HARD RIGHT TURN: How The GOP Destroyed Its Moderates

[jillian]

Let's add.....In actions, not words.

I want to hear this one.

I'm surprised you can't answer it yourself.

1) By becoming addicted to tax cuts as the basis for all economic policy - a far cry from conservative governments of earlier eras.

Republicans have favored tax cuts since the 1920s.



during the Kennedy administration, military spending consumed more than 50% of the federal budget. Now it consumes 20%. Of course, back in those days some Democrats actually supported defense spending. Now they want to convert it all to welfare. Democrats have changed their tune about defense spending, not Republicans.



The tactic of using bogus science to advance their socialist agenda is recent development, so it's a non sequiture to claim opposition to it represents some change in Republican attitudes.



No one ever support foreign aid because of Christianity.

5) By opposing immigration and immigrants - whereas earlier conservatives often felt the economy benefitted from incoming cheap labour.

Eisenhower is the one who launched Operation Wetback, so that claim is obviously idiotic.

Shall I go on?

Please do. The results are hilarious.

if republicans have always favored tax cuts, why did reagan raise taxes 7 times?
if republicans have always favored tax cuts, why was baby bush the only leader in recorded history to cut taxes during time of war.

support of certain foreign aid SOMETIMES finds its support in theocratic leanings. but mostly it doesn't... mostly its a function of ... that's how we do business because we a) have interests around the world that need to be protected (something randian idiots don't understand); and it is more affordable than wars to advance those interests. something else that is totally incomprehensible to randians and israel-haters alike.

eisenhower also said beware the military industrial complex because they would bankrupt us if we allowed it.

and democrats are not socialists... learn your terms. once again, for the uneducated like you, words have meanings.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm surprised you can't answer it yourself.

1) By becoming addicted to tax cuts as the basis for all economic policy - a far cry from conservative governments of earlier eras.

Republicans have favored tax cuts since the 1920s.



during the Kennedy administration, military spending consumed more than 50% of the federal budget. Now it consumes 20%. Of course, back in those days some Democrats actually supported defense spending. Now they want to convert it all to welfare. Democrats have changed their tune about defense spending, not Republicans.



The tactic of using bogus science to advance their socialist agenda is recent development, so it's a non sequiture to claim opposition to it represents some change in Republican attitudes.



No one ever support foreign aid because of Christianity.



Eisenhower is the one who launched Operation Wetback, so that claim is obviously idiotic.

Shall I go on?

Please do. The results are hilarious.

if republicans have always favored tax cuts, why did reagan raise taxes 7 times?
if republicans have always favored tax cuts, why was baby bush the only leader in recorded history to cut taxes during time of war.

support of certain foreign aid SOMETIMES finds its support in theocratic leanings. but mostly it doesn't... mostly its a function of ... that's how we do business because we a) have interests around the world that need to be protected (something randian idiots don't understand); and it is more affordable than wars to advance those interests. something else that is totally incomprehensible to randians and israel-haters alike.

eisenhower also said beware the military industrial complex because they would bankrupt us if we allowed it.

and democrats are not socialists... learn your terms. once again, for the uneducated like you, words have meanings.

Likely because once in the WH he realized he had to govern as a responsible adult, and not indulge the childish, irresponsible, reactionary fantasies of the right.

 

[Saigon]

Let's add.....In actions, not words.

I want to hear this one.

I'm surprised you can't answer it yourself.

1) By becoming addicted to tax cuts as the basis for all economic policy - a far cry from conservative governments of earlier eras.

2) By constantly wanting to over-fund the military - something not a given even going back to the 1950's.

3) By basically ignoring all scientific evidence of climate change - in the past conservatives have often triumphed scientific thinking.

4) By opposing and diminishing development aid, whereas earlier conservatives often felt development aid was a Christian act.

5) By opposing immigration and immigrants - whereas earlier conservatives often felt the economy benefitted from incoming cheap labour.

Shall I go on?

but why do you consider that "far right" ?

Some of it is common sense

Some of it is common sense - I am not trying to portray the right wing as bad guys here.

I'm just pointing out that some of the balance in the Republican party that held them closer to the centre has waned recently, and the focus on the bible and the free market has dragged the party further towards Nationalism and away from the Centre.

 

[Saigon]

Hate to break the news to you but Obama is a moderate. I should know, I'm a Progressive

Democrats would claim Pol Pot is a moderate if he was running for office in this country.

And Mother Teresa would be a religious extremist according to the left. The left lost their tenuous grasp on reality long ago.

That depends - is refusing pain medication to Aids patients extreme?

Is hanging out with fascist thugs like Papa Doc Duvalier extreme?

 

[jillian]

Republicans have favored tax cuts since the 1920s.



during the Kennedy administration, military spending consumed more than 50% of the federal budget. Now it consumes 20%. Of course, back in those days some Democrats actually supported defense spending. Now they want to convert it all to welfare. Democrats have changed their tune about defense spending, not Republicans.



The tactic of using bogus science to advance their socialist agenda is recent development, so it's a non sequiture to claim opposition to it represents some change in Republican attitudes.



No one ever support foreign aid because of Christianity.



Eisenhower is the one who launched Operation Wetback, so that claim is obviously idiotic.




Please do. The results are hilarious.

if republicans have always favored tax cuts, why did reagan raise taxes 7 times?
if republicans have always favored tax cuts, why was baby bush the only leader in recorded history to cut taxes during time of war.

support of certain foreign aid SOMETIMES finds its support in theocratic leanings. but mostly it doesn't... mostly its a function of ... that's how we do business because we a) have interests around the world that need to be protected (something randian idiots don't understand); and it is more affordable than wars to advance those interests. something else that is totally incomprehensible to randians and israel-haters alike.

eisenhower also said beware the military industrial complex because they would bankrupt us if we allowed it.

and democrats are not socialists... learn your terms. once again, for the uneducated like you, words have meanings.

Likely because once in the WH he realized he had to govern as a responsible adult, and not indulge the childish, irresponsible, reactionary fantasies of the right.

he also hadn't pledged allegiance to grover norquist.

 

[Bfgrn]

The "far right" theocrats are the neocons, you nincompoop.

Here is your list of names for the day...

Henry 'Scoop' Jackson, Richard 'Prince of Darkness' Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Douglas Feith, Robert Kagan, Norman Podhoretz, John Podhoretz, Alan Dershowtiz, Daniel Pipes, Eliot Cohen, Irving Kristol, Bill Kristol, Max Boot, James Schlesinger, Marc Grossman, Joshua Bolten, Frank Gaffney, Michael Rubin.

If you don't find them at Sunday services at Falwell's Thomas Road Baptist Church, or sitting around watching Pat Robertson's 'The 700 Club', check the Synagogues...

oy vay!

screw you...

some names you left out...

richard armitage
dick cheney
donald rumsfeld
peter rodman
francis fukuyama
bill bennet
zalmay khalizad

and those were just names off of the pnac letter to bill clinton in 1998

Letter to President Clinton on Iraq

p.s. scoop jackson isn't jewish, neither are bolton or schlesinger ... oops.

so no to both of you... it is not only far-right theocrats who are neo-cons... it's just one section of the GOP ... far more numerous than the wacko randians.

You're right about Jackson, but you are wrong about Joshua Bolten and James Schlesinger, both Jewish.

The theocrats in the GOP are fundie Christians.

 

[Bfgrn]

Yes, we should take input from a Party that has run up annual trillion deficits, taken God out of their party, got us downgraded and can't wait to take orders from Putin.

Thaaaaaaaaank you

The Republicans have taken God out of their party? Maybe they looked into Putin's eyes and saw his soul.

 

[dblack]

I have question for those of you tossing around the terms 'hard/far left' and 'hard/far right'. What would you label people like Gary Johnson or Ron Paul?

I would call them both libertarian/conservatives. I have been disappointed in the Libertarian party the last couple elections, they are going for votes rather then nominating actual libertarians. As I keep saying about them, they are more libertarian then either major party, but they are more party then libertarian.

They also keep insisting they are not more left then right, then they nominate guys from the right side of libertarian. At least Gary is more libertarian than Bob Barr was though.

I was referring more to libertarian ideology in general. I ask because I hear libertarians labelled as far left (usually by social conservatives), as far right (usually by progressives), and as moderates - which highlights just how vague and meaningless these terms have become. "Moderate" in particular is dangerously misleading because its usually applied to politicians who have some conservative and some liberal views, but which ones? Both Ron Paul and Romney could be labeled 'moderates' with such a vague definition, but they are near polar opposites in political ideology.

I don't think the leadership of either major party is 'hard' anything. They agree on most of the essentials and are dominated by a corporatist/authoritarian philosophy of government.

 

[Dot Com]

Here is your list of names for the day...

Henry 'Scoop' Jackson, Richard 'Prince of Darkness' Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Douglas Feith, Robert Kagan, Norman Podhoretz, John Podhoretz, Alan Dershowtiz, Daniel Pipes, Eliot Cohen, Irving Kristol, Bill Kristol, Max Boot, James Schlesinger, Marc Grossman, Joshua Bolten, Frank Gaffney, Michael Rubin.

If you don't find them at Sunday services at Falwell's Thomas Road Baptist Church, or sitting around watching Pat Robertson's 'The 700 Club', check the Synagogues...

oy vay!

screw you...

some names you left out...

richard armitage
dick cheney
donald rumsfeld
peter rodman
francis fukuyama
bill bennet
zalmay khalizad

and those were just names off of the pnac letter to bill clinton in 1998

Letter to President Clinton on Iraq

p.s. scoop jackson isn't jewish, neither are bolton or schlesinger ... oops.

so no to both of you... it is not only far-right theocrats who are neo-cons... it's just one section of the GOP ... far more numerous than the wacko randians.

You're right about Jackson, but you are wrong about Joshua Bolten and James Schlesinger, both Jewish.

The theocrats in the GOP are fundie Christians.

True. Let us not forget who the Founder AND co-founder were/are. Don't know why jillian is automatically running to their defense

Project for the New American Century - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Persons associated with the PNACProject directors
[as listed on the PNAC website:]
William Kristol, Co-founder and Chairman[1]
Robert Kagan, Co-founder[1]

Whose payroll is Kristol on now? Watch the Sunday morning talk shows & see which one he's on

 

[Harry Dresden]

If Obama wins re-election...he's a lame duck from day 1.

That's what we hire our representatives to do and as long as they keep doing it, they will stay hired.

Just ask DICK Lugar about that.

You keep talking. Meanwhile Dems are giving Reps a run for their money in several congressional elections. That's what happens when the extremists take over the party -- they say stuff like, "Legitimate rape", and send the moderates running. Good luck

thats true Jose the reason i wont go Republican....but a guy like me left the Democrats because of people like Dean,Lakota,Chris,Dudley and TM's taking over.....and i would never go back until their kind dies out.....

 

[Oddball]

Hey Jethro, is this a 'critique from a far left progressive/socialist fundie kook'?


Victor Gold, former speechwriter for George Herbert Walker Bush is a Goldwater conservative...his book explains how the GOP was hijacked away from conservatives by far right theocrats and far left neocons...starting in 1980...

The "far right" theocrats are the neocons, you nincompoop.

Here is your list of names for the day...

Henry 'Scoop' Jackson, Richard 'Prince of Darkness' Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Douglas Feith, Robert Kagan, Norman Podhoretz, John Podhoretz, Alan Dershowtiz, Daniel Pipes, Eliot Cohen, Irving Kristol, Bill Kristol, Max Boot, James Schlesinger, Marc Grossman, Joshua Bolten, Frank Gaffney, Michael Rubin.

If you don't find them at Sunday services at Falwell's Thomas Road Baptist Church, or sitting around watching Pat Robertson's 'The 700 Club', check the Synagogues...

oy vay!

What are you, some kind of anti-Semite?

 

[kaz]

Let's add.....In actions, not words.

I want to hear this one.

I'm surprised you can't answer it yourself.

1) By becoming addicted to tax cuts as the basis for all economic policy - a far cry from conservative governments of earlier eras.

2) By constantly wanting to over-fund the military - something not a given even going back to the 1950's.

3) By basically ignoring all scientific evidence of climate change - in the past conservatives have often triumphed scientific thinking.

4) By opposing and diminishing development aid, whereas earlier conservatives often felt development aid was a Christian act.

5) By opposing immigration and immigrants - whereas earlier conservatives often felt the economy benefitted from incoming cheap labour.

Shall I go on?

Do you have any examples that aren't driven by the use of controlled substances?

Neg rep, thanks Miss Saigon! Why you'd tell me I'm getting to your little dickless ego I don't know. But letting me know I own you is a solid.

As for your argument, stop the bull crap of arguing liberal talking points no one thinks.

 

[kaz]

I'm surprised you can't answer it yourself.

1) By becoming addicted to tax cuts as the basis for all economic policy - a far cry from conservative governments of earlier eras.

2) By constantly wanting to over-fund the military - something not a given even going back to the 1950's.

3) By basically ignoring all scientific evidence of climate change - in the past conservatives have often triumphed scientific thinking.

4) By opposing and diminishing development aid, whereas earlier conservatives often felt development aid was a Christian act.

5) By opposing immigration and immigrants - whereas earlier conservatives often felt the economy benefitted from incoming cheap labour.

Shall I go on?

but why do you consider that "far right" ?

Some of it is common sense

Some of it is common sense - I am not trying to portray the right wing as bad guys here.

I'm just pointing out that some of the balance in the Republican party that held them closer to the centre has waned recently, and the focus on the bible and the free market has dragged the party further towards Nationalism and away from the Centre.

This is common sense?

 

[Oddball]

Let's add.....In actions, not words.

I want to hear this one.

I'm surprised you can't answer it yourself.

1) By becoming addicted to tax cuts as the basis for all economic policy - a far cry from conservative governments of earlier eras.

2) By constantly wanting to over-fund the military - something not a given even going back to the 1950's.

3) By basically ignoring all scientific evidence of climate change - in the past conservatives have often triumphed scientific thinking.

4) By opposing and diminishing development aid, whereas earlier conservatives often felt development aid was a Christian act.

5) By opposing immigration and immigrants - whereas earlier conservatives often felt the economy benefitted from incoming cheap labour.

Shall I go on?

Chump change for chumps like you.

1) JFK was for tax cuts and nobody in the Democrat Party has made any serious effort to let the current rates go back up....Moreover, democrats signed onto Reagan's tax rate cuts to boot.

2) Not going on in the 1950s?....Never heard of the Cold War or the Korean war?...When have democrats opposed this, in any serious way?

3) Pffft....More chump change.

4) Republicans are all for international "development aid" handouts as much as anyone on the left...And gubmint isn't a Christian charity.

5) They (claim to) oppose illegal immigration, not all immigration....But like with virtually every other issue, it's all talk.

You could go on, if you ad any kind of start in the first place.

 

[kaz]

I hear libertarians labelled as far left (usually by social conservatives), as far right (usually by progressives), and as moderates

Agreed on that I'm always called a Republican/Conservative by the left and a liberal by the social right. The fiscal right do recognize I'm a libertarian. Though I am not called nor do I see other libertarian's called moderate, and I hope I never do. Moderate simply means without conviction. I am clearly socially liberal, I am clearly fiscally conservative, I clearly want our military used only for direct defense of the US. I'm consistently anti-government, I'm moderate on nothing.

I don't think the leadership of either major party is 'hard' anything. They agree on most of the essentials and are dominated by a corporatist/authoritarian philosophy of government.

I agree with this on the Republican side, and that's no compliment. They support nothing but winning elections. But wow, seriously, you don't see Pelosi/Reid/Obama as extreme? What would it take?

 

[Oddball]

Hey Jethro, is this a 'critique from a far left progressive/socialist fundie kook'?


Victor Gold, former speechwriter for George Herbert Walker Bush is a Goldwater conservative...his book explains how the GOP was hijacked away from conservatives by far right theocrats and far left neocons...starting in 1980...

The "far right" theocrats are the neocons, you nincompoop.

??? what does neocon have to do with theocracy?

Theocracy is a straw man pushed by the bedwetter atheist left.

I'm more concerned by the theocracy pushed by the authoritarian left, who seek to elevate gubmint to the role of God.

 

[Dot Com]

 

[Oddball]

Oh yeah...A cartoon from a far leftist crank, who gets published only in the far leftist crank weekly entertainment tabloids, is totally credible!

 

[Dot Com]

Oh yeah...A cartoon from a far leftist crank, who gets published only in the far leftist crank weekly entertainment tabloids, is totally credible!

last I read, only @25% +/- ID (admit) being Repubs. You aren't a Repub but you vote that way right?

 

[Darkwind]

The only ones who seem highly concerned about the rise of the right wing in the Republican party are liberal Democrats. Mostly, the hard left wing.

What is really weird, is that most of these left wingers consider themselves moderates. They don't have a clue as to what they really are.

The Republican party has not shifted far to the right, although it has turned right. The Democrat party has shifted so far left that the center right of the electorate is now considered, by them, to be hard right.

They sit near the left 20 yard line, and think it is the center of the field.

You are exactly right. What is considered far right today, was actually a moderate 30 years ago.

It is the left, who have become so radicalized, that they can't even see their own extremism.