The last true hope for the Republican party

for a moment there I thought they were in trouble


Did you like this post? Vote Up or Down.


michael3b's picture

An "abomination"?  After the last 8 years the bar has been set pretty freakin' high. I mean, I thought you would have to rape the corpse of Betsy Ross on The Mall while extending tours of duty in Iraq another 3 years or something to beat what GW pulled...guess not.

Anyhow, he raises a good economic question (where IS this money coming from?). Unfortunate that he's insane... and that no one else seems to be asking.

no, the only hope for the GOP is

Decaf's picture

another civil war

then they could preserve the union with their good old fashioned values

otherwise no



If by "good old fashioned

Hubris's picture

If by "good old fashioned values" you mean our slow return to a superstitious, hunter/gatherer culture that believes storms and earthquakes (or a Black President) are a sign of God's anger, I must ask: How is this a good thing?

The guy preaching said something in church 2 weeks ago

TMundo's picture

"God is not a Democrat, or a Republican......He's not even American."

Not that I have a problem with christian values but those that decide to be pushing them better be pushing the right ones, you know, like love...remember love?  And this whole thing about loving your enemies and doing good to those that hate you and despitefully use you.   Not that I'm very good at that, but, ummmm

Government itself is the

jazzdrive3's picture

Government itself is the antithesis of love. It's very roots are bathed in violence.

As Jesus said, don't be like the Gentile rulers (the archists) who lord it over their subjects.

I beg to differ

Coaster's picture

You seem to forget just whose government this is.  My perception, and that of most others now, is that we have just taken our government back.  I agree with TMundo's post.

I've also been witness these past years of people exploiting their blinded by the Right religious base to advance personal agendas, enrich themselves, and gut the government. I've seen restrictions put on competitive drug purchases by Medicare.  I've seen underfunded infrastructure disasters such as the occasional occupied bridge falling into an icy river. Government may not be the solution to the problem, but neither is it the problem.  I've seen a 100 million dollar abstinence only education tag picked up by the taxpayers when everyone except the religiously deluded knows that abstinence only education is an epic fail.

Governement is a tool.  It depends on how it is used as to whether or not it is a positive force.  May the force be with us. 


Scumby's picture

We went from a government run by bankers to another government even more tightly controlled by bankers.

Q: Who were the #1 receivers of campaign contributions in the House and Senate from the financial services industry prior to the 2008 elections?

A: Rahm Emmanuel and Barack Obama, respectively.

I dunno where you get the notion that W gutted the government--government spending expansion under his watch was unprecedented...before Obama.

Government is force.  I'm very cautious about how powers are granted to bureaucracies to lord over us.

If you think the government

jazzdrive3's picture

If you think the government is actually "we the people", please wake up. That's the biggest lie perpetrated on "the people".

A government as big as our Federal Government cannot be a government of the people, because by necessity it usually alienates forces its will on 49% of it's unwilling subjects on almost every decision it decides to act on. That's tyranny, not government "of the people."

As John Stewart said, "You lost. It's supposed to suck." Ok, but why? Why are we even in a position to "win" or "lose" whatever those terms mean.

This is the problem of too much concentrated power in Washington. More power in the States and local government would at least mean that when it violently forces it's subject to do something in a "policy decision", the 49% of the population that is unwilling is at least much, much smaller than 49% of the full 260 million population base.

The more concentrated the power and larger the subject base, the more prone to tyranny.

Cut the Federal government so it deals only with the common defense and unified dealings with foreign nations. Let the states handle everything else.

Do you live in a red or blue state?

Rajah's picture

State goverment pretty much sucks and most of the states are broke now.

Because there's a lot of tax

jazzdrive3's picture

Because there's a lot of tax revenue going to the Feds, which then take their "handling fee" and pass a fraction back to the states.

Plus state budgets are overblown. They'd be forced to scale back as California is. But not all states broke.

Sound money would solve a lot of the problems.

And state government sucks a lot less than the Federal government. But yes, it still sucks. Each one just affects a smaller population, so it's not as bad. And you're more likely to actually have a chance to know your rep, or at where he lives so you can beat the crap out of him if he doesn't listen.

Governments and the corporations are too powerful

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

Alex Carey:

... the 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.

Australian social scientist, quoted by Noam Chomsky in World Orders Old and New

{;-) Dan in Miami


People are segregating themselves

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

Dems are moving to Democratic communities and states.  Same thing for Republicans.  Even Libertarians in some cases are moving to New Hampshire.  Personally I would prefer a warmer libertarian leaning state like Nevada.  Nothing wrong with voting with your feet.

{;-) Dan in Miami

PS:  The main problem I have with "representative" government is that it mainly represents the corporations and the rich.  If we had more direct democracy people would be happier with their government.


Direct democracy

FearlessFreep's picture

Did Prop 8 make most Californians feel happier about their government?


I'm tempted to tell my parents what they accomplished

Coaster's picture

with their votes: They denied equal rights to their granddaughter whom they both dearly love.

Too much participation is a problem?

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture


If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.

{;-) Dan in Miami

The problem with everyone

jazzdrive3's picture

The problem with everyone participating is that most people are idiots. They don't think twice about voting themselves money from the treasury. And what does some yahoo know about foreign affairs when drafting treaties?

A better solution would be State governments to have more direct democracy, and the Federal level to be much smaller and more republic-like. Have only state governments elect the President, much like they used to elect senators. Have the only directly elected Federal house be the House.

Honestly, it shouldn't even matter to most people who the President even is. That's how insignificant the office should be in the lives of most Americans. That's how the founders intended it anyway. The fact that today, the President DOES have such a large impact on daily life is completely screwed up, and a little bit scary.

Aristotle was right with many things, including hard money. But in this assumption, he's assuming a whole population with access to infinite information and the ability to process it. Impossible, which is why central planning never works. Too many inputs.

"A whole population with access to infinite information"

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

If you were to take the population as a whole they do have infinite information.  That's why I think the prospect of using the internet to increase the amount of direct democracy is so exciting.  The people who would take advantage of the opportunity to vote directly would be the people who had an interest in doing so.  Ignorant people would not have an interest so they would not participate.

On the federal level direct participation would probably be limited to a few general issues.  For example you could have voters decide directly how much money the federal government would be allowed to spend in a year.  Or you could have a vote on whether to eliminate a particular bureaucracy that serves no uselfull purpose.  The federal Department of Education comes to mind. 

Just think how much money could be saved if the people were allowed to vote on the budget for the Pentagon.  Congress hardly ever cuts the budget for anything because that's how they buy votes from narrow special interests.  The taxpayers as a whole would be motivated to cut spending so that their taxes could be reduced.

{;-) Dan in Miami



Go read the comments under any Youtube of any substance

Coaster's picture

These are the people you want deciding important national issues? 

(Coaster begins weeping)

Boring people don't vote on boring issues

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

The total percentage of people using the internet to vote would be small.  Dumb and ignorant people simply would not even be aware of what was going on. 

For what it's worth Coaster many of the founding fathers would have agreed with you.  Quite a few of them didn't trust the unwashed masses either. 

I'm just saying give it a try.  Hawaii has already had the first internet election.  You could expand on that by having people vote on local issues on the internet.

{;-) Dan in Miami

What's going on?

Rajah's picture

<tries taking a bath>

<gives up on getting rid of his manly stench>

40% of Americans are conservative

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

From a new Gallup poll:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Conservatives continue to outnumber moderates and liberals in the American populace in 2009, confirming a finding that Gallup first noted in June. Forty percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 20% as liberal. This marks a shift from 2005 through 2008, when moderates were tied with conservatives as the most prevalent group.

{;-) Dan in Miami

PS:  Only 20% of Americans call themselves Republican.  Kind of makes you wonder why millions of conservatives don't seem to like the Republican party.  Could it be because the Republican party is owned by the big corporations?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.