WP Op-Ed: Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.

[monovillage]

Huh? If you think that the Democratic party is moving to the left you're insane.

On what issues have they been moving to the right for the last 40 years?

 

[davmat787]

Of course undoing what Obama passed and going back to the status quo means eventually healthcare will become a luxury for the very wealthy.

Come on now, the future of health care is not a binary only option of ObamaCare or health care for only the wealthy. Do you really believe that?

In my opinion, I think Hayabusa Rider is on the right track. Congress is simply not qualified to completely overhaul health care in so short of a period. Something this important should be studied by bipartisan committees, and including all sorts of disciplines and interests in the health care field.

 

[Craig234]

Can not be.

Republicans are evil; Democrats are pure

Just ask Craig

Stop lying about my position.

 

[nehalem256]

Huh? If you think that the Democratic party is moving to the left you're insane.

Well the President (a democrat) did just come out in support of Same-sex marriage.

 

[tweaker2]

Hey now, let's stop dwelling on the negative and seek out the postives the Repubs have provided to the middle class and the poor since Bush/Cheney left office and since they gained control of the House and the numerous state gov'ts in 2010.

I'll start it off..............................uhhh, need some help here!

 

[Craig234]

It's interesting that this is coming from a decorated veteran of the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

Come on guys. This isn't the Liberal media spewing out partisan bias. These are veterans of your own party warning you that something is very wrong and that not adjusting your course is causing harm to America.

The thing is: it's inevitable for the right to get more damaging and radical as it succeeds.

The right has one real agenda: more for the top. That's it.

All the rest supports that goal. Authoritarianism? To protect the top from the people. Pander to social conservatives? To get votes to get power to pass laws for the top.

And so on. Now, when you start out with a healthy democracy - say, the US of the post-WWII period - at first it's not as big a deal as you start to whittle away. People are still ok.

But over 30 years we've seen drastic shifts to to the top, and rather than a pendumul, the right-wing agenda is a car with only a gas pedal - concentrate more, and more, and more.

We've seen repeatedly in human history where these things lead. The more the rich own, the more power they have, and the more the people resist them requiring stronger controls as they become more and more enemies in their interests. In a healthy democracy, the rich and the 99% have a lot of shared interests; in high concentrated wealth they're at odds.

The way these things work, many of the righties who served the cause will recognize things are out of control and harming people and say 'wait a minute!' And they'll be ignored.

Why? Because the only agenda is more for the top.

There's always conflict -there was conflict at the height of the New Deal and at the height of Reagan or the gilded age. But the ability of the people to push back gets weaker.

We're already at a point where the wealthy have hijacked our political system, by making big money required to get elected. Game, set, match. That's why the 'socialist Kenyan' alternative to the Republican had huge donations from Wall Street for which he had to be pretty friendly to Wall Street. If he hadn't, he'd have lost and someone who was friendlier to them would win. Socialist Hillary? Sure, of the Wal-Mart board of Directors, of the Clinton administration that hurt the country so badly with de-regulation.

How about Bernie Sanders? Oh right, no chance at all -even if he can still get elected in Vermont. Others lose as the progressives are picked off by big bucks.

How about we shift another 10% of wealth to the top? Then another? As we keep doing this - look at Mexico for what it looks like - the people will get angrier, but their anger is pushed towards the things the powerful want, with big propaganda media efforts, and even when it's aimed at the top, the people have less power, just as the poor in any plutocracy have a hard time forcing the powerful to give up wealth. They'll turn to radical ideologies - maybe Libertarianism - but not be able to do anything.

The people can even be pressured to give up things like Democracy - with a major well-funded campaign attacking it (the cause of your problems is the governmen!)

Where do people think things are headed, as we only shift wealth to the top?

When FDR won, elections weren't controlled by money the way they are today. For just one example, the major media influence was newspapers - with ownership spread out around the country, independent, not 90% of all media owned by four mega corporations all with the corporate agenda.

You say their agenda is causing harm to America, like that's news.

The right-wing agenda to keep moving more to the top can only happen by harming America. They know this. So it's 'going according to plan' as they're better off than ever.

They aren't interested in how not to harm America, they're interested in how to get away with harming America and how to get the American people to vote for that harm.

And if the economic crash hadn't happened in the fall of 2008 they may well have won then even more than they did (Obama is not that hostile to them).

And the fact polls show the horrible Mitt Romney tied with Obama... with more money than ever in elections...

That's why election reform, campaign financing and media, might be the top issue for our country.

 

[Craig234]

Repubs currently operate out of spite- if they can't get a majority, if they can't run the govt the way they want, they won't let anybody else run it, either. They want govt to fail.

It's not spite, that's an emotion, it's a ruthless strategy for power at the cost of the country. Make the economy as bad as possible to hurt Obama in the election etc.

 

[Craig234]

One of their primary stated goals is decreasing the size of government. Obstructionism fits nicely with that goal.

And one of the primary stated goals of Adolf Hitler was world peace.

They're only for 'decreasing the size of government' in terms of the government that helps the people. They're not against government that helps the top - and their interest in slashing government is simply to shift wealth out of government, controlled by democracy, into the pocket of the top.

What happened to spending and the deficit when Reagan took office? Did George H. W. Bush generally continue or reverse those policies?

We know that Clinton cut the defict every year - his tax increase on the rich spurred economic growth, after passing opposed by all Republicans - and he balanced the budget.

Then what did Republican George W. Bush do to spending and the deficit?

Their "stated goal" to reduce government is a lie in many ways - only when it comes to taking wealth from the people to give to the top.

Republicans invented massive peacetime deficits to 'starve the beast'.

 

[glenn1]

It's not spite, that's an emotion, it's a ruthless strategy for power at the cost of the country. Make the economy as bad as possible to hurt Obama in the election etc.

Obama is proving to not require the Republicans' help on that last point.

 

[Craig234]

Hey now, let's stop dwelling on the negative and seek out the postives the Repubs have provided to the middle class and the poor since Bush/Cheney left office and since they gained control of the House and the numerous state gov'ts in 2010.

I'll start it off..............................uhhh, need some help here!

You can add these:

 

[werepossum]

Obama is proving to not require the Republicans' help on that last point.

+1

 

[thraashman]

Well the President (a democrat) did just come out in support of Same-sex marriage.

The country as a whole is quickly moving to the left there. Most recent polls have more than half the nation supporting same sex marriage. It's similar to how 40 years ago (or last year for Mississippi Republicans) the country didn't heavily support interracial marriage, and now it's a fully accepted concept.

Obama is proving to not require the Republicans' help on that last point.

Considering the what, 20 months straight of growth thanks to a stimulus package and auto bailout championed by Democrats and blocked as much as possible by Republicans, I'd say Obama has won this round of the fight. The recovery isn't perfect but what he's done in just over 3 years is remarkable.

 

[Pens1566]

On what issues have they been moving to the right for the last 40 years?

How are they moving to the left?

The country as a whole is center-right. The GOP is purging itself of all but the most devout right wing idealogues. I don't see the Democratic party doing the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Pens1566]

Well the President (a democrat) did just come out in support of Same-sex marriage.

That's not a "lefty" thing when most people support it.

 

[RightIsWrong]

And yet Republicans control the house of representatives and arent far behind the democrats in the senate. At the end of the day expect Mitt to get 45ish % of the presidential vote. So how out of mainstream can a party be when they are recieving this much of the publics vote?

I find these types of opinion pieces not based in reality. Fringe is 5ish% of the electorate, not half. Half is the mainstream.

Saddam Hussein got 100% of the vote in Iraq. He wasn't fringe or extreme. The majority voted for him.

 

[Craig234]

That's not a "lefty" thing when most people support it.

In a way it, is. It's not, in the sense that we all say the pledge of allegiance about 'liberty and justice for all', and the right should support it, but they mostly don't.

The issue is about an even split largely by left-right.

It's a bit like slavery is a left-right issue, except that one's advanced where pretty much everyone on the right agrees with the left. But as far as the issue, when times were different, one side was all about the 'rights of the minority' while the other was more about liking the benefits to the economy and business and the property rights of owners and not letting the federal government have too much power in telling the states what they can't do and so on.

By the way, only 38% of people currently support gay marriage; it's only when they're told they have to pick between gay marriage or nothing including even civil unions that the civil union backers switch to gay marriage and then it's 51% - a bare majority and not one in many states, including in 33 of 34 state elections which have defeated gay marriage.

It's gonna take time to fight bigotry.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Because there is absoultely nothing radical about redefining marriage

Or normalizing single motherhood

Or believing that women dont need men, and then passing a health care to force men to subsidize health care for women

Or believing that having a child is 100% a woman's choice, but equally a man's responsibility

1. Marriage is nothing but a word attached to a legal union that provides certain tax and other legal benefits to couples of the opposite sex that want to take advantage of them. By not allowing couples of the same sex do the same, you are promoting bigotry as an ideology which is, in and of itself, radical.

2. If you don't like single motherhood, maybe you should support abortion or sex education or the distribution of contraceptives on a wide-spread basis. Problem solved.

3. Or believing that dead beat and/or drunken frat boy "men" should get to force women what medical treatments they are entitled to or even whether they are allowed to raise a child on their own.

4. The man could use a condom and yes, once the parasitic embryo is implanted upon only the woman, it is her choice as to whether or not she allows it to continue to grow. Maybe you should stop taking all anitbiotics and/or other medicines b/c those parasites have a right to exist and shouldn't be killed. After all, they are all living creatures created by the one true god.

 

[PokerGuy]

Over the last 3 years Obama has had almost 200 appointments blocked or left in committee limbo. Were that rate to continue that would equal 500+ denied appointments over 8 years. I do think that a 1000%+ increase in appointment blockage would be 'radical'.

Perhaps if he tried to appoint qualified people the republicans wouldn't have to block them. It's not the gop that's radicalized, it's the party in power that has radicalized, with the gop doing whatever it can to minimize the damage.

 

[Ausm]

My conclusion is that like so many other liberals and lefties when someone disagrees with you you'll do anything you can to silence their criticism. It's how liberals roll.

LMAO You must enjoy living in your parallel universe?

 

[Ausm]

Come on now, the future of health care is not a binary only option of ObamaCare or health care for only the wealthy. Do you really believe that?

In my opinion, I think Hayabusa Rider is on the right track. Congress is simply not qualified to completely overhaul health care in so short of a period. Something this important should be studied by bipartisan committees, and including all sorts of disciplines and interests in the health care field.

Then why were all the Rightists in here bitching constantly about the 1.5 years it took the Dems to hammer out the details on the ACA to mostly placate to the Blue dog Dems?

 

[Genx87]

Saddam Hussein got 100% of the vote in Iraq. He wasn't fringe or extreme. The majority voted for him.

If you honestly believe the vote counts in Iraq. I dont know what to tell you.

 

[Exterous]

The interests of the country are no longer first.

Ha - they haven't been first in a loooong time

Saddam Hussein got 100% of the vote in Iraq. He wasn't fringe or extreme. The majority voted for him.

So...did you seriously just compare the voting system in the US with the voting system in Iraq?

Anyway - this summarizes what I learned from the article:
Republicans have ruined the government. The Democrats aren't blameless but look at all the shit the Republicans have done! Seriously the Republicans are to blame. I mean the Democrats worked hand in hand with the Republicans for NCLB (Really? Is that the POS legistlation that you are now holding up as a show of bipartisanship? 'Hey - look - we worked together to fuck the education system! We took turns railing it while the pofessionals cried. It was great!'). We banded together after 9/11 too! (Who the fuck wouldn't? I would have been political suicide not to)

The other two examples were good but really - those are the best examples out of the last 11ish years? Thats the best you can do?

Now - don't get me wrong - the republicans have a lot of bat shit crazy people running around (Overly religious wackjobs, Some really fucked up notions about abortion and women's rights etc) yet somehow they keep getting elected. Why?

Something clearly resonates with voters and - IMO its this:
'Its the lesser of two evils'

I don't think an entire party can be the lesser of two evils as there are too many fringe figures within the parties but we force people to make that choice. Fiscally conservative but socially liberal? Too bad - you are fucked. Pick a side. All or nothing.

The republican party is not the cause of our problems but a symptom of them. In a two party system both parties can thrive with crazy fringe ideas because, as long as there are a couple of diametrically opposed key ideas, people will be forced to flock to one or the other (and hope that those fringe elements are small enough they wont do any real damage).

Democratic (or Republican) finger pointing/whining won't help. I would love to see more policital parties and think it would help expose and hopefully remove if not minimuze the crazies.

I'm not going to hold my breath for that to happen though

 

[kage69]

I'm always impressed when people can look at the unparalleled obstruction of congressional republicans in 09 and 10 and find a way to blame it on the Democrats.

I'm impressed that despite you and Craig both having no problem critiquing Obama and the Dems, disagreeing with a number of their policies, the usual crowd is still bleating how you guys view the Dems as bastions of wisdom and integrity and accept anything and everything they say.

'Impressive' that the same kind of disconnect about the behavior of the GOP can be applied to this forum.

Still have yet to see a cogent, effective rebuttal to the OP's assertions, not that I believe the Dems represent "the solution" though.

 

[fskimospy]

Perhaps if he tried to appoint qualified people the republicans wouldn't have to block them. It's not the gop that's radicalized, it's the party in power that has radicalized, with the gop doing whatever it can to minimize the damage.

This is a bad trolling attempt. I find it highly unlikely that even someone as out there as you believes this.

 

[manimal]

Didnt David Frum say something like this over a year ago and get ostracized for it?