XPost: talk.politics.guns, talk.politics.misc, misc.survivalism   
   XPost: alt.global-warming   
   From: Then-Destroy-Everything@Talk-n-dog.com   
      
   The Republican Party Has Failed And That's Not Good For Anyone   
      
   by Chris Edelson   
      
   The Republican party's failure has me thinking of a Seinfeld episode, the one   
   where Kramer is upset about a Kenny Rogers Roasters restaurant featuring a   
   bright neon sign that lights up his apartment at night.  Jerry has an old   
   college friend who winds up working as an assistant manager at the restaurant,   
   and when Kramer hangs a banner from his restaurant protesting the chicken   
   establishment, Jerry's friend remarks "that's not going to be good for   
   business."  Jerry responds "that's not going to be good for anyone".   
      
   That's how I feel about the intellectually bankrupt, hopelessly divided, and   
   utterly unpopular entity known as today's Republican party.  Some critics of   
   the party see the party's failure as a good thing, but I think it's not going   
   to be good for anyone.  I'd much prefer to see a rational, functioning   
   Republican party than today's embarrassing irrelevancy.   
      
   Not surprisingly, media insiders are missing the story.  They are transfixed by   
   gubernatorial elections in 2 states last Tuesday, and are talking up the idea   
   of a Republican resurgence.  They're losing sight of some central facts that   
   are unaffected by Tuesday's elections:   
      
   The Republican party has a favorable rating of 23% and an unfavorable rating of   
   66%.  (Democrats are at 42%-50%).  Republicans in Congress have favorable-   
   unfavorable ratings of 15% and 70% (Democrats are at 40-53).  If this is a   
   resurgent party that has captured the national mood, I'm Herbert Hoover.   
      
   It's no coincidence that voters give Republicans such abysmal ratings.  The   
   Republican party stands for absolutely nothing other than the pursuit of power.   
   For 30 years, the Republicans have claimed to stand for 3 things: (1) small   
   government (2) family values and (3) strong national defense.  They don't   
   actually stand for any of these things, and it's not clear that they ever did.   
      
   The small government myth Reagan and GW Bush loved to talk up their small   
   government bona fides, but each spent like there was no tomorrow, running up   
   unprecedented deficits and debt.  Small government also seemed to get put aside   
   when it came to the bedroom and privacy.  Reagan and Bush both supported a   
   constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion.  Bush also supported a   
   constitutional amendment prohibiting marriage equality for same-sex couples.   
   Not exactly libertarian positions: in each case, the goal was to use government   
   to enforce specific religiously based prohibitions on private activity.  Bush   
   did Reagan one better when it came to civil liberties.  This champion of small   
   government presided over an era of warrantless wiretapping, torture, and   
   government-sponsored propaganda.  (That last point is not my opinion, it was   
   the conclusion of the Government Accountability Office.)  Republicans cheered   
   on Bush's campaign against civil liberties at every turn, arguing it was   
   necessary to provide security.   And then, when it became painfully clear that   
   only government could save the mismanaged economy from the worst disaster since   
   the Great Depression, Republicans couldn't line up quickly enough behind Bush   
   to support government bailouts of failed corporations.   
      
   Family values-just a slogan Republicans have chattered on about family values   
   for decades,  but elected Republicans who fail to meet these standards often   
   pay no political price.  Mark Sanford, John Ensign, and David Vitter are just a   
   few prominent Republicans who believe family values are only something you gush   
   about when you want to fool voters into thinking that you're an old-time   
   moralist committed to clean living and righteous indignation.  Of course, when   
   it comes to other peoples' families, especially gay and lesbian couples seeking   
   to marry and raise families, it's time for a heavy dose of sanctimony.   
      
   Republican bungling of national defense The past three decades are filled with   
   examples of disastrous decisions Republicans made that undermined our security,   
   starting with Reagan's and the right wing's backing of the mujahideen in   
   Afghanistan (they called them "freedom fighters", but it turned out their ranks   
   included some guy named Osama Bin Laden).  Reagan's administration also came up   
   with the nifty idea of trading arms for hostages, which meant selling arms to   
   Iran and using the proceeds to fund another merry band of freedom fighters in   
   the mold of Paul Revere - the murderous contras.  Once again, GW Bush would not   
   be outdone.  In August 2001, he brushed aside a memo warning of Bin Laden's   
   determination to strike the United States.  After the memo proved terribly   
   prescient, Bush proceeded to invade a country that had nothing to do with the   
   9/11 attacks, diverting resources from going after the people who actually had   
   attacked us.  A National Intelligence Estimate explained that Bush's misguided   
   decisions had left us less safe, and his administration handed over two   
   unfinished, mismanaged wars to its successor.   
      
   If the Republican party does not actually stand for its supposed core   
   principles, what does it stand for?  Essentially, a very focused quest for   
   power and the willingness to use smear tactics, lies, and fear in an effort to   
   achieve that goal.  Whether it's lying about death panels, health care coverage   
   for undocumented immigrants, or President Obama's uncanny resemblance to Adolph   
   Hitler, the Republicans and right wing have set new standards for indecency.   
   Just as they've broken new ground, they always seem to go further-witness   
   yesterday's anti-health care reform rally where elected Republican officials   
   spoke to a crowd that included someone waving a sign reading "National   
   Socialist Health Care: Dachau, Germany 1945" above a stack of piled corpses   
   from a Nazi death camp.  It might make some people feel better to dismiss this   
   as an isolated example, but the Nazi comparisons are coming fast and furious,   
   and elected Republicans are condoning or even joining in on the "fun".   
      
   Some progressives say-good, no problem.  The Republican party is falling apart   
   and rushing to back uninformed extremists who can't win elections--so be it.  I   
   see the logic, and in the short-term, the Sarah Palins and Doug Hoffmans of the   
   world may be electoral losers.  But so was Barry Goldwater in 1964.  16 years   
   later, the Republicans nominated a presidential candidate who would have been   
   too extreme in previous elections but won two easy victories in the 1980s.  He   
   was followed by the even more extreme George W. Bush.  Pushing the envelope   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)