Reasons to not vote Republican this Tuesday
hippiemom
Posts: 3,326
The following is an editorial from the New York Times, which as we all know leans Democratic, but I'd like to ask everyone to respond to the content. Replies like "Well, what do you expect from the NYT?" do nothing to enlighten the debate. Read it, and if you think they've got something wrong, tell us what it is and why you disagree.
The Difference Two Years Made
Published: November 5, 2006
On Tuesday, when this page runs the list of people it has endorsed for election, we will include no Republican Congressional candidates for the first time in our memory. Although Times editorials tend to agree with Democrats on national policy, we have proudly and consistently endorsed a long line of moderate Republicans, particularly for the House. Our only political loyalty is to making the two-party system as vital and responsible as possible.
That is why things are different this year.
To begin with, the Republican majority that has run the House — and for the most part, the Senate — during President Bush’s tenure has done a terrible job on the basics. Its tax-cutting-above-all-else has wrecked the budget, hobbled the middle class and endangered the long-term economy. It has refused to face up to global warming and done pathetically little about the country’s dependence on foreign oil.
Republican leaders, particularly in the House, have developed toxic symptoms of an overconfident majority that has been too long in power. They methodically shut the opposition — and even the more moderate members of their own party — out of any role in the legislative process. Their only mission seems to be self-perpetuation.
The current Republican majority managed to achieve that burned-out, brain-dead status in record time, and with a shocking disregard for the most minimal ethical standards. It was bad enough that a party that used to believe in fiscal austerity blew billions on pork-barrel projects. It is worse that many of the most expensive boondoggles were not even directed at their constituents, but at lobbyists who financed their campaigns and high-end lifestyles.
That was already the situation in 2004, and even then this page endorsed Republicans who had shown a high commitment to ethics reform and a willingness to buck their party on important issues like the environment, civil liberties and women’s rights.
For us, the breaking point came over the Republicans’ attempt to undermine the fundamental checks and balances that have safeguarded American democracy since its inception. The fact that the White House, House and Senate are all controlled by one party is not a threat to the balance of powers, as long as everyone understands the roles assigned to each by the Constitution. But over the past two years, the White House has made it clear that it claims sweeping powers that go well beyond any acceptable limits. Rather than doing their duty to curb these excesses, the Congressional Republicans have dedicated themselves to removing restraints on the president’s ability to do whatever he wants. To paraphrase Tom DeLay, the Republicans feel you don’t need to have oversight hearings if your party is in control of everything.
An administration convinced of its own perpetual rightness and a partisan Congress determined to deflect all criticism of the chief executive has been the recipe for what we live with today.
Congress, in particular the House, has failed to ask probing questions about the war in Iraq or hold the president accountable for his catastrophic bungling of the occupation. It also has allowed Mr. Bush to avoid answering any questions about whether his administration cooked the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. Then, it quietly agreed to close down the one agency that has been riding herd on crooked and inept American contractors who have botched everything from construction work to the security of weapons.
After the revelations about the abuse, torture and illegal detentions in Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, Congress shielded the Pentagon from any responsibility for the atrocities its policies allowed to happen. On the eve of the election, and without even a pretense at debate in the House, Congress granted the White House permission to hold hundreds of noncitizens in jail forever, without due process, even though many of them were clearly sent there in error.
In the Senate, the path for this bill was cleared by a handful of Republicans who used their personal prestige and reputation for moderation to paper over the fact that the bill violates the Constitution in fundamental ways. Having acquiesced in the president’s campaign to dilute their own authority, lawmakers used this bill to further Mr. Bush’s goal of stripping the powers of the only remaining independent branch, the judiciary.
This election is indeed about George W. Bush — and the Congressional majority’s insistence on protecting him from the consequences of his mistakes and misdeeds. Mr. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and proceeded to govern as if he had an enormous mandate. After he actually beat his opponent in 2004, he announced he now had real political capital and intended to spend it. We have seen the results. It is frightening to contemplate the new excesses he could concoct if he woke up next Wednesday and found that his party had maintained its hold on the House and Senate.
============================
Now I'll sit back and wait for the first clown to respond with "Well, what do you expect from the NYT?"
The Difference Two Years Made
Published: November 5, 2006
On Tuesday, when this page runs the list of people it has endorsed for election, we will include no Republican Congressional candidates for the first time in our memory. Although Times editorials tend to agree with Democrats on national policy, we have proudly and consistently endorsed a long line of moderate Republicans, particularly for the House. Our only political loyalty is to making the two-party system as vital and responsible as possible.
That is why things are different this year.
To begin with, the Republican majority that has run the House — and for the most part, the Senate — during President Bush’s tenure has done a terrible job on the basics. Its tax-cutting-above-all-else has wrecked the budget, hobbled the middle class and endangered the long-term economy. It has refused to face up to global warming and done pathetically little about the country’s dependence on foreign oil.
Republican leaders, particularly in the House, have developed toxic symptoms of an overconfident majority that has been too long in power. They methodically shut the opposition — and even the more moderate members of their own party — out of any role in the legislative process. Their only mission seems to be self-perpetuation.
The current Republican majority managed to achieve that burned-out, brain-dead status in record time, and with a shocking disregard for the most minimal ethical standards. It was bad enough that a party that used to believe in fiscal austerity blew billions on pork-barrel projects. It is worse that many of the most expensive boondoggles were not even directed at their constituents, but at lobbyists who financed their campaigns and high-end lifestyles.
That was already the situation in 2004, and even then this page endorsed Republicans who had shown a high commitment to ethics reform and a willingness to buck their party on important issues like the environment, civil liberties and women’s rights.
For us, the breaking point came over the Republicans’ attempt to undermine the fundamental checks and balances that have safeguarded American democracy since its inception. The fact that the White House, House and Senate are all controlled by one party is not a threat to the balance of powers, as long as everyone understands the roles assigned to each by the Constitution. But over the past two years, the White House has made it clear that it claims sweeping powers that go well beyond any acceptable limits. Rather than doing their duty to curb these excesses, the Congressional Republicans have dedicated themselves to removing restraints on the president’s ability to do whatever he wants. To paraphrase Tom DeLay, the Republicans feel you don’t need to have oversight hearings if your party is in control of everything.
An administration convinced of its own perpetual rightness and a partisan Congress determined to deflect all criticism of the chief executive has been the recipe for what we live with today.
Congress, in particular the House, has failed to ask probing questions about the war in Iraq or hold the president accountable for his catastrophic bungling of the occupation. It also has allowed Mr. Bush to avoid answering any questions about whether his administration cooked the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. Then, it quietly agreed to close down the one agency that has been riding herd on crooked and inept American contractors who have botched everything from construction work to the security of weapons.
After the revelations about the abuse, torture and illegal detentions in Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, Congress shielded the Pentagon from any responsibility for the atrocities its policies allowed to happen. On the eve of the election, and without even a pretense at debate in the House, Congress granted the White House permission to hold hundreds of noncitizens in jail forever, without due process, even though many of them were clearly sent there in error.
In the Senate, the path for this bill was cleared by a handful of Republicans who used their personal prestige and reputation for moderation to paper over the fact that the bill violates the Constitution in fundamental ways. Having acquiesced in the president’s campaign to dilute their own authority, lawmakers used this bill to further Mr. Bush’s goal of stripping the powers of the only remaining independent branch, the judiciary.
This election is indeed about George W. Bush — and the Congressional majority’s insistence on protecting him from the consequences of his mistakes and misdeeds. Mr. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and proceeded to govern as if he had an enormous mandate. After he actually beat his opponent in 2004, he announced he now had real political capital and intended to spend it. We have seen the results. It is frightening to contemplate the new excesses he could concoct if he woke up next Wednesday and found that his party had maintained its hold on the House and Senate.
============================
Now I'll sit back and wait for the first clown to respond with "Well, what do you expect from the NYT?"
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Anyho, here's some of my issues...right off the bat...tax cuts hurting the middle class? What the hell? Dumbass comment. It's just ridiculous. Tax cuts have benefited myself for sure and I am most certainly not in any upper class. They have helped everyone.
Foreign oil...solid point. Global warming...decent point. Thing is, the Dems offer no unified vision, no unified alternative either. But I am fairly confident that the Dems would be better on the global warming issue, but not the oil issue. I also fear that there answer is to simple tax (steal) people's money in regards to both issues. Maybe no though.
Ethics...once again if you want to use such a broad brush then because of Ted Kennedy, every democrat is a murderer. NOt to mention the KKK democrat. So, too broad a brush, and you'd expect more from a supposedly respected news paper. It's no better than the Fox News many here shit on daily.
Iraq...a very big issue...and one that may cost the Repubs the congress. And too be sure, the NYT is right in that repubs have no asked any of th enecessary questions. They have certainly dropped th eball with th espending on Iraq as well, which s an area where you'd think they'd be ok. Once again, the problem is that the dems don;t offer a united position on Iraq. And while it's fine that individual dems have their own opinions, it my hurt them at the polls that they haven't shared more of a vision then 'GW done bad...we do better...troops home, but not sure when'
Anyhow, I just strongely suggest that when voting for your local representatives, take THEIR record and their vision into account. When we paint with too broad a stroke we end up paiting ourselves into the 2 party system that so many here seem to hate. Like I said, the Dems may be hurt because of a lack on unified vision...should that be an issue? SHould they have to all agree on exact specifics in regards to issues? Or do we want individuals making up their own minds, even if it differs some from their leadership? That is the problem with the wimpy repubs in congress...too many 'Yes' men and women (mostly men
Now for my rebuttal ...
Taxes: They NYT said that the tax cuts will hurt the middle class in THE LONG RUN. I certainly think that is true. You may disagree, and that's a fair point, but you made it sound as though they were saying the cuts hurt the middle class right now, and they didn't say that. My view is that you can't have it both ways, and I always thought that was the one thing that "conservatives" always had a grip on. Not this crowd ... they cut taxes while increasing spending, it makes no sense at all. The interest alone on the debt is approaching 20% of the budget, never mind paying back the debt itself. This is a fiscal disaster, regardless of whether an extra few hundred or even few thousand dollars has temporarily helped some families.
I wholeheartedly agree that the democrats have offered no unified vision. I have heard many of them calling for increased fuel-effiency standards, which alone aren't enough to combat either global warming or our dependence on foreign oil, but they are a start, and more than the republicans have been willing to ask for.
Ethics: Chappaquiddick happened 37 years ago, it's time to let that go. Kennedy's glory days are behind him, he is not what the future of the senate is about. The ethics discussed in the article run much deeper than specific crimes committed by one member. If this was just about one guy fucking up ... committing a crime, accepting a bribe, whatever ... that would be a different story. But what we have here is an attempt to re-write the rules under which they govern, an attempt to remove the checks and balances that have been in place for more than 200 years. This is way beyond an individual congressperson involved in a personal scandal.
Iraq: I agree with you completely on this one. It's not enough to be against the war, the democrats need to get their asses in gear and come up with a realistic proposal for getting us out of this quagmire.
Your summation: Again, I largely agree. I'm all in favor of voting about 90% of the incumbents from both parties out of office. That would, in effect, mean voting for a democratic congress, but that's not my goal ... I am no democrat, that's for sure. I wish we had more options, but until we do, the people currently in office have not served us and should be replaced.
Mister anchor assure me
That Baghdad is burning
Your voice it is so soothing
That cunning mantra of killing
I need you my witness
To dress this up so bloodless
To numb me and purge me now
Of thoughts of blaming you
Yes the car is our wheelchair
My witness your coughing
Oily silence mocks the legless
Boys who travel now in coffins
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
admit it...you laughed
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
congratulations on being the first clown!
First off, I find it hilarious that the editors of the Times just brazenly announced their political loyalty to the two party system.
As for their critique of the current state of the Republican party, I'd say it's accurate, but it's very tame. I think they could have up brought much stronger points.
BTW what do you expect from the NYT
1998 Seattle 7-21
2000 Seattle 11-06
2003 Seattle Benaroya 10-22
2005 Gorge 9-1
2006 Gorge 7-23
awesome moonbeam,
like it's so closed-minded to make your decision ahead of time. like it's so cool to pretend instead of actually stating your beliefs.
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
http://www.myspace.com/brain_of_c
elmira is a poor man's horseheads.
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Hawk, You think I was refering to or singling you out in any way! Dead Wrong. I have stated many beliefs on this board but I don't have the time to devote hours on end. The comment on the NYT had nothimg to do with you, directed at poster! Not all about you as they say.
1998 Seattle 7-21
2000 Seattle 11-06
2003 Seattle Benaroya 10-22
2005 Gorge 9-1
2006 Gorge 7-23
Taxes...we will never agree on this one. My position is always that more money in everyone's pockets is a godo thing. I'd cut different spending then you would too.
Iraq - handled poorly. There should have been some changes near the top (Rummy). However, I am very weary of what the Dems will actualyl do to help the situation. And very worried.
Ethics...I don't think the ethics question is quite as broad as you do. I don;t find that interpreting the constitution differently equates to ethics violations. That being said, some of the repubs are way out of control, but I also think that the microscope has just focused on ethics and that many more, from both parties, will be taking some heat. I don't think it's a repub issue...or a dem issue..I think it's a Washington issue. Perhaps that is a good reason to vote out the incumbants.
But would you use your credit card to have a few small extra things now and wind up paying triple the price later? You know you're going to have to pay for it anyway. We borrowed the money for our tax cuts from China and Japan and it has to be paid back with interest.
Are you weary or wary? As Chris Matthews said on the Today Show, if you do vote in the Republicans you know you will hear George W. saying "see, the American people really do agree with my Iraq policy." George W. also said two weeks ago they would continue to build the large military bases in Iraq they have started. That would make me both weary and wary.
I have a problem with ethics when there is hypocracy involved. I think that's why Foley and Haggard have hit such a nerve. And rampant spending of money while the middle class and poor struggles with healthcare, legislation that is written by large oil and drug companies, preaching of moral values by Republican senators while taking gifts and cash, lying and saying Iraq had something to do with 9/11, well, I have a big problem with those ethics.
Thanks for stating your views in a reasoned, debatable way, cincybearcat. And thanks for the article, hippiemom!
"Some of my friends sit around every evening and they worry about the times ahead,
But everybody else is overwhelmed by indifference and the promise of an early bed..."-- Elvis Costello
I find it crazy to give support to a two party system when all yo can do is think of reasons to not vote for one of the parties. When you can't think of a single reason to vote for either party, why would you continue to support a two party system?
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Both. And I am also terrible with the english language...and yes...it's the only language I sorta know.
holy shit...!!!
I got that joke...being I grew up in Horseheads...