AmericanPapist Comments
"ObamamaniA"
Is that spelled with an Omega and an Alpha?
Wasn't our Lord's 3rd temptation in Sunday's Gospel reading a temptation to be a political messiah?
thank you for your excellent blog.i was very muched blessed by your coverage of the march...the photos were beautiful.grace and peace be with you always...joan
Idol worship: just another "Obamanation" of the democrats.
How the GOP makes any candidate genuflect before Ronald Reagan is idol worship. It's been 20 years already. Move on. Sheesh.
1. Obama wins the required delegates.
2. Obama is assassinated under mysterious circumstances.
3. Clinton hangs up her cell-phone.
4. Clinton turns her campaign into a "crusade against intolerance".
5. Clinton is sworn in.
How the GOP makes any candidate genuflect before Ronald Reagan is idol worship.
WRONG! No one worships the late president. Reagan had two landslide victories. Kinda makes you think he was doing something right. He espoused conservatives ideals. What's wrong with wanting to return to respecting one's own conservative beliefs?
How the GOP makes any candidate genuflect before Ronald Reagan is idol worship. It's been 20 years already. Move on. Sheesh.
The so-called "worship" isn't out of proportion to the massive attempts to detract from him.
"WRONG! No one worships the late president. Reagan had two landslide victories. Kinda makes you think he was doing something right. He espoused conservatives ideals. What's wrong with wanting to return to respecting one's own conservative beliefs?"
Every right wing Republican worships him. Just look at how vehement candidates are in saying they're most like Reagan. Here's the problem with the GOP: it still thinks the problems of the 80s need to be solved. Unfortunately for them, marginal tax rates are no longer hovering at 70%, inflation's no longer rampant, and crime rates have been dramatically reduced.
So what do conservatives stand for now beyond protecting the unborn and trying to tell everyone that they're better at keeping the nation safe from terrorism? Well, they still want the tax cuts made permanent even though the nation's deficits have never been greater. Rather than try and embrace immigrants (as Bush correctly wanted to do), conservatives want them booted out of the country, and in turn, the GOP has handed the Democrats the Latino and Asian vote. They want to keep the government out of the health care business, even though 80-90% of the country supports prescription-drug benefits that were signed into law by President Bush. The economy is no longer over-regulated and is robust, but median wages haven't risen very much. Furthermore, conservative Republicans are in the minority when it comes to the necessity of protecting the environment.
The list can go on and on. The right wing of the GOP can continue to hope for a candidate of the 80s, or it can seek candidates who are looking to solve today's problems intelligently and anticipate those of the future. If it does the latter, it has a chance of winning elections. If it does the former, the Democrats can get comfortable in the Oval Office and leadership positions in Congress for a long time to come.
I'm sorry, but for your own good, you need to not engage in these sweeping generalizations. After all, if the GOP commits political suicide, why do you care? And why must everyone be converted to believing the generalization? It seems these evangelization efforts could be better spent elsewhere.
I'm not talking about the entire GOP but only about the right wing of it. What "generalizations" that I stated were untrue? Just the other day, alongside George H.W. Bush, McCain pledged he wouldn't raise taxes, a pledge that cost H.W. a second term--because of angered conservatives. Let us also not forget that McCain's campaign last summer was nearly sunk because he joined the president in taking a moderate approach to immigrants. It's no mystery why Huckabee swung to the right on immigration, either. Additionally, it's the president and many (but not all) Republican members of Congress who seek to ignore the environment as much as possible. Those aren't generalizations--they're facts.
I'm not trying to "evangelize" anyone. On several matters, I side with the GOP, but I'm certainly not some partisan hack who refuses to acknowledge that Democrats have good ideas, too. I'd like to see strong GOP candidates who have good ideas on how to help make this country better. A mentality that's stuck in the 1980s isn't going to do it. I have history degrees, but I don't live in the past. When crime, taxes, and inflation skyrocket again, then we can seek a Ronald Reagan-clone to lead the country.
Nathan,
"Every right wing Republican worships him."
sigh Saying that will not help your arguments.
"So what do conservatives stand for now beyond protecting the unborn and trying to tell everyone that they're better at keeping the nation safe from terrorism? Well, they still want the tax cuts made permanent even though the nation's deficits have never been greater."
Raising taxs won't solve the problem-cutting the HUGE rate of inflation in spending on the pet projects of congress will lower to deficit.
" Rather than try and embrace immigrants (as Bush correctly wanted to do), conservatives want them booted out of the country, and in turn, the GOP has handed the Democrats the Latino and Asian vote."
I'm not opposed to legal immigrantion. Is there a problem with the outrageously slow immigration process? Definitely. Should we allow anarchy to reign on our border? Should the goverment- which exists to protect the people- have no idea of the criminal background (or lack thereof) of 12 million residents? Should we continue to allow Coyotes to victimize illegals and perpetuate "Rape trees"? NO, NO, and NO.
"They want to keep the government out of the health care business, even though 80-90% of the country supports prescription-drug benefits that were signed into law by President Bush."
National health insurance won't work. The Goverment is a public entity. Health Insurance providers are private. 300,000,000 people paying for the health insurance of 300,000,000 people = extremely high taxs.
Conservative philosphy didn't just rise in response to the problems of the 80s. It existed before the 80s, and it still exists today. Disregarding it will not help any more than disregarding everything liberals believe.
So it was just a coincidence that a Republican debate was held at the Reagan library and those participants in the debate invoked the former president's name at every opportunity? Sure, "every" far right-winger is a bit hyperbolic, but it's not terribly far off the mark. Democrats had the same problem for several decades after FDR.
Good luck on cutting pet projects. Every president has tried to cut programs, and they can't do it. It's how Washington works. Even Obama's pledge of changing the way of doing business is nonsense to those of us who are realists. You can't stop the folks on K Street. In 1990, there were 20,000 registered lobbyists in D.C. Do you think that number has gotten smaller? Reagan was able to close exactly four programs of any note. David Stockman, Reagan's budget director who was messianic about the need to rationalize the federal budget, concluded in despair that, by 1984, "the Reagan White House was nearly bereft of any consistent anti-spending principles." Bush, Sr. tried the different tactic of killing 246 smaller programs to save a mere $3.5B. Only 8 programs were killed, amounting to a grand savings of $58M. When Gingrich came to power in the House in 1995, he proposed killing 300 programs to save $15B. Instead, after the lobbies went to work, only $1.5B was saved. Throw in how baby boomers are now retiring and drawing Social Security and Medicare, how do you propose we ensure that their twilight years are comfortable? I would slash the hell out of the military, but that would be wildly unpopular, too, and the right would scream that you're sacrificing America to the terrorists, although only 32% of Americans think military power is effective at reducing such threats. I don't want higher taxes, either, but something has to be done to pay for the pressing needs of this country.
As for immigration, I'm not a supporter of those breaking the law, but I actually heard commentators say that all 11 million or so illegal immigrants here should be deported. Good luck figuring out the logistics for that. And nevermind that local economies where these illegals work would suffer badly, as Arizona is currently finding out with their harsh immigrant laws.
If national health care won't work, what will? Why is it that the prescription benefits Bush signed into law are wildly popular? Keeping things privatized and based on the free market, which certainly has its merits in other sectors, will do nothing to help insure 46 million people. I haven't heard one thoughtful solution on how to help those can't afford insurance.
Sure, conservative philosophy still exists today. But how is it effectively addressing or propose to effectively address the problems of today?
"It is a paradoxical truth that cutting tax rates increases tax revenues."--John F. Kennedy, December 1962.
Worked in the 60s, worked in the 80s, worked in this decade. Works every time it's tried.
So what worked in the 1990s when the budget was actually balanced for the first time since 1969 (according to the CBO) and we had a surplus of $559 billion? But in the spirit of continuing to cut taxes--hey, I like to keep my money, too--if we're going to continue slashing taxes, what programs do you suggest receive corresponding cuts?
I would slash the hell out of the military,
Do that and you'll soon find just how many enemies America has kept in check because of a strong military.
Reagan was able to close exactly four programs of any note. David Stockman, Reagan's budget director who was messianic about the need to rationalize the federal budget, concluded in despair that, by 1984, "the Reagan White House was nearly bereft of any consistent anti-spending principles."
Reagan was saddled with a Democratic congress. It was next to impossible to get them to reduce the rate of inflation. You may be right that cutting many programs won't ever happen, but we CAN and SHOULD reduce the rate of inflation.
RE: national health care.
Read this tidbit from The Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
pages...ticle_id=490233
P.S. I still say no one "worships" Reagan. :-)
P.P.S. I may not be able to get back to this thread for a while (if at all), relating to some pressing duties. So, God bless you and yours.
I don't WANT to slash the military. I just think that if we're going to cut spending, that would be the place to begin. We could cut this year's defense budget of $515B by a hundred billion dollars and still outspend like the next fifteen most powerful nations combined (I'm iffy on that statistic, but I think it's right). I recognize that we're fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that's not cheap. Here's the problem, though. President Bush is the first president in history to cut taxes while at war. I'm a fiscal conservative, and that aggravates me. You don't spend what you don't earn. It's tragic that the GOP abandoned its principles once it obtained the White House and both chambers of Congress. It's like they can't control themselves once they're drunk on power.
Perhaps national health care isn't the answer, but leaving things privatized isn't helping, either, and in general, I'm a huge proponent of the free market. The system is broken, and I would just like to hear a good idea on how to fix it.
I really don't know enough about economics to know just how bad 4.28% inflation is. If that's something that needs to be addressed, I'm all for it. And hey, even I know Reagan performed brilliantly in reducing the inflation inherited from Carter.
"Worship" could be a touch strong. Can I use "adore"? :)
As always, I enjoy a good debate. Hope everything is well for you. :)
Commenting by HaloScan
