Weird GOP Deathwish?

[Annie]

Seems like. Links at site:

http://instapundit.com/archives2/006317.php

June 16, 2007

...

...The political press can run with stories about bloggers being in full revolt over immigration, but it's not really a case of bloggers vs. the Administration. Rather, it's a case -- like Harriet Miers, Dubai Ports, PorkBusters, etc. -- of the Bush Administration ignoring the clear warnings available in the blogosphere. And once again, it's not just bloggers who think the Administration is crazy. So far, every time they've done that they've had their head handed to them. That'll happen this time, too, and if they should happen to "win" and pass their bill, the consequences for the GOP will be even worse. "Bizarre Republican Death Wish?" Indeed.

...

I've often at least sort-of hoped for a third party that would combine the GOP economic-libertarian strands with the Dems' social-libertarian strands. I don't know if the GOP's self-destruction makes that more likely, but it seems like it might. At any rate, if people really want to commit suicide it's hard to stop them, and that seems to be the GOP's main goal at the moment.

...

posted at 04:26 PM by Glenn Reynolds

 

[William Joyce]

Sure, but it's not hard to imagine a winning GOP candidate. He'd take a hard line on immigration, want spending under control, and fight terrorism but have a plan to wrap up Iraq. He'd say multiculturalism and PC are out of control and need to be reined in. He'd say abortion is awful but probably wouldn't look for a federal law banning it -- just conservative judges. He might try an appeal to liberals by talking more about the environment and might even try global warming "alternatives" (to theories and policy response). He'd score points by noting that Fox has some of the most vulgar programming on TV. He'd say, if you think being a conservative means not reading books, you might just qualify to be the 43rd president. He'd say, remember in America when Cokes were 50 cents and kids didn't wear bike helmets, and when neighbors knew each others' names? Let's try getting back to that. Let's try some more politeness and civility. He'd say, if the rest of the world hates us, that probably won't change, but we can at least stop giving them gratuitous reasons to hate us. He'd say I understand why Israel wants to stand tall in the Middle East, but we can't spend the rest of our national existence as their fetchit-boy. He'd say schools are a local matter, not a federal matter. He'd say, if you think little white girls in pinafore dresses are a sign of incipient Nazism, you need to get the fuck out our of our country.

Oh, wait. I was just dreaming.

 

[dilloduck]

Sure, but it's not hard to imagine a winning GOP candidate. He'd take a hard line on immigration, want spending under control, and fight terrorism but have a plan to wrap up Iraq. He'd say multiculturalism and PC are out of control and need to be reined in. He'd say abortion is awful but probably wouldn't look for a federal law banning it -- just conservative judges. He might try an appeal to liberals by talking more about the environment and might even try global warming "alternatives" (to theories and policy response). He'd score points by noting that Fox has some of the most vulgar programming on TV. He'd say, if you think being a conservative means not reading books, you might just qualify to be the 43rd president. He'd say, remember in America when Cokes were 50 cents and kids didn't wear bike helmets, and when neighbors knew each others' names? Let's try getting back to that. Let's try some more politeness and civility. He'd say, if the rest of the world hates us, that probably won't change, but we can at least stop giving them gratuitous reasons to hate us. He'd say I understand why Israel wants to stand tall in the Middle East, but we can't spend the rest of our national existence as their fetchit-boy. He'd say schools are a local matter, not a federal matter. He'd say, if you think little white girls in pinafore dresses are a sign of incipient Nazism, you need to get the fuck out our of our country.

Oh, wait. I was just dreaming.

Are you trying to give Hillary ideas ?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A middle of the road party would be nice. One with the right conservative views and the right non conservative views.

I do NOT think any major politician is going to form a party though. Maybe "WE" the people should try. I do not know how we would succeed but perhaps we could start by trying to make a platform.

The following being Ideas I would support.

The Government returns to the rule of Constitution on Federal Functions and powers. ( eliminate Education, Veteran Affairs as Cabinet posts) Eliminate federal Funds for Education and review every "power" that is claimed to be under the heading of " Interstate Commerce"

Create an amendment to the Constitution that allows the Federal Government to run Social Security. Failing that transfer the program completely to the States and cease collecting taxes on it.

Along the same lines. Change the accounting for Social Security and medicare taxes to being only used for those purposes.

Allow Abortion in first trimester and ensure that laws exist to allow abortion to save the mothers life.

The PRIMARY function of the Federal Government is Defense, support the defense appropriations at a minimum of 10 percent of budget, with 15 percent as the final goal.

Eliminate pork and pet projects from appropriation bills, Require that all addendum be openly discussed and easily seen by the electorate.

Create a Constitutional Line Item veto for the President ( requires that Congress still have the power to over ride such a veto)

Support a change from Government involvement in "marriage" to one of Government involved in "Civil Unions".

Secure the borders and ports of the Country with any means possible.

Enforce ALL illegal alien laws.

NO amnesty for illegal aliens, support a move to credit anyone applying for immigration ( from their home country) with some kind of credit if they were in the country illegally but paid taxes. This would ONLY apply to before 2007.

The goal of the party is smaller Federal Government and one that abides by the Constitution. Within this gaol, the party will attempt to create amendments to the Constitution rather then pervert the powers granted by said document.

The goal of the party is to balance the budget and pay down the deficit.

The goal of the party is to avoid raising taxes, if taxes are raised a specific purpose must be stated to support the raise.

 

[maineman]

I find myself agreeing with much of that.

 

[Toro]

I've often at least sort-of hoped for a third party that would combine the GOP economic-libertarian strands with the Dems' social-libertarian strands. I don't know if the GOP's self-destruction makes that more likely, but it seems like it might. At any rate, if people really want to commit suicide it's hard to stop them, and that seems to be the GOP's main goal at the moment.

I'd be there.

 

[Annie]

A middle of the road party would be nice. One with the right conservative views and the right non conservative views.

I do NOT think any major politician is going to form a party though. Maybe "WE" the people should try. I do not know how we would succeed but perhaps we could start by trying to make a platform.

The following being Ideas I would support.

The Government returns to the rule of Constitution on Federal Functions and powers. ( eliminate Education, Veteran Affairs as Cabinet posts) Eliminate federal Funds for Education and review every "power" that is claimed to be under the heading of " Interstate Commerce"

Create an amendment to the Constitution that allows the Federal Government to run Social Security. Failing that transfer the program completely to the States and cease collecting taxes on it.

Along the same lines. Change the accounting for Social Security and medicare taxes to being only used for those purposes.

Allow Abortion in first trimester and ensure that laws exist to allow abortion to save the mothers life.

The PRIMARY function of the Federal Government is Defense, support the defense appropriations at a minimum of 10 percent of budget, with 15 percent as the final goal.

Eliminate pork and pet projects from appropriation bills, Require that all addendum be openly discussed and easily seen by the electorate.

Create a Constitutional Line Item veto for the President ( requires that Congress still have the power to over ride such a veto)

Support a change from Government involvement in "marriage" to one of Government involved in "Civil Unions".

Secure the borders and ports of the Country with any means possible.

Enforce ALL illegal alien laws.

NO amnesty for illegal aliens, support a move to credit anyone applying for immigration ( from their home country) with some kind of credit if they were in the country illegally but paid taxes. This would ONLY apply to before 2007.

The goal of the party is smaller Federal Government and one that abides by the Constitution. Within this gaol, the party will attempt to create amendments to the Constitution rather then pervert the powers granted by said document.

The goal of the party is to balance the budget and pay down the deficit.

The goal of the party is to avoid raising taxes, if taxes are raised a specific purpose must be stated to support the raise.

I agree with all of the above, with the exceptions of the bolded. Those issues should be eliminated from the federal and either taken up by the states or eliminated altogether.

With that said, I think it important to note that the federal government has not been doing a good job on the census, something it was better at 200 years before.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I agree with all of the above, with the exceptions of the bolded. Those issues should be eliminated from the federal and either taken up by the states or eliminated altogether.

With that said, I think it important to note that the federal government has not been doing a good job on the census, something it was better at 200 years before.

It is simply to late to just cut off Social Security. To many people paid in and have a reasonable expectation of something for their money. The States actually run the programs but use Federal Funds for it.

Social Security is Unconstitutional and should either have an amendment allowing it or be dropped from Federal control all together. So we agree in principle on that one, just not on what to do.

The use of Social Security funds to pay ANY Government program or bill is the ONLY reason Social Security is in danger in the future. If that money was JUST for Social Security there would not be a problem about how we pay for it in the future, at least not for a VERY long time.

The Constitution is clear, if Marriage exists as a State power then EVERY State MUST honor other States laws ( unless they are Unconstitutional) by continuing the practice of State run marriage we are ensuring Gays will be granted that right by Court decree. Move Marriage to religion and have the State sanction and license Civil Unions. Contractually Gays deserve the same rights and privaleges as all other citizens.

Religiously I am against abortion. But pragmaticly I see this issue as a stumbling block for many people that might otherwise agree on the other points. Allow the States to set the laws for thier State within reason and promise not to totally repel abortion and you will gain people that simply can not agree otherwise. I would further stipulate that NO Federal Funds should ever be used for abortion.

 

[Annie]

More evidence of insanity, not to mention the problem with 'Americans won't do these jobs...'

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/14/GOP.TMP

State GOP fills a critical post with Canadian

Carla Marinucci, Chronicle Political Writer

Thursday, June 14, 2007

The California Republican Party has decided no American is qualified to take one of its most crucial positions -- state deputy political director -- and has hired a Canadian for the job through a coveted H-1B visa, a program favored by Silicon Valley tech firms that is under fire for displacing skilled American workers.

Christopher Matthews, 35, a Canadian citizen, has worked for the state GOP as a campaign consultant since 2004. But he recently was hired as full-time deputy political director, with responsibility for handling campaign operations and information technology for the country's largest state Republican Party operation, California Republican Party Chairman Ron Nehring confirmed in a telephone interview this week.

In the nation's most populous state -- which has produced a roster of nationally known veteran political consultants -- "it's insulting but also embarrassing ... to bring people from the outside who don't know the difference between Lodi and Lancaster ... and who can't even vote," said Karen Hanretty, a political commentator and former state GOP party spokeswoman.

U.S. Department of Labor records show the state Republican Party applied for an H-1B visa to fill the job of "political consultant" and was granted a visa labor certification in March 2007. The three-year H-1B visa does not become valid until Oct. 1, 2007, government records show.

...

 

[red states rule]

Those who do support the insane amnesty bill play the usual race card

Remind me again how Fox News does not give both sides of the issue............



Geraldo: Immigration Enforcement Like 'Pulling Down Pants of Jews,' Energizing 'Extreme Right'
Posted by Brad Wilmouth on June 17, 2007 - 14:21.
On Thursday's The O'Reilly Factor, FNC's Geraldo Rivera and conservative columnist Michelle Malkin sparred over controversial comments Rivera had made on the June 8 show attacking Malkin's support for enforcing immigration laws, which Rivera had called "un-American" and had compared to "pulling down the pants of Jews to see if they were circumcised." Rivera, from June 8: "If, in her America, in Michelle's America, when you look, is that Hispanic guy an illegal or is he legal? It reminds me so much of when they used to pull down the pants of Jews to see if they were circumcised or not. It is, it is so, so pathetic. It's so un-American." On the Thursday June 14 show, Rivera contended that the issue is being pushed because "wedge issues like gay marriage and abortion lost steam with the extreme right, they've now seized on this as a way to appeal to energize the base." Video of the June 8 segments can be viewed here and the June 14 segment here.
http://newsbusters.org/node/13528

 

[JeffWartman]

I've often at least sort-of hoped for a third party that would combine the GOP economic-libertarian strands with the Dems' social-libertarian strands.

Join the Libertarian Party.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Join the Libertarian Party.

NOT going to happen, they are one step shy of anarchy. Basicly they think no Government above County level should have ANY power over people in any manner. They think that rather than have lots of laws and arrest people you should just sue them.

 

[JeffWartman]

NOT going to happen, they are one step shy of anarchy. Basicly they think no Government above County level should have ANY power over people in any manner. They think that rather than have lots of laws and arrest people you should just sue them.

This is perhaps one of the worst characterizations I've ever heard of the Libertarian Party.

You really need to do your homework.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

This is perhaps one of the worst characterizations I've ever heard of the Libertarian Party.

You really need to do your homework.

So, you deny that Libertarians do NOT think the County is the highest Government that should be involved in personal citizens matters? That they think State and federal Governments are unnecassary and should be stripped of any real power?

You deny that Libertarians think most legal matters should be handled in a civil rather than a criminal court?

I spent 2 years listening to the drival from a die hard Libertarian.

 

[JeffWartman]

So, you deny that Libertarians do NOT think the County is the highest Government that should be involved in personal citizens matters?

No, because that's not what you said in the post I responded to. You said..."Basicly they think no Government above County level should have ANY power over people in any manner."

That is VERY different from your statement above.

That they think State and federal Governments are unnecassary and should be stripped of any real power?

Not completely unnecessary, but any reading of the Constitution should tell you that 80% of the current federal government is unconstitutional and should be left to the local/state governments.

You deny that Libertarians think most legal matters should be handled in a civil rather than a criminal court?

This is something that many Libertarians would debate.

You act as if the Libertarian Party is completely homogeneous. That is CERTAINLY NOT the case.

You should read about Libertarianism. Many Republicans, including Ronald Reagan, believed Libertarianism to be the real philosophical basis for the Republican ideology. Reagan's thoughts on Libertarianism can be found here: http://www.reason.com/news/show/29318.html

Reagan, in many ways, was a Libertarian.

 

[red states rule]

Join the Libertarian Party.

and waste your vote

 

[Annie]

and waste your vote

You really don't seem to understand that many 'conservatives' have had it with the GOP? If you really cared about 'the party' you should perhaps listen a tad more and let up on the cheer leading. If 'the party' doesn't start responding better than it has, it will fall sooner rather than later.

The Libertarian Party is too over the top from what I've been able to see. Ron Paul? Michael Badnarik? Many would agree with libertarian ideas, but they've yet to field a decent national candidate.

 

[red states rule]

You really don't seem to understand that many 'conservatives' have had it with the GOP? If you really cared about 'the party' you should perhaps listen a tad more and let up on the cheer leading. If 'the party' doesn't start responding better than it has, it will fall sooner rather than later.

The Libertarian Party is too over the top from what I've been able to see. Ron Paul? Michael Badnarik? Many would agree with libertarian ideas, but they've yet to field a decent national candidate.

I am seeing some glimmers of hope. Finally, Republicans are going after the pork, some are fighting the insane amnesty bill, and are trying to fight off the Dems surrender bill

Bush is finally bringing out his veto pen - I do wish he would have done it years ago

I am glad he will be gone in 08. But I shudder to think what this country would look like with Hillary and a Dem Congress running things

Rudy is far from a Reagan Conservative - but I also like Thompson. I have to hear more of what Fred has to say. But either of them would be much better then Hillary or Obama

Republicans stayed home last Nov and we have the Dems running Congress. So far no damage has been done - but they are trying their best

 

[Annie]

I am seeing some glimmers of hope. Finally, Republicans are going after the pork, some are fighting the insane amnesty bill, and are trying to fight off the Dems surrender bill

Bush is finally bringing out his veto pen - I do wish he would have done it years ago

I am glad he will be gone in 08. But I shudder to think what this country would look like with Hillary and a Dem Congress running things

Rudy is far from a Reagan Conservative - but I also like Thompson. I have to hear more of what Fred has to say. But either of them would be much better then Hillary or Obama

Republicans stayed home last Nov and we have the Dems running Congress. So far no damage has been done - but they are trying their best

It's possible if the majority in Congress had addressed pork before the last election they may have remained in the majority, they do so now to make things difficult for the current majority-they really don't pick up points for that.

If many chose to sit out the last election, the GOP had plenty of warning that people were angry. They are moreso now. They can't raise money, for good reason. In spite of that, they are not listening, they think it's going to 'go away.' They would be wrong on that.

BTW I would not be surprised to see much of the same with the Democrats, but they currently have the momentum, which means they will get traction off of that.

 

[red states rule]

It's possible if the majority in Congress had addressed pork before the last election they may have remained in the majority, they do so now to make things difficult for the current majority-they really don't pick up points for that.

If many chose to sit out the last election, the GOP had plenty of warning that people were angry. They are moreso now. They can't raise money, for good reason. In spite of that, they are not listening, they think it's going to 'go away.' They would be wrong on that.

BTW I would not be surprised to see much of the same with the Democrats, but they currently have the momentum, which means they will get traction off of that.

We agree on the pork. Currently, Dems want to INCREASE the pork and Republicans are trying to stop it. With Dems threatening Republicans on the House floor because they are trying to stop it - does not play well with the voters

Or with Pelosi wanting taxpayers to pay for the kids of members of Congress on trips is a hoot as well

The way the Dems are going Kathy, I think Republicans can make a comeback. But they will have to make a case they have learned their leson and will get back to the principals of reagan conservatism

Pres Bush has been raising money for the GOP - I have not seen the numbers yet

No matter who the Repubicans put up in 08 - Rudy or Fred - I do not want to think Republicnas will stay home and wake up after the election to see Pres elect Hillary on TV