• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Lewis Thurston: It's not the Grand Old Party anymore

BBond

Diamond Member
Another long time GOP member comes out firmly against George W. Bush, who just happens to be visiting New Jersey today. I hope Bush picks up the Star-Ledger and reads this op-ed piece by Lewis Thurston, former Republican Governor Kean's chief of staff and New Jersey Highway Authority executive director under Republican Governor Christie Whitman.

I would post the link but the Star-Ledger's web site is among the worst in the world and the op-ed pieces havent' been updated yet.

Please forgive any typos as I've gone through all the trouble of typing this out for you. 🙂

You may post your thanks. 😉

And, as always, I'm sure you'll post your opinions.


Monday, October 18, 2004
The Star-Ledger
Page 17

It's not the Grand Old Party anymore
BY LEWIS THURSTON


The party I proudly served in high-level positions in New Jersey government was a party of integrity, true conservation, enlightened government regulation and, above all, fiscal soundness and responsibility. It elected Presidents Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. In our state, it produced successful candidates and excellent officeholders such as Sen. Clifford Case and Govs. Bill Cahill and Tom Kean. Republican presidential candidates carried New Jersey in each election over the 20-year period from 1968 to 1988.

The Republican Party of today is very different, however, especially at the national level. Unfortunately, our hopes that President Bush might really turn out to be a social moderate have been dashed and the catchy slogan "compassionate conservative" revealed to be largely empty political rhetoric.

The president brings his Texas-style "conservative" ideology to the leadership of a party unduly influenced by supply-side economics and religious zealots, practicing excessive corporate protection and embracing a new international doctrine of pre-emptive war. Pat Robertson has a seat at the table. Tom DeLay and the Soutnern Republican congressional leaders aggressively pursue an agenda detrimental to New Jersey and the nation.

Sadly, the Republican Party I knew has abandoned other moderates and me and been hijacked by these neoconservative ideologues.

With this party philosophy and agenda, it is no wonder democratic presidential candidate Al Gore carried New Jersey by more than 500,000 votes four years ago and John Kerry likely will carry it this year. Echoing that national party philosophy, conservative Republican gubernatorial candidate Bret Schundler was soundly defeated by James McGreevey in 2001. Unless New Jersey Republicans understand that they can't win the state without a more moderate and fiscally sound philosophy and agenda, they probably are doomed to defeat again in next year's gubernatorial election.

As to this year's presidential race, the president's record of the last four years does not justify re-election.

With the sympathy and support of much of the world, the president initially handled well the reaction to the 9/11 attacks. However, he then squandered that international good will when he launched an unnecessary war at great cost in lives and dollars on the wrong target. It now seems clear Bush deceived the American people as to the reasons for the war. He continues to make up new rationalizations for his unwise intervention. What happened to the party of integrity?

Demonstrating a lack of understanding of the history and culture of Iraq and the region, he naively promised that the United States would be greeted as a liberator and would bring about virtually instant "democracy." When the going got tougher he indicated we would need to "stay the course" as an occupier for 10 years or more. (Will even that succeed?) What happened to the party of limited engagement?

To try to boost a lagging economy, the president sought help in massive and premanent tax cuts, much of the benefit of which went to the wealthy, who don't need them. But perhaps they will "trickle down." This severely aggravates the already record deficits and guarantees our children and grandchildren will have to pay greatly for the lack of political courage to face the costs now. Our chief executive asks no sacrifice from us for the war on terror or the war in Iraq (not the same). Keep buying your expensive SUVs; we will cut your taxes to help you do it. The old Republican Party of fiscal prudence is spinning it its grave. What ever happened to balanced budgets and pay as you go?

The president's record on protecting the world's fragile environmnent is a sad chornicle of unwise action and inaction. Despite the efforts of fromer Gov. Christie Whitman, Bush's first environmental protections administrator, to get the United States to support the Kyoto environmental treaty, the president shrunk form such leadership. Instead, he supports fossil fuel exploration in sensitive environmental areas more than developoment of alternative energy sources, has done little to combat acid rain and water polluters. What happened to the party of conservation?

Bush and the Republican congressional leaders pride themselves on being "conservative." But true conservatism doesn't include record deficits, record spending and costly, pre-emptive wars.

On Nov. 2, I will be voting for the alternative, John Kerry. If he wins, America has a chance at a fresh, wiser approach to our problems at home and abroad. Let's hope that also will give the Republican Party a chance for a fresh start, a new philosophy and a different agenda. Or is that just wishful thinking?


Lewis Thurston served as chief of staff to Republican Gov. Tom Kean and as executive director of the New Jersey Highway Aughority under Republican Gov. Christie Whitman, among other posts.

 
" Bush and the Republican congressional leaders pride themselves on being "conservative." But true conservatism doesn't include record deficits, record spending and costly, pre-emptive wars. "


Awwwwww, :cookie:
 
And the democratic party isn't what it used to be either. The democrats have become socialists. The republicans have become what the democrats were in the 40's.
 
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Why is it news every time someone changes political affiliation? This happens in pretty much every election from both sides.


Because there is a consistancy this year as to WHY they are doing it. This is not your Father's republican party.........Conservatism has lost it's meaning to the current group. It is also relevant that these are former Republican administration officials.
 
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Why is it news every time someone changes political affiliation? This happens in pretty much every election from both sides.

Lewis Thurston isn't changing political affiliation.

He just can't in good conscience as a conservative vote for Bush. So he's voting for John Kerry.


 
Originally posted by: Engineer
Because there is a consistancy this year as to WHY they are doing it. This is not your Father's republican party.........Conservatism has lost it's meaning to the current group. It is also relevant that these are former Republican administration officials.
So he's not a blind partisan. There are Dems coming to the right, Reps going to the left. Why is this news?
Originally posted by: BBond
Lewis Thurston isn't changing political affiliation.

He just can't in good conscience as a conservative vote for Bush. So he's voting for John Kerry.
So he's not a blind partisan. There are Dems coming to the right, Reps going to the left. Why is this news?
 
Originally posted by: broon
And the democratic party isn't what it used to be either. The democrats have become socialists. The republicans have become what the democrats were in the 40's.

The Democrats of the 40's created Social Security. These 'Repubicans' want to dismantle it.

The Democrats of the 40's led America to win World WarII. These 'Repubicans' went to war based on false evidence.

The Democrats of the 40's built one of the greatest alliances ever know. These 'Repubicans' have all but destroyed it.

The Democrats of the 40's brought America out of a Republican depression. These 'Repubicans' transformed a huge surplus into an even larger deficit.

Wake up America. We've been had. These are nothing other than the same predatory capitalists who bankrupted Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, the RTC back in the 80's etc. Hell, the Bush family was responsible for Silverado Bank. Bush worked a stock scheme himself at Harken Energy. Every deal works in their favor at taxpayer expense.

These 'Republicans' aren't the Democrats of the 40's.

They're corporate vampires and they're sucking the life out of our nation.

 
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Engineer
Because there is a consistancy this year as to WHY they are doing it. This is not your Father's republican party.........Conservatism has lost it's meaning to the current group. It is also relevant that these are former Republican administration officials.
So he's not a blind partisan. There are Dems coming to the right, Reps going to the left. Why is this news?
Originally posted by: BBond
Lewis Thurston isn't changing political affiliation.

He just can't in good conscience as a conservative vote for Bush. So he's voting for John Kerry.
So he's not a blind partisan. There are Dems coming to the right, Reps going to the left. Why is this news?

It's news because I read it in my newspaper.

I've read several reports of Republicans who are somewhere between worried and outright frightened over the Bush agenda.

Which prominent Democrats are forsaking Kerry and voting for Bush outside of crazy old Zell Miller (who tried to tell Americans that Kerry would arm the troops with spitballs while the Bush administration, as we now know thanks to 19 brave soldiers in Iraq, is fighting the war on the cheap)?

But they have those lucrative contracts to whack up. So no harm done. Right?

 
I agree with Mr. Thurston, and for much the same reasons. Hell, I've been saying the same thing over and over again here on AT for years.
 
Yaaaawwwn. Another writer who jumped to the repub party to be popular but then found an opportunity to jump back to his roots.

No news here really. New Jersey and conservative don't seem to go together in the same sentence.
 
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: broon
And the democratic party isn't what it used to be either. The democrats have become socialists. The republicans have become what the democrats were in the 40's.

The Democrats of the 40's created Social Security. These 'Repubicans' want to dismantle it.

The Democrats of the 40's led America to win World WarII. These 'Repubicans' went to war based on false evidence.

The Democrats of the 40's built one of the greatest alliances ever know. These 'Repubicans' have all but destroyed it.

The Democrats of the 40's brought America out of a Republican depression. These 'Repubicans' transformed a huge surplus into an even larger http://news.independent.co.uk/...story.jsp?story=572649">deficit</a>.

Wake up America. We've been had. These are nothing other than the same predatory capitalists who bankrupted Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, the RTC back in the 80's etc. Hell, the Bush family was responsible for Silverado Bank. Bush worked a stock scheme himself at Harken Energy. Every deal works in their favor at taxpayer expense.

These 'Republicans' aren't the Democrats of the 40's.

They're corporate vampires and they're sucking the life out of our nation.

:beer:
 
I'd think that you'd be blushing when you take credit for creating SS. It's a blight to the workers of today that will never see a dime from it but have contributed to it for years. It's a sinking ship and will cost someone a great deal.
 
Originally posted by: Gravity
I'd think that you'd be blushing when you take credit for creating SS. It's a blight to the workers of today that will never see a dime from it but have contributed to it for years. It's a sinking ship and will cost someone a great deal.

If we'd quit raiding and borrowing against Social Security, it'd probably be a great little program.
 
Originally posted by: Gravity
Yaaaawwwn. Another writer who jumped to the repub party to be popular but then found an opportunity to jump back to his roots.

No news here really. New Jersey and conservative don't seem to go together in the same sentence.
Yawn yourself. Do you really believe that Bush's policies are those of a true conservative? Pre-emptive war? Record deficits? Backing legislation that it invasive of civil liberties? This is conservative to you? :roll:

Though I and not from NJ and know little of Lewis Thurston, his statement here seems to me to be the moral outrage of a man whose ideologies have been betrayed.
 
Originally posted by: BBond
It's news because I read it in my newspaper.

I've read several reports of Republicans who are somewhere between worried and outright frightened over the Bush agenda.

Which prominent Democrats are forsaking Kerry and voting for Bush outside of crazy old Zell Miller (who tried to tell Americans that Kerry would arm the troops with spitballs while the Bush administration, as we now know thanks to 19 brave soldiers in Iraq, is fighting the war on the cheap)?

But they have those lucrative contracts to whack up. So no harm done. Right?
Editorials are news? Ads are news? Comics are news? Appearing in a newspaper doesn't qualify something as news. I wouldn't consider any of the Reps leaving any more prominent than the Dems leaving.
Originally posted by: Vic
Yawn yourself. Do you really believe that Bush's policies are those of a true conservative? Pre-emptive war? Record deficits? Backing legislation that it invasive of civil liberties? This is conservative to you? :roll:

Though I and not from NJ and know little of Lewis Thurston, his statement here seems to me to be the moral outrage of a man whose ideologies have been betrayed.
This is the same trite rhetoric that is spouted over and over again. Circumstances change, thus so must the actions of men in response to those circumstances. Who cares if the actions 'are those of a true conservative'? What matters is are the actions correct, given today's circumstances? If people would quit trying to put partisan spin on every event and look at it in these terms, maybe we could talk about issues rather than political parties.
 
Originally posted by: Gravity
Yaaaawwwn. Another writer who jumped to the repub party to be popular but then found an opportunity to jump back to his roots.

No news here really. New Jersey and conservative don't seem to go together in the same sentence.

"New Jersey and moderate conservatives, perfect together."

Not the current group of radical evangelical hypocritical zealots.

Address the facts. Don't just sloganeer like Bush.



 
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
This is the same trite rhetoric that is spouted over and over again. Circumstances change, thus so must the actions of men in response to those circumstances. Who cares if the actions 'are those of a true conservative'? What matters is are the actions correct, given today's circumstances? If people would quit trying to put partisan spin on every event and look at it in these terms, maybe we could talk about issues rather than political parties.
The only partisan spin in this thread topic is maintaining the false idea that Bush is actually a political conservative, despite all evidence to the contrary. Otherwise, the case against Bush in this regard has been addressed issue by issue by issue, based on today's circumstances.

And I would like to see you argue how Bush's action have been correct based on today's circumstances... so let's hear it. For example, sky high deficits in a time of economic downturn? Oops, that's exactly how Hoover deepened the Great Depression (which didn't actually bottom out until the Fed was forced to cut the money supply in 1932 in order to counter Hoover's failed economic policies). Pre-emptive war? Oops, that's how a nation loses the claim of moral superiority. Shall we go on?
 
Originally posted by: Gravity
I'd think that you'd be blushing when you take credit for creating SS. It's a blight to the workers of today that will never see a dime from it but have contributed to it for years. It's a sinking ship and will cost someone a great deal.


nice web resource
Both candidates offer disappointing platforms. George W. Bush wants to change Social Security by diverting a portion of the payroll tax to fund Personal Retirement Accounts. John Kerry opposes privatization, supports pay as you go funding, favors a faster economic growth rate. Kerry disappoints with a website that is woefully poor in framing Social Security's looming solvency crisis. (His new campaign book, "Our Plan for America," is even less substantive.) Bush's website disappoints by making promises that fail key tests of evidence and logic.

All I know is my kid (all of 7 days old) will learn Spanish and French to prepare her for our move to Europe, South America, Central America, or Canada. Our country is in for a world of hurt. Bush voters either don't care or depend on "faith", while the rest of the country is delusionally optimistic about Kerry or have no clue. The latest signs of the Apocalypse . . . yet another tax cut to keep digging that deficit hole and legislation to pay people for not growing killer weed (tobacco). Actually we are paying them (quota holders like Scottie Pippen and Ted Turner) b/c they used grow tobacco . . . for some reason Congress believes they need a parting gift after 70 years of subsidies. Go figure.

 
If it was only crafted for an intended effect, and is not the thoughtful reasonings of someone who actually feels betrayed by the new ideologies of his traditional party, it's a pretty good 'forgery'. It seems all the good liars automatically see truth as one ingredient of the soup that shall affect the people.
Anyway, I usually don't read articles posted here, but I read this one, and I thought it was pretty thuoughtful.

Bush, by the way, definitely has thin, agile chimp-lips. Someone should punch him 😛
 
Originally posted by: Gravity
I'd think that you'd be blushing when you take credit for creating SS. It's a blight to the workers of today that will never see a dime from it but have contributed to it for years. It's a sinking ship and will cost someone a great deal.

Social Security has sustained millions of retirees since it's inception. The current problems would never have surfaced if the Social Security taxes we all pay had been put to their intended use.

Social Security is solvent.

"Today, that surplus is more than $1.4 trillion and growing."

That's why Bush and his accomplises want to get into it. $1.4 trillion.

It's the target of their next crime.

 
SS wouldn't be a big issue at the moment if that $1.4T owed to the SS trust were the only govt debt- it could be repaid easily over the 20 year period in which it's anticipated to be needed.

When and if push comes to shove, and current Repub policy assures that it will, we'll be sure to pay off the interest owed to Saudi, Chinese, Japanese and Corporate American debtholders long before SS contributors ever see a dime... which is the objective of cutting taxes and increasing spending simultaneously. When boomers, who've paid extra for 20 years so far, try to collect, they'll get to talk to the hand...

Just think of taxcuts for the top 1% as having come straight from the SS trustfund, with a little extra thrown in, and you'll have a pretty good picture of what's going on... As a Nobel prize winning economist, George Akerlof said, it's a form of looting...

Thurston's correct- the GOP has been commandeered by rightwing zealots, reactionaries and pseudo-christian charlatans. Maybe, just maybe, if Dems can take the Whitehouse and the Senate, then moderate rank and file Repubs will rise up, take their party back.
 
Back
Top