The Republican party has lost my vote.

F

fossten

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
12,460
Reaction score
6
Location
Louisville
Frankly, I'm fed up. I've been one of the R party's staunchest supporters in my lifetime, and it pains me greatly to say this, but I'm so disgusted with their lack of leadership in espousing Conservative values, that I've decided not to vote for them in any more elections.

The way I see it, there are several hot-button agendas that could have been pushed by the R party in the last 5-10 years, but they have failed to accomplish these, and in most cases, haven't even tried:

True tax reform
School vouchers
Botched port deal
Allowed D Senate to filibuster judges
Immigration enforcement/reform
Control government spending
Reduce/eliminate pork barrel spending
Reduce the number of laws in this country
Stand up for the war on terror/the troops

In my mind, the most egregious offense yet is the immigration/amnesty bill, which not only allows 12 million illegals to stay in the country in exchange for some tax money, but STILL doesn't protect our borders. I have this vision of terrorists sneaking across the Mexican border with nukes under their arms and THREE OR FOUR of our large cities vanishing under a mushroom cloud, and NOBODY, not even the R party leadership, IS TAKING THIS THREAT SERIOUSLY. They don't realize how much we as a country would be crippled if that happened. Then China decides it's a good time to invade Taiwan and Iran decides to wipe out Israel, and who will stop them? I'm disappointed with their lack of vision in this area especially, but coupled with their desire to spend spend spend, I've decided that there isn't enough difference between the D and the R party to matter, and I would be throwing my vote away no matter what.

Therefore, I am announcing my support for the Constitution party forthwith.

http://www.constitutionparty.com/
 
You're not alone.

WASHINGTON (AP) - From Iraq to deficits, from immigration to port security, some of the most pointed criticism leveled at President Bush is coming from within his own party. Republicans these days are almost sounding like perennially divided Democrats.

The rising GOP angst stems from Bush's deep slump in the polls and the growing unpopularity of the Iraq war.

But it also reflects a political reawakening as Republicans follow their own political interests in this midterm election year and as would-be 2008 presidential contenders seek ways to set themselves apart - from each other and from Bush.

``It's open season on him. George Bush has lost trust on too many issues,'' said presidential historian Thomas E. Cronin of Colorado College. ``We saw it happen with Johnson, we saw it with Nixon. And now, sadly, we're seeing it with Bush.''

The only solace to frustrated Republicans could be that Democrats seem to be struggling themselves to come up with unified positions on Iraq and many other major issues.

``They say Democrats don't stand for anything. That's patently untrue. We do stand for anything,'' Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., joked at a recent press dinner.

Listening to some of the recent GOP criticism, Bush has moved to reach out to Republicans in Congress. Last week, he accepted the resignation of Andrew Card as his chief of staff and gave the job to his budget director, Josh Bolten, who is popular on Capitol Hill.

Other staff changes were expected, including a possible reorganization of the White House congressional liaison office.

Bush also is doing more to keep GOP lawmakers informed, after they were blind-sided in February by the administration's support of a deal - since abandoned - to hand over management of six major U.S. ports to a company owned by the government of Dubai, part of the United Arab Emirates.

The Senate resumes work this week on a contentious immigration bill that pits Republican against Republican.

The bill would offer an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants an opportunity for citizenship and expand guest-worker programs for an estimated 400,000 immigrants each year. The president has said such a guest worker program is central.

But many conservatives favor a more restrictive measure passed by the House last December that would make it a federal felony to live in this country illegally and calling for a wall to be built along the border with Mexico. It does not contain a guest-worker provision.

While acknowledging the difficulty faced by lawmakers, Bush told reporters in Mexico on Friday: ``I expect the debate to bring dignity to America, in recognition that America is a land of immigrants.''

Some conservatives contend he really isn't really one of them.

They point to Bush's immigration stance, mushrooming government spending and soaring deficits on his watch and his failed attempt to put White House lawyer Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court. Some complain about the growing cost and attempted ``nation building'' of wartime Iraq.

``A lot of conservatives have had reservations about him for a long time, but have been afraid to speak out for fear that it would help liberals and the Democrats,'' said Bruce Bartlett, a Treasury official in the Reagan administration. Such concerns are no longer very relevant, he said.

``I think there are growing misgivings about the conduct of the Iraq operation, and how that relates to a general incompetence his administration seems to have about doing basic things,'' said Bartlett, author of a scathing book titled, ``Impostor: How George Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy.''

Recent polls suggest the Republicans are losing their long-held lead over Democrats on national security.

Sectarian violence continues unabated in Iraq. The victory of Hamas militants in Palestinian elections raises questions about Bush's goal to spread democracy in the Middle East. And the administration seems short on options for keeping Iran from building nuclear weapons.

Republican leaders are still openly supportive, but they recognize there are limitations in such an overcharged political environment.

``Like any relationship, it's not going to be a honeymoon every day,'' says House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

Some Bush supporters try to put the best face on the recent discontent.

``There have been some mistakes, but every administration makes mistakes,'' said veteran GOP consultant Charles Black. ``The biggest problem the White House has, 90 percent of their problem, is Iraq.

``People don't see the war going well. And the president's got to keep going out virtually every day, talking about it and putting it in context. Personnel changes won't affect that. He's got to do that himself,'' Black said.
 
barry2952 said:
You're not alone.

WASHINGTON (AP) - From Iraq to deficits, from immigration to port security, some of the most pointed criticism leveled at President Bush is coming from within his own party. Republicans these days are almost sounding like perennially divided Democrats...
Click to expand...

Don't get too excited. I'm not joining the Bush-bashers. My beef is mainly with the CONGRESS AND SENATE REPUBLICANS. I still think Bush is doing a good job, despite the ankle-biters in Congress and Senate trying to hamper his every move. I also believe that Bush would have been able to fix Social Security if not for the cowards in the Houses. In fact, I take the opposite view with regard to your article. I blame the Republicans and Democrats for Bush's poll numbers and his ineffectiveness. Their selfishness is the REASON he can't get anything done.
 
Why waste yer vote on a third party candidate? It would be the same as casting a vote for a Democrat (if your sentiments are of a conservative persuasion). That is why Clinton won in both his elections (never had a majority of the vote in 1992 or 1996, only a plurality); Perot took votes away from the conservative side of the equation.
 
Join the Constitution Party in its work to restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our law to its Biblical foundations
Click to expand...



I guess they dont believe in the seperation of church and state.

I wonder what 'Constitution' they are referring to...
 
Joeychgo said:
I guess they dont believe in the seperation of church and state.

I wonder what 'Constitution' they are referring to...
Click to expand...

Obviously the Constitution they are referring to is the one that DOESN'T have the phrase "separation of church and state" contained anywhere in it.

Which Constitution are YOU referring to?

Sheesh.
 
shagdrum said:
Why waste yer vote on a third party candidate? It would be the same as casting a vote for a Democrat (if your sentiments are of a conservative persuasion). That is why Clinton won in both his elections (never had a majority of the vote in 1992 or 1996, only a plurality); Perot took votes away from the conservative side of the equation.
Click to expand...

If you would actually take the time to read my first post, you would see that your question was answered before you asked it.

I have a question for you: With the possible exception (maybe) of two Conservative Supreme Court justices, what has been the difference with the Republicans in charge? Not much, IMHO.
 
fossten said:
I have a question for you: With the possible exception (maybe) of two Conservative Supreme Court justices, what has been the difference with the Republicans in charge? Not much, IMHO.
Click to expand...


No new federal tax increases, or attempts at universal health care (ala Clinton). Bush really only has to put up with idle complaints from the out of power Democrats, instead of having his hands tied behind his back to any large degree. U have to admit, it is better then if the Democrats were running things. I understand why u r frustrated with the Republicans, esp. in Congress and the Senate. I agree with every point u made, but I view voting for a third party candidate as a waste. It doesn't send a "message to Washington", It just helps put the candidate u least want in power. Anymore, with as over-exposed as the candidates are in elections, any type of vote (on the national level) is always a vote for the lesser of two evils. Name the last candidate u thought was "perfect" and lived up to that standard when in office. I agree with your basic point of view, the Republicans in Washington are acting more like Democrats then I would like now that they r in power, but still act like the opposition party that is out of power, and let the Dem's set the agenda. I just think u would be wasting yer vote on a third party.
 
hey fossten wat u said in ur post was crazy it just scares me to think that something that bad could happen but it all makes sense at the same time
they still cant find those wmd's
theyre prolly in our country waiting for the time to strike
man i wont be sleeping for the next week
 
shagdrum said:
No new federal tax increases, or attempts at universal health care (ala Clinton). Bush really only has to put up with idle complaints from the out of power Democrats, instead of having his hands tied behind his back to any large degree. U have to admit, it is better then if the Democrats were running things. I understand why u r frustrated with the Republicans, esp. in Congress and the Senate. I agree with every point u made, but I view voting for a third party candidate as a waste. It doesn't send a "message to Washington", It just helps put the candidate u least want in power. Anymore, with as over-exposed as the candidates are in elections, any type of vote (on the national level) is always a vote for the lesser of two evils. Name the last candidate u thought was "perfect" and lived up to that standard when in office. I agree with your basic point of view, the Republicans in Washington are acting more like Democrats then I would like now that they r in power, but still act like the opposition party that is out of power, and let the Dem's set the agenda. I just think u would be wasting yer vote on a third party.
Click to expand...


But they're spending like drunken sailors, filling the budget with pork, and failing to protect our country. We really need tax reform NOW. They won't even consider it. Don't forget the port deal. Hands tied? You bet.

As far as wasting my vote, I see your point, as I thought that way for many years. However, I'm not voting Const. Party to "send a message." I never said that. I'm voting that way to satisfy my conscience and because I will have to answer to God one day on how I voted, and I've got to live with it.

I would be wasting my vote either way, so why vote for a bunch of cruds that don't espouse my views? Just so I can say I voted for the winner? What does that accomplish? Come on. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result. I would think instead of trying to change my mind, you'd be examining just what kind of crap they must be pulling in Washington to cause even a stalwart like me to give up on them. And I AM a true STALWART.

As far as a perfect candidate, Ronald Reagan was the closest we ever came. Do me a favor: name anyone, and I really mean ANYBODY, who closely resembles Reagan in the Republican party and I'll consider it. But without a Repub Congress with some backbone, even a good President can't do much. Nor can a bad Prez do much with an opposition Congress. Look how ineffective Clinton was after '94.
 
I do appriciate your point of view. For me it does come down to the "wasting your vote" thing. I just can't go third party. If they had a real chance of winning, I might go third party, but they don't, so I can't. You can see how a third party candidate can effect elections in the 2000 presidential race. I agree with every single point u made about the republicans in washington today, they have become "democrat-lite". It isn't so much about voting for the "winner", but as I said the lesser of two evils. As bad as the republicans are doing, just imagine how much worse the democrats would do in their place? Look at how Clinton responded in 1993 to the WTC bombing, and I figure Gore would've pobably responded in much the same, appeasement manner to 9/11. If voting for a third party threw the election to Gore (or Kerry) that would effect my conscience too (kinda puts me in a corner, I know). Unfortunately, the Republican's still seem to think they are the opposition party; reactionary.

What would u say If Condalezza Rice ran for prez?
 
mespock said:
Well It's not April 1st. Or are you a few days late.
Click to expand...

LOL, better late than never.

I gave up on the GOP long ago. 1st time I was eligible to vote, it went to Reagan in '80, and again in '84. I started loosing faith in the GOP when Ollie North was sacraficed on the alter for Iran/Contra, and then moreso w/ how Bush Sr. handled Saddam in '92. Looking back at how their battle-cry that the dems were the "tax and spend" party in light of how the national debt was cranked up under Reagan/Bush made those claims hollow. I voted for a 3rd party in the '90s (Perot) against Clinton, twice. I can't see how ~18% of the vote in '92 going to a 3rd party couldn't have "sent a message". But I now realize the general american population are a bunch of non-thinking lemmings that refuse to "think outside the red/blue boxes".
 
shagdrum said:
What would u say If Condalezza Rice ran for prez?
Click to expand...

Good question. The answer I have is that I don't know enough about her right now. But if she's the "man for the job" IMHO, then I'd consider it, like I said. But that still leaves the bigger problem of Congress.
 
IM hoping for McCain myself.

If were to be Hillary vs Rice, I would have to write in Micky Mouse.
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
LOL, better late than never.

But I now realize the general american population are a bunch of non-thinking lemmings that refuse to "think outside the red/blue boxes".
Click to expand...

Can't agree more! Would love to see a new party or better options...

I just can't see America getting any better in the near future...

But with all the corruption in our government (both sides) and the only way to get elected is to buy your election, or be a puppet for the corrupt who will buy it for you. I just don't see any good changes coming.
 
Here's another example of why I'm fed up with the Rethuglikkkans:


Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Wednesday, April 5, 2006 10:51 a.m. EDT
Tom DeLay: Victim of GOP Timidity


The most stunning aspect of Tom DeLay's resignation from Congress isn't that he was forced out by a wave of bad publicity that began with his indictment last September for breaking a law that wasn't even on the books when DeLay allegedly violated it.

The real surprise of the DeLay debacle is that his fellow Republicans allowed him to be ripped apart by Democrat-friendly media piranha - without firing a shot in return.

Democrats would have surely backed off on their "Culture of Corruption" mantra had the GOP made even a minimal effort to fight fire with fire.

Instead, Hill Republicans looked the other way on one Democrat scandal after another - and will likely end up paying the price by losing control of Congress in November.

Here's a short list of investigations the GOP should have launched - not for reasons of partisan revenge - but because they warranted the full oversight of the party in control of Congress:

• Bergergate: The theft and destruction of top secret national security documents by former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger in a blatant attempt to obstruct the 9/11 Commission investigation.


Berger's crime was easily one of the most serious ever committed by a top government official. Yet the GOP Congress declined to probe further after the Bush Justice Department cut such an embarrassingly light plea bargain that even the Berger case judge was appalled.

• Rathergate: You'd never know it from the lethargic Republican reaction, but when a mysterious Texas source supplied forgeries of President Bush's military records to CBS News just weeks before the 2004 election, it was a felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison. Compounding the political intrigue, CBS tipped a top staffer in the Kerry campaign on the coming Bush document assault.

But after Texas authorities declined to pursue a request for a criminal investigation from several GOP House members, the matter was promptly dropped. Republican congressional interest in getting to the bottom this scheme to steal the 2004 election after Texas authorities opted out: Zippo.

• Schumergate: The illegal purloining of Lt. Gov. Michael Steele's credit report by staffers on Sen. Chuck Schumer's Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee certainly seemed like a ripe topic for some congressional oversight. But like the Bergergate case, it appears that Bush Justice will let the guilty parties off with a slap on the wrist - without fingering any higher ups.

In fact, Schumer's committee is now insisting that it acted in an "exemplary manner" by not using the illegal info against Steele. GOP interest in further investigation? Bubkiss.

• Nukegate: We've already had several hearings into President Bush's so-called illegal NSA terrorist surveillance program, which was first revealed in James Risen's new book: "State of War."

But there's been little interest in the other bombshell development revealed by Risen: President Clinton's decision to give Iran doctored blueprints for key nuclear components that allowed the Iranians, in Risen's words, to "leapfrog one of the last remaining engineering hurdles blocking its path to a nuclear weapon."

With Sen. John McCain now predicting "Armageddon" as a result of the Iranian nuclear threat, one might think that a report like this might be ripe for congressional investigation.

But one would be wrong. Republican interest to date in a Clinton Nukegate probe: Zilch.

The list of Democrat scandals passed up by Republicans could probably fill a book. But others that deserve honorable mention are the surpression of the Barrett Report, media leaks by anti-Bush CIA insiders and a probe into Sen. Robert Byrd's activities while he was a leader in the Ku Klux Klan.

Compare those unexploited nuggets to the psuedo-scandals that supposedly drove DeLay from office - and it becomes abundantly clear why Republicans now stand an excellent chance of being forced to turn over the keys to Capitol Hill this November.
 
But the biggest blunder by both sides is neither wants to work for the better good of the US only the better good of their own personal agenda.

They don't have my best interest in mind only their own pocket books and how they will be after they are done with their public (rip off) service.
 
mespock said:
But the biggest blunder by both sides is neither wants to work for the better good of the US only the better good of their own personal agenda.

They don't have my best interest in mind only their own pocket books and how they will be after they are done with their public (rip off) service.
Click to expand...


Case in point:


Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Thursday, March 2, 2006 12:10 p.m. EST

Dubai's 'Boycott Israel' Sheik Funded Bill Clinton


Former President Bill Clinton has accepted at least $1.6 million from the United Arab Emirates, including $300,000 from a Dubai sheik who adamantly backs the country's controversial boycott of Israel.

On Jan. 17, 2002, Mr. Clinton was paid $300,000 to address the Science, Technology and Arts Royal Summit in Dubai at the invitation of Crown Prince and U.A.E. Defense Minister Sheik Mohammad bin Rashid Al Maktoum.

Less than three months later, Sheik Mohammad urged the United Nations to approve the use of force against Israel to halt what he called the Jewish state's "butchery" of Palestinians, according to London's Financial Times.

Mr. Clinton's benefactor called for then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to "stand trial before the International War Crimes Tribunal," where Sheik Mohammad said he would "have a prominent place in the list of world's killers, terrorists and criminals."

The Dubai sheik then reminded that "Arabs have a wide room for political, diplomatic and economic moves and have the right, at least, to revive the Arab economic boycott to Israel."

Mr. Clinton accepted another $300,000 from the Dubai regime for a speech in 2005. And his presidential library in Little Rock has collected seven-figure sums from several Arab governments participating in the anti-Israel boycott, including Dubai.

In September 2005, the New York Sun reported:

"When the library opened last year, a computer display in the exhibit halls included information on some, but not all, donors. The Saudi Royal Family and the governments of Dubai, Kuwait, and Qatar all gave $1 million or more."

The paper noted that after it published a previous list including Mr. Clinton's Arab donors, "the computer display was shut off. It has not been restored."

On Thursday morning, NewsMax called the offices of Mr. Clinton, Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Charles Schumer, Rep. Peter King and the Anti-Defamation League in New York, inquiring about the appropriateness of Mr. Clinton taking so much cash from a country that boycotts Israel.

None of the calls had been returned by press time.

I shall now sit back and watch you Clinton-loving liberals rush to his defense like you always do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 73 (members: 0, guests: 73)
Back
Top