Is anyone out there STILL a Republican?

[DngrRuss]

Is it me, or does it seem the case, more often than not, that when you present yourself that far to the right and put yourself up on the rightousness pedastal, that you are usually harboring some deep, dark secret. While it is not inevitable that you will be "outed", I am not really suprised.

To paraphrase Bill Hicks- you know when Karl Rove dies, they are going to find the skins of little children drying in his attic. And his wife will be saying, "I always wondered about Karl's collection of little shoes..."


This is not to say that if you live way out to the left, you also do not have a deep dark secret, but it seems that those secrets are no more harmful than you really aren't a vegatarian.

 

[michaeledward]

DngrRuss, I don't know if I agree with the sentiment of your thought. I'm going to offer two of my own thoughts.

1 - The Republican Party has usurped "Moral Values" - whatever the hell that means - and that was and is a mistake.

2 - People who will reach the pinnacle of public service will be ego driven people, independent of their political leanings, and personal foibles.


The Republican Party has gone out of their way to associate themselves with the remnents of the "Moral Majority". On subjects from adult consensual sexual relationships, to homosexual marriage, to Stem Cell Research, to Intact Dilation and extraction, to permanent vegatative state; they have proclaimed there can be no difference from their position, else you are immoral. Certainly, I do not think all Republicans believe this stuff, but when the President interrupts his vacation to sign into law a bill for the benefit of Terri Schiavo, it demonstrates either what he believes, or what he thinks his voters need to see him believe. And from those positions, there is little discussion or negotiation that is acceptable.

Courage of your convictions is very good thing .... but, if you stand on those convictions, be sure never to waiver. Because that will get you in trouble. You can't be the party of law and order with people like Robert Ney, Duke Cunningham, Bob Taft and James Tobin pleading guilty for their actions.

People who reach Congress and Statewide office, are driven people. Once in place, they have staff to arrange everything for them. Having many people around you to serve has to create an air of arrogance, I think. I recently heard Joe Scarborough (no alter boy himself) talk about not even realizing he hadn't driven a car during his time in Congress. That sets the stage for things such as Gary Hart getting caught with a woman, not his wife, on a boat called Risky Business, after telling the Press to follow him if they don't believe he isn't faithful to his wife.

No one is immune from that thought pattern, regardless of political party.

This Republican Majority, however, has gone out of its way to set itself up as a permanent Republican Majority, through redistricting, and proceedural changes in the house that strip the opposition party of any power sharing responsibility. They made their bed, now they must lie in it.

OK, enough for now.

 

[qizmoduis]

How about this http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/15/224831/01

when Bill Clinton was president, the House took 140 hours of sworn testimony into whether Mr. Clinton had used the White House Christmas list to identify possible Democratic donors. But in 2004 and 2005, a House committee took only 12 hours of testimony on the abuses at Abu Ghraib.

 

[michaeledward]

Well, here's something that certainly is inspiring. I am certain I will be unable to do it justice.

Paul Evans is a Democrat. Running for the State Senate in Oregon.

On Election day, he will be serving with his Air National Guard Unit in Afghanistan. As an air battle manager, his deployment to Afghanistan seems rather short - 60 days.

If elected, he will be back to begin the State Legislative Session on January 8, 2007.

http://www.statesmanjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061017/STATE/610170329/1042

 

[qizmoduis]

This doesn't mean anything, because as you know, according to Republicans, all Democrats serve in the armed forces only to pad their political resumes. Including the ones who were drafted, of course.

 

[michaeledward]

Apparently, with Congressman Delay (R-TX) under indictment, Congressman Cunningham (R-CA) doing time, Congressman Ney (R-OH)soon to be doing time, Congressman Foley hiding in rehab (R-FL), there have been too damn many investigations going on in the House of Representatives. And at a time uncomfortably close to election day - a day that resurfaces every two years for members of the House.

So, earlier this week, Congressman Lewis (R-CA) found a way to solve this thorny little problem. Fire all the investigators.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001845.php

This evening, Congressional Quarterly reports (sub. req.) that in a round of calls Monday evening, Lewis fired 60 investigators who had worked for his committee rooting out fraud, waste and abuse, effective immediately. As in, don't bother coming in on Tuesday.

One wonders, what are they afraid the public is going to find out?

 

[Marginal]

One wonders, what are they afraid the public is going to find out?

Dunno, but wouldn't it be convenient for even more stuff to come out now of all times? It's like doing criminal stuff gets you in trouble!

 

[Mariachi Joe]

To be fair Senate Minority Leader Harry Reed Democrat from Nevada also received donations and had dealings with Abramof. Fact is both Republicans and Democrats had dirty dealings with the man. As far as the NSA program, even President Clinton used it and I didn't hear anyone say anything back then. During WWII President Roosevelt censored what the media could report about the war and today he is called one of the greatest Presidents of our time ( I agree by the way ).

 

[michaeledward]

To be fair Senate Minority Leader Harry Reed Democrat from Nevada also received donations and had dealings with Abramof. Fact is both Republicans and Democrats had dirty dealings with the man. As far as the NSA program, even President Clinton used it and I didn't hear anyone say anything back then. During WWII President Roosevelt censored what the media could report about the war and today he is called one of the greatest Presidents of our time ( I agree by the way ).

Mariachi Joe ... You are 100 % incorrect in your first statement.

Senator Reid (please not the spelling) is a Democratic Senator. He has not received any funds from Jack Abramoff. You can find a list of Abramoff donations all over the web. I suggest OpenSecrets.org. (although someone said it wasn't working correctly this morning).

Use of the term 'Democrat', as you have is a slur.

As for Clinton's use of the NSA, when submitting warrants against US citizens, I think you'll find that their was judicial oversight.

Welcome.


P.S. I have searched abramoff's donation history ... but if I am incorrect, please post your supporting link. I am more than happy to learn new facts.

 

[crushing]

Mariachi Joe ... You are 100 % incorrect in your first statement.

Senator Reid (please not the spelling) is a Democratic Senator. He has not received any funds from Jack Abramoff. You can find a list of Abramoff donations all over the web. I suggest OpenSecrets.org. (although someone said it wasn't working correctly this morning).

Use of the term 'Democrat', as you have is a slur.

As for Clinton's use of the NSA, when submitting warrants against US citizens, I think you'll find that their was judicial oversight.

Welcome.


P.S. I have searched abramoff's donation history ... but if I am incorrect, please post your supporting link. I am more than happy to learn new facts.

Hi Michael,

Not to get too far off topic, but I was curious as to why you consider the term 'Democrat' used in that way a slur. Since it has been used in that fashion for decades, is it a little late to put that genie back in the bottle?

Maybe your use of the word 'Repugnant' instead of 'Republican' will do the same thing? Wouldn't that be nice?

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=611617&postcount=2

Thanks!

 

[michaeledward]

Hi Michael,

Not to get too far off topic, but I was curious as to why you consider the term 'Democrat' used in that way a slur. Since it has been used in that fashion for decades, is it a little late to put that genie back in the bottle?

Maybe your use of the word 'Repugnant' instead of 'Republican' will do the same thing? Wouldn't that be nice?

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=611617&postcount=2

Thanks!

When I used the term Repugnant, it was intended as a slur, for repugnant behavior. I was intending to be 'not nice'.

The name of the political party that I belong to is the 'Democratic Party'. The word democrat can be used properly, if it is used as a noun. It would properly be capitalized when describing a member of a specific political party.When the term is being used as an adjective, the correct usage is 'Democratic'.

Mariachia Joe was using a term to describe Senator Harry Reid. That part of speech is correctly defined as an adjective and demands the use, 'democratic'.

You will find that Right Wing Talk Show hosts regularly slander my political party in this manner. Their excuse is that the name implies that one political party in our government is democratic, and that the other is something other than democratic. I don't know if those who use this language in this manner just lack the understanding of the English language, or they intentionally attempt to frame a debate or slander an argument. But, it is an incorrect usage of the English Language.

I wonder how many of those who are fighting immigrants, who are not rapidly enough developing use of English language, have sufficient capacity in our mother tongue to grasp the irony.

 

[crushing]

I understand that the usage may be incorrect, but I still don't understand how it slanders your party. Please don't ask me to listen to Right Wing Talk Shows to figure it out.

I think the low and middle income people that are most impacted by illegal aliens aren't quite so concerned about perfecting their use of the English language as they are keeping their jobs and putting food on the table.

 

[michaeledward]

I understand that the usage may be incorrect, but I still don't understand how it slanders your party. Please don't ask me to listen to Right Wing Talk Shows to figure it out.

I think the low and middle income people that are most impacted by illegal aliens aren't quite so concerned about perfecting their use of the English language as they are keeping their jobs and putting food on the table.

And there are a good number of citizens, such a RNC chair Ken Melhmann, who do not understand how an apparently naked white woman asking a black politician to 'Call Me', can be interpretted as racist. Mr. Melhmann's understanding not withstanding, such comments are interpretted as racist.

 

[michaeledward]

Have you seen the footage of George 'Macaca' Allen's staff doing a beat down on one of his constituents?

Apparently, W. Michael Stark, is a blogger from Virginia. He attempted to ask some questions of his Senator. And the staff beat him up.

Poor Macaca Allen, this too was caught on tape. It's even better than George W. saying 'We've Never Been 'Stay the Course''.

 

[donald]

I am a Independent, but I usually vote Republican. I try to vote according to my faith. I can't vote for anyone. No matter their platfrom if they are'nt pro-life...

By GOD's Grace,

 

[michaeledward]

I am a Independent, but I usually vote Republican. I try to vote according to my faith. I can't vote for anyone. No matter their platfrom if they are'nt pro-life...

By GOD's Grace,

Good for you.

What is your stance on the Death Penalty?

 

[michaeledward]

I understand that the usage may be incorrect, but I still don't understand how it slanders your party. Please don't ask me to listen to Right Wing Talk Shows to figure it out.

crushing, this article explains, in brief, the term, the misuse, and perhaps its origins.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200610310020

The ungrammatical conversion of the noun "Democrat" to an adjective was the brainchild of Republican partisans, presumably in an attempt to deny the opposing party the claim to being "democratic" -- or in the words of New Yorker magazine senior editor Hendrik Hertzberg, "to deny the enemy the positive connotations of its chosen appellation." In the early 1990s, apparently due largely to the urgings of then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and Republican pollster Frank Luntz, the use of the word "Democrat" as an adjective became near-universal among Republicans.

I do not think of the Republican Party as my enemy. I recognize that my fellow citizens my have differing opinions of how government best carry out its tasks. But to refer to the loyal opposition as the 'enemy', in words or inferences, I think, is slanderous.

 

[bydand]

I am a Independent, but I usually vote Republican. I try to vote according to my faith. I can't vote for anyone. No matter their platfrom if they are'nt pro-life...

By GOD's Grace,

Good for you.

What is your stance on the Death Penalty?

These are two TOTALLY different arguments here. Someones position on pro-life can be vastly different for the Death Penality. While we are talking about the taking of a life, we are discussing totally different individuals whom it relates to. On the Pro-Life side they are talking about an individual (the baby) who has no say for themself and no accountability for any action they might have been able to do. The death penalty has to do with an adult who made the decision to act in a manner that placed them in that spot. My stands? Pro-Life; Death Penalty - Black is hot, white is neutral, need somebody to flip the switch? Simple argument actually. If you live in a State where the death penalty is used, don't put yourself in the chair by being stupid and breaking the laws that will place you there. A baby/fetus what ever you want to call it has zero choice in the argument and is there through no "fault" of their own.

back to your original question though. Still a Republican? Hummmm, kind of. Hows that for a wishy washy answer. Actually for the most part I tend to lean toward the right side of politics, but don't evaluate individuals running for office by the political party they are affiliated with. I have voted for Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and even a Green party individual before. If I had to choose which party I agree with most, yes it would be the Republicians, notice I said most, not all the time.

 

[crushing]

Thanks for the links Michael.

I did some googling (yeah, another incorrectly used term) and according to the this article the term 'Democrat Party' and found that it goes back to the 1920s.

http://www-csli.stanford.edu/~nunberg/democrats.html

Hey, start using the term 'Republicanistic Party' and see if they get irritated about that.

 

[michaeledward]

These are two TOTALLY different arguments here. Someones position on pro-life can be vastly different for the Death Penality. While we are talking about the taking of a life, we are discussing totally different individuals whom it relates to. On the Pro-Life side they are talking about an individual (the baby) who has no say for themself and no accountability for any action they might have been able to do. The death penalty has to do with an adult who made the decision to act in a manner that placed them in that spot. My stands? Pro-Life; Death Penalty - Black is hot, white is neutral, need somebody to flip the switch? Simple argument actually. If you live in a State where the death penalty is used, don't put yourself in the chair by being stupid and breaking the laws that will place you there. A baby/fetus what ever you want to call it has zero choice in the argument and is there through no "fault" of their own.

back to your original question though. Still a Republican? Hummmm, kind of. Hows that for a wishy washy answer. Actually for the most part I tend to lean toward the right side of politics, but don't evaluate individuals running for office by the political party they are affiliated with. I have voted for Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and even a Green party individual before. If I had to choose which party I agree with most, yes it would be the Republicians, notice I said most, not all the time.

I disagree with your argument. It appears to be mental gymnastics. You support 'life' in one instance, and you favor terminating 'life' in another. A Pro-Life position would be to incarcerate one convicted of a crime until his natural death. We have the ability to restrict the freedom of a convicted criminal for this time period.

And, while striving for clarity in our arguments, the correct term is 'fetus', not 'individual' and not 'baby'. Granting moral equivilancy between a fetus and an adult is a challenge. I have no problem with a person making a choice of conscience to grant that equivilency in their own life. I do not believe it is appropriate to force that equivilency on others.

EDIT - and of course, this thread specifically was dealing with the ethical challenges faced by the current Republican Party, and not really the ideals for which the Republican Party stands. It was - and is - directed at the application of those ideals. - END EDIT