Tag Archives: Republican Party

Big tent, really?

Colin Powell called on the Republican Party to debate and broaden its base. Is that really a good idea? Perhaps the time has come for Republicans to create a platform-a realistic representation of the majority of membership. Those participants who disagree-too far left or too far right, it matters not–should leave and create a new stronger third party.

Can this group reasonably erect a tent big enough to cover fundamentalist Christians and social liberal Republican? Is this possible? The 2008 election shows that’s just not possible.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, News, Politics

Bipartisanship or Selling a Soul?

President Barack Obama promised bipartisanship in his administration. Perhaps the President’s definition of bipartisanship does not match the definition to which the Republicans ascribe. Based on the reports from Washington and beyond, the President’s idea of bipartisanship is to use his charisma to convince Republicans that he is right instead of listening to what the Republicans have to say. The times when bipartisan agreements are achieved include some give and take by both parties not the wholesale purchase of the other side’s idea. In order for “bipartisanship” to work, the President and his sycophants need to be open to changing their positions as they are so eager for Republicans to do. Basic tenets of mediation and negotiation require some exchange.

If not, the President will find there will be little “Bipartisanship” whatever the definition. Republicans are finding traction with now skeptical voters who see the massive waste of TARP money by people who receive annual salaries that far exceed the income of some local communities. How can legislators support a bill they haven’t even read? How will those legislators who did justify that vote to taxpayers who now carry the burden of the sinking economy and fear that their personal economy will be impacted more severely? 

A vote in favor of the bill without some give by the Democrats would be like selling one’s soul without any benefit whatsoever. Why would Republicans do that?

Bipartisanship implies some agreement between the parties or members of two parties. Unfortunately, the Democrats behave now like a “ruling party” of parliamentary governments instead of like a majority party of U.S. legislative history. So long as the Democrats maintain an attitude of supremacy, the Republicans will have little choice but to question the new establishment and fight the Democrat party line. Until the ruling party finds some humility, the news out of Washington will continue to ponder, as a New Times article today, the challenges of “bipartisanship.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Democrat Party, Media, News, Politics, Presidents

Re-establishing a Political Party

As President Elect Barack Obama speaks to the press, announces appointments and generally remains in the headlines, the media write about the revamping of the Republican party. Here’s my bit of advice for Libertarians, Republicans and Democrats: FIND A MESSAGE and STICK TO IT.

While the Libertarians do a fine job of publicizing their message, their candidates rarely reflect a majority of their platform issues. Libertarian candidates always get stymied by the media fascination with legalizing drugs. These two issues need to be clarified before that party will make any real headway in the political process. Libertarians need to siphon off the liberal Republicans increasingly disaffected by the conservative bent of that party.

Democrats and Republicans need to stop sounding like each other. A classic example of the policy meld between the two parties is an ad run by the national Democratic Senatorial Committee this weekend against Saxby Chambliss. The ad indicates that Chambliss’s vote for the bailout makes Chambliss “anti-middle class”. Really, as I recall the Democrats proposed and re-proposed (after Republicans defeated it) the bill to get it passed to rescue the AIG and their ilk. NOW the Democrats use their own bill to label Chambliss. How truly ironic! But, the bailout is a classic example of the reality of Congress. Each party seeks one thing: reelection. The candidates do not espouse ideals or philosophy, nope just put me back in office.

The Republicans and Democrats entered into a tacit agreement: MAB-mutually assured benefit. Republican members of Congress voted for the tax bailout proposed by Democrats and the Republican administration in an effort to appear active and interested in “fixing” the economy. Democrats just want to give away money. The vote: mutually assured benefit. All the politicians claim to have taken action to stave off economic destruction.

Unfortunately, neither party had an ideology or economic platform on which to rely because party platforms mean nothing. Platform is just a suggested ideology foisted upon members but rarely referred to or relied on by party members. No, the primary concern of our elected officials is to get reelected.

Until each major party determines to what ideology it subscribes and figures out that a strong engaging personality is NOT an ideology, neither party can move forward and improve what that party has to offer to voters. 

Voters however need to learn to be discriminating in their choices. Test the speeches and ideology of the smooth taking candidates. Actually read a newspaper or the internet for more than the obituaries, comics and puzzle. Realize that Brangelina and Jennifer Anniston have less impact on their lives than an Act of Congress. A change in the voting populace will necessarily catalyze change in the parties. Just pray that change occurs sooner rather than later…

2 Comments

Filed under Media, News, Politics

When life gives you tomatoes

…make a Bloody Mary. That’s what the Republicans have done. Instead conducting the evening’s planned infomercial, the Republicans held a fundraiser for the people of the Gulf coast. Thank you.

Leave a comment

Filed under 1

What’s the Point of A Convention?

Democrat Party Chairman Howard Dean declared that one candidate Senator Obama or Senator Clinton must drop out by June so that the party can unify. The Democrat Party convention scheduled for August should be the deciding factor, NOT the party chair, isn’t that the point of the convention? The Convention, not the party leadership cadre, decides who the party’s candidate will be. Mr. Dean should remember his place as leader NOT dictator.

Dean acknowledged that party rules do not require many delegates to make a decision before the August Convention. So, why is Dean continuing to press for one candidate? Because this brouhaha between Clinton and Obama will only deteriorate. To date mud slinging has been the weapon of choice, what if they pull out the big guns and destroy the party? So be it.

Perhaps it’s time for a new party and a new ideology. Not since Lincoln has this country seen a great ideological shift based on a different confederation of ideas. Honestly, the ideas and actions of BOTH parties (Democrat and Republican) in this campaign to date are not that different.

For change in this country, we need people who understand change. These candidates know no change. Status quo will be the result.

What do we as a country need? A new party of individuals with ideas and grassroots energy. The Founders provided us with both a benefit and curse in this respect: checks and balances. Checks and balances prevented FDR from packing the Supreme Court, prevents the rabble in Congress from making law without some oversight from the President and the Supreme Court.

We need all of the disgruntled BUT concerned voters, the interested but feed up citizens to come together and change government at all levels of government. Changing the President will bring only grid lock (which might not be a bad thing).

Just think about it.

1 Comment

Filed under 2008 Election, Media, News, Politics