislatures, resulting in the kinds of governments we see in nations with newer constitutions than ours. Even we were not so foolish as to stick Iraq with a system like our own when setting up their post-war governmental structures.

      • flypusher says:

        I’d like to see more than two strong parties too, but I can’t see that as likely. It isn’t in the Constitution, but two system gets entrenched by things like Congress’ internal rules/ Practices, how states conduct primaries and set requirements for candidates to get their names on ballots. Couldn’t everyone here agree that it would be a very good thing if people like SJL and Louie Gohmert had viable opposition in their districts from the other party ( or even a 3rd party) and had to actually work to make a case for reelection each time?

    • Tuttabella says:

      Sassy: Cap is definitely not an anarchist, but he’s not authoritarian, either, as many here seem to think. I guess that’s just the impression he creates, since his live and let live stance could very well end up enabling undesirable policies and behavior on the part of some.

      As for your call for the 2 major parties to work together for the good of the country . . . Cap and I just had a discussion about compromise. Even when there is compromise, there is usually a dominant group of people who expect most of the “compromise” to move in their general direction, who expect others to compromise with them but not necessarily the other way around.

      For example, how might we compromise with respect to the abortion issue? A point often brought up is how pro-life people supposedly don’t care about babies after they’re born. Ok, as a pro-lifer, I propose we compromise. How about we agree to increase support and funding for birth control, prenatal care, help for single moms for a few years after they give birth, etc. What would you bring to the table, as your part of the compromise? If, in exchange for the increased funding, we asked that you outlaw abortion completely, would you? I don’t see that happening.Or perhaps scale back and make abortion legal only during the first 2 months? Probably not that, either, since you might be afraid that if you give an inch, we’ll take a mile. and you would say that it was just the beginning of an erosion of a woman’s right to choose.

      That’s where it gets tricky. If only one side agrees to “compromise,” then that’s not true compromise. Also, there are some things in which compromise is just not possible, and that must be respected.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Indeed Tutt, it seems the compromise is always to the left. Example, when gun control come up, it is always about more and more restrictions. How about we do away with all background checks and make it legal to buy fully automatic weapons at any gun store? Ok, compromise, we leave background checks as they are, but allow fully automatic weapons to be bought at any gun store? Isn’t that a compromise? Anybody on the left want to discuss that kind of compromise? Doubt it.

        And no, I am not for anarchy. Some government is necessary. But maybe an actual constitutionally limited federal government would seem like anarchy to the left.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        We have a compromise on the abortion issue.

        It’s called *Roe v. Wade*.

      • way2gosassy says:

        Tutt as for your belief that Capt has a live and let live stance how does that square with his staunch stand on the rights of women to choose? Is that choice not a very personal one based on the individuals definition of personal responsibility? We can have a discussion on the merits of compromise on the abortion issue but first I would like you to explain to me how if I choose to have an abortion does it affect you personally, beyond your personal preferences and beliefs.

        I personally do not believe in abortion as a “method” of birth control but I do believe that it not a choice for me to make for others, that said I also believe in reality and facts. The facts are that birth control is becoming more effective with fewer adverse side effects and that fact is reflected in the most recent numbers of abortions vs pregnancies. The numbers of abortions are down drastically from 10 years ago as a result of this and the wide spread availability of those drugs. Laws restricting access to those drugs and other methods of birth control have been severely restricted in the last two years by Republican legislatures in 31 states. It’s my belief that the next set of numbers you see will show an increase in the number of abortions and a jump in the number of complications and fatalities in women seeking an abortion by any means.

      • Tuttabella says:

        Sassy, it all comes down to our belief that the fetus has a separate life and identity, even in the earliest stages of the pregnancy. Asking how your abortion would affect me personally is like asking how doing away with your 5 year-old child would affect me personally. It would not, but that doesn’t make it any more right. Same with being told that if we are opposed to abortion, then we should be ready to help the mom with child-rearing expenses. If we are opposed to your 5 year-old child suddenly disappearing, does that mean we should be prepared to help you raise him?

        I don’t mean to be flippant, but I think that’s a good analogy. If we don’t agree on when life begins, then the analogy is moot.

        In any case, I’m not opposed to making birth control readily available, only to making certain institutions provide it, if they are morally opposed to it.

        I would also support increasing help for moms, and not just as a condition for compromise over the abortion issue. I would never withhold funding or otherwise play games with people’s lives — moms or kids — for political leverage.

      • Crogged says:

        Compromise explained–back in the 1930’s……………….

        http://johntwo24-25.net/On%20the%20Importance%20of%20Being%20Unprincipled.pdf

      • Crogged says:

        From the above. “What we Americans are prone to call our “principles” –such things as freedom, security, equality and democracy and the like—are really not so much as ideals to be debated and fought over as problems to be worked out by political methods in particular instances. Absolute freedom and absolute security are not given to mortal man. Human freedom and human security are specific problems to be dealt with in specific cases. They can be solved only if they are made questions of fact, of inquiry about the means of securing them, of getting compromises not too unsatisfactory to those concerned.”

      • CaptSternn says:

        Way, do you claim to be pro-choice? How about free citizens of this nation importing slaves from Africa? That wouldn’t affect you personally, so would you support the choice to do so? What about people euthanizing their elderly parents when the parents become a burden? none of your business, right? Doesn’t affect you personally. Or as Tutt pointed out, why not draw the line on abortion at five years of age? That wouldn’t affect you personally. What about a husband’s right to beat his wife? As long as your husband doesn’t do it, it wouldn’t affect you personally. Or if your husband did, it wouldn’t affect me personally.

        As for birth control, what laws have been passed restricting it? I have heard of none. Why don’t you give us some examples where birth control has been made illegal so we can discuss them?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Crogged, the security we require from government is the security to be free, to protect our individual liberty and rights. “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.” – Jefferson

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Tutt, do you believe life begins at conception? If so, then quite a few birth control methods are not consistent with your “beliefs” including IUD’s and morning after pills. So your beliefs restrict abortions and birth control. Not much of a compromise.

      • Crogged says:

        Funny how Jefferson didn’t extend his lofty rhetoric to his personal life. That’s the thing with principles, they float in on words and disappear as soon as they appear.

      • Tuttabella says:

        Bubba, good question. I do believe life begins at conception, but I’m unsure of how to define “conception” — whether it’s as soon as the egg is fertilized, or not until it’s implanted in the lining of the uterus. I have read the small print that comes with birth control pills. Some say they work by preventing ovulation. Others say they work EITHER by preventing ovulation or by destroying the uterine lining so that the fertilized egg cannot be implanted, and I know the latter method is how the morning after pill works.

        Whichever is the case — however we define conception — whether it occurs at the time of fertilization or the time of implantation — whether or not we consider birth control or the morning after pill to be abortion — does not really change the fact that once a certain stage of development is reached you definitely have conception, and at that stage you have life, a life which should not be ended.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        So Tutt, then you acknowledge your offer of a “compromise” is not much of a compromise after all and you just proposed what you accuse the “other side” of doing which is to demand capitulation from the other side (no abortions and reduced availability and choice of birth control) and call it “compromise”? And why would providing “prenatal care, help for single moms” only as a precondition for restricting or eliminating abortions be considered charitable and “compromise”? Shouldn’t we be providing that anyway as a civil and compassionate society? And let “choice” and “free market” (favorite buzzwords for the right) determine if that will reduce abortions without any draconian authoritative and judgmental mandate? So you want Big Brother government out of your personal business except when you want it in others’ business for your own personal beliefs? Is that “limited government”?

      • Tuttabella says:

        Bubba, maybe I was not clear, or maybe you missed the part where I said that my offer to provide help to the single mom was NOT contingent upon the “other side” agreeing to ban abortions. Helping the mom is the right thing to do, I would do it in any case, so in that way I guess it’s really NOT compromise, because I would do it anyway.

        My intent was to call people’s bluff, for the sake of argument, to say, okay, if lack of support for the mom is such a crucial factor in opting for abortion, would it really change your view if “our side” offered her all the support in the world?

      • Tuttabella says:

        Another way of looking at it is that the very people who call for compromise and bemoan the lack thereof are perhaps not truly interested in compromise. For them, compromise means having everyone else stop being so hard-headed and come around to THEIR way of thinking.

  22. CaptSternn says:

    Here you speak of liberty, yet in previous entries you speak against it. Here you speak against the extreme central government, yet in previous entries you speak in favor of it. Example: You want to have national gun registration. That is the opposite of what you suggest here. You speak of a guaranteed minimum income, the opposite of what you pretend to say here.

    Two decades ago the Republican Party won control of congress for the first time in several decades. In 2002, the Republican Party won control of Texas for the first time since the end of Reconstruction. That was the rise of tea party types, though not quite as enthusiastic as now. It was a beginning. When Bush43 became president, the GOP started acting more like democrats, and many of us would not even hold our noses and vote republican at the national level. We voted third party instead.

    And no, we don’t hold Reagan in some great high esteem. He talked the talk, but walked with democrats on domestic policy. Fact is, which party holds the oval office is far less important that which party controls congress. Congress controls the government.

    Lifer, with all that you have published on your blog, you are firmly anti-federalist. To brush off the last budget fight is to speak in favor of the PPACA, to speak in favor of the destruction of wealth, to speak in favor of destroying retirement accounts for senior citizens, to speak in favor of dependency on the federal government. To speak against being responsible citizens.

    Some of us that have been studying the constitution and politics have learned that there are those that want both parties to be so similar that it doesn’t matter which is in power at any given time. The only difference is in how fast the nation moves to the left. Now there is a movement to stop that, to move the nation back to the right, to promote individual liberty and rights, to promote federalism, limited central government. We are the tea party movement.

    We do attract some quacks, granted. But they rarely get elected. Unlike the quacks on the left, Reid, Pelosi, Obama, Biden, etc.. The way to help us and the cause you claim to stand for is to join us. But I don’t see that happening. You are too firmly entrenched to the left of center. But this year could be a strong year for us, stronger than 2010.

    Maybe we will get some quacks elected, but overall we will have a good chance of getting strong conservatives elected that will start to heal the nation and undo the damage democrats and the GOP establishment have inflicted over the past seven years. We can only hope.

    • texan5142 says:

      You have to study it because you do not understand it. You study it so you can read into it what you believe. The tea party is a scurge on politics.

      I will see your Reid, Pelosi, etc. and raise you a King, Ghomert, Bachman, etc.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Texan, I admit I didn’t know much. I had questions and no answers, and the internet was available for gathering information and doing research, so I started doing my studies and research to find the answers. It was many years ago, middle 1990s, we are supposed to be the land of the free, so what happened to much of our freedom. For example, why was a constitutional amendment needed to ban alcohol, but not many other substances? Why and by what authority? I have crowed so much about FDR and his administration and democratically controlled congress that people have gotten tired of it, but the reality is that the nation was fundamentally changed by his adminstration and threats to the court.

        Thank you for your apology and compliment above. Yes, some things will be debated and discussed for a long time to come. What is unreasonable search and siesure? What is cruel and unusual punishment. There are clues if we look back to the time those words were written as to the intent, but it wasn’t specifically defined. Other things are cut and dry, very specific. The only time people want to “interpret” them is when they don’t like the restrictions, want more power than was intended or granted.

    • Turtles Run says:

      “Maybe we will get some quacks elected, but overall we will have a good chance of getting strong conservatives elected that will start to heal the nation and undo the damage democrats and the GOP establishment have inflicted over the past seven years. We can only hope.”

      Yes, get back to those years prior to 2007 of unprecedented federal government expansion, more needless unfunded wars that cannot be won, deficits that get bigger every year, more Patriot Act (please), and multi-trillion dollar unfunded government programs. Better wise known as the tea party paradise.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Turtles, what part of the fact that I voted third party in 2002, 2004 and 2006 do you not understand? I opposed the (anti-)Patriot Act from the beginning. I opposed the deficits, though the last republican deficit was a whopping $161 billion. I opposed the Medicare “reform”, Medicare Part D. I opposed many domestic issues and policies, just like I did when Reagan was president. I was too young to understand Nixon or Ford, but what I have learned, I don;t much care for. That is why people like myself and the rest of the tea party movement are trying to change things. Domestic policies mostly.

        As for the wars, I knew virtually nothing about Korea or Vietnam. Again, too young. For Desert Storm, I was only shortly out of the military and didn’t pay attention to the news at all. Just caught a few glimpses of the war on TV, didn’t care to even question it.

        Move on to the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. I knew we were going to war after the 9/11/2001 attacks. I just hoped we got the right target. We did, al Qaeda.

        The 2003 invasion of Iraq? I was dead set against it. Sure, Iraq had WMD. So what? Lots of nations do. I kept asking why it was being done, just give me a summary. Nobody could or would do so. I was still opposed even when Saddam Hussein was captured. So guess what I did. As I told Texan about having unanswered questions, I started digging and doing research, and I found the answers, and I changed my mind and fully supported it based on facts. And yes, both wars were and are funded, and we won in Iraq. Victory thrown away by Obama and democrats.

        You want a summary? Just ask and I will give it. Be a rather long post, a little longer than the one you replied to here. But I don’t think you want it, nor do I think you would care or even think about it. You want bumper sticker slogans, headlines and soundbytes. To me, that is the fundamental difference between the left and the tea party movement right. We want to know, to learn and understand. The left just wants what it wants at the moment. More often than not, that includes the GOP establishment.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Cappy

        Good for you. I applaud your brave stances. However, that does not change the politics and actions of the tea party and its supporters. As I have pointed out in previous posts the 3rd party vote (excluding Green Party) amounts to less than half a million votes in prior POTUS elections. So unless you are prepared to say the tea party is only comprised of these people then it is fair to say these current supporters were in favor of these programs because they never gave any opposing voice.

        “We want to know, to learn and understand. The left just wants what it wants at the moment. More often than not, that includes the GOP establishment.”

        You want to know, to learn, and understand yet in nearly every topic you deny or consider any piece of evidence presented to you that contradicts your world-view. You support your positions with conspiracy theories or evidence that is taken completely out of context or just plain imaginary. On this you are lock step with the tea party.

      • CaptSternn says:

        I have no doubt that many in the tea party movement would have held their noses and voted te republican ticket in the past. As we have seen, even the RINOs tend to be less damaging to the nation than democrats.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Using the legislative process and allowing constitutional laws and programs is not damaging to this nation. That is how our nation was set up to operate.

        Damaging is trying to remain stuck in the 18th century or trying to create a society in which the weakest are vulnerable to the strong.

        Do not like how our nation is run then do like everyone else and elect like minded officials. Quit trying to sabotage the nation.

      • CaptSternn says:

        The democrats and their supporters are the ones sabotaging the nation. Look at the results of their handywork over the past seven years. Crashed and stagnant economy, chronic high unemployment, more people on welfare, more people losing health insurance, and we will see serious inflation due to the spending once interest rates are raised.

  23. DanMan says:

    Tan, rested and ready to dish out more BS Chris?

  24. Bart-1 says:

    “Chased away the “Tea Party types” of his day? You mean like JACK KEMP? “Taxes on capital, taxes on labor, inflation, bureaucratic regulation, minimum wage laws, are all – to different degrees – unnecessary slices of the wedge that stand between an individual’s effort and reward for that effort.
    Jack Kemp

    • desperado says:

      A short history lesson. The Tea Party types of Buckley’s day to which Chris refers were the Birchers. Jack Kemp was no Bircher. But since you like Kemp, chew on this:

      ”To Republicans, I humbly suggest that we make it possible for Democrats to give up their quest for redistribution of income and wealth by our acceptance of an appropriate role for government in financing those public goods and services necessary to secure a social safety net below which no American would be allowed to fall,”

      ”In the face of this reality, we Republicans make a serious mistake when we try to economize first on social programs. It allows us to be characterized as putting the ‘cart’ of fiscal austerity before the ‘horse’ of rapid economic growth.”

      Agree with that?

      • Bart-1 says:

        Taxed Enough Already types are clearly the group to whom Kemp belonged. The quote which somehow claim that “Rapid Econonmic Growth” is the “horse” to fiscal austerity is nonsensical, unless you believe that it is a PREREQUISITE to rapid economic growth like the horse is to the cart.. How could rapid economic growth be necessary to achieve fiscal austerity?

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Rapid economic growth is a “horse” for the “cart” of balanced federal budgets, which is (supposedly) the main goal of fiscal austerity (unless you’re one of those frothing types like Sternn who believe that the federal government isn’t actually allowed to do much of anything).

      • Bart-1 says:

        So we can’t have fiscal austerity until we have had “rapid economic growth” in “Owl-land”? Keynesian is being nice. When do we ever pay off the debt accrued historically?

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        As many European nations have discovered to their sorrow, austerity often *destroys* economic growth.

        Keynesian economics relies on paying off debts during good times so you can incur them in bad. In other words, politicians, being fallible human beings, don’t do it right.

        I believe in cutting government spending AND in increasing revenues, as I’ve said many times.

      • Bart-1 says:

        We agree on that apparently, Owl. We disagree on the order.
        I was waiting to see when we have “Paid off the debt” incurred historically.
        Clearly it is a failed philosophy. Europe’s failure to pay off it’s debt during its “Good times” is the proof of the pudding for it’s current plight.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Bart irrationally Chicken Littled “I was waiting to see when we have ‘Paid [sic] off the debt’ incurred historically. Clearly it is a failed philosophy.”

        Yup.

        “Except for about a year during 1835–1836, the United States has continuously held a public debt since the US Constitution legally went into effect on March 4, 1789”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt

        Yes bart, “clearly a failed philosophy” for 222 of the past 224 years and the past consecutive 178 years since we have not incurred a national debt.

        Still haven’t learned to use the Google before you spew or learn to read for comprehension yet in all the free time in your “golden years” bart?

      • CaptSternn says:

        European austerity has meant massive tax hikes and increasing the retirement age. What does the left want here? Massive tax hikes and increasing the retirement age. Great plan … not.

      • Crogged says:

        Is it really a startling fact that if everybody spends less money then the economy shrinks? It’s not “Keynesian”, it’s a simple observation. Did you ever have a sick child and use a credit card to pay for medicine or the doctor-the deficit scolds confuse principles with hogwash.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Goodreads

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 471 other followers

%d bloggers like this: