The "once-great Republican party" has been seriously damaged--irreparably, I hope--by George W. Bush, the worst president in the history of the United States.

.

Just watch the Dow tomorrow.

If you mean the Republican party of Abraham Lincoln, I'd agree with you. It's been pretty much a mess since the rich folks got involved in it, and it was only made worse by the inclusion of the poor white trash element.

The principles of the modern Republican party are:  society's benefits should go proportionately more to the rich, and the risk involved in collecting those benefits should fall disporportionately on the poor.  Hence the recent calls for the Bush administration to bail out the the mortgage firms (not the homebuyers, but their swindlers) with taxpayer funding--the way that Reagan/Bush administrations bailed out the S&L's at taxpayer expense.

.

Let us not forget that Bush's family was deep in the S&L scandal, as was "Weathervane" McCain.  Jeb! was mixed up in crooked Medicare businesses--probably tipped off a principal who skipped the country--and Bush himself was hip-deep in insider trading while on Harken Energy's board.  Crooks one and all.

It appears that many of you are reading more into the words I have written.  Wayfarer, you have brought up the point of voting for the lesser of evils.  This might be a good way to vote, but when you have multiple choices (like in a primary), why would you not vote for the best qualified and the person who holds your same view on the issues?  If there is not a person who shares your views completely, then you vote for the person who comes the closest, right?  Not for the person who can win.  That was my point in the blog.

R.F. has the impression that I believe that the Republican principles are what current Republican leaders are proposing, and that they are unfair to the poor.  I did not state that in any way.  I said that we need to return to the real principles of our party.  Look at the GOP's platform.  Go to their website.  We see principles of small government, low taxes, and individual choice to name only a few.  These do not favor the rich or favor the poor.  We need people in office who will properly represent these Republican principles.

We have so few true conservatives because many Republican voters aren't looking for Republican principles in Republican candidates any more.  Some of our voters don't seem to care whether our taxes go up or business becomes overregulated, as long as they get a candidate who wants to put marriage into the Constitution or seal off our borders.

I agree with the anti-illegal immigration candidates, but when I vote conservative, I expect to elect people who will keep spending down, keep the economy healthy, and keep regulations at a minimum. 

Illegal immigration affects these bedrock conservative principles, but I'm confused why so many people are willing to kick conservative principles aside just to stop Adam and Steve from obtaining a civil union.  Our priorities have skidded off a mountain road, and Mike Huckabee is the symbol of that roadside wreck of Republican principles.

Vote Ron Paul.

"We are true conservatives, come and join our chorus,
we do everything the way our Daddies did before us
About 200 years ago our fathers made a nation
and everything that's happened since is outright degradation..."

Bedrock conservative principle:  He who has the gold makes the rules.

Pawn, you bring up my exact point.  Why are voters abandoning the principles?  R.F. I have determined that you are not interested in expanding your knowledge or perspective on this issue.  I have asked you to go and read what the principles are.  You still continue to just bring up the issue of the unfairness of wealth.  Well, lets look at the principles.  I am not saying that he who has the gold makes the rules, and the principles of the Republican party do not say that either.  I am also not saying that that is not how it is today.  I am saying look at the principles.  I am saying we need to return to those principles.

The Republican concept of less government is largely responsible for the economic mess this country is in.

The fact is, this country needs more govenment regulation and oversight of the various corporate entities that are responsible for price gouging in the healthcare, energy and finacial industries and for myriad other abuses.

Giving big business a free hand in shaping economic policy is absurd.

Is it not curious that the dearth of legislation that could have controlled artificially spiraling costs of healthcare, energy, and essential commodities has not been addressed or much less even questioned?

Had we heretofore had proper regulation of the healthcare industry, affordable healthcare would today be available to all citizens without the need for some form of one-payer or socialized medicine to cover the nearly 50 million privately uninsured.

Insurers, healthcare providers, pharmaceutical manufacturers and scores of other ancillary gougers have done well in the highly inflated industry but its a gross understatement to say the country has not been served well by the unregulated system.

The Clintons at least tried healthcare reform but were denied.

Overhauling the system now requires a big government-wielded chainsaw to reestablish fair pricing.

At the end of the day, the runaway industry is the fault of the short sighted government and it will take the govenment to set it right.

Otherwise, like it or not, it appears the government (taxpayers) will now have to bear the financial burden for its failure.

The Republicans don't believe in less government. Far from it: it's just the areas in which they want (and conversely, where they don't want) government that's the problem.

Once again, Noon, you are looking at the people currently representing the Republican party.  I am talking about the actual Republican principals.  I agree with all of you who see the contradiction here.  The Republican princples call for small central government and individual responsibility.  The Republican principles call for lower taxes and low spending.  I want a return to these principles.  I don't blame you for believing that Republicans pick and choose where to have big government.  But you must keep in mind that you are noticing the people, not the principles themselves.

ThatBonny, that's why I've heard it said that Bill Clinton was the best Republican president in decades...

I am confused too, ThatBonny, about what you regard as true Republican principles.

You dismissed Romney as a true conservative because of issues that have nothing to do with lower taxes, spending, or individual responsibility.  I agree that Romney is not a true conservative by a country mile, but a better example would be his cruel prank of a universal health care plan.

Gee---

If all of the experts here on this blog would just run for political office the worlds problems could be solved in an instant.  - Just kidding...

As a youngster growing up with the specter of Vietnam hanging over my head after high school, I registered as a Democrat. The Democrats political speeches to end the Vietnam War all sounded pretty good to a relatively naive 18 year old who couldn't see the benefit of dying to "free" a country that had been at war for 40 years. Well, it took a Republican to actually end the debacle of the Vietnam War but the Nixon Watergate scandal tarnished the Republican party so badly I remained a Democrat and voted to elect Jimmy Carter as President of the United States.

Well, Jimmy was a highly educated president who put domestic policy ahead of foreign policy and slashed the defense budget to the bone (to be truthful, he slashed the defense budget way beyond the bone) to pay for the social programs he endorsed. Unfortunately, his domestic policies had a few unintended consequences: The economy absolutely TANKED. Inflation was rampant. unemployment was sky-high.  The economy ended up in such shambles that it took years to recover.

Carter’s foreign policy was as bad as his domestic policy: Muslim extremists (sound familiar?) seized the American embassy in Iran and due in part to the defense cuts, Carter was impotent to rectify the situation. Deliberations with the Muslim extremists faltered and America was resigned to a long and very humiliating siege of the embassy. We suffered other political humiliation during Carter's tenure but the hostage crisis was Carter's ultimate legacy  Admittedly, his heart was in the right place but Carter was not prepared for the awesome task of running the United States of America.

Ronald Reagan entered the presidential race against Carter and in listening to the debates I entered a political awakening. FINALLY someone echoed what the average American felt and I changed political affiliation from Democrat to Republican. The Reagan years were good to America and while the world was still a very dangerous place, rogue nations and extremists were very reluctant to incur America’s wrath.  Even the mighty USSR was no match for the policies of Ronald Reagan and the USSR collapsed under the weight of trying to counter the Strategic Defense Initiative. I personally enjoyed eight years of pride and prosperity during the Reagan years and up until just recently had no reason to seriously question my political affiliation. Now however, I refuse to identify myself as a Republican. Instead I call myself a CONSERVATIVE – (The terms are not synonymous. There is a HUGE difference between the two). I honestly feel my party and it’s leaders have let me down - and the Democratic Party is even worse.  So, I will remain an Independent until a party - ANY PARTY represents my views and votes to uphold the values I cherish.

In today’s “instant news” environment, politicians are under enormous pressure to say and do nothing whatsoever that will offend someone (anyone). As a result,  politics is now a stagnant and barren wasteland where the candidates will say and do anything to get your vote – then do nothing whatsoever to solve America’s problems for fear of offending some special interest group. 

After elected, our elected leaders will do whatever they want and “To Hell” with the public they serve. To say I am disgusted and disillusioned is the understatement of a lifetime. but until there is a better crop of candidates I will hold my nose (and my wallet) and vote for the candidate I believe will do the least damage to this great country.

The only way the current situation will change is when every single person who is eligible to vote actually studies the issues and actually votes. Currently voter turnout is about 30 percent and the politicians see this as a 70 percent approval rating instead of what it truly is: A 70 percent disgust rating.

Curt Dalton wrote:

Carter’s foreign policy was as bad as his domestic policy:

So why did he win that Nobel Peace Prize again? Didn't it have something to do with brokering peace in at least one part of the Middle East.

Muslim extremists (sound familiar?) seized the American embassy in Iran and due in part to the defense cuts, Carter was impotent to rectify the situation.

Hogwash. The U.S. could have leveled Tehran without blinking an eye. Carter attempted to turn the other cheek and handle it diplomatically, which is what you'd do with a real country. But as Iran was in the midst of a student-led and religious-backed revolution, there wasn't a country to negotiate with.

Deliberations with the Muslim extremists faltered and America was resigned to a long and very humiliating siege of the embassy. We suffered other political humiliation during Carter's tenure but the hostage crisis was Carter's ultimate legacy.

No, the collapse of the Soviet Union was Carter's legacy, driven in no small part by the collapse in oil prices, which had run up during the Ford Administration and kept climbing.

Ronald Reagan entered the presidential race against Carter and in listening to the debates I entered a political awakening. FINALLY someone echoed what the average American felt and I changed political affiliation from Democrat to Republican. The Reagan years were good to America and while the world was still a very dangerous place, rogue nations and extremists were very reluctant to incur America’s wrath. 

Oh, you mean like the Marine barracks in Beirut? The one that was bombed? The contras? Who, exactly? Reagan was really good at rattling a saber but never intended to use it.

Even the mighty USSR was no match for the policies of Ronald Reagan and the USSR collapsed under the weight of trying to counter the Strategic Defense Initiative.

This is one of the wrong-wing-radio myths that continues to perpetuate. "The Mighty USSR..." Author Tom Clancy put it best. He once said the Soviet Union was a third world country with the atomic bomb. The USSR collapsed for a lot of reasons, but it wasn't from SDI, which was a boondoogle and a half. The Soviet Union was flawed internally and the collapse of oil prices in the late 1980s tanked their economy and their spending. This myth keeps getting passed off as gospel by those who want to keep spending us into oblivion via the military.

I personally enjoyed eight years of pride and prosperity during the Reagan years ....

Good for you. There were a lot of folks, myself excluded, who didn't.

AdamPayne

What are the true Democrat principles?

Listen to all your blogs       Oil   Oil   Oil    the King of the world        we are sitting on more oil than any country

Keep up your B itching about the money and economy the out sourcing to other nations

Allow the 20% to run down our country    allow billions a month go to those that hate us   Oil Oil

So stand up      bend over and grab your ankles     the 20% will fill all your needs Carter did

sit behind a horse and smell his rear and you can get all the Gas you can inhale

 nooneisabovethelaw  

Sorry you disagree with my point of view. The point of my entire post seems to have been lost on you. Sure Carter won the Nobel Peace prize but the Middle East did not see peace then and still sees no peace now. Sad to say the Middle East will NEVER see peace. Not in my lifetime, not in my grandchildren’s lifetime or in their grandchildren’s lifetime. It's been a hotbed of unrest for 1,700 years and will continue to be for generations to come. It's sad but true.

Carter turned the other cheek and we all saw how far THAT went with the extremists. Sadly, it will continue to fail as a policy as they simply do not hold the same values as we do. The Muslim extremists holding the hostages did so with the full backing of the defacto Iranian government. It's difficult to have a meaningful discussion with someone on something as basic as human rights when the other party places a greater value on a camel than a female human.

 

As for Beruit, would you have preferred Reagan's response to be a nuke? Rattling a saber is preferable to bloodshed and it does get a message across but only if the recipient actual believes you just might use your military. Otherwise it's an empty threat that will be ignored. Iran-Contra should not have happened but the Beruit bombing should not have happened either. In the real-world, sometimes an "end-game" is the only possible move to counter a problem that cannot be solved diplomatically or militarily. Not everyone will sit down and negotiate in good faith. That is why there is a military, Special Forces and covert methods for dealing with geo-political problems. It's the real world - not the world we idealistically want.

 

Carter's policy caused the collapse of the USSR? Not likely.
 

Truth is the USSR was a third rate country with enough thermonuclear weapons to (by itself) cause the complete extinction of mankind. When Reagan proposed the Strategic Defense Initiative (as well as other defense programs) the USSR was faced with capitulation, starvation, or first-strike war. They wisely choose to quit trying to counter our defenses (their economy simply could not support such massive defense spending) and the result is the Russia you see today. As for SDI being a boondoggle, we will never know. The funding for the program was cut. I personally observed the early SDI tests and have unclassified video of the test intercepts. However as to whether it could have been deployed as an effective "shield" against post-boost phase nuclear warheads, we will never know - again, the program was cut by a Democratic-Controlled Congress.
 

Sorry you didn't prosper during the Reagan years but a lot of others did.

Ron, I'm not the one who made it about the oil. That process began a long time ago...and our inability or outright refusal to find and use better, cheaper, more efficient sources of energy is in no small part responsible for much of the turmoil we're seeing in the world today. Electing not only a president but also a vice-president FROM THE OIL INDUSTRY was one of the absolute worst things this country has ever done or will ever do. Anybody remember when Operation Iraqi Freedom for the briefest of moments was Operation Iraqi Liberation? Before someone with half a brain decided the acronym sure didn't look good....

Okay, civics lesson:

Let's see, if not for oil, we'd need exactly what from the Middle East?

And without oil, the Middle East would have what power, exactly?

I'll wait for your answer.

My point we have the oil lets drill we need nothing from the east        so whats hard about that ?

What's so hard is there isn't enough oil to make much of a difference.  We could easily save as much through conservation (better gas mileage, etc.) and not go through the expense of drilling.

The oil is a finite resource. No matter what we do, we will exhaust the world's supplies, regardless of how well we do or don't conserve the supply. Why do we insist in putting this off?

Oil, Oil, Oil, It is the aliens stupid!

Curt, we're just going to have to disagree, I suppose. We view the same events through a different set of lenses, I suppose.

We could always work to reduce our oil need. The US could offer far more tax credits for people to buy hybrids and look at producing more efficient mass transit systems. Also, ask American citizens to conserve, to walk when they can or car pool when possible.

We could save a lot by working to replace each light bulb w a energy saving fluorescent or led light.

I am sure we could reduce our engery needs by 15% within a couple of months if we as Americans put our mind to it.

Fine Random your part of the 20%  but what we have is better than buying Billions from the East      Duh    and we do have more than we will ever use     keep throwing out your 20% crap

The Republican principles are not made by our current Republican leaders.  The true Republican principles are clearly written out and explained in the Republican party's platform.  You can find this on their website.  I have used lower taxes and smaller government as examples.  Of course these are not the only issues that Republicans are concerned with.  Since so many people seem to have a problem with going and doing the research here is a brief list of some of the main principles of the Republican party: 

one of the principle duties of government is to protect the public safety and maintain law and order so that people can be free to pursue the fruits of life and liberty,

market economies (allocating resources by the free play of supply and demand) is the most just, efficient, and productive economic system known to man

capricious regulations and arbitrary bureaucracies are a burden to every person, business and organization

reduce the size of government through privatization, modernization, technology and volunteerism

cap all taxes (federal, state and local)

the home should remain the central place for individual decisionmaking and issues impacting the family should not be handed over to intrusive government bureaucrats

support and welcome all legal immigrants, in fairness to them we oppose illegal immigration

the environment is best protected by extending and enforcing private property rights

the right to bear arms is guaranteed in the constitution

support the protection of innocent human life at every stage, from the pre-born to the elderly

These are still just a small handful of principles and stances that are Republican.  Do not assume that I believe these are the only ones.  I still encourage everyone here to read the actual platform for the Republican party.  If you are a conservative or a Republican then you know that these are good principles.  It is so obvious to all of us that so many Republican leaders have strayed from their own parties principles.  We need to return to the basics, and vote people into office who will stand up for the REAL Republican principles.