GOP Membership Suspended!
As a long time member of the Republican Party who has held his nose like so many other conservatives while casting ballot after ballot for less than ideal candidates, I have decided to suspend my membership in the party beginning today until such time as the party returns to its core principles.
Based on reaction to Mitt Romney’s suspension of his presidential campaign today, it is obvious there will be many more Republicans choosing to suspend their activities on behalf of the party. This will be good for the party and put leaders on notice that the grassroots grunts who work tirelessly on their behalf have had enough.
A caller to Rush Limabaugh’s show said it best yesterday; “I keep hearing that we need to be loyal Republicans and support McCain if he becomes our candidate, but I question why we should have to be more loyal to the party than McCain has demonstrated…”. Indeed.
Thanks Mac. I agree with your premise and the fact that America will endure no matter which of the liberals ends up occupying 1600 PA Ave. next.
I think I will return to an idea generated by John for me a couple of years ago and form ‘Renegade Republicans’. It seems that those who believe in the core principles of conservatism are now the renegades in the party of McCain moderation and compromise.
CM,
It is one thing to compromise whereby two parties meet somewhere in the middle…quite another to give up everything and call it a compromise solution.
Kind of like hiring a lawyer to negotiate a compromise on a speeding ticket then end up charged with first degree manslaughter.
I too am disgusted and disheartened. It seems this hijacking of the Republican Party as been in the making since at least 1998. The defeat of the CIB was the last straw for the Republican Party and they have catapulted McCain as a method to effectively disenfranchise the “far right extremists” who shut down the phone lines in Washington. The WSJ/Weekly Standard/Kristol/Brooks “moderates” decided to take the bull by the horns and stake McCain as the Reform Leader of the Republican Party. They want to make the Republican Party the big tent “centrist” party. Google: National Greatness Conservatism–it’s all there. The “bigots” have been silenced by Republican elites. It’s a huge gamble they will lose.
Bart
All I know is you supported the largest expansion of government ( Bush and company) while I spoke out against it my friend! But hey we can have a beer on me and debate it soon!
John,
It is absolutely ignorant to blame anybody or any one party for government’s unimpeded expansion. Your continued attempts to act as if you ‘told us all so’ while calling for a slow down in government expansion is laughable and everybody on this site knows it.
Some like myself worked within party politics in an attempt to influence policy decisions while holding elected officials accountable. But the party itself is so determined to be the big tent that inevitably folks end up with a (R) behind their name without commiting to conservative ideals, i.e. Sonny Perdue.
You can keep bashing people for choosing Bush over AlGore and John Kerry, but what does that accomplish? Some of us are actually ready to make a stand against the Republican Party being overrun by ‘moderates’ and liberals.
I applaud those like Rush and Laura Ingraham for challenging conservatives to consider options before going along to get along yet again.
What was it other than defense and the prescription drug plan that was under his control?
Even on the prescription drug plan, the democrats had their own plan that would have been as much if not more.
The vast majority of spending increases and debt has been either for defense or entitlements that the citizens are demanding even more, not less from.
These spending increases for the most part would have been as much. The biggest blame Bush can take is the war in Iraq. Yet, if he hadn’t stayed and had “snubbed” the new government after Saddam, there is a good chance they never would have switched oil sales back to dollars and the dollar would be a lot worse off now and our economy a lot worse off.
John, there is no way to control spending because there is no way to increase tax revenues enough to meet the demands of the voters. If you cut defense spending, think about how far below zero GDP would be. Ten’s of thousands of workers are tied to defense spending either directly in the defense industries or in moving the goods or serving in the military or for the companies with contracts.
We have a “guns and butter” economy that depends on defense spending for keeping GDP up. While we see “defense spending” as a portion of GDP, there are lots of things hidden in other budgets, like nuclear research in the Dept. of energy. We have a lot of trucking and warehousing and selling of food and supplies to government that keep jobs here for Americans.
You can argue that it is wrong and be right on many things, but, you aren’t going to control spending because if you do you will crash the economy. 44% of national income comes from government spending. Any reduction of that and the transition to private sector “income” means a recession or depression.
Bush did lots of dumb things but, you can’t blame him for the mess that 70 years of socialism has led us to. Had Kerry been elected we would still have the same mess.
Bart
Let’s get real guys like you made up excuses and told us debt does not matter. At the end you supported their habit of out of control spending end of story!
Jan
Even Bill Clinton did a better job with the help of a GOP Congress.
I do think the trade deals made it harder but hey Bush could of done something with a GOP congress!
John,
‘Get real’…coming from you…now that’s a hoot.
Somebody who wants to go against the Constitution by making healthcare a mandatory right costing untold trillions while adding layer after layer of big nanny bureaucracy? — Get real..LOL!
I got real when I suspended my party activities and resigned my post with the local party. What have you done John besides bitch, moan and whine?
Actually, most of the Clinton improvement was due to massive cuts in defense that once made, couldn’t be sustained due to 9-11.
Entitlements grew under him and they are snowballing now because the population is aging and living longer. That has nothing to do with Bush or Clinton. It has to do with 70 years of social programs that are now running away with spending due to COLA increases and inflation driving up things so much. It doesn’t matter who is in office or controls Congress if total reforms on entitlement aren’t made.
The burden on entitlements per worker is now $400,000. From 2001 to now it went from $20 trillion (inherited from Clinton when Bush took office) to $53 trillion and that is not due to Bush but the programs themselves and COLA increases and inflation and new stats on how long people will live.
The nation can’t afford entitlements. 22 times we have had to raise taxes on social security and now it is in need of another fix. Medicare is a disaster and they want a 122% tax increase or cut benefits 53% to get it in “budget.” Quit blaming Bush for things he had no real control over and things that voters are demanding more of. Blame him for bad decisions on Iraq if you want but, most things were out of his control on spending increase due to mandatory programs that automatically raise spending.
Bart
It was Romney’s idea why did you vote for him?
Great analysis of McCain’s long career as a senator published as a white paper by Club for Growth — http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/03/arizona_senator_john_mccains_t.php
You mean club for debt?
Club for debt? You mean the one the majority of U.S. citizens belong to?
Yup, both parties are addicted to debt. Look at all the democratic states and cities and check out their debt loads. Check out the spending Obama and Hillary have planned and the debt that will include.
The voters are demanding more and more government “debt” by demanding more and more government programs and help when they don’t want to pay the taxes for it.
It isn’t the government as much as the people that are the problem. They are spending so much of their paychecks for interest on personal debt they can’t pay for their own needs and they can’t pay the taxes for the demands they are making on government. That isn’t just Federal government, John. They are making the same demands on cities and states and the same associated demand of “don’t tax me.”
Yes, compromise at the Federal level Compromise belongs at the city and state level where social and moral issues are to be resolved.
At the federal level, the Constitution and the limited role of the Fed must be adhered to if you are going to keep the nation strong and the states in check. Once you start moving state issue to the Federal level, you have to start compromising and that imposes the compromise on all states which is very bad for some states on almost every policy and when the decision is bad, it drags the whole nation down at the same time.
Democracies are based on compromise. We weren’t a democracy but a Republic of Democracies. Thus, the Federal government was never supposed to be involved in most areas that require compromise on social and moral issues.
Instead, at the Federal level, You declared war or you didn’t go to war. There wasn’t a compromise. On a treaty you required a super majority. That is why NAFTA, WTO and other agreements that were more treaty than trade agreement were pushed as trade agreements. You could compromise and get a simple majority much easier than it took to get the super majority a treaty would require.
Social security. Reagan “compromised” with Congress, You give me some things I want and I give you a 54% tax increase on payroll but can tell everyone I cut taxes. Give me my tax cuts that I will broadcast and I will sign your spending bills.
So who won in that compromise? It sure wasn’t America or the American workers. The problem is putting issues that require compromise because some states want one thing and other states want something else due to demographics, resources, industry types, etc. at the Federal level. They don’t belong there. It weakens the nation by dragging down the entire nation.
Fair? Of course not. No government can be fair to more than the majority but, it can have several societies in a large nation where each one is a democracy and the majority in that area determine what is best for them.
Democracies fail but, if they are in a Republic where they are competing with each other and the citizens have the “free choice” of which society they will live in, it acts as a check on democracy and limits the damage it can do.
But, if you have a “national democracy” where you are going to prop up the poorly run states with money from the well run states, you soon have all the states in a mess and our “free choice” of moving to a better society, that is run properly disappears unless we want to leave the country completely as some are starting to do.
Capt. Menace must have comment hung up in “moderation.” It dealt with comprise
What is “compromise” in Congress, usually?
Usually it is “I will vote for a bill I believe is bad for America if
1. You vote for a bill you believe is bad but which I want.
2. If you give me a subsidy for a business in my state or district, I will give you a loophole for a business in your state or district
3. If you give me a committee position
4. If you co-sponsor a bill I like I will co-sponsor a bill you like that makes both our voters and campaign donators happy.
5. If you give a government contract to a business in my state on such and such a bill that you don’t have a supplier for, I will support a contract for a business in your state.
6. If you agree to fund the war, I will give you a defense contract for such and such with such specifications that the profits will be huge.
7. If you will abstain or be out of town for this vote, I will do such and such for you and you can say you didn’t vote for it.
A lot of compromise never really changes something you don’t want, it just gives you a bargaining chip for something you want others don’t like. Often compromise is adding a bad bill to a bad bill so you can both get something that isn’t good for America but is good for your special interest groups.
For example, somebody mentioned what Congressman Paul does. If a constituent wants something added, and Ron Paul wants it but, doesn’t want the reputation for voting for pork, he can include it in a bill he knows will pass. If he wants to vote for it, maybe he will add it to a bill that won’t pass but he can vote for to show that constituent he supported his desires but was defeated.
I have no idea if he actually does that or not. That is just an example because somebody said he puts pork in bills that he doesn’t vote for. Depending on the bill it is put in, it may or may not pass but either way he has bowed to the wishes of people in his district by including it.
Compromise of the type you and I would do would possibly only affect you and me or our families. The types of compromise they do affects an entire nation, not just a city or county or state. The type of compromise they do, is more often not in the best interest of the nation as a whole because our nation is too diverse to have a “one-size-fits-all policy on virtually any social or moral issue.