What is it, exactly, that the Republican Party stands for? They have a PR rep for being strong on the military, strong on fiscal discipline and strong on traditional values. The problem is that over the last couple of years we have seen that, as a group, they really don’t have any credibility on any of these issues.
The idea that a part who is calling for 700 billion in tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, money that will have to be borrowed, while at the same time braying about the size of the deficit is not one that can truly be credible on the issue of financing the government. The tax breaks they are ready to defend, at the cost of raising the taxes on the middle class in the middle of the worst economic climate in more than two generations. Not a single Republican would answer what they would cut to pay for this windfall for the ultra wealthy prior to the election or even now.
"Originally posted at Squarestate.net"
The utility of tax cuts for the wealthy has been discredited too. The wealthy might use the extra money, but they won’t use it in ways that fuel the economy. If they buy art or gold plate their toilets that is money which does not return to work in the economy. Sure some goes to the auction house and the gold plate company, but once the rich have this item, it just sits there, unproductive.
If being strong on values is to be accepted then you really have to walk the talk. Yet time and again and again we see so-called "Family Values" Republicans caught in affairs or in a wide stance in a public bathroom or being outted for patronizing prostitutes. That is before we look at the numbers of high ranking Republicans who have been divorced multiple times, often leaving wives for younger women.
They have made a real fetish of standing with the military in the past decade. The war and patriotism bandwagon was one that Republicans climbed on early and with a will. They used it to question the patriotism of those who apposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even going as far as to ask "Why do Democrats hate our troops?"
I have always believed that it is a very dangerous thing for the civilian authorities to say that they would "listen to the Generals" and basically do whatever they said. One of the things that distinguish a functional democracy from a non-functional one is civilian control of the military. Putting the onus on General Petraeus and using him as a prop to push their favored policy was a big step on a slippery slope.
Now it seems Republicans can not even hold on to this, perhaps the last of their credible issues. The fight between the Military and the Republicans is growing. Back when he had some integrity Sen. McCain said that if the heads of the military came to him and said that DADT was not needed he’d vote to end it. Now that this has occurred the Senior Senator (so very, very senior) from Arizona is doing all he can to prevent the very vote he said he would cast. He is not the only Republican who is failing to do as they insisted we all do for the last decade and listen to the Generals.
Another area where Republicans are at cross purposes with the military leadership is in weapons systems. Take the F-22 Raptor fighter. There is no doubt that in air to air combat this plane is superior to everything else that flies. However it is massively expensive to operate. For every hour of flight time the F-22 requires 40 hours of maintenance. It also has a little problem with, well, rain. Rain scores up the anti-radar coating of the plane and this is a big part of why it requires so much maintenance.
Beyond that, it is not needed. Our next best fighter, the F-18 is better than every other fighter in the world, except the F-22. The F-35 will be just as good as the F-18 but with better avionics and engines. There is no need for a 120 million per copy fighter that needs a weeks worth of maintenance if it flies through a rain storm.
Yet Republicans in Congress are trying to keep this plane in production. The way the factories which produce the parts for this plane were situated it covers lots and lots of Congressional districts. It was purposely done to make this program "uncancellable" and at least that part of the program is working. Republican Rep. Phil Gingrey is fighting tooth and nail to keep a program the Pentagon does not want or need.
We even see the Republican failure to heed the ideas of the military in the dust up about the New Start Treaty. From Saturday’s WaPo:
An unusual split has opened between conservative Republicans and the American military leadership over the U.S.-Russia nuclear treaty, with current and former generals urging swift passage but politicians expressing far more skepticism.
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has called the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) "essential to our future security." Retired generals have been so concerned about getting it ratified that some have traveled around the country promoting it.
Seven of eight former commanders of U.S. nuclear forces have urged the Senate to approve the treaty.
But five Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said in a recent report that New START was "a bad deal." They added that U.S. military leaders had made assumptions about the pact - including that Russia will honor it - that are "optimistic in the extreme."
I don’t think this is an unusual split, given the other examples above. This seems to be the Republican SOP these days. They are not operating on advice from people who are expert in their fields. Whether it is economic policy, foreign policy, civil rights or even basic decency it the Republican Party has come loose from its moorings to reality. This is very dangerous for a nation which has only two major parties that basically get all the elected offices. To have a group which will not even make an attempt to be consistent, which will cast aside its long held positions for temporary political gain is the very definition of craven politics.
The contrarian part of me is a little glad to see the Republicans breaking with their self proclaimed solidarity with the military leadership. It is always a good thing for the civilian leadership to make up their own mind. The problem is that what they are pursing is not in the best interest of the nation, merely in what they perceive their political interest to be.
This is a point that should be made over and over and over. Republicans don’t stand for anything. All of their talk is just that, talk, said one minute and forgotten the next if there is a chance it will hurt a Democratic President or advance the career of a Republican. Yet for all that they are constantly brought on TV as if they had something worth listening to.
There may be discontent with the way the country is being governed by the Democrats and President Obama, but at least they are working towards what they said they would. Having no discipline and a big tent they tend to make a hash of it, but they are walking the path they said they would. Not so much with Republicans.
Is it too soon to say that everything Republicans say is a lie, including "and’, "but" and "the"?
The floor is yours.
UPDATE:
It looks as though we have some conservatives reading here today, I just got this little piece of hate mail that I thought I'd share:
Dumbass they aren't tax cuts for the rich-what we are avoiding is tax increases. Do you know what "static analysis" is? It is why every claim about budgets and taxes made by any democrat is a lie. "It will cost $700 billion that we will have to borrow"..Uh, no-it will lead to an increase in taxes paid as that money is put to work. It is not a "tax cut" dumbass it is the opposite-WE ARE NOT GOING TO RAISE TAXES TO GET MORE BILLIONS FOR WASHINGTON TO FLUSH...
That's the whole thing. Does it make any more sense to ya'll than it did to me?
It is a pretty good example of the lack of facts that the Right lives within.