Republican Discontent

My father is not the only Republican who has lost his ability to be anything but contemptuous of the President. Here's George Conway writing in the National Review:

I voted for President Bush twice, and contributed to his campaign twice, but held my nose when I did it the second time. I don't consider myself a Republican any longer. Thanks to this Administration and the Republicans in Congress, the Republican Party today is the party of pork-barrel spending, Congressional corruption -- and, I know folks on this web site don't want to hear it, but deep down they know it's true -- foreign and military policy incompetence. Frankly, speaking of incompetence, I think this Administration is the most politically and substantively inept that the nation has had in over a quarter of a century. The good news about it, as far as I'm concerned, is that it's almost over.

Tags

More like this

If you have not received the e-mail from the Center for American Progress, it is here, under the fold: MEMO To: Interested Parties From: John D. Podesta, President and CEO, Center for American Progress Action Fund Date: November 9, 2006 Re: The End of the Grand Conservative Experiment There is a…
I was more than a little surprised when Jim Webb defeated incumbent George Allen in the recent Virginia Senate election. I voted for him happily, but didn't rate his chances very high. My confidence in him has only soared in light of recent events. Here's George Will: Wednesday's Washington…
Under the fold.... What Makes People Vote Republican?: Not everyone who votes Republican has been 'duped'. Conservative ideals appeal to some because they reflect heartfelt visions of a 'good society. The Religious Right's Religious Right: One of the fascinating things about the Palin story to me…
Don't Think of a Maverick! Could the Obama Campaign Be Improved?: In 1980, Richard Wirthlin -- Ronald Reagan's chief strategist -- made a fateful discovery. In his first poll he discovered that most people didn't like Reagan's positions on the issues, but nevertheless wanted to vote for Reagan. The…

I would like to see Mr. Conway and his friends start talking up the "I" word. I am pleased to see his latest thoughts on GWB, but it would be so much more effective for him to take his thoughts to their logical conclusion.

I've voted for Republicans most of my life. I admired Bob Dole as Senate Minority Leader. When the Democrats came up with yet another welfare scheme, he couldn't keep the legislation from passing, but he did hold their feet to the fire and force them to come up with some way to pay for the program, the payroll deduction for medicare, for example.

The thanks he gets for being fiscally responsible and trying to keep the budget in balance is to be called "the tax collector for the welfare state" by none other than Newt Gingrich.

Now President Bush adds drug coverage for seniors and how does he he pay for it? With more tax cuts, of course!

I e-mailed my son (which I also posted here) regarding three major problems we had when Bush was first elected that could have been addressed considering the budget surpluses we had at the time. None of that was done, instead we now have a national debt which exceeds $8 trillion. How is it in our national security interest to owe nearly a half trillion dollars to Communist China?

The Republicans pull the "abortion" rabbit out of the hat for one election, the "gay marriage" rabbit out for the next, all to distract the voters from the most irresponsible governance I've seen in my lifetime.

I'll never vote Republican again.

But it's not "almost over." Two and a half years to go under Bush. He can, and I am afraid will, do a substantial amount of new damage to the nation in that time.
Almost over? I wish.

By flatlander100 (not verified) on 12 Apr 2006 #permalink

The good news about it, as far as I'm concerned, is that it's almost over.

Not as long as the conservative religious right are being swayed into voting Republican. I have feeling this isn't going to go away anytime soon.

I too am a life-long republican. But I'm sick of guys like Conway who state this AFTER the 2004 election. Bush was scary prior to the 2000 election and by 2001 the items Conway brings up were clear by the end of 2001. Guys like Conway supported their party before their country in 2004.

At least I admitted my mistake and voted straight democrat in 2004, first time I ever voted for a democrat in my life, let alone straight ticket.

By Mike Heath (not verified) on 12 Apr 2006 #permalink

I am not rigidly partaisan. There are things I love and hate about both parties. But I voted straight Democrat in 2004 and will do the same in 2006 and 2008. I've never done that before.

The Republicans could have done some good things:

- Spending restraint
- Real well-thought-out tax and "glass ceiling" reduction
- Stronger but still sane foreign policy
- Regulatory sanity and moderation
- ...etc...

Instead, they let the flaming raging kooks take over the party. They let the religious right rapture-nuts and the fascist neocon slugs take over. We got *none* of the above things, and instead we got the religious right wacko agenda and the fascist imperialist agenda.

Screw them. I won't vote for a Republican until these kooks get the boot. Go get raptured, wackos.

I really don't understand people like Conway. How on earth do you hold your nose and vote for somebody you think runs "the most politically and substantively inept" administration in over 25 years. At the very least, why not just refrain from voting? Do they really hate liberals so much that they'd rather have a hideously corrupt and inept Republican administration than any Democratic one, no matter how centrist? What would a Republican administration have to do for them not to vote Republican?

By Ginger Yellow (not verified) on 12 Apr 2006 #permalink

I've long regarded Republicans as a bunch of vicious hypocrites and Democrats as a buch of fumbling incompetents. I vote and then go home and take a shower.

I've long regarded Republicans as a bunch of vicious hypocrites and Democrats as a buch of fumbling incompetents.

Well, after this administration, you should now consider Republicans a bunch of vicous, hypocritical, fumbling incompetents.

Could we have a change?

By Roger Tang (not verified) on 12 Apr 2006 #permalink

I used to be a Reup., but didn't vote for Bush *either* time. The first time around, I voted for an nth party candidate -- I didn't vote for Gore or Nader. The second time around, "not Bush" was the most important consideration, so I did vote for Kerry.

I will not be a Republican again for a very, very long time. They were never great, but I did like some of the ideals-- individual liberty, fiscal responsibility-- that they claimed to be for. Well, they are clearly not for either of those things at all any more. Nowadays, the "positive" things they stand for that get people to look over their incompetence and dishonesty are creationism and homophobia, and I hate both of those things.

Bastards, all.

-Rob

As the 2006 mid-term election draws near, it will be increasingly difficult to tell the "principled conservatives" from the rats abandoning the sinking ship. A large number of congressional Republicans are into Bushism up to their eyeballs. Look to see them distancing themselves from Bush starting, oh, about now.

However, do not mistake this for a change of heart. They are just looking to save their own hides and will suck up to whomever the neocons nominate to replace Bush.

Ginger Yellow,

I really don't understand people like Conway. How on earth do you hold your nose and vote for somebody you think runs "the most politically and substantively inept" administration in over 25 years.

I've never considered myself a Republican (any chance of that died upon hearing Rush Limbaugh in person at age 14), but neither have I ever (yet!!) voted Democrat. If Conway is anything like me, the reason is abortion. As distasteful as many aspects of the Republican party have been, it was not until the last 2 years that any issue compared to several hundred thousand abortions a year. To someone who believes human life in all its forms must be protected at all costs, Bush seemed the lesser of two evils. I wish I could say the same thing now.

Unless there is some serious change in one party or the other by 2008, I no longer know how I could stomach voting for either one. But is the alternative any better - to leave the vote to the faceless crowd? Excuse me while I choke on my keyboard...

By Ken Brown (not verified) on 12 Apr 2006 #permalink

"Well, after this administration, you should now consider Republicans a bunch of vicous, hypocritical, fumbling incompetents.

Could we have a change?"

I think I forgot my Geodon today, but I'm not sure the Republicans are incompetent. I think they know exactly what they're doing. They're looting the country, stuffing their pockets with money, and packing the court system with their friends so we won't have any recourse against them.

When the lower and middle classes are bankrupt, they'll be safe and living off their investments.

" To someone who believes human life in all its forms must be protected at all costs, Bush seemed the lesser of two evils."

All its forms apart from convicted criminals, you mean. Other than that, I suppose it's a fair point, although Conway doesn't mention abortion at all. I can see that it might motivate many people, although you'd think these abortion driven voters might nominate a candidate who would promise to ban abortion.

By Ginger Yellow (not verified) on 12 Apr 2006 #permalink

Ken Brown,

Is abortion even mentioned in the Republican Party platform? Has any Republican politician ever done anything to actually reduce the number of abortions per year? Meanwhile, the country has suffered a massive hemorrhage of blood, treasure, honor, public trust, and liberty under this gang, so populist in rhetoric and so appealing to the most rigid and fundamentalist of religious sects but so openly harmful to the actual virtue of the people and the charity of the elite. The bonds of society between our countrymen have begun to fray in ways unprecedented since the sectionalist politics of the mid-1800's. All in service of a single issue problem that neither party has committed to solve? You voted Republican on the assumption that they might have brought less ill? Not to impugn old-fashioned conservatism, with its empiricist skepticism of all fashion. Such politicians, however, are scarcely found in either party. If ideology must be elected, I'll risk a little incompetance and vote for the centrists of the Democratic party, and, of course, for the few remaining statesman among Republicans (I am proud of my vote for Richard Lugar).

They'll keep winning though. This immigration "controversy" came out of no where and it will disappear again once elections are over, just like gay marriage controversy disappeared. But there is little doubt they will keep winning, as they are the masters at campaigning, no matter what happens while in office.

Ginger Yellow,

All its forms apart from convicted criminals, you mean.

No, I mean what I said.

Chuck,

Is abortion even mentioned in the Republican Party platform?

It was certainly a feature of Bush's campain and figured into the Bush/Kerry "debates" - though I fully admit that he hasn't lived up to that promise any more than his many others. And you can't deny that the Democractic party's platform (despite some moderate members) is strongly for abortion-on-demand.

As for the rest of your comments, I've already admitted my thorough disillusionment with both parties.

By Ken Brown (not verified) on 12 Apr 2006 #permalink

Ken, surely you don't claim that most of the people who vote Republican because of abortion also support the abolition of the death penalty, even if you do.

By Ginger Yellow (not verified) on 12 Apr 2006 #permalink

Unfortunately for all of us, the Republicans are highly likely to retain control of the House and slightly less likely to retain control of the Senate. While Americans as a whole consider Congress to be the worst branch of our Federal government, it doesnt' stop them from re-electing "their"congressmen over and over again. We will have 435 representatives and 33 Senators going up for reelection. The GOP maintains advantages in both houses that, given the normal re-election rate for members of congress, should be too large for the Democrats to overcome. With Delay out of the picture, a Republican will likely win his former district as well (it was Gerrymandered so completely I frankly doubt a Democrat will win that seat in my lifetime).

What that means is we are likely to have the same crooks in Congress, so we will have a full 2 1/2 more years of Bush butchering our economy, foreign relations, (language), etc. etc. etc.

IF the Democrats win in 2008, the damage may be too much for them to overcome. I hate to be a cynic, but I think what we'll get is 4 years of Republicans blaming that Democratic president for all of our problems (ignoring the previous 8 years) followed by a Republican winning again in '12 or '16 so we can start it all over again.

By dogmeatIB (not verified) on 12 Apr 2006 #permalink

It's far from almost over.
I'm convinced that even if the democrats swept everything, the extent to which they've been bought both actually and ideologically by the perceived toughness of neoconservatism will continue the policies these supposed conservatives find so odious.