Redstate

Crank on the front page provides another example of our party disregarding fiscal responsibilty. On the Republican Party survey, they cannot even list cutting spending as a possible top priority. I am in disbelief right now at the party's disregard of fiscal conservatives.

Your beliefs are practically mine verbatim.  The best we can do is:

• Support 'our' candidates in the primaries (even if it means fighting an incumbent GOPer)
  
• Support ALL Republicans over Democrats
  
• Attempt to keep our party's members, in office, in line

This is particularly the case when it comes to national elections where control over the chambers is more important than individual members.

YET, I share many of your basic values...I simply don't rationalize those values into partisan identity. My core issues make me a politically inconvenient hybrid of Libertarian and Green with a penchant for Goldwater and Rockerfeller Republican positions but equally sympathetic to the Democratic Freedom Caucus (Feingold), New Dem and "True Dean" wings of the Democratic Party. But my ultimate issue is one of innovation and reform for transparent and limited yet effective and responsible government that undermines power for its own sake.

The problem with both parties is a change of attitude once in power. Keeping power trumps priniciple and this why systemic change is necessary.

The change in Republican leadership attitude is not surprising. They got power and they like it. The pre-94 attitude of principled protest and a call for discpline probably gets eye-rolls from the comfy leadership since they feel they longer need to stand by such ideas. The party isn't more liberal or moderate. It's simply grown a love for governing and policies that perpetuate that ability...ie, big government conservatism.

I was pulling for Shadegg and that supportive caucus to replace Delay. The establishment had other ideas...see big government.

This reality keeps me defiant and Independent but supportive of certain people who have a common thread of principled reform and discipline.

I'm more of a social liberal so I'm pro-choice and pro-equal rights for gays but am fully open to reasonable regualtion of all kinds.

What don't I like about the GOP?

Rigid Social Conservatism...The great Goldwater once told Jack Kemp(?) (another great republican)

that the party has been taken over by a bunch of "kooks". Barry's words not mine.

A penchant for token patriotism that almost has a mafioso "Family" air about it at times

too much sympathy and favoratism for corporate interests

But I like the rest within reason.

I'm all for a 3rd party where the Democratic Freedom Caucus, the Conservative Study Group, libertarians, free-market liberals, economic right-leaning Greens and Deaniacs, New Dems, Goldwater and Forbes Republicans and Perot fans can come together and push their somewhat common fiscal and social agenda with moderate compromise on budgetary priorities. But most importantly, a desire for reform in the name discipline and transparency.

I'll be a card carrying member...along with other 55% of the population.

I've spent enough blogging to see true commonality bewteen lots of seemingly different groups.

The impossible part is getting these different groups to look past labels and realize they have more in common than the leadership apparatus would like them to think...IOW, divide and conquer the electorate. I'm not falling for it.

I don't see parties. I see voting blocs with compelling and common agendas.

If a centrist party ever formed, I believe these groups would form it, the best of both parties along with many indpendents..whether they realize it or not.

I can dream. It's where I stand. I still have one vote just like you in the meantime.

You made a fine post worthy of a comment.

I have always greatly respected Barry Goldwater.  The man was a staunch, uncompromising supporter of small government.  There were no contradictions or absence of principles in his beliefs, as is the case with so many more modern conservative politicians.

You probably don't need me to reiterate the results of the 1964 election when the American people had a chance to evaluate those ideas.  Besides, it doesn't matter anyway as George Bush and not Lyndon Johnson is the Texan in the White House now.  Still, I feel like its no accident that Republican presidential candidates since Goldwater have been less blatantly conservative in their views.  Nixon established the EPA and engaged in very liberal monetary policy.  I doubt Ford or Bush I impressed you in the slightest.  A Principle feature of W's 2000 platform was improving education.  Only Reagan seems to stand out as a true fiscal Conservative, and I believe he owed his succes more to his hard-line Anticommunist stance than his domestic policies.  Is this a coincidence?

I am a Democrat because I believe that government has a responsibility to take care of its citizens, ensure civil rights for all, and to regulate a free market economy.  With this comes an equally important obligation to do so efficently and responsibly, but the duty is there and the call must be answered.  

We are both idealists.  Americans became disillusioned with the sleaze, scandal, and other irresponsibilities and elected Republicans to clean up a mess that had gotten, I admit, out of hand.

The problem is that the levers of power in this country seem to be inherently tied to appropriations and other expidentures.  Since politicians retain power through patronage and power-brokering, public offices naturally attract those that want to govern, not those who seek to limit government.  The GOP Congress post-1994 is a poster child for this phenomenon.  Promised cuts to education, welfare and entitlement programs are simply replaced by corporate subsidies and semi-privatized entitlement schemes.

My proposed solution to this problem is to get politicians elected who feel the duty to govern and govern responsibly.  For you, the solution appears to be reforming government to consist of only true-blue conservatives who are able to put a desire for limited government ahead of their own self-interest.  I wish you the best of luck.  But remeber that small government rehtoric is much easier to preach from the outside than from within.

I think you are right, but I don't think a new political party is going to form, though there is a possibility of either party morphing into what you describe.

What needs to happen is new blood in Washingtion on both the Democratic and Republican side.  Right now the Democratic party is acting all oppurtunistic and political just because they imagine it will return them to power.  They are locked out of 3 branches of goverment and they are acting desperate.  What the Democrats need is a new fresh true leader.  Democrats need their own Reagan, or at a bare minimun another Clintion.

Republicans on the other hand are new to power.  Sure we may have had the presidency under Reagan.  Or Congress since 1994.  But we only had both since 2000 and after a very close and bitter election.  Thus the majority of washingtion Rs act out of fear instead of principle, catering to votes, handing out money like drunken sailors, and trying to make as much friends in a hostile world.  What we need is a new batch of Republicans in Washingtion.

Very well put, ZTN. I too lament the increasing polarization of politics in this country. And I'm left merely shaking my head at the degree to which many on both the Left and the Right have an almost instinctive inability to see beyond partisan labels.

It's good guys versus bad guys. Our team versus their team. The Loony Left versus the Radical Right.

It's a shame as both parties have increasingly sold out their core principles, forcing their partisan base to rationalize their party's cynical machinations, and leaving the rest of us in the center to merely shake our collective heads.

Here's to wishing there was a Third Party as well. It will never happen, but one can dream.

will be to see if Dems back up all the rhetoric of disgust over ballooning deficits and spending with action should they regain either house congress in 2006.

Who knows? maybe Bush will finally veto a spending bill or two.

Hey, I don't care. If something as shallow as partisan politics gets him to finnally stand on a soap box and complain about spending (simply because it's dem bill) then great.

Some of the dem faithful may all of go silent about out of control spending once the bills are dem-sponsored. I dunno.

I'll still be complaining. Like you said, small govt. rhetoric and preaching restraint is easy from the outside. Problem is, things never so look so bad once they have a majority.

Shame on DC.

its tough to know where to start.  Among the things you don't like about the GOP you cite

too much sympathy and favoratism for corporate interests

Please elaborate by giving examples.  I hear this all the time and have come to believe that these DNC talking points somehow slipped out into general distribution.  Of particual interest to me is where you think these corporate interest are different from the interest of the rest of the population.  Within your answer will be clues to how much Goldwater/Rockerfeller Republicanism you have in you.

The problem is the disconnect between the Principles in the party and the lack of them once you pass the logic-annihilating forcefield built into the Capital Beltway.

Just about any employee seeks to make their work self-sustaining in order to provide for their family and themselves.  On a Congressional and Bureaucratic level, this equates to perpetual Federal encroachment and expansion.  Combine this with the desire of every Congressmen, Commanding Officer and highly-placed Bureaucrat to "make their mark" and you get a constantly morphing, but always growing, system of Federal oversight.  

Limited Federal Government has not been an in-beltway principle since the Contract With America and then it had to go over the body of Bill Clinton (often propped plushly on the intern-of-the-month).  Even then, it was a matter of restraining the rate of growth, never actually reducing federal outlays.  I live for the day that I hear someone, anyone, propose a 1% reduction in Federal expenditures from the previous year.  

Despite the nominations of Senator Goldwater, and the eventual nomination of Governor Reagan after a few tries, the Republican party is not a conservative entity.  It never was, at least in most of our lifetimes.

So if you grade the party from a conservative checklist, and find it wanting, don't get discouraged and think the party has gone astray in that respect.  It hasn't.

Instead, go back and do this instead: compare the policies of Presidents Eisenhower and Nixon, with Presidents Reagan and G. W. Bush.  Anywhere you see improvement, you can thank the conservative movement.

Also, for kicks, go back and compare the policies of President Johnson with the policies of President Clinton.  Likewise, any movement is thanks to conservatives shifting the center of the country back toward the right.

But the party is a coalition.  You'll never have complete dominance by one faction unless you want to be a permanent minority party (see what direction Daily Kos is trying to take the Democrats in if you want to know what that looks like).

Come on, now. Have your principles...that's fine. But do not ignore what happens.

The bankruptcy bill, the jobs creation act, the prescription drug benefit, foregoing royalty payments for drilling on public land and many kinds of industry targeted subsidies are forms of legislation made for and usually written by the lobbies that respresent these sectors.

These measures are hardly laissez-faire. Most are narrowly focused interventioist initiatives that favor the needs of a few.

I'm self-employed and I can tell you that the GOP does do certain things that are helpful to small business but the legislation above does not.

small business service sectors are the largest growth area for employment and it's being done without any giveways and special treatment.

And no, the needs of "Captains of Industry" vs. small business and working people are not always the same.

I support efforts to make entrepreneurship easier and more common. I support efforts to encourage business. I believe free but fair markets are the engines of growth.

But there is a grey area where favors and giveaways that do nothing but make the hyper-rich even richer are obscured by titles and sales pitches that talk about "spurring business growth".

but what could be when we have a tax code as convoluted as ours. By treating everyone unfairly, then selectively easing restrictions on certain entities, we get the appearance of patronage.

I happen to think your principles and mine align in a lot of regards, I am personally very supportive of much less government intervention.  In regard to your specific examples:

1. the bankruptcy bill- I don't see anything wrong with making it harder for people to welsh on a debt.  Same should hold true for corporations though.
   
   
2. the jobs creation act-I disagree with corporate income taxes to begin with.  Either tax the dividends or tax the corporate income.  I think dividends make more sense
   
   
3. the prescription drug benefit- a colossal waste of money
   
   
4. foregoing royalty payments on public land-fine with me just do it for everybody

I think the problem with Republicans is that when they get into power they begin to act like Democrats. This is most particularly true of Congress.

I knew President Bush and I were going to be at odds on quite a few issues when I first heard the phrase "compassionate conservative" I don't believe true conservatism needs the modifier. I do admire that he has consistently told us what he was going to do and then he did it, unlike the rope-a-dope of his predecessor.

As disappointed with most Republicans as I am, I will never abandon the party so long as their opponents stand for:

• higher taxes
  
• appeasement of our enemies
  
• bigger government
  
• redistribution of wealth
  
• extra constitutional laws such as McCain -Feingold
  
• compromising the War on Terror for political gain
  
• activist judges

And BTW I am not too enamored with Christian fundamentalism interjected in politics, but I would gladly choose a candidate who is guided by faith, over one who blows wherever the political winds take him

You say: I am a Democrat because I believe that government has a responsibility to take care of its citizens, ensure civil rights for all, and to regulate a free market economy.  With this comes an equally important obligation to do so efficently and responsibly, but the duty is there and the call must be answered.

Do you believe that the federal government has a responsibility to adhere to the rules it is based on?  I find it hard to square the above with the constitutional stipulation that any power now specifically given to thee federal government is left to the states.  What does "take care of its citizens" mean?  What does "civil rights for all" mean?  How do you square the constitution with what you're saying?

the Constitution is a 'living' thing, it morphs with every passing fad; it responds to the desires of the current fashion. It is rock video of the 18th Century, dude :-)

Bankruptcy Bill: agreed. However, as you implied, it doesn't apply to most scenarios faced by the economic elite. BTW, the very overwhelming majority of bankruptcies are due to medical costs. Just food for thought. No comment on the boondoggle for Mastercard and Visa.

Jobs creation: I see no evidence that it worked. Part of it simply allowed multinationals to repatriate money that had avoided tax thru off-shore accounts. I'd love to see a study on what effect that money had the economy.

drug Benefit: ditto

Royalties-make them pay. they're profiting from public land.

other remarks:

I don't think it's a question of the GOP acting like dems. It's purley about acting like a party in power and trying to perpetuate it. The system needs reform to undermine power for its own sake.

While I'm defending Dems, your characterization of them is coming from biased point of view.

The only two that have any merit to me are "higher taxes" and "redistribution of wealth".

BUT, the tax thing is a tricky one. One could posit a causal theory that fed tax cuts mainly benefiting the very rich result in "tax shifts" in the form of higher state and local taxes to compensate lower federal revenues granted to state budgets. Just a theory but it gets you to rub your chin.

The redistrubution thing is a double edge sword. The GOP does it too in the form of subsidies and pork projects. Both sides can make arguments that their "wealth transfers" produce a worthwile return in the economy. Jury's out. So I don't even look at this as an issue.

should read:

while I'm NOT defending Dems.

we both got to air our view and we'll have to disagree on a number of things. With respect, what you call bias, I call observations based upon experience. Rather than trying to get the last word in on my characterizations, I'll just say I'm willing to defend them point for point, perhaps another time.

Regarding wealth transfer, our FY 2006 budget on Health and Human Services is $650 billion.  The next biggest line item is defense.  I don't see any "wealth transfer" to corporate interests of anywhere near this magnitude.

In closing I too am a great admirer of Barry Goldwater.  He took an unwavering stand on fighting communism which was for some period of time the greatest threat to free people in the world.  It could be argued that Reagan's success in this regard was attributable in large part to Goldwater's influence.  Who will be today's Goldwater with respect to the threat posed by Islamic terrorists?

someone GETS IT.  Thank you, Neil, that's probably the smartest thing I've ever seen on this site or just about any other.

I have been about to give up on the Stupid Internets altogether for a while now because everyone seems to think THEIR people are who got Bush elected, and that he owes THEM specifically.  I am so sick and tired of the Bush-bashing from the right, it makes me feel like I'll be the last card-carrying Republican around.  I'm not going anywhere.

We ARE a coalition, and if we ever want to get anything we want accomplished, we have to remain one.  It will never happen if we stay home on election day or vote for some irrelevant third party.  "Teaching them a lesson," as I've heard so many say, is immature thinking and politically amateurish.  

So we don't get EVERYTHING we want in 6 (or 8) years.  So what?  Does anyone?  And would we get anything we really want with the dhimmicrats in office?  Answer:  NO.

I am definitely a conservative.  The RINOs piss me off too, but even people like Lincoln Chafee (gagging) filling spots as Republicans helps keep the majority in GOP hands.

I'd like to both keep the GOP majority and swap out half of the ones in office now but I don't believe both goals can be achieved in one election.

Why did you choose the Republican Party?

I've always identified with the GOP, because they (as a general statement) closely match my personal views on almost all issues.  The Democrats' solutions to problems and overall world view isn't even close.

Why do you remain a Republican?

The Democrats are simply not an option, and third parties are a joke.  Besides, as I said, the GOP is a good match.  I don't drink the Kool-Aid, I pour it.  The 11th Commandment is gospel to me.

What do you like and not like about the Republican Party?

Don't like:  certain factions, but I can appreciate their value to the coalition.  Don't agree with one or two issues, but they're absolutely not deal-breakers or even something I think about that much.  Don't like the tendency to just reward the dues-payers, for example the anointment of Dole as the candidate in '96.  I LIKE Dole very much, I just think we could have had a more electable candidate. I'd like to see a little more risk-taking with candidates.

Like:  the overall agenda and goals.  Love the fact that we ARE the party that really does love what America stands for, and we believe that America IS that shining city on the hill.  We don't bash our country or our heritage, and we expect the best of ourselves and each other.  We're the party of ADULTS; we believe in personal responsibility, no matter what part of the big tent we come from, but we're not crabby adults.  We're the optimists.

Are any of you also pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, but think states should decide the issues?

I'm completely agnostic about gay marriage.  I could argue either side with conviction.

I'm pro-life, so my answer is "N/A."  ;-)

As a rule, though, I'm always leery of amending the Constitution, and I loathe legislation from the bench.

On a Congressional and Bureaucratic level, this equates to perpetual Federal encroachment and expansion.

Like I said in the subject, EXACTLY.

I don't think so.  It is true that the "interstate commerce" clause of the Constitution has been strtched in the era since 1932 to include social welfare, civil rights, public education, previously unheard of infastructure development, space exploration, and numerous other expidentures.

The Constitution is a brilliant document that revolutionized American and world government.  I am not of the opinion that its ideas should be turned on a dime.  I don't think many people are.  I am also in favor of more frequent use of the Ammendment process.  I construct my own constitutional interpretation on the the following facts.

1. The Constitution was designed for a nation of 3 million people.  Now we have 300 million.
   
   
2. The Constitution was designed for a pre-Industrial Society of "yeoman farmers", in the words of Jefferson.  Is it proper to apply these intents to today's society?
   
   
3. The Constitution was designed for a small, regional independent Republic that would not be tangled in the affairs of the rest of the world.  Today the United States is the world's sole superpower with all the responsibilities therein.  
   
   
4. The Constitution is vague.  This suggests that right such as "due process" and protection from "unreasonable" searches and seizures are subject to evolving interpretation.
   
   
5. The rights guaranteed by the constitution have ben expanding steadily since its ratification.  A white's only oligarchy became a white's only democracy in 1828.  SLavery lasted 75 years after the founding of a free republic, and segregation and racial injustice lasted 200.  I feel it is our duty to see that these rights continue to expand to meet the idealistic nature of the Constitution.

In conclusion, I do not want the federal government to be all-powerful.  Many responsibilities of government must be absorbed by the state and local administrations, but it is up to the individual to excercise the rights given to them.

I do not find this viewpoint extreme or Unconstitutional.

everything you mentioned is why we have an Admenment process in the Constitution. Our founding ancestors knew that times would change and that in order for the Constitution to survive it would need to be amendable. However, they would be quite upset to learn that rights are taken away from the states through judicial fiat, not through new legislation passed by those who are accountable to the public through elections.

I already said above that I believe the Ammendment process of the constitution is underused.

The 13th Ammendment was used to end slavery.  The 14th and 15th, however, were allowed to be violated for 100 years with the help of a conservative judiciary.  

The limited view of the constitution was also used during this time to strike down minimum wage and maximum hours laws, and to suppress strikes.

If the American people reach a consensus that Constitutional Ammendments are required to allow the federal government to provide health care, education, retirement benefits and welfare to our citizens, I believe it imperative that we pass such ammendments.

But even with a pro-supply-side government in Washington, I don't see anyone in on Capitol Hill seriously suggesting we simply fold up the Welfare State.

when you feel the urge to mention Li***n Ch**e.

Thank you.

The GOP's shining moment was in the wake of the 1994 revolution when they didn't control the whole government...just some parts.

Clinton vs. Gingrich and Co. had many beneficial ripple effects the U.S.

The end result was lots of beautiful infighting, stalemates and compromise that gave us slowed government growth (or shrinkage by some measurements) and a balanced budget.

I like divided government. It's keeps everyone more honest and restrains any sense of omnipotence and comfort with power.

This why is one of main the reasons I voted for Kerry.

I WANTED Kerry vs. Congress. I wanted bold legidslation, vetos, overrides and practical amendments I figured the stupidy of partisan double-standards and scapegoating would yield good results for America.

Without Congress fearing division with Kerry or vice versa, we'd see Congress try and score points with base with bigger spending cut bills and blame Kerry for a veto. Kerry could do the same and blame congress. It's always easier to stand up for something when you have a exit strategy (blame the other party) if it doesn't work.

and emotional...not mention that many of the reasons are universally used by all people. It's just a question of perspective.

The very patience, appreciation of grey area and cooperation that you give to certain parts of GOP that you don't totally agree with is completely absent we when you look at the Democratic Party since your forming convenient broad opinion based on a patch work of criticisms about certain, sometimes fringe, parts of the Dem coaltion.

Don't get me wrong, I see Dems do the same thing.

Both parties thrive on this double-standard and it allows them to veer from principle.

TRUE distinguishing beliefs I like about the GOP, or at least the grass roots GOP, is a general preference for:

privatization and market-driven outcomes...just not religiously for everything without excpetion

Tax Cuts...usually

entitlement reform (but REAL reform not destruction)

Less regulation...within reason

less spending...at least from voters.

Free Trade...but I have reservations about details