Why are Republicans not in open rebellion?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Stick It In Him

Bitch, bitch, bitch.

You deserve no explantation and no justification of what the Republicans have or have not done while in power.

Why not? George Bush is my president and my Congressman and Senator are my elected representatives.

Or are you suggesting that our leaders only answer to those that agree with them? I am sure they would love it if that were true.

By the way, you completely missed the point of my post. Why are YOU not upset with them as a Republican?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Why not? George Bush is my president and my Congressman and Senator are my elected representatives.

Or are you suggesting that our leaders only answer to those that agree with them? I am sure they would love it if that were true.

By the way, you completely missed the point of my post. Why are YOU not upset with them as a Republican?

You make an assumption that Republicans are NOT upset. You probably draw that conclusion because Republicans to a great extent have not engaged in activities designed to assist the Democratic Party?

You're too bright to even ask that question, so why do you ask it?

In terms of competition, why would even disgruntled partisans give aid and shelter to the enemy, which the Democrats represent?

Did the Democrats aid Republicans in their assault upon Clinton? No, nor should Republicans have expected it. Politics, as well you know, is not about right or wrong, but about perceptions, and battles for perceptions. Once ground is won, one should never concede it to the enemy unless other ground is won.

Niether side has any morality but merely fight for constituent interests.

Of course, many of us Republicans are disenchanted with our party representatives, knowing full well they represent nobody. But the Democrats are our sworn enemies, due to the distaste of the Democrats for capitalism. It doesn't even seem that Democrats want to give the appearance of Neo-Marxism a la Habermas. As long as the anti-capitalistic doctrine is the espoused doctrine of the Democratic Party, I will be its sworn enemy. I just hate the Republicans a smidgeon less.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You make an assumption that Republicans are NOT upset. You probably draw that conclusion because Republicans to a great extent have not engaged in activities designed to assist the Democratic Party?

You're too bright to even ask that question, so why do you ask it?

In terms of competition, why would even disgruntled partisans give aid and shelter to the enemy, which the Democrats represent?

Did the Democrats aid Republicans in their assault upon Clinton? No, nor should Republicans have expected it. Politics, as well you know, is not about right or wrong, but about perceptions, and battles for perceptions. Once ground is won, one should never concede it to the enemy unless other ground is won.

Niether side has any morality but merely fight for constituent interests.

Of course, many of us Republicans are disenchanted with our party representatives, knowing full well they represent nobody. But the Democrats are our sworn enemies, due to the distaste of the Democrats for capitalism. It doesn't even seem that Democrats want to give the appearance of Neo-Marxism a la Habermas. As long as the anti-capitalistic doctrine is the espoused doctrine of the Democratic Party, I will be its sworn enemy. I just hate the Republicans a smidgeon less.

You are mischaracterizing the issue. I don't expect Republicans to work to aid Democrats (and vice-versa). I do expect them to be upset at their leadership and find ways to promote change. I don't see that happening. While promoting change may, in fact, assist Democrats as a side effect, it is hardly central to what I would think they would want to be doing.

I expect the same of Democrats, though I currently hold them to a lower standard since they have so few opportunities to actually accomplish anything. If they were in complete control of the government, and had done as little as the Republicans have, I would have a hard time supporting any incumbent Democrat. Why should I? My political goal is not to elect Democrats. It is to elect people who best represent my beliefs. While the effect of such an approach (if undertaken by many Democrats) would be to give Republicans power, the more relevant effect would be that Democrats would be given a wake-up call from their own constituency which would prompt change within the party, making them worth electing the next time around.

As far as Democrats go today, this is somewhat of a moot issue. Democrats have no real power. I can't be tremendously upset with them for failing to exercise power they don't have. Sure, I wish they would formulate a coherent plan. I have said so dozens of times. That being said, the people who should be most unhappy right now are not Democrats. They are Republicans. With all the power of the US government, Republicans have done virtually nothing. To me, that would cause a bit of an identity crisis. If the party I support does nothing when given the clear opportunity to do something, why should I continue to support them? Simply for the sake of keeping those same people in power (who I already know I dislike)? That isn't very rational, if you ask me.

As for Democrats and Clinton, you also misrepresent that issue. Many Democrats, myself included, strongly disagreed with what Clinton did. That said, I also strongly disagreed with the Republican's response to his actions. I did not, and still do not, believe that he should have been impeached. I believed, and still believe, that Republicans were motivated by political greed rather than any moral obligation (remember how many of the finger pointers later resigned for their own sex scandals?). Why should I jump on their bandwagon when I think it is a disaster for the country and our democracy? In that instance, disagreeing with what Clinton did had little relevance to wanting to vote the bums out. Now, if Clinton had done absolutely none of the things he told me he would do if elected, and if he had a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress who also did nothing (other than take time off), you can be assured I would not have supported those same individuals for re-election.

Democrats have lost multiple elections now, and it is forcing internal change. They have lost largely because members of their own party are not supporting them (either not voting or voting for third party candidates). The end result, while the recent past has been painful, will be a better party with better leaders (taking the country in a better direction).

And yet Republicans continue to march to the same drum beat that has gotten their agenda nowhere.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I expect the same of Democrats, though I currently hold them to a lower standard since they have so few opportunities to actually accomplish anything. If they were in complete control of the government, and had done as little as the Republicans have, I would have a hard time supporting any incumbent Democrat. Why should I? My political goal is not to elect Democrats. It is to elect people who best represent my beliefs. While the effect of such an approach (if undertaken by many Democrats) would be to give Republicans power, the more relevant effect would be that Democrats would be given a wake-up call from their own constituency which would prompt change within the party, making them worth electing the next time around.

I would do nothing, which ever had the side effect, of assisting somebody who could harm me more, than those numscles currently in power. It's just a pragmatic decision. These leaders harm, but those will harm me more. It's a balancing of political and economic harm.

Neither of the party has my agenda, so I expect to act in a manner with which I disagree. Most of us do not view the rhetoric of the politicians to be genuine or reflective of true political philosophy. The true beliefs of those in power is power, be it Republican or Democratic. That is the only true political philosophy in operation. Anybody believing otherwise is blithely naive. That's okay, but prepare for disillusionment when your eyes are opened.

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

why should I continue to support them? Simply for the sake of keeping those same people in power (who I already know I dislike)? That isn't very rational, if you ask me.

.

Once again, you mischaracterize. Many of us don't support them. I have ceased donating because they are such incompetents. We won't activelly oppose them. The opposition is far worse than anything the deadheads of the Republicans can formulate. How is that irrational?

If one party swears it won't raise your taxes, but raises them 10 percent and another promises to raise your taxes twenty percent, I am screwed by the traitors, but I still have ten percent more money. Completely rational and pragmatic.

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

As for Democrats and Clinton, you also misrepresent that issue. Many Democrats, myself included, strongly disagreed with what Clinton did. That said, I also strongly disagreed with the Republican's response to his actions. I did not, and still do not, believe that he should have been impeached. I believed, and still believe, that Republicans were motivated by political greed rather than any moral obligation (remember how many of the finger pointers later resigned for their own sex scandals?). Why should I jump on their bandwagon when I think it is a disaster for the country and our democracy? In that instance, disagreeing with what Clinton did had little relevance to wanting to vote the bums out. Now, if Clinton had done absolutely none of the things he told me he would do if elected, and if he had a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress who also did nothing (other than take time off), you can be assured I would not have supported those same individuals for re-election.

And yet Republicans continue to march to the same drum beat that has gotten their agenda nowhere.

I never worried about the rhetoric, as politics is NOT about right or wrong, even if it's couched in the language of morality. That's total bull. So I didn't see much the way the Reps were doing but I understood it was to make political ground, which they did in fact win. So, it was effective. And the Dems are doing the same to Bush. Bush has no ability to deal with Iran or North Korea, and the Dems like it that way. They hope to reap the benefits come November of emasculating the President. From a pragmatic point of view, I understand the tactic and strategy. We'll see how it plays out.

You seem to still believe politics is about morality, right and wrong, doing good. I don't, it's about power and who's in power and who's oxen are gored. However, our society has grown so large, that government is NOT as important as it once was. We can live our lives out, irrespective of the sins of government. Not as well, if government had been implemented by good persons, but that's how it's always been throughout history and shall always be.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Sure, Democrats need to present more solutions. I will be the first to admit it. But you miss my point. If Democrats were in control of the House, Senate, Presidency and Supreme Court like Republicans are right now, and if they had done as little as Republicans have done with all that power, I would question if they actually believed what they said they believed. It seems to me the true test of one's convictions is what one does when given the opportunity to do something. Republicans have done nothing. Granted, Democrats haven't either (and I have been vocal in criticizing them for that), but they have ZERO power right now (which is largely their fault, but that is another topic).

People may claim to be Republicans today, and I can only wonder why. Forget about Democrats for a moment. With complete control of the government, what would you have wanted Republicans to do, and how close have they come to doing it?

I would have expected open rebellion for such a situation.

So being the liberal you are and admit that solutions need to be presented, instead of just constantly bitching about it.....present some solutions then.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

So being the liberal you are and admit that solutions need to be presented, instead of just constantly bitching about it.....present some solutions then.

Solution 1:

Don't ever vote Republican. Have you seen what it gets you?

:P

Give me the issue you are wanting me to solve and I am happy to see what I can do. A blanket statement asking me to solve all problems may be expecting a bit too much.

(Would it be asking too much for you to actually come up with an idea too on whatever topic you suggest? Other than just blindly following your fearless Republican leaders?)

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I would do nothing, which ever had the side effect, of assisting somebody who could harm me more, than those numscles currently in power.

.

Originally Posted by archaea

I have ceased donating because they are such incompetents.

Am I missing something here?

What is the side effect of withholding funding?

I think you are failing to understand that politics operates on multiple levels. While many politicians, perhaps even most, may simply be after power and wealth (which I don't actually believe is true), their pursuit of power and wealth doesn't mean politics can't be about what is right and wrong.

In a democracy, we are in a unique position to influence politics towards positions we believe are right, or away from those we believe are wrong. At our level, we may be acting purely altruistically. Politicians, when so pressured, may then gravitate towards doing what is right (or away from doing what is wrong) because failing to do so will cost them their power and wealth. They don't have to have good intentions to do the right thing.

I think of dolphin-safe tuna. Do you believe that corporations actually care if they are keeping dolphins safe when fishing for tuna? I don't. And yet, millions of Americans stopped purchasing tuna unless it was certified as being dolphin-safe. Quickly, all tuna became dolphin-safe. The corporations did the right thing because they felt pressured to do so, even though their highest priority was to power and wealth.

The trick with politics, as with corporations, is to find a way to align their actions with what is true and right. Approaching them as immoral SOBs is missing the mark. They may be immoral. They may be SOBs. But they may also be convinced to do what is right.

This is not to say that occasionally you may wind up with an exceptionally rotten bunch in the Congress that are good for nothing. I tend to think that is our current situation. This Congress has strayed tremendously from what they should be doing and I don't see attempts to influence them for good working. This is why I can't understand simply putting them back into office. What kind of a message would that send?

[Archaea]

There are no big issues, slavery, civil rights, WWII were fought and won. Now we have lesser issues and a lesser body politic. The bigger issues will be won through capitalism, not through governmental politics.

Politics will not defeat the extremism within Islam. That is the bigger issue but our governmental politics cannot affect a change.

I simply disagree with the role of government. It should be minimalistic, because all it can do is harm. So it must iminimze what it does. However, as a general rule, the body politic is now weak and impotent.

The WWII generation was a great generation. The Baby Boomer generation was blessed by that generation. The following generations have accomplished nothing as a generation and will accomplish nothing, as they have not suffered, sacrificed and received the reewards of pain. Even the limited wars fought now are NOT comparable to WWII, or the great Civil Rights movements. These crisis steeled those generations and developed character and commitment. What commitment do subsequent generations have? To nothing vital, thus those generations will fail qua generations.

That's why India's and China's current generations interest me, as these generations are facing major issues and thus with great opportunity will be blessed with greatness.

That's why I believe our culture and the culture of Europe is dead, due to a carcass of the body politic. Of course, this thesis is necessarily broad and sweeping with little time to flesh out here. If there is any greatness in the excess generations, it will be manifest through commerce, sport or academic endeavors, not politics, which are stagnant and dying on the vine.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I simply disagree with the role of government. It should be minimalistic, because all it can do is harm.

If this were true, we should advocate NO government as opposed to minimal government. I imagine you don't actually believe what you are saying here. Of course it can do more than harm (indeed, you cite several areas where the government has done lots of good).

As for your statement that there are no major issues to work on today, I am simply astounded. You begin by saying there is nothing like WWII facing us. We are on the precipice of a WWIII right now, I think. The direction our leaders take us may or may not thrust us over that precipice. International affairs today are far more complicated than they were during WWII. We face HUGE issues in that realm.

The global AIDS epidemic; racial issues that STILL exist (despite your inference that the civil rights movement ended that issue); education; trade deficits; exporting of labor to foreign countries; poverty within the US and globally; finding the appropriate balance between security and freedom; stem cell research... the list goes on and on.

We are faced with countless issues of enormous proportions. We need people with imagination to solve those issues. We DON'T need people who imagine there are no major ssues that need to be solved.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

We are faced with countless issues of enormous proportions. We need people with imagination to solve those issues. We DON'T need people who imagine there are no major ssues that need to be solved.

A few honest questions: Do you believe that government is the answer to solving problems? Why or why not?