Six Good Reasons to Vote Republican

[senseamp]

Something is wrong with you if you think Democrats are really trying to do whats in the average guy's best interest. I'm just trying to figure out what it is.

Save your time, it's your judgment.

 

[Zebo]

I don't think your straight party R vote was ever in question Jabber.

1. I want to live in an America where economic success is celebrated – not penalized.

Republicans value economic success, but only vast economic success. At the federal level, Republicans really only care about massive companies and their economic success, they have little interest in small business which is truly where success for the masses begins.

2. I want ObamaCare repealed.

Too late. Now that Obamacare is simply a reward to big business, it's not going anywhere.

3. I want the federal government to reverse its metastatic growth.

Republicans don't exactly have a great history there. Small government is just a buzzword that's quickly forgotten by Republicans after the election.

4. I want a House and Senate that respects the popular will.

See #3.

5. I want to be able to disagree with Democrats without being slandered.

This has nothing to do with winning the election. Republicans and Democrats are at each others throats because they're both stupid.

6. I want to be free.

See #3.

Good post I agree 100%. Every Republican president since and including Herbert Hoover has increased the federal government's size, scope, and power.

 

[Sinsear]

When I go in to a voting booth I just imagine that I am Craig and who he would vote for. Then I vote for that person's opponent.

 

[PJABBER]

Incremental change and stopping the ruin are all well and dandy but that doesn't answer my question: Upon what do you base your hope that the Tea Party will fix the Republican party and fix our federal government?

There's no more reason to trust that the Tea Party will fix Washington than there was reason to trust that Obama would.

Obama always was and always will be a self dealing ward heeler. Go past the ghost written, teleprompted speeches and you see a guy who's ideology is all about himself.

All politicians love themselves and the roar of the crowd, not all only love themselves.

Any hope that I have rests solely in the fact that the Tea Party types are not yet beholden to Big Government.

As I have said before, it takes about five or six years to become a part of the crap here in DC. Until that happens I want those pissed-off, motivated, unprofessionally groomed public servants a la Mr. Smith to do what is right. And when they burn out or are corrupted, as most inevitably will, they will need to be replaced. That is the American Way!

We are likely looking at two years of gridlock, of minor victories and hard fought battles with little to show for it but a defining and a hardening of the positions for 2012. But we have to start somewhere and it starts tomorrow.

 

[shira]

Anyone claiming to vote for Republicans in order to effect policy changes over the next two years is either lying or delusional (or both). The next two years will consist of the most extreme gridlock in the history of the United states. Guaranteed.

Way to go, righties.

 

[BurnItDwn]

1. Washington is not anti business. Washington is owned by lobbiests and businesses. Joe average doesn't have any influence over washington, only large multisector anticompetitive corporate monsters.

2. ObamaCare is an improvement over what we had before, but I agree it's got many flaws. I would instead like to see it fixed.

3. We should reverse the growth, I agree. Scale back mulitary funding to reasonable levels. Be responsible with expendatures, like Bill Clinton.

4. Popular will according to whom? Politicians are supposed to do what's best for the country over the long run, many of their decisions may be unpopular over the short run. We don't want politicians who just give in to whatever the people want. We need politicians who will analyze the facts, and vote based upon what is best for the people, not for what will get them reelected.

5. Nobody is being slandered for disagreeing with democrats. Tea Party has a bad name because of manipulative people like Glen Beck. If you are associated with the tea party, then you are associated with Glen Beck. Glen beck is a lying scumbag who is pretty much just full of hot air.

6. I agree, the elite/connected should not have more influence over the government than anybody else. We need to remove money from politics. Ideally, all political campaigns would either be capped at low levels, or publicly funded. Also, lobbiests should all be shut down. Democrats have been doing a shitty job here, but, look at the facts, and you'll see they are quite a bit less horrible than the republicans have been in the past.


If you want a more prosperous and free America, the only solution is one which doesn't involve any republicans or democrats. They are both horrible parties filled with lying scumbags

 

[BoberFett]

Yes, they are different. Maybe instead of rolling your eyes, you should use them to see reality.

It's not me who needs to worry about reality. Your Democrats have failed. They're no better than the Republicans. Take off those rose colored glasses, cheerleader.

 

[MiniDoom]

Anyone claiming to vote for Republicans in order to effect policy changes over the next two years is either lying or delusional (or both). The next two years will consist of the most extreme gridlock in the history of the United states. Guaranteed.

Way to go, righties.

Sounds good. Nothing for the government to break.

 

[shira]

Sounds good. Nothing for the government to break.

Except that none of PJABBER's "good reasons" will be realized. In other words, PJABBER is delusional, as usual.

 

[yllus]

What a bunch of crap. How pathetic and disgusting that you attempt to make other people believe such a load of bull.

 

[senseamp]

It's not me who needs to worry about reality. Your Democrats have failed. They're no better than the Republicans. Take off those rose colored glasses, cheerleader.

Failed to clean up the mess GOP left behind in 2 years is nowhere near the same as failing to govern and creating that mess in the first place. The only cheerleader here is you.

 

[Paul98]

Please Please look at who you are actually voting for and what there record is. Not just there talking points but there specifics, that is where the keys are. You can say you want less debet all you want but if you are only looking to cut 2-3% of overall spending and want to give tax cuts to the rich then your plan sure as hell isn't going to work.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

What is the Tea party? To me it seems it's just the most extreme of the neoconservative movement who want to legislate morality and doing it by blaming the mistakes of the masses on a few selected "enemies" who they can then blame for all their problems.

It's the easiest thing in the world to get support for "it's not your fault, it's THEIR fault and we are with you and against them so support us" because no one likes to take the blame for their own misery.

I don't know enough about the Whigs but when people say "they don't stand a chance" i think about what happened in my home country, the LibDem are part of the government and A LOT of their ideas are now seeing the light of day.

Perhaps if there had to be negotiations between three parties you wouldn't end up with one or the other extreme every time?

 

[herm0016]

Good post I agree 100%. Every president since and including Herbert Hoover has increased the federal government's size, scope, and power.

fixed.....

 

[Fern]

What is the Tea party? To me it seems it's just the most extreme of the neoconservative movement who want to legislate morality and doing it by blaming the mistakes of the masses on a few selected "enemies" who they can then blame for all their problems.
-snip-

I don't believe the TEA party people are neocon, they seem the exact opposite to me - more like isolationists. I also believe their desire for reduced spending is another indication that they are not neocons. Neocons are prepared to blow vast amounts of money on foreign wars and to further America's influence abroad.

From what I hear, excepting a few cases, the TEA Party stays away from 'moral issues', preferring instead to focus on fiscal issues.

Fern

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Perhaps if there had to be negotiations between three parties you wouldn't end up with one or the other extreme every time?

We don't have a parlimentary system.

I do not claim to be very knowledgeable about the British political system, but from what I've read about parlimentary systems there are substantial differences.

We're basically left with our parties negotiating only when bipartisan support is needed to pass legislation. And that's been rare lately. In those cases where they have needed some votes from the other party, they've mostly just 'negotiated' in private with 1 or 2 members to get their vote.

Fern

 

[CallMeJoe]

Just like I said in a discussion I had with a Tea Party friend this weekend. It’s all great and good to support the Republican Party because you are fiscally conservative and have similar views, but show me where in the last 20 years they didn't have deficit spending for all the spending cuts they made.

A better question is: where did the Republicans actually make spending cuts?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I don't believe the TEA party people are neocon, they seem the exact opposite to me - more like isolationists. I also believe their desire for reduced spending is another indicates that they are not neocons. Neocons are prepared to blow vast amounts of money on foreign wars and to further America's influence abroad.

From what I hear, excepting a few cases, the TEA Party stays away from 'moral issues', preferring instead to focus on fiscal issues.

Fern

If that is true then the "representatives" of the tea party are not representative of the tea parties policies even though they are the ones who declare them?

I mean, apart from the buzzwords and the "we the people" all i've seen of their proposed policies is basically expanding governmental control of individuals.

Of course, i might be wrong on this one, it's just how it's come across to me, but then again, i've never seen them present much of a constructive or productive policy that has actual real world suggestions on what to do either.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

We don't have a parlimentary system.

I do not claim to be very knowledgeable about the British political system, but from what I've read about parlimentary systems there are substantial differences.

We're basically left with our parties negotiating only when bipartisan support is needed to pass legislation. And that's been rare lately. In those cases where they have needed some votes from the other party, they've mostly just 'negotiated' in private with 1 or 2 members to get their vote.

Fern

Likewise, i don't claim to be very knowledgable about the US political system but it seems to me that senate and house seats can be taken by any party, not just the current two. When it comes to the precidency it's a lot different though, from what i understand but since a lot of power is held in the senate and house i suppose a third partys influence there could force the government into negotiations?

We used to have a two party system too, you know, where other parties were not thought to ever be able to influence policy, it took one election to change that.

 

[tweaker2]

The problem with the Tea Party is that it's already been corrupted by millions and millions of bribe $$$ from the far right. They are an wholly owned subsidiary of the repub party, and their leadership is thoroughly bought out or taken over by the far right. From their very inception they were mostly frustrated angry repubs to begin with. Then the "Party", or what's left of it, was mass-infiltrated by the same folks who presently own the repub party, and they put the TPr's in their place.

 

[Craig234]

1. Washington is not anti business. Washington is owned by lobbiests and businesses. Joe average doesn't have any influence over washington, only large multisector anticompetitive corporate monsters.

Saying Washington is "anti-business" is propaganda designed to build support for its radical PRO-corporate policies.

You take someone who hates Washington, in part for selling out to corporate corruption, and direct their hate by telling them that lousy stinking Washington hates successful corporations and punishes them and prevents them from helping YOU, Joe Citizen, be better off! Wham bam thank you ma'am, the citizen has now learned to demand Washington be better to the corporate agenda, those bastards.

2. ObamaCare is an improvement over what we had before, but I agree it's got many flaws. I would instead like to see it fixed.

Yup.

3. We should reverse the growth, I agree. Scale back mulitary funding to reasonable levels. Be responsible with expendatures, like Bill Clinton.

Yup - not necessarily like Bill Clinton, but we have a spending problem.

4. Popular will according to whom? Politicians are supposed to do what's best for the country over the long run, many of their decisions may be unpopular over the short run. We don't want politicians who just give in to whatever the people want. We need politicians who will analyze the facts, and vote based upon what is best for the people, not for what will get them reelected.

Nice point, but difficult to implement.

5. Nobody is being slandered for disagreeing with democrats. Tea Party has a bad name because of manipulative people like Glen Beck. If you are associated with the tea party, then you are associated with Glen Beck. Glen beck is a lying scumbag who is pretty much just full of hot air.

More importantly, the Tea Party takeover billionares and their operatives.

6. I agree, the elite/connected should not have more influence over the government than anybody else. We need to remove money from politics. Ideally, all political campaigns would either be capped at low levels, or publicly funded. Also, lobbiests should all be shut down. Democrats have been doing a shitty job here, but, look at the facts, and you'll see they are quite a bit less horrible than the republicans have been in the past.

The corruption of money in politics is our #1 issue, IMO. That includes the corporate media.

If you want a more prosperous and free America, the only solution is one which doesn't involve any republicans or democrats. They are both horrible parties filled with lying scumbags

Progressive Democrats are very different from corporatist Democrats and Republicans.

But as I've mentioned, push ranked voting to get more choices.

There are plenty of better politicians and candidates.

 

[Craig234]

Likewise, i don't claim to be very knowledgable about the US political system but it seems to me that senate and house seats can be taken by any party, not just the current two. When it comes to the precidency it's a lot different though, from what i understand but since a lot of power is held in the senate and house i suppose a third partys influence there could force the government into negotiations?

We used to have a two party system too, you know, where other parties were not thought to ever be able to influence policy, it took one election to change that.

The two parties are firmly entrenched - but I predicted years ago that the Republicans would do so badly they might have to have a faux-'new party' to fix the brand.

The interests behind the Republicans could change horses, but it'd still be the same corrupt agenda.

Liberals on the other hand don't really have the money to do that. The most that seems plausible is for the progressive caucus to split off.

A problem with that is that they lose the national election for the presidency, if they split the vote with the corporatist Democrats.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

The two parties are firmly entrenched - but I predicted years ago that the Republicans would do so badly they might have to have a faux-'new party' to fix the brand.

The interests behind the Republicans could change horses, but it'd still be the same corrupt agenda.

Liberals on the other hand don't really have the money to do that. The most that seems plausible is for the progressive caucus to split off.

A problem with that is that they lose the national election for the presidency, if they split the vote with the corporatist Democrats.

Stick with the discussion at hand or leave the quotes out of it, what i referred to has absolutely nothing to do with what you just posted.

The question i posed is if it's possible to have three parties in the senate and house rather than two and if that could force negotiations, as i admittedly don't know enough about US political system to know if that can happen that is what i want to know, do you know?

Being a Liberal myself and hardly someone who could identify with the US democratic party these days it irks me when people refer to the democrats as liberals. The Whigs might be liberal though, if they stand for what they used to stand for.

 

[Lemon law]

I cannot disagree with JOS regarding the relative strengths and weakness of the US democratic system and the more prevelent Parlimentry system.

I might point out the British system with two basic parties is far more stable than the same multiparty Italian one. As I recall, Italy has seen its government change hands like 80 times in some years.

Once the USA votes in some total idiot, we are usually stuck with them for 2, 4, or 6 years.

 

[jman19]

The reality is, Republicans will pick up seats not because of any of the 6 "good reasons" to vote for them, it will be because right now they stink less than the Democrats.