The GOP and Its Discontents

[Cold Front]

Let me put this to everyone who is thinking of voting for a GOP establishment presidential nominee: Why in God's name would you do it? What are you hoping to accomplish?

Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Marco Rubio, and Chris Christie will not do any of the following things - slow down illegal immigration, repeal Obamacare, repeal the Dream Act, shrink government, or fight the terrorists effectively. They won't change a single thing Obama has done.

So why vote for them?

Look, a non-establishment GOP candidate (Cruz, Paul, Trump, Huckabee, Santorum, etc.) might and probably will lose the general election, but they will at least begin the process of making the GOP stand for something other than winning elections.

The biggest problem with Kasich, Jeb, et al, is not if they lose, but if they win. Their politics are empty and meaningless, and the people who support them don't have any clear ideas about what they want for the country. Their victory, which is not assured, will be empty as the 2014 midterms - you know, when Republicans promised to do all sort of things and then proceeded to do nothing at all.

The conservative movement once understood the importance of ideas, but now it does not. Give Obama this: He knows when he's facing a bunch of pussies and isn't afraid of calling your bluff.

I'd rather lose with someone who tries to stand for something than win with someone whose victory won't mean a damn thing. And let's be clear, it's not as Jeb, Kasich, Rubio, etc. are guaranteed of winning, anyway.

 

[Lead]

Maybe if you actually looked at some of their experience, you'd see why they are appealing. I won't support Jeb primarily for the fact of dynasty and some of his social issues but his economic record as governor was very impressive in comparison to the rest of the sitting governors at his time. Kasich also has a good record in Ohio and has a record for doing the things you say he won't do. He's so far right on fiscal spending that he wants an amendment for no annual budget deficits. It won't pass but but you can see the intentions he would have as a POTUS.

Also, you don't seem to understand that the GOP isn't only filled with people wishing for smaller government. Many are completely fine with a government that serves it's purpose in regulating industry, investing in public infrastructure, and making necessary public programs smarter and more productive. I would be completely fine with us sticking to 20% tax revenues to GDP IF we could also do that in spending (which we haven't been able to in recent years with Bush and Obama.)

Also, many conservatives this election are finally starting to wear on the hawk mentality for being a strong presence in the middle east. You cannot wage a war in that area and have a balanced budget. I can't stand how long the GOP bullshits it's voters on this.

The days of Eisenhower are somewhat a template for what I'd hope the GOP could come back to. He was a little hardline on FP but he did keep peace because he understood the severity of war. The fucks we have today don't give a second thought to continuing to the longest war in our nations history. Also, Eisenhower wasn't trying to destroy public investment in our economy. The interstate highway system is a perfect example of public investment that would exponentially pay itself back in the production it served for the private market. Our infrastructure has become shit since then. The problem has become people rather see direct entitlements rather than future investment.

 

[Lead]

It's funny you diss on Kasich but no Cruz too. Do you know Kasich helped shut down government in 1995 until a balanced budget was passed? Same thing Cruz did but he didn't accomplish anything and you call Kasich the fake.

 

[Lead]

Also, you diss Kasich but then put Huckabee in the group as people who would follow through on the things you list above. Huckabee is far more liberal than you likely know. You likely just see him on Fox and end your research there.

 

[ripskater]

I agree with you. But at this point, a president can't save us. We need to turn back to God, and the people in this country need to do a 180 and change.

That being said, I like Ben Carson the best. Though I haven't been following political speeches much lately.

 

[Deleted member 53472]

how difficult is it to find someone who will:

- lower taxes
- get rid of some Obamacare provisions, like mandatory insurance/penalty
- refrain from starting pointless wars abroad

the rest of the issues, i don't think most people give a shit about.

A good U.S. President is just a manager, not some "Dear Leader" authority that we all think will solve our problems

 

[Lead]

how difficult is it to find someone who will:

- lower taxes
- get rid of some Obamacare provisions, like mandatory insurance/penalty
- refrain from starting pointless wars abroad

the rest of the issues, i don't think most people give a shit about.

A good U.S. President is just a manager, not some "Dear Leader" authority that we all think will solve our problems

Tell me how it makes sense to complain about people leeching on entitlements and burdening the system then getting pissed at a bill that forces people to actually insurance themselves so the tab isn't on the taxpayer when they go to the emergency room? We know we aren't going to let someone die due to being poor going into the emergency room so wouldn't it at least make sense to make those people pay partially into the system to pay for it?

There's a reason why the Heritage Foundation supported this at one time.

 

[Cold Front]

Lead Salad,

You didn't answer my question. I'm not interested in what they did. The presidency is not a lifetime achievement award. I'm interested in what they will do. What specifically do you think Jeb and the mini-Jebs will do in office that makes them worthy of support?

I've looked closely at all the Republicans. The establishment guys are stinkers.

Jeb is identical to his brother in politics. He benefitted from the real estate boom in Florida, but unlike his brother was lucky enough to get out of office in 2006 before the bottom fell out of the market. Instead, he was working for Lehman Brothers when the market crashed, and he's sat on the board for a firm which supports Obamacare.

He's not going to challenge a single thing which Obama has done over the last eight years except to make it a little easier for corporations to make money.

The only difference between Kasich and Jeb is that one comes from Florida and the other from Ohio. Kasich is a standard establishment Republican who believes that the president needs to work on behalf of the interests of corporations rather than the American people. He expanded Medicaid in Ohio; he's a softie on social issues, and he's for open borders. In short, he's a bum.

Marco Rubio is an empty canvas. The GOP establishment seems to hope he will be their Obama - a cute guy who will help turn identity politics their direction. The first thing the stupid punk did once in his Senate seat was to turn around and do exactly what he promised not to do when running against Crist. That's his signature issue, and yet to guys like you he's a serious candidate for office.

Also, you don't seem to understand that the GOP isn't only filled with people wishing for smaller government. Many are completely fine with a government that serves it's purpose in regulating industry, investing in public infrastructure, and making necessary public programs smarter and more productive. I would be completely fine with us sticking to 20% tax revenues to GDP IF we could also do that in spending (which we haven't been able to in recent years with Bush and Obama.)

Quite correct. Clinton was a more fiscally conservative president than George W. Bush, and he would also be a more conservative president than Jeb and the other GOP establishment types.

At least you're honest enough to consider yourself a big government Republican. I'm not a libertarian, but I do support smaller government. If the Republican establishment can't find any ways to cut spending, they don't deserve to be elected.

The days of Eisenhower are somewhat a template for what I'd hope the GOP could come back to.

Good God. Eisenhower was a great president, but he was a terrible party leader who was in charge when Republicans and conservatives got absolutely zero traction in the country. There's a reason why when the conservative movement got going in the sixties with Goldwater and Reagan, they abandoned Eisenhower.

Ike was a great president for personal reasons that can't be passed on to political heirs. He was sui generis. He can give no lessons on how a party might succeed, for the simple reason that his party in the fifties saw so little success during his tenure.

 

[Cold Front]

I agree with you. But at this point, a president can't save us. We need to turn back to God, and the people in this country need to do a 180 and change.

That being said, I like Ben Carson the best. Though I haven't been following political speeches much lately.

Well, at least with Carson you're going with someone you heart. There's none of the cynical empty politics in which Republicans are supposed to feel better about the country they love just because someone with an R after their name is in the White House.

 

[Cold Front]

how difficult is it to find someone who will:

- lower taxes
- get rid of some Obamacare provisions, like mandatory insurance/penalty
- refrain from starting pointless wars abroad

the rest of the issues, i don't think most people give a shit about.

Well, they do care. Millions of GOP voters care about social issues, for example.

But even if we put that aside, none of the establishment guys are going to do what you ask, except make a token attempt to lower taxes, which will probably fail in this fiscal climate.

So if you're supporting one of them, why?

 

[Cold Front]

Also, you diss Kasich but then put Huckabee in the group as people who would follow through on the things you list above. Huckabee is far more liberal than you likely know. You likely just see him on Fox and end your research there.

I include Huckabee among the non-establishment candidates because he at least promises to do things differently. I don't support many of these non-establishment candidates. I don't like Paul. I don't like Huckabee. But at least they are promising to do things somewhat differently than the party which has won a majority of the electorate in only one out of the last six presidential elections.

What I can't understand is someone who wants to keep doing the same stupid things with the same stupid people and just hope things turn out better this time.

 

[Lead]

Lead Salad,

You didn't answer my question. I'm not interested in what they did. The presidency is not a lifetime achievement award. I'm interested in what they will do. What specifically do you think Jeb and the mini-Jebs will do in office that makes them worthy of support?

I've looked closely at all the Republicans. The establishment guys are stinkers.

Jeb is identical to his brother in politics. He benefitted from the real estate boom in Florida, but unlike his brother was lucky enough to get out of office in 2006 before the bottom fell out of the market. Instead, he was working for Lehman Brothers when the market crashed, and he's sat on the board for a firm which supports Obamacare.

He's not going to challenge a single thing which Obama has done over the last eight years except to make it a little easier for corporations to make money.

The only difference between Kasich and Jeb is that one comes from Florida and the other from Ohio. Kasich is a standard establishment Republican who believes that the president needs to work on behalf of the interests of corporations rather than the American people. He expanded Medicaid in Ohio; he's a softie on social issues, and he's for open borders. In short, he's a bum.

Marco Rubio is an empty canvas. The GOP establishment seems to hope he will be their Obama - a cute guy who will help turn identity politics their direction. The first thing the stupid punk did once in his Senate seat was to turn around and do exactly what he promised not to do when running against Crist. That's his signature issue, and yet to guys like you he's a serious candidate for office.

Again. I don't support Jeb but you can't dismiss his records with oh, the housing boom negates his good record entirely. Kasich expanded medicare? Okay? This isn't necessarily a good or bad thing in terms of the budget until you look at the bigger picture. I can expand social security if there is room for it in the budget and I would still consider it a good policy if I didn't raise tax revenues in the process.

Another hilarious thing with you and Reagan. Reagan is the first guy to go pro-amnesty and you diss any candidate today that actually takes a different stand from "deport them all and build a wall".

Quite correct. Clinton was a more fiscally conservative president than George W. Bush, and he would also be a more conservative president than Jeb and the other GOP establishment types.

At least you're honest enough to consider yourself a big government Republican. I'm not a libertarian, but I do support smaller government. If the Republican establishment can't find any ways to cut spending, they don't deserve to be elected.

Wrong. Calling for 20% revenues and spending is the historic average this country has seen. You're frame of reference off from something clear put. Spending is currently at 25% of GDP so I would be calling for a 5% cut down to 20%. That's a significant slash to call be a "big government Republican." I just want it reigned in to a healthy and manageable size because we know politicians aren't going to raise tax revenues up from 18% of GDP to 25% to cover the shortfall.

This is the other problem with the party. I just told you I want to cut government spending to about 80% of what it's at now and you called me big government. The party has become radicalized with dogma. You're holier than me cause you'd cute it down to 70 or 60 etc. It's just like the laffer curve. There is an optimal spot with tax revenues that will won't hurt the economy the way both sides would. The same is true with spending. Both dramatically lower and higher spending could hurt us in the long term.

Good God. Eisenhower was a great president, but he was a terrible party leader who was in charge when Republicans and conservatives got absolutely zero traction in the country. There's a reason why when the conservative movement got going in the sixties with Goldwater and Reagan, they abandoned Eisenhower.

Ike was a great president for personal reasons that can't be passed on to political heirs. He was sui generis. He can give no lessons on how a party might succeed, for the simple reason that his party in the fifties saw so little success during his tenure.

Also, so Reagan is an acceptable resume to go from? He's the fucking guy who completely through revenues to spending out of wack and gets off the hook completely cause of war. He's the first bullshitter that sent the party off the message of what Eisenhower and those before him had in place (Peace and Prosperity) and made the party realize they could run on issues like fiscal responsibility and then completely ignore it during their term if they waved a flag to go kill some people. Eisenhower even knew this bullshit was going to come and warned about the military industrial complex when he left office. You're entire post is completely for the establishment you say you hate. Eisenhower failed because he held to his principles and actually did what the party promises us today but doesn't do.

In fiscal terms, Clinton was far more conservative then this god the repulicans worship in Reagan. And so is Kasich. He balanced the budget in Washington. Reagan didn't. Bush Sr didn't. Bush Jr. didn't.

 

[Lead]

how difficult is it to find someone who will:

- lower taxes
- get rid of some Obamacare provisions, like mandatory insurance/penalty
- refrain from starting pointless wars abroad

the rest of the issues, i don't think most people give a shit about.

A good U.S. President is just a manager, not some "Dear Leader" authority that we all think will solve our problems

You can have only one of the three with the way the party runs now. They will lower taxes but they sure as hell are going to spend like crazy on war. Also, Obamacare was be repealed. They eventually will ton it down to "reform" or move on to a different issue entirely.

 

[jimmas99]

The GOP establishment may be fake but atleast they aren`t crazy fundamentalists like the rest of the field.









A bunch of fakes or crazy people?

 

[Cold Front]

Wrong. Calling for 20% revenues and spending is the historic average this country has seen. You're frame of reference off from something clear put. Spending is currently at 25% of GDP so I would be calling for a 5% cut down to 20%. That's a significant slash to call be a "big government Republican."

And that will not happen with any establishment Republican candidate you support. Period. They're not calling for any major cuts and they are all talking about expanding defense spending, starting new wars, etc.

So much for the new Eisenhower.

I just want it reigned in to a healthy and manageable size because we know politicians aren't going to raise tax revenues up from 18% of GDP to 25% to cover the shortfall.

They won't. Jeb is not ending anything Obama started - and he will probably expand federal spending on both defense and education, as well as anything else he believes will help with soccer moms.

This is the other problem with the party. I just told you I want to cut government spending to about 80% of what it's at now and you called me big government. The party has become radicalized with dogma. You're holier than me cause you'd cute it down to 70 or 60 etc.

No, I'm calling you a big government conservative because you are in fact supporting guys who will expand government.

Also, so Reagan is an acceptable resume to go from? He's the fucking guy who completely through revenues to spending out of wack and gets off the hook completely cause of war.

Yes, because Reagan actually successfully lowered non-defense discretionary spending. He was trying to spend less money on the arts, education, welfare programs, etc.

His defense spending overwhelmed all that, but it had a good effect. We won the Cold War, and then we got our Cold War dividend. Bill Clinton doesn't balance the budget in the late nineties without that victory.

In fiscal terms, Clinton was far more conservative then this god the repulicans worship in Reagan. And so is Kasich. He balanced the budget in Washington. Reagan didn't. Bush Sr didn't. Bush Jr. didn't.

You mean, by expanding Medicaid and supporting increases in defense spending? Help me with the math.

 

[Cold Front]

The GOP establishment may be fake but at least they aren`t crazy fundamentalists like the rest of the field.









A bunch of fakes or crazy people?

Oh please. Someone cue up the Bernie Sanders' "women love rape" quote or Hillary communing with the spirits.

 

[Cold Front]

Some of you guys have your priorities messed up. You don't support the party first and then hope it helps the country. You should ask yourself what will help the country and then demand the party which is closer to those ideas implement them.

The party is just a tool. Helping the country should be the real aim. Yet you guys get your priorities messed up by believing the whole aim of politics is to help either Democrats or Republicans.

 

[Lead]

And that will not happen with any establishment Republican candidate you support. Period. They're not calling for any major cuts and they are all talking about expanding defense spending, starting new wars, etc.

So much for the new Eisenhower.

If you read my posts, you'll see my biggest problem with the GOP is their agenda for war. The problem is we don't have candidates that run against this except Rand Paul and his tax policy would be disastrous.

They won't. Jeb is not ending anything Obama started - and he will probably expand federal spending on both defense and education, as well as anything else he believes will help with soccer moms.

Again, I don't support Jeb. I was making the point he has a good economic record. I didn't even say he would cut spending or anything. I simply said he has a good economic record AND THAT'S why he's got traction in the primary and the establishment picked him as their golden boy.

No, I'm calling you a big government conservative because you are in fact supporting guys who will expand government.

Completely subjective. Kasich's record shows nothing of the sort. You excuse Reagan for it and call me the big government guy

Yes, because Reagan actually successfully lowered non-defense discretionary spending. He was trying to spend less money on the arts, education, welfare programs, etc.

His defense spending overwhelmed all that, but it had a good effect. We won the Cold War, and then we got our Cold War dividend. Bill Clinton doesn't balance the budget in the late nineties without that victory.

Arguable. If you really believe in free market and conservative principles, you easily could've waited out the USSR. They would've crumbled either way and nuclear powers began an era where war was neutralized with these countries and all that mattered was the strength of your economy and financial institution. Reagan didn't have faith in that and broke from these principles and got us the win we would've gotten in the long term faster but with a ridiculous price attached to it and an era of politicians who don't care about the budget at all.

You mean, by expanding Medicaid and supporting increases in defense spending? Help me with the math.

You're all over the place with this. You're main post is complaining we aren't fighting ISIS enough and then you bash me for candidates who are Hawkish (the entire field is hawkish but Rand).

I don't think he will increase military spending and if he does, it will be covered with his budget. The last time he was in Washington in the 90's, he pushed for cutting defense spending. When you consider longterm investment in the country, there is far more reward in domestic spending than defense in the era we live in. You don't seem to believe that as you mentioned above Reagan did the right thing in cutting domestic spending for over the top defensive that wasn't in the budget.

 

[Lead]

Some of you guys have your priorities messed up. You don't support the party first and then hope it helps the country. You should ask yourself what will help the country and then demand the party which is closer to those ideas implement them.

The party is just a tool. Helping the country should be the real aim. Yet you guys get your priorities messed up by believing the whole aim of politics is to help either Democrats or Republicans.

You need to listen to yourself and realize you are the establishment. The establishment has been Reagan's policies since the 80's. I'm anti-establishment in that I want us to go back to the Eisenhower and before platform the GOP ran on. You're idols are the same people who destroyed this country and crippled this party.

 

[Cold Front]

Lead Salad,

Let's cut through to the heart of the matter: Are you supporting an establishment GOP candidate for president?

If so, then what's with all this dancing around? If you want fewer wars, they won't give you what you want.