Category: Republicans

Why I am Not a Republican

8/30/2012

As if I did not know why I have never voted for a Republican candidate, the Vice Presidential nomination speech of Paul Ryan last night reminded me.

Instead of telling us what he and Mitt Romney would do differently than President Obama, he told a pack of lies about him.

Ryan blamed Obama for promising to keep open a plant that actually closed BEFORE Obama took office!

Ryan said that Obama ignored the recommendations of a special committee that Ryan actually sat on and whose recommendations RYAN voted against sending to the President!

Ryan complained that the Obama Administration “began with a perfect Triple-A credit rating for the United States; it ends with a downgraded America” when in fact Standard and Poors downgraded the credit rating because Republicans like Ryan threatened not to increase the United States’ borrowing authority!

There were other lies and misleading statements as well. And it isn’t the lying so much that bothers me. It’s that Republicans, who scored President Bill Clinton not long ago for lying about a consensual affair, have for the most part ignored these obvious falsehoods in Ryan’s speech.

And what does Paul Ryan care about the fibs? Millions of people watched the speech but few of them bothered to read any of the fact checks available in the media.

We’ll see whether this gamble pays off in November.

0 Comments

The Republicans Don't Lie, They Just Don't Like Yes or No Questions

11/8/2010

1 Comment

The Republicans Don't Lie, They Just Don't Like Yes or No Questions

I voted Democratic in the recent elections and am something less than thrilled with the new team of Republicans who will take control of the House. As I mentioned in a recent column, I still do not understand what the “Tea Party” stands for. I have my doubts about John Boehner but will try to give him the chance the Republicans still haven’t given Barack Obama.

I turned the TV to “Real Time” with Bill Maher recently and saw a Republican who I don’t think is all that bad and who seems fairly bright. His name is Darrell Issa of California’s 49th House District and he will head the House Oversight Committee starting in January.

Issa, Maher and Fareed Zakaria had an interesting exchange that shows I may want to hold on to my concerns. Here was the gist of their discussion:

Zakaria pointed out that if Congress refuses to extend the Bush tax cuts, they will save about $700 billion. Many Republicans have contended that this will be a tax raise. So be it. It would certainly help us to reduce the debt.

Maher kept asking Issa if he supported the extension of the tax cuts or not. The question was relevant and simple. But Issa never answered it.

Issa responded by saying he wants a “fairer, flatter tax with less loopholes.” It was a typical politician response, except that the election is over!

Zakaria prodded Issa in a way that few in the media seem capable or willing to do. He simply pointed out that cutting out loopholes would lead to a tax increase on someone.

When Issa balked, Zakaria called the talk of “less loopholes” a euphemism. And euphemisms, he said, were really no better than lies.

When the conversation changed to budget cuts, Maher asked Issa where the budget should be reduced, pointing out that a very small percentage of the budget, about 15%, accounts for non-defense discretionary spending.

Issa bravely shifted the conversation to the issue of entitlements, saying that Congress should use a means test for those on unemployment benefits and those on Medicare and Social Security. Maher responded by saying that his ideas meant cutting two popular programs.

Issa used phrases that probably fool the typical voter into thinking that he does not favor tax increases and that he will not cut Medicare or Social Security. Of course, politicians have done this type of double-talk for years and Issa seems pretty good at it.

But if Issa really is among the brightest and most competent of the new Republican team, I simply do not see a whole lot of change ahead of us. Instead, I see the recent election “sweep” by Republicans as a euphemism for “only the names have changed.”

1 Comment

Communication Gap between Reagan Republicans and Democrats Resolved!

7/20/2010

2 Comments

In his book, Secrecy and Privilege, Robert Parry quotes the late Keith Fuller, general manager of Associated Press, as saying:

""I think a nation is crying, "Enough.' A nation is saying, "We don't really believe that criminal rights should take precedence over the rights of victims. We don't believe that the union of Adam and Bruce is really the same as Adam and Eve in the eyes of Creation. We don't believe that people should cash welfare checks and spend them on booze and narcotics"but most of all, we're sick of your self-perpetuating, burdening bureaucracy weighing ever more heavily on our backs." (205)

Fuller was a big supporter of Ronald Reagan for President in 1980 when he made this statement. Over the years, I have heard similar things said by Republicans who try to explain Democratic ideas. It is bad enough that they, like Fuller, claim to speak on behalf of the "nation" or the "people."

But what is worse is that they mischaracterize some points of view and flat out distort others. So I made a dialogue between this kind of Republican and me.

"We don't really believe that criminal rights should take precedence over the rights of victims."

That's funny. Neither do I and neither does anyone else I know.

Maybe you are talking about the rights of defendants. I believe that a person is innocent unless proven guilty and deserves the rights guaranteed under the Constitution, such as the right not to be a witness against themselves, the right to counsel, the right to due process, etc.

If you want the rights of victims to take precedence over these rights, first ask yourself how you would feel if you were put under arrest.

"We don't believe the union of Adam and Bruce is really the same as Adam and Eve in the eyes of Creation."

You probably have a different concept of creation than I do. That's OK. But what is not OK is a society where my wife and I have the right to marry one another and two other people are not allowed that right.

And please do not give me a "slippery slope" argument that if we allow same-sex marriage, we will wind up allowing people to marry animals or any other absurdity. The movement to allow same-sex marriage simply would allow two people of the same sex the same rights as a man and a woman.

"We don't believe that people should cash welfare checks and spend them on booze and narcotics."

I don't believe this, either. However, it is not what you say, but what you imply.

Some people simply cannot work. Other people have trouble finding work. Still others would rather take a welfare check than work. And some of those on welfare do abuse drugs, including alcohol.

But how do we monitor those on welfare so they do not engage in this kind of behavior? Do you want to add more bureaucrats to check on them? (Just asking!)

"But most of all, we're sick of your self-perpetuating, burdening bureaucracy weighing ever more heavily on our backs."

I assume you are talking about the government. I've got news for you: have you ever been to a typical corporation? They have a bureaucracy, too. You don't apply for a job at Costco by going to the Customer Complaint line, do you?

It sounds like you are saying that you want the government off your back. What, exactly, does our government force you to do? Pay your taxes, serve on jury duty and"it used to force men to submit to the draft.

If you don't like what your government is doing, remember that most government is local. Go tell your city council what you think about regulations, taxes, fees, etc.

Oh yeah, there would be a problem if you want fewer bureaucrats: no one would be there to listen to you tell them what you are sick of!

2 Comments

United States History 101 Taught by the Republicans

7/14/2010

0 Comments

Typically, history is written by the winners. But the Republicans often like to write history for us, anyway. Here is what a Republican might say about the following, which will be worth remembering if they get back into power:

President Carter: They say he was weak on foreign policy, especially in Afghanistan, where the Soviet Union invaded in 1979 and in Iran, where United States embassy workers were taken hostage by followers of the Ayatollah Khomeini the same year.
President Reagan: - He was tough in foreign policy. Other nations were afraid of him.
Fact check: Reagan continued Carter's Afghanistan policy by using the CIA to support the anti-communists there. Reagan secretly sold weapons to Iran in the hopes of getting back hostages held by pro-Iranian forces in Lebanon.

Tax cuts: They say that tax cuts, GOP-style, are good for our economy.
Fact check: The wealthy certainly benefited from Reagan and George W. Bush tax cuts. However, they have contributed to the budget deficit and debt which the Republicans now decide they don't like. It should also be noted that the economy improved after President Clinton RAISED taxes in 1993.

President Clinton: They say he lied under oath and that he deserved to be impeached and should have been removed from office.
Fact check: Clinton lied under oath at a deposition for which he was a party. That is not a crime. The Constitution calls for impeachment for "Treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors." There was no impeachable offense.

2000 Election: They say that Al Gore kept on trying to change the outcome of an election that he lost.
Fact check: Al Gore was entitled under Florida law to an automatic recount by machine and subsequently a hand recount (at his expense) of any county or counties he wanted. He never got either request completed because of the federal courts, who had no business intervening.

Iraq War: They say George W. Bush told the truth about our need to go to war against Iraq.
Fact check: The Downing Street Memo, minutes of a meeting held by British ministers, indicate that Bush committed to go to war and justify it by "fixing the facts around the policy."

This is what I have learned from Republicans: that it is OK to lie as long as troops have already been sent in support of the lie; that it is OK to change the law to prove that a Democrat broke it; that the federal government is useless unless it can help fix an election for a Republican; that tax cuts are the answer even before the question is asked; and if someone plays a tough guy in the movies, he must be tough in real life.

0 Comments

Why I am Not a Republican

The Republicans Don't Lie, They Just Don't Like Yes or No Questions

The Republicans Don't Lie, They Just Don't Like Yes or No Questions

Communication Gap between Reagan Republicans and Democrats Resolved!

United States History 101 Taught by the Republicans

Author

Categories

Archives