The Grand Old Party Trashes Itself.

Wikipedia. “Conservatism in the United States comprises a constellation of political ideologies including fiscal conservatism, free market or economic liberalism, social conservatism,[11] bioconservatism and religious conservatism,[12] as well as support for a strong military,” Definition suggested and approved by a Republican.

“The Grand Old Party trashed by their own success and greed.”
By Paschal Baute

For the last forty years, we have had 28 years of Republican presidents, seven out of ten elections won by the GOP.

What do we have from the party proclaiming itseflf the superior moral political party, of small government, fiscal responsibility, personal accountability, states rights, strong military with social and religious conservatism?

In brief, we have as much rule-breaking as possible and the tragic over-reaching of government in ways too numerous to summarize. An incredible law-breaking culture orgiinating in the Oval Office itself,

We have the largest deficit in history, gas prices out of control. a struggling economy, government secrecy, widespread cronyism, corporate welfare (billion $ bailouts for bankers) secret torture, government spying, an exhausted military with abysmal care for wounded veterans, and arguably the greatest strategic blunder of our times in a costly war of choice which we will be cost billions more and much human harm. Not to mention such immorality in high places that resignations have been rampant. Not to mention our broken borders.

This paragraph list hardly begins the story. There is also criminal breaking of laws, extensively, from the Oval Office. The dastardly uncovering of an American spy to punish a man who challenged their war propaganda, to name only one other. The unlawful and immoral invasion of Irag is, IMO, is the most wrongly conceived strategic error of our history, with consequences in blood, oil, money and terrorism fueled that will go on for decades.

The Grand Old Party said “Let us show you how it should be done!” So we ask what has the 7 ½ years of George W. Bush, the first MBA to occupy the White House, brought to our country?

Can you, can anyone trust another Republican, even though he may be a “maverick?” What is the evidence that he will not consider the rich, the lobbyists and corporate America as his true base, that he will not use religion to divide the country and pander to religious prejudice? They have had 28 years of the last 40 and all of the last seven years.

For six solid years, Republicans had both the White House, the Senate, the House, the Cabinet, the CIA and the Justice Department, all in their control. If you want to measure what they brought us, look around.

Paschal Baute
Lexington, Ky
June 28, 2008.

P.S. I am in the process of reviewing a book: Liberal Fascism. by Jonah Goldberg. The dishonesty of the author in not being upfront with his own bias and personal context, and his failure to define his terms, make this an absurd ideological smokescreen to cover up the abject failure of the Republican Brand of conservatism in national politics to do any of what it proposes. Published in 2007, when all the above trends were evident, it is simply a concealment of the total failure of conservative politics.

Accordiijg to a most recent poll, registered Repuglicana are now down to 26% and it appears that the other party may be headed for a blood letting victory this fall. Which, if true, may be sufficient irony and even retributive justice, but, IMO, not good for the country. "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely," as is repeatedly evident in the history of the church of my birth, the Roman Catholic church and its own unparalleled CULT of leadership.

Comments welcomed

The Grand Old Party Trashes Itself.

Wikipedia. “Conservatism in the United States comprises a constellation of political ideologies including fiscal conservatism, free market or economic liberalism, social conservatism,[11] bioconservatism and religious conservatism,[12] as well as support for a strong military,”

“Grand Old Party trashed by their own success and greed.”

For the last forty years, we have had 28 years of Republican presidents, seven out of ten elections won by GOP. What do we have from the party proclaiming small government, fiscal responsibility, states rights, strong military with social and religious conservatism?

We have the largest deficit in history, gas prices out of control. a struggling economy, government secrecy, widespread cronyism, corporate welfare (billion $ bailouts for bankers) secret torture, government spying, an exhausted military with abysmal care for wounded veterans, and arguably the greatest strategic blunder of our times in a costly war of choice which we will be cost billions more and much human harm. and has not made us any safer. Not to mention such immorality in high places that GOP resignations have been rampant. Not to mention our broken borders.

The Grand Old Party said “Let us show you how it should be done!” So we ask what has the 7 ½ years of George W. Bush, the first MBA to occupy the White House, brought to our country?

Can you, will you trust another Republican, even though he may be a “maverick?” What is the evidence that he will not consider the rich, the lobbyists and corporate America as his true base, that he will not use religion to divide the country and pander to religious prejudice? They have had 28 years of the last 40 and all of the last seven years.

For six solid years, Republicans had the White House, the Senate, the House, the Cabinet, the CIA and the Justice Department, all in their control. If you want to measure what they brought us, look around.

Paschal Baute
Lexington, Ky
June 28, 2008.

PS. I am in the process of reviewing a book: Liberal Fascism. by Jonah Goldberg. The dishonesty of the author in not being upfront with his own bias and personal context, and his failure to define his terms, make this an absurd ideological smokescreen to cover up the abject failure of the Republican Brand of conservatism in national politics to do any of what it proposes. Published in 2007, when all the above trends were evident, it is simply a concealment of the total failure of conservative politics.

Swiftboating of Kerry: the Bullshit some bought, comes to roost.

It is a lesson in just how persistent and irritating smear campaigns can be. Nearly four years after the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth trotted out a series of outrageous accusations about John Kerry's war record, the issue is still being litigated within the halls of politics. Only this time, it is the accusers who are on the defensive.

On Thursday, ten veterans who witnessed or served with John Kerry in Vietnam penned a lengthy letter to T. Boone Pickens - the Texas oil tycoon and major SBVT financier - taking him up on his challenge to prove false one element of that group's attacks from the 2004 campaign.

"Dear Mr. Pickens," the letter (pdf) begins, "We are the crew and individual servicemen who served on or with Patrol Craft Fast 94 in Vietnam in early 1969... Regrettably the lies of the SBVT, which you helped bankroll and apparently still defend, tarnished the sacrifices we made, called into question the medals we were awarded and challenged the very authenticity of our service... We have children and families who were deeply affected by these lies and we believe you and the SBVT whom you supported owe us and the American people an apology for the tactics you bankrolled.

"We are aware of media reports that at a dinner in Washington D.C. on November 6th, 2007, you made a public challenge that you would give a million dollars to anyone who could show that anything the SBVT said was false. We also know that Senator John Kerry, who was the skipper of the PCF-94, contacted you to take you up on that challenge. We are writing to you now as a group to accept your challenge and document how you funded lies and character assassination."

What follows, aides to Kerry say, is one of the most comprehensive conglomerations of evidence disputing the SBVT attacks. Taking on the argument that, somehow, Kerry didn't deserve his Silver Star, the signatories dispute ten "falsehoods," including the claim that Kerry chased and killed a "young Viet Cong in loincloth" (it was an actually a "man of normal military age" carrying a B-40 rocket); that he only was in combat with this one individual (there were "multiple VC scrambling to get away"); and that Kerry made a tactical error in captaining his boat that day ("there was no 'plan' to charge the bank"). The letter concludes with perhaps the most poignant and currently relevant point.

"Finally, the continued insistence that Kerry has not released his full military record is refuted by the Navy, which has publicly certified he has, and by three newspapers which have independently received signed releases and reviewed those records."

Indeed, it is important to remember that in 2004, Kerry posted military records on his campaign's website and allowed selected reporters access to his military medical records. After the campaign, he signed a 180 waiver, authorizing the release of his complete file to three publications.

At the time, the SBVT claimed they couldn't trust that this was the entire cache. No such protests were aired about President Bush's refusal to overturn Vietnam related documents. Currently, Sen. John McCain has released 19 pages of his Nave file to the Associated Press. But, as documented by Jeffrey Klein, there could be upwards of 600 pages that have not been made public.

What kind of response Kerry's Vietnam contemporaries receive from Pickens remains to be seen. The Texan, who supports McCain, said in November that he would give $1 million to anyone who could disprove a single one of the allegations made by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Kerry took him up on the challenge, promising to donate the proceeds to the Paralyzed Veterans of America. Pickens then reneged, saying he would need to see combat films, additional military records and wartime journal. The current letter contains a 40-plus-page file of such evidence (sans combat films).

That Kerry and his allies are fighting back with such vigor four years after the fact may seem bittersweet for Democrats. Pickens, after all, does not seem poised to play as influential a role in this campaign as he did in 2004, when he invested $3 million into the SBVT ads. The outfit he was connected to this go-around - Freedom's Watch - has so far been hampered by financial problems. Meanwhile, his spokesman Jay Rosser, recently told Politico: "He is not giving anything to 527s involved in the presidential race this cycle, and has communicated that...to Republican strategists and operatives."

But for the Vietnam Vets, the SBVT attacks were not strictly political. And setting the record straight, even if Pickens is not, currently, a political lightening rod, is worth doing even four years after the 2004 election.

For them, they've wanted to clear the record for years. And have looked for every opportunity to do that," said Kerry aide David Wade. 'For some of these guys whose lives are not politics it has had a profound impact. When they saw the Pickens explanation in November they were pretty stunned by that... the crew said let us have a shot."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/20/kerrys-vietnam-allies-go_n_108286.html

Evangelicals worried about Obama

"With clients like Focus on the Family, Franklin Graham, and Campus Crusade for Christ, Mark DeMoss may be the most prominent public relations executive in the evangelical world. A former chief of staff to Jerry Falwell, DeMoss became then-presidential candidate Mitt Romney's chief liaison to evangelical leaders."

In a new interview with Dan Gilgoff for BeliefNet's God-o-Meter, DeMoss explains the lack of religious enthusiasm for McCain and predicts a potential major shift to Obama.

How is John McCain doing among evangelicals, a crucial Republican constituency?

The evangelical world or the conservative religious world is not his natural habitat, so he doesn't strike me as being all that comfortable with it. I think that's evidenced by the strong comments made in 2000 about Falwell and Robertson. ...

You represent some of the nation's most powerful evangelicals. What do those leaders say about McCain?

This is one guy's perspective, but I am surprised by how little I've seen or read in conservative circles about McCain since February. I don't think I've gotten one email or letter or phone call from anybody in America in the last four months saying anything about this election or urging that we unite behind John McCain and put aside whatever differences we have. Back in the fall and winter, you'd get several things a day from conservatives saying, "The future of the Supreme Court is at stake. We have to stop Hillary Clinton. Get behind so and so--or don't' go with this guy." It's just very quiet. It could meant there's a real sense of apathy or it could mean they're' waiting for the general election to begin. But it's a surprise, given the way email networks work now.

Barack Obama is trying hard to win evangelical voters. Does that effort stand a chance?

If one third of white evangelicals voted for Bill Clinton the second time, at the height of Monica Lewinsky mess--that's a statistic I didn't believe at first but I double and triple checked it--I would not be surprised if that many or more voted for Barack Obama in this election. You're seeing some movement among evangelicals as the term [evangelical] has become more pejorative. There's a reaction among some evangelicals to swing out to the left in an effort to prove that evangelicals are really not that right wing. There's some concern that maybe Republicans haven't done that well. And there's this fascination with Barack Obama. So I will not be surprised if he gets one third of the evangelical vote. I wouldn't be surprised if it was 40-percent.

Read the full interview here.