The Republican brain trust is gearing up for the 2012 Presidential election, stuffing their war chests and deploying an arsenal of dirty tricks. But they're having trouble finding a suitable presidential candidate. Why should we care?
Potentially strong "centrist" GOP candidates, such as Governors Haley Barbour and Mitch Daniels and former Governor Mike Huckabee, have opted out of the race. As a result, the remaining Republican presidential hopefuls can be divided into two groups: crazies and weenies.
Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann typifies the crazies. Bachmann, the leader of the "Tea Party" wing of the House Republicans, is a global climate change denier -- she's anti-science in general, and a skeptic that there will be serious consequences if the US fails to raise its debt limit. Besides Bachmann, the crazies group includes Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, and Sara Palin. In addition to being anti-government and anti-science, they toe the line on conservative Christian orthodoxy, declaring that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances and same-sex marriage should be prohibited. These candidates view the ideal US government as a free-market theocracy, where evangelical Christian orthodoxy guides personal conduct, and the vagaries of the marketplace determine national economic, energy, and environmental policy.
The second group of Republican candidates is best described as weenies, because, without exception, they've been forced to disavow previous positions -- rational policies -- in order to satisfy the crazy wing of their Party. A prime example is former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney who, in 2006, signed the Massachusetts Health Reform Law that provided near-universal healthcare for state residents. Nonetheless, confronted with adamant Republican opposition to "Obamacare," Romney has had to back away from his healthcare record. In addition, Romney was once pro-choice but switched to pro-life when it became axiomatic that Republican candidates adhere to socially conservative dogma.
A recent addition to the weenie crowd is former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich who criticized the portion of the House Republican budget -- the "Paul Ryan plan" -- that guts Medicare and was immediately forced to back off. Gingrich has changed his positions so often that vacillation has become his trademark.
The other major weenie candidate is former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. A Roman-Catholic convert to evangelical Christianity, Pawlenty toes the social conservative line on abortion and same-sex marriage. He's also adamantly anti-tax. So far he's been circumspect with regard to his support for the Ryan budget. Nonetheless, Pawlenty merits the weenie label because he's been forced to disavow his prior acknowledgment of the human contribution to global climate change and his support for a cap and trade system for regulating emissions.
The only other declared weenie candidate, John Huntsman, former Governor of Utah, has changed his position on Medicare to support the Paul Ryan plan.
When Republicans hold their Tampa, Florida, convention at the end of August 2012, they will nominate a member of either the crazy or weenie wing of their Party. At the moment, that's most likely to be Tim Pawlenty.
Even though this appears to be a weak set of GOP candidates, all sensible Americans should care about this situation, because the ultimate Republican candidate will have pledged allegiance to a series of ultra-conservative principles:
1. Not to raise taxes under any circumstances. Republicans want to maintain the status quo for corporations and wealthy individuals -- the Ryan budget actually lowers these taxes.
2. Severely limit the role of government. In particular, Republicans believe that government plays no role in job creation; they trust that the "free" market will create the jobs necessary for an equitable economy.
3. Support the Ryan Budget, passed April 15, that savages Medicare and Medicaid and repeals "Obamacare."
4. Support the Defense of Marriage Act and oppose same-sex marriage.
5. Promote the repeal of Roe v. Wade and nominate judges that will further this objective.
Saddled with these dogmas, the 2012 Republican nominee will be the most conservative presidential candidate in ninety years, pledged not only to repeal the legislation passed during the Obama era but also the New Deal. The Republican candidate will not only oppose women's access to reproductive health services but will also strive to roll back ninety years of progress for women. Since the Reagan era, Republican presidential candidates have gotten more and more reactionary. As a consequence, we're about to see the most conservative Republican candidate since Warren G. Harding.
The most recent Pew Research poll on political preference indicates that only 11 percent of voters are "staunch conservatives" who support the five ultra-conservative principles. (Another 14 percent are "main street Republicans," who would support most of the principles but likely not the Ryan budget.)
Somewhere between 75 and 89 percent of registered voters disagree with the core Republican principles. Nonetheless, the most extreme wing of the GOP is driving the Party. That's the Republican "problem.'
It's a problem for all Americans because it signifies that a tiny minority is having disproportionate influence on our political process.
Bill Schneider: The GOP 2012 Catch-22
I do still be believe in a real difference existing between the two parties; I just wish it was a bigger difference.
There is only one reason that the left is so feverishly obsessing on the Republican side of the 2012 election so far in advance. Doing so is a transparent political tactic.
The Social Democrat Party MUST, at all costs, distract themselves, their opposition, and the public from the absolute DISASTER that is the Obama administration.
They CANNOT let this election be about Obama and his Social Democrat party’s unremitting failures or they would lose the election to “none of the above”.
The left MUST distract from the unremitting unemployment, the non-recovering economy, the fact that Obama not only still has our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, but has started yet a third useless war and, most recently, been roundly rejected by Netanyahu over his insipid Middle East policy.
… and even these unforgivable failures pale in comparison to his foisting ObamaCare on an entirely unwilling public as the “capstone” of the left’s beloved Euro-social-democratic state.
The good news for America is that not even the thickest smokescreen of distracting blather would suffice to cover the shame that Obama and his rent seeking party have brought to the Whitehouse and our government.
The Tea Party is just the surface of the seething rage boiling in the electorate over the arrogance of the Obama/Raid/Pelosi Troika that has relentlessly sought to impose their misbegotten ideology upon all Americans against their explicit will.
how would rep. paul's positions pose a threat to "roll back ninety years of progress for women"? this appears to be nothing more than demagoguery. i do not see that democrats are tirelessly struggling to improve the lot of women in the united states.
perhaps you should become better informed on a candidate's positions rather than construct straw man arguments as a means to discredit the candidate. it may also benefit you to review one of the many freely available copies of the constitution, so that you may ask yourself why you believe adherence to this document and the principles it embodies to be reactionary.
Welcome to leftist politics.
aside from the adolescent ad hominem statements against him, you have completely misrepresented the positions of rep. ron paul. i have never encountered any statements he has made that may be construed as 'anti-science', and, given that he is a physician, i would be rather surprised if he did. he has also never made any statements declaring that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances or that same-sex marriage should be prohibited. he has stated that he is personally against abortion, but his position, as with that of same-sex marriage, is that it is a matter for the states to decide (in accordance with the 10th amendment and the ruling in Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services). as a self-described 'strict constitutionalist', rep. paul does not endorse any form of government in the united states even remotely resembling what you describe as being determined by evangelical christian orthodoxy.
as for the items you listed as being necessary commitments of the eventual republican nominee, rep. paul's position on each of them is:
1. he would be obligated not to raise taxes; however, he would also not maintain the status quo for corporations;
2. he supports this whole-heartedly, which is, in fact, responsible for much of his appeal;
3. he voted against the ryan budge;
4. he voted against doma;
5. he would take action to have this repealed [sic], consistent with his position on the topic as described above.
the government in the united states is, if not in practice, then in theory, bound by the constitution. it cannot be completely ignored simply because doing so is convenient, despite any arguments put forth concerning differences in the way people of the 18th century experienced reality. the very obvious fact that political, social, and economic circumstances change over time is accommodated by amending the constitution.
unless one is claiming that our form of government be completely abandoned or is ignorant of its framework, i see no compelling motivation for characterizing those who insist upon adherence to principles of its founding documents, principles that are just as appealing in this 'reality' as any other, as reactionary or threatening to our country.
Many of O's policies would have been deemed Republican during Reagan's time and some even more right-winged than even Ronnie himself would have proposed. Thus, if we're dealing with an essentially right-leaning President, what can the GOP do? Go further right of course - if only to be able to distance themselves from the moderate right which now passes for Democrats. So, the further right the better for them, it seems. No idea is too radical, no idea is too far-fetched. Hence the TP is a decider, shaker and mover where in better times they would only be considered the lunatic fringe...
The second worst influence on America is the exaggerated faith in religion and particulary the most bizarre and vicious forms of christianity which inspires the obsession with abortion and the hatred against women that is making them second class citizens. The third worst influence is the faith people have in extreme capitalism which has produced such monstrosities as the private for-profit health care system that puts profits over the health of the citizens and in fact only benefits a small number of insurance monopolies and is a major reason that is driving the incredible deficit.
Obamacare also creates the IAPB. What is the purpose of the IAPB? What does the IAPB do? Oh, not much just make decisions about what Obamacare will and will not pay for. How do you think seniors are going to fair under the IAPB?
There are plenty of strong and valid counter points to what has been put into place by Obama.
Also, people need to get over the whole "death panel" discussions. There always have and always will be a group that will determine what is an appropriate treatment for a patient. The only difference I see is whether that group is composed of people looking to make an extra dollar to pay investors or people that are actually looking to find the most appropriate and cost effective treatment...and there is a difference.