One good reason, Republicans

Why don’t we put it bluntly, ever since the GOP lost heavily to the Democrats they have engaged in nothing but frothing that they are the party out of power and looking for any means to get back into power, even if it means lying a lot. Or going to hot-headed extremes. Or in the case of Jonah Goldberg, accusing the Democrats of hubris. But of greater importance than creating an even greater partisan divide with the Democrats in general and Obama in particular; is this little reminder of exactly why the GOP lost in 2008. In a name: George W. Bush.

GW didn’t exactly present this country with “conservative policies.” Oh yes, he was Mr. Tax Cut and adamantly pro-big business. He was definitely against environmental regulations if it could possibly hurt the bottom lines of big business. And you could even say that GW’s business policies reached the point where his administration absolutely refused to enforce existing regulation and weakened regulatory law. Which ultimately led to the collapse of financial institutions, the closing of banks, and the absorption of mortgage companies into stronger banks. And yes, the bailout called TARP that was enacted in the closing days of the GW administration. Let us also remind the GOP how quickly you were prepared to deny a bailout for the auto industry because of your open hostility to the workforce. People do remember those things come election day, and vote accordingly. Especially when there are home foreclosures and visibly higher unemployment rates. An open hostility toward unions translated into an open hostility toward American workforce in general

But, the question is, just how “conservative” would you argue that GW’s policies were if over a period of eight years, it led to a massive economic collapse and an utter rout of the GOP? And just what is it about history that the GOP refuse to learn? To me a conservative argument has to maintain certain qualifications. If a conservative supports institutions—

  • Do not weaken and destroy those institutions by giving them too much of a good thing.
  • Don’t decide to engage in economic experimentation such as supply side economics that led to major disasters by the first Bush (41) administration and a taxpaid for bailout of the Savings and Loans.
  • Experimentation is how shall we put it? Social engineering. And once you saw how the social engineering of supply side economics did not work, you should have found no cause to repeat it.

They say of the insane that the sufferers continually repeat the same thing and expect different results. I can add to the axiom, that the insane don’t remember their history going back 20 years and well within a single generation in order to repeat the mistakes of the past all the while expecting different results. It was big government intervention after all during the Reagan/Bush years that did see to a melt down in the private sector: farms going under, business mergers and bankruptcies, junk bonds that led to even more economic failures and putting in prison guys like Michael Milliken (sic?). You can’t expect businesses to operate well without regulatory guidelines. You can’t expect businesses to police themselves well without regulatory guidelines. The problem for the GOP in the Reagan/Bush era and again by Bush (43), was essentially marketplace anarchy. With the people most dependent upon a stable capitalistic society—small to large businesses, labor and consumers—only being utterly harmed by that anarchy.

So what should the GOP do to ask for my vote by November 2010? Throwing renegade “TEA Parties” doesn’t impress me. Being “anti-spending” just because the GOP are now in a minority status doesn’t impress me. Engaging in partisan wrathfulness over health care reform when you (GOP) didn’t do any better a job over Medicare Part D doesn’t impress me either. And besides, your stance on health care reform is partisan with the intent to achieve a majority, not because you give much of a damn about those who’s vote you seek. Bottom line: you burned the house down. But you’d rather quarrel with the firemen who came to put out the flames, the home insurance people who came to provide the dollars for new home construction, as well as the home builders who came to rebuild the house—and you expect my vote. Sorry, but unlike the renegade “TEA Party” movement, I have a far better memory about past events than they seem to.

So what should the GOP do that would honestly earn them a majority? Well, how about stopping the partisan bickering. That would be a good start. Say what you are for, not whom you are in opposition to, such as Obama. Don’t do the pot calling the kettle black routine with cries of “socialism” when all I have to do is remind you of the “socialism” of Republican led gvt that could lead the charge for Terry Schiavo, but when it came to Katrina, where was your concern for the victims of a major disaster, well besides GW wrapping an arm around a GOP member of Congress who lost a home because of the hurricane? States rights, until, the states started passing legal use of Marijuana laws and GW’s Justice Dept. was on record of immediately raiding those who set up shop to pass out small amounts of Marijuana for medical use only. Or, GW came down on the side of a husband against his wife where a domestic violence case was concerned. When you are in a lather to regulate individual behavior such as who has the right to wed or be united in a civil union; what would make you any different than the Democrats who seek to regulate businesses? Not really. Do you believe in individual responsibility then at what point would you recognize the limits of gvt? When GW was in charge, he did not recognize the limits of gvt or even that of individual responsibility. If you want the government off people’s backs because of who is in charge now, don’t make it a bait and switch routine to immediately put it back on people’s backs when you are in charge. I won’t vote for people who’s own hubris cost this country heavily economically and otherwise. Who did not have the courage of their convictions to stand up and challenge a left wing Republican by the name of George W. Bush. If the GOP want this Republican’s vote by November, do kindly recognize that conservative consists of the following: The gvt is not the place to engage in social experimentation especially where it proved disastrous in recent history. Your constituency isn’t only the special interests. Quit trotting out Dick Cheney. He is retired out of politics. He didn’t want to run to replace GW, then he shouldn’t try to make himself a power behind the throne to dictate what Obama should or should not do, say or ought not say. If he wanted to remain in the middle of the political stage with the spotlight square on him; then he should have run for office. Recognize that your history of social experimentation in the marketplace didn’t pan out so well and duly inform your special interests about the limits of gvt that should not allow for bailouts if deregulation leads to business failure. After all, didn’t the special interests want that deregulation? Therefore, if they didn’t want the heavy hand of gvt reducing in any respect their profit margins (taxes and regulation, OSHA and EPA), then neither can gvt be there if bad decisions made by the business lead to its going belly up. Of course, it would mean that the GOP recovering their truly conservative roots wouldn’t get the vote of the special interests, now would it? But, they would have mine, and the votes of people angry that Wall Street is getting theirs ahead of Main street.


4 Responses to “One good reason, Republicans”

  1. Eliza Wilde Says:

    Another great post!

  2. Blogging Expert Says:

    I’ve really enjoyed reading your articles. You obviously know what you are talking about! Your site is so easy to navigate too, I’ve bookmarked it in my favourites 😀 By the way, if you get a moment, check out my Blogging for Cash Website –

  3. Ebonie Moorehead Says:

    I really liked reading your post!. Quallity content. With such a valuable blog i believe you deserve to be ranking even higher in the search engines :). Check out the link in my name. That links to a tool that really helped me rank high in google. This way even more people can enjoy your posts and nothing beats a big audiance 😉

  4. Lewis Zientara Says:

    Third party stupidity always has its bases in the mass media, both LMS and conservative. They are the only ones lecturing about it. Tea partiers do not have this in their minds. All they want is small-scale governance, lower taxes, sharper security for the land and an adhesion to the Constitution. The medias occupation is to drive people all emotional about anything and always missing the point. How many times must Sarah say to the rest of you third party crusade characters that this is not a political party? Right this red hot minute, those rationales actually live on in the Republican Party political platform. Not so much in the Democrats. Its becoming quite tiresome for Sarah to have to continue telling the media what she says and means. She constantly says what she means and means what she states. This is not a great secret. There are way too many people that call themselves journalists that have comprehension problems.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: