Why Have All the Republicans Gone?

Some Republican analysts have given over to wishful thinking that "solid Republicans" aren’t really defecting from the party, as many polls would indicate.

As a formerly "solid" Republican, who was active for many years in the party, as a member of my county Republican Executive Committee, and officer in Teen Age Republicans, College Republicans, and Young Republicans, the manager of several Republican campaigns, party operative, and contributor, I am only one of millions of ex-Movement Conservatives disgusted with the party's sellout of its traditional principles since rising to power in Washington.

I've been lied to for the last time by Republican candidates paying lip service to the Constitution, fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets, less bureaucracy, and limiting the government's role in private affairs, and then delivering record levels of Congressional Pork, record Federal Deficits, bloated new social Giveaway Programs, Corporate Welfare, and a massively intrusive National Police State with no respect for the Constitution. In NOT ONE of these areas has the G.O.P. performed in any more Conservative fashion than the Democrat Administrations and Congresses it has replaced.

Instead of doing something about the bureaucracy, the national debt, runaway entitlement spending, etc., the power-drunk Republicans in the White House and on Capitol Hill have just made these problems worse, racking up far more 'pork' than Tip O'Neil ever dreamt of, buying the votes of their constituents with their own money, just like Democrats.

Instead, all they now talk about is Gay Marriage, Flag Burning, Abortion, and Stem Cells - and they want to pollute the U.S. Constitution with amendments about these silly social distractions, with the same recklessness that the Democrats used to push for the ERA; and are wrong for all of the same reasons.

The country is Broke, the Dollar is in the toilet, our Military needs to be completely rebuilt, our government-run Health Care system is in shambles, Social Security is Insolvent, we're increasingly in hock to the Chinese to pay for Arab Oil, and if we don’t capitalize on new energy technologies - and soon - we'll render the planet uninhabitable. What part of this predicament don’t the Tom Delays and Karl Roves of this world understand? Wasn’t Sen. Rick Santorum's defeat a clear enough signal to these people? Who told them that a "Federal Marriage Amendment" was what grassroots Conservative Republicans wanted most?

John McCain is saying all the same things about "fiscal responsibility and limited government" that we heard from the last Five (5) Republican presidents, whose wild spending accounts for virtually all of the current National Debt. Why on Earth should we fall for that again?

Meanwhile, the Clinton Administration stands out for having balanced the budget, producing record surpluses, and shrinking the federal civilian workforce by 250,000 bureaucrats, through the National Performance Review. He was arguably the most "Conservative" president of the modern era - and certainly more so than Bush, Bush, Ford, or Nixon. Turning America into a 'police state' and going to war over trumped up, phony threats was no way to keep the hearts and minds of Republican voters.

This solid Republican is voting for Obama, because he voted in 2005, 2006, and 2007 to re-instate the former Graham-Rudman-Hollings ("PAYGO") spending restraints, and because his Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (S. 2590), signed into law last year, finally shines a light on wasteful spending, by forcing the OMB to create a citizens portal to the federal budget. I - and millions of ex-Republicans just like me - really ARE leaving the party, and with good reason.

•  Where in G-d's name is NEVER!!

  I would consider the Republican Party a viable alternative if they would only:

  by alasmoses on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:37:09 PM PDT

  •  Ditto

    And I would never ever be A Republican.  How repulsive.

    by Lava20 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:50:42 PM PDT

    •  tell that to Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt

      parties can change, I hope you stick by your beliefs, not just nomenclature.  A political party is like an empty bottle, it can be filled with anything.

      by TurkeyCreek on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:53:08 PM PDT

•  Huh?

  ...our government-run Health Care system is in shambles, Social Security is Insolvent...

  I'm with you on most of your complaints, but government-run Health Care system? I think it's been shown many times in many ways that Social Security is fine, and will be for a long time. But yeah, I agree that Obama is our best bet at this juncture. Glad we're thinking alike on that.

  (You need to post a tip jar.)

  by nehark on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:41:46 PM PDT

  •  We already have 'Government Run' health care

    Runaway health care costs - and the resulting unaffordability of insurance - are the entirely predictable result of across the board "price supports" for a commodity with unlimited demand. Providers universally charge more than the standard Medicare/Medicaid rates, because they can.  If the government didnt put an artificial "floor" under the prices of every health care procedure and product (just as it does with agriculture) through these programs, you'd see an entirely different economic in medicine today.  Price Supports can work in farming, where the demand is fixed, to maintain a constant level of supply and a minimum basic production capacity.  But, in Health Care, where both supply and demand are effectively unlimited, having a 'consumer of last resort' for all the services the industry can provide, at a guaranteed minimum price, is a prescription for just the disaster we are experiencing.

    Dont believe me?  Try to find a doctor or clinic who charges less than the Medicare/Medicaid/Big Insurance reimbursement rates for any procedure.  Ask how long the average office visit is in clinics serving low income patients or the elderly - it will be exactly as long as the minimum the government will pay for.

    The recent prescription drug benefit is a perfect example.  It does nothing to reduce the market price of pharmaceuticals, it merely guarantees the drug companies that a 'customer of last resort' will pay them 'top whack' for every last pill they can produce. Its a massive transfer of wealth to 'Big Pharma', at the expense of the taxpayer, and, most likely, the health of millions of over-medicated patients.  One-in-Five Americans were on prescription psychotrophic drugs (antidepressants, antipsychotics, etc.) before the new drug benefit, including over One Million children.  Aldus Huxley predicted exactly this.

    by Press to Digitate on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:29:09 PM PDT

    •  I'm even more confused now.

      You think Medicare/Medicaid is responsible for this Insurance Industry Greed Glut? I think this is crazy, but I do agree that anything this Administration has touched...including the fraudulent "Prescription Drug Bill" which was yet another hand out to the Insurance Industry...has turned to shit.

      Personally, I'm all for single-payer health care for all people living in the U.S., so we're a million miles apart in our thinking on this.

      On Social Security, you can't say it's "insolvent" unless you're repeating a right-wing, George Bush Republican absolute falsehood (dirty lie). Judging from the rest of your diary...I don't think your intention was to do that.

      Cheers.

      by nehark on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:41:55 PM PDT

      •  Insurance Greed

        definitely exists, but is enabled by the Medicare/Medicaid monopoly.  There are no private insurors who pay lower reimbursement rates than the government does, for any health care products or procedures.  They all take their cue from those programs, and adjust their rates uniformly. Its effectively required, since any health care provider must sell to the government at rates no lower than the lowest rate they will sell the same services to any private insuror.  Consequently, any doctor or hospital who accepts a lower reimbursement rate from any private insuror is required to then transfer that lower rate to all of their Medicare/Medicaid patients, as well.  It really IS just like 'price supports'...though perhaps worse, becuase at least farmers arent forced to give the government their grain at the lowest price they can find in the marketplace.

        The point is that we effectively already have a "single payer" system...and that payer is a drunken idiot who wont let providers compete to give him the lowest price for his [overwhealming majority] of all the business they can possibly sell their services and products to.

        As to Social Security becoming insolvent, that's not a philosophical position, thats an actuarial certainty - its pure mathematics - and the Social Security Administration's Board of Trustees recently released another report on the subject.

        by Press to Digitate on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:07:33 PM PDT

•  If only the Dems were worthy of Obama

  Seems like the Democratic Party is as scared of change in DC as the Repubs......

  We need a meglomaniac billionaire to fund a third party and NOT run for President..... just provide the start-up funding as his 'legacy'..... a third party to focus on REALITY - like saving the planet

  by xrepub on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:43:25 PM PDT

•  There Were Once Reasonable Republicans

  I'm old enough to remember Everett Dirksen, Nelson Rockefeller, Jacob Javits, heck, even Bob Dole before he decided to run for President. I disagreed with their strategies, but didn't necessarily question their principles or their patriotism.

  But since Reagan? Gods, it's been Amerika über Alles, and Jesus is our C.E.O. advocating profits in the Name of the Lord!

  I live in a truly Blue state, but I know a lot of Republicans who've gone Obama. Maybe a real Centrist?

  by Uthaclena on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:44:37 PM PDT

  •  Obama is a socialist

    Obama is a socialist

    by Samtron on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:47:22 PM PDT

    •  Really?

      Find an example where Barack Obama expresses socialism , anymore than Hillary Clinton does, or any other Democrat.

      Your comment has been de-rated for simple asshattery.

      Stop throwing words you don't understand.

      by shpilk on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:56:02 PM PDT

    •  Our fire departments, schools and police

      our socialist and our health care ought to be.  I wish Obama was a socialist, but I'll take him as President as is.

      by trashablanca on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:06:11 PM PDT

      •  not socialist, civic departments maybe.

        only a radical would deny a role for government.  I don't think you know exactly what the word socialist means when you say that or our fire departments and police.  What about the majority of our fireman who are volunteers?

        by TurkeyCreek on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:14:08 PM PDT

        •  Rome's fire departments were for profit

          and if you didn't pay for protection, your property would be set ablaze.
          Volunteerism is in and of itself a socialistic behavior.  I suggest you consult a dictionary yourself before accusing someone else of not knowing the definition of socialism.  Perhaps you have bought the American conventional wisdom that conflates socialism with communism

          by trashablanca on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:18:41 PM PDT

          •  Don't be giving the greedy Republicans

            any ideas, lest they start setting fire to our homes and businesses, as well. Give them a chance, they might do it.

            by shpilk on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:22:23 PM PDT

          •  not fair sir

            look at this thread.  Obama was called a socialist and the poster gets donuts.  Then someone says police, fire, etc are socialist and gets mojo.

            I do not need to consult a dictionary.  I know what the word means, and I know the deffinition can be elastic.  My point is people who would not call themselves "socialist" are serving as fireman and police.  In fact, those who are not volunteers are paid based on supply and demand.

            Let's not argue over this.  No national Democrat would call themselves a socialist.  Most self described socialists are in academia, there is a reason for this.

            And please do not blame me for conflating Socialism and Communism, since all self described Communist nations have never advanced from Socialism.

            Having said this, there are good socialist countries, such as Sweden, but that model would likely never work here.  

            by TurkeyCreek on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:36:50 PM PDT

          •  ha, you don't have to go back to Rome to

            show this, this happened in New York for many years.  This is mentioned in Gangs of New York.  Trust me, I don't want pay for play fire departments.  I just don't like the idea of calling firemen and cops socialist.  If that were true, why are soldiers not socialist?

            by TurkeyCreek on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:38:34 PM PDT

            •  Soldiers are the embodiment of socialism

              the protect the clan.  Of course, everybody does it and few are socialistic in reality, but the premise and means are socialistic.  You are conflating the practice of socialism to calling the participants socialists.  They are not interchangeable.

              by trashablanca on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:57:06 PM PDT

        •  Public education is socialism

          by shpilk on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:23:01 PM PDT

          •  in a broad sense yes. again, we both know

            there are broad deffinitions and acidic deffinitions.  let's not fight over it, we are on the same side :)

            by TurkeyCreek on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:39:26 PM PDT

    •  Obama is Market-Oriented

      Obama authored the largest Illinois tax cut in state history, and advocates middle-class tax cuts at the federal level.  He opposes Mandatory government health insurance (a Clinton staple).  There is nothing in his record that brands him a socialist, or a "tax and spend" liberal.  These are just epithets that morally bankrupt Republican spin-meisters will throw at him in the general election, but its clear that they will be debunked by the news media.  A Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, or John Kerry, you can legitimately say has shown demonstrable socialist leanings in the policies they've advocated; but that test fails to prove the same for Obama.

      McCain will fail to run to the "Right" of Obama, because there are many issues, such as subsidies to Big Oil, where real Conservatives just dont buy into the new corporate-statist 'party line'.  Special Interest Republicanism is NOT free-market Capitalism; its just another flavor of Socialism. The McCain campaign is run by corporate lobbyists, eager to help their clients feed at the federal trough.  Real Conservatives find this just as nauseating as anyone else here...

      by Press to Digitate on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:43:59 PM PDT

  •  Christie Whitman and Linc Chaffee

    were the last ones out, pretty much.

    by newdem1960 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:06:18 PM PDT

    •  both are still 'Republican', are they not?

      by shpilk on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:24:02 PM PDT

      •  In name only

        yes, but both have strongly blasted the existing party in writing.

        by newdem1960 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:39:25 PM PDT

•  Yes

  I'd go to the Repub party only if all dem's were retards....Ok, now I guess I can switch.

  by Samtron on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:45:09 PM PDT

•  If they supported the views of Goldwater

  stood by freedom, small government Constitutionalism and supported their positions with reasonable arguments.  The reality is we DO need checks and balances, even in the parties, if there where only one party, it would be impossible to always be in the right.

  I think both parties need a swift kick in the ass and need to start comming up with real solutions, not the same ol' weather worn tripe that comes out every single election cycle.

  by TurkeyCreek on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:51:55 PM PDT

  •  Amen, Brother!

    by Press to Digitate on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:47:09 PM PDT

•  easy .. one word

  Greed.

  by shpilk on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:53:47 PM PDT

  •  and I think your title was intended to be

    'Why haven't all the Republicans gone?'

    by shpilk on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:58:10 PM PDT

•  Party of Northern Liberals...

  In the day of Lincoln, the Republican Party was a bunch of Nothern Liberals and the Democrats were bigoted Southerners. 100 years later, LBJ passed the 1964 civil rights act. Boom! Now African Americans and Nothern Liberals are the Democratic party, while bigoted Southerners now control the Republican party.

  I'll continue to vote for the party that is largely controlled by Northern Liberals. If the parties trade places again, then I will vote for the Republicans.

  But barring that, I will NEVER vote for them.

  by Mikesco on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:06:52 PM PDT

  •  didn't Congress pass legislation? n/t

    by Abra Crabcakeya on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:09:29 PM PDT

•  The republican party became the corporatist

  party almost immediately after the Civil War. All the money was in the north. And the monied elite soon had control of the party. Its never changed since.

  by palantir on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:10:44 PM PDT

•  NOTA

  None of the Above.

  by barbybuddy on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:51:29 PM PDT

•  No choice for all of the above?

  by The Distillery on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:53:09 PM PDT