Are the Republicans still on their long walk in the woods to re-define themselves?

Great Debates
101

I am surprised that I even need to point out the obvious. Under the Bush administration:
Federal spending on education increased.
The Minimum Wage was increased
Bush allied with Ted Kennedy for a guest-worker program.
Bush has allowed illegal immigration to continue unabated.
Bush expanded Medicare to include prescription drug coverage.
The Bush administration provided additional funding for clinics that serve the urban and rural poor.
The Bush administration has sent more foreign aid to Africa than any previous president.
Bush started a globalist designed war under false pretexts, and used it as a mission for nation building and the spreading of democracy.

If by Bosnia, you are referring to allegations of ethnic cleansing, actual ethnic cleansing has been as elusive as Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, and as for Gulf War I, there was a lie of omission. Saddam Hussein was provoked by Kuwait tapping into Iraq’s oil fields, and was given a green light by UN Ambasador April Glaspie.

102

NCLB was not a good thing.

I think that’s more a case of “not being able to agree on what to do” than “not wanting to do anything”.

So?

How the fuck is that policy characteristic of the left?

That was McCain, and it didn’t work anyway.

That was passed by Democrats, with pretty much all the Republicans dragged along kicking and screaming.

103

(sorry I only read page one so far.)

I don’t think the R party is going to really redefine itself. I think it is more likely that the population will redefine its positions again before the people in power will change. For the party to become something new, it will require enough time for all of the incumbents to grow old and die off. And even then its only a chance. Crowds are more flexible than individuals. Tax cuts, Jesus, Guns, Blowin’ up Evil-doers … these are popular ideas that are not going anywhere. People have had an overload for now, but they’ll come back to them. The Rs don’t need a walk in the woods. They just need to be patient until people get riled up again. Don’t forget that something like 46% of voters still wanted more of the same.

More critical than anything the Rs do, is how the Ds perform now that they’ve got the ball.

104

I understand the woods are pretty this time of year.

105

Both of these are untrue either in part or in whole. There is no proof that Kuwait stole any Iraqi oil, and Glaspie’s report is certainly not clearly supportive of Hussein. And by Bosnia, I am simply referring to the conflict which took place there, and there is ample evidence that international crimes were committed in the course of that war.

106

Some of them are not only still wandering in the woods, but appear to have fallen into a crevasse.

As of last Friday, the National Republican Congressional Committee’s website included the following:

“Thanks to Republican economic policies, the U.S. economy is robust and job creation is strong.”

“Republican tax cuts are creating jobs and continuing to strengthen the economy.”

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/1/23/152039/669/351/688176

I always said that I was appreciating the Thelma and Louise job that Bush and Cheney were doing with the Republican party, but I’m still surprised at those on this board and elsewhere running behind the Thunderbird and shouting “Wait for me!”

107

Are there pumas in the crevasses?

Please let there be pumas in the crevasses.

108

Still there today:
http://www.nrcc.org/issues/default.asp?ID=47
along with a pitch for their “take back the majority” campaign.

The RNC, over at GOP.com shows similar evidence of shell shock with their all W and Laura 2009 Official RNC Calendar.

109

It amazes me that people continue to say this.

The reasons behind the first Gulf War are many if you want to go deep enough, but the fundamental reason was that Iraq was going broke because of its colossal war debt racked up during the Iran-Iraq War. Kuwait held a huge amount of that debt - at least $30 billion in 1990 dollars - and was not willing to forgive or substantially restructure it. One final offer waas to forgive $500,000, which strikes me as being the diplomatic equivalent of “Fuck you.” Annexing Kuwait would have instantly wiped out much of that crushing debt load. “Slant drilling” was for the most part a post-hoc excuse.

It’s also false to suggest April Glaspie, of the USA, intentionally suggested to Iraq that they’d be okay with an invasion. The USA’s handling of the situation was to a large part dictated by the Kuwaitis, who kept warning the USA away from any sort of provocative language or action, and Hussein flatly told Glaspie at their last meeting that the issue had been resolved to his satisfaction. Both Iraq and Kuwait were not fully open with the USA about how belligerent the relationship had actually gotten.

110

Your first point is well taken. My comments about McCain and Palin weren’t intended to fix anything, however, but rather were part of an overall description of all that Republicans had going against them this time, and that despite all that they did have going against them, Obama still won by only eight points. Thus it’s my contention that Obama’s election doesn’t mean that the country has suddenly and wholeheartedly embraced the ideology of liberalism, such as certain posters to this thread were gloating over at the time.

111

And if those things hadn’t happened, would the GOP be stronger somehow?

That’s trying to have it both ways. Bush tried to come up with a fix, it was the nativists who refused to compromise. Certainly the mainstream of the conservative GOP has traditionally been for more open borders, as were W Bush & Karl Rove. The nativists torpedoed constructive discussion.

And if those things hadn’t happened, would the GOP be stronger somehow?

Points. But I don’t think sending aid to Africa is a reason for the country to reject the GOP.

And I do think there are a lot of us, former “swing voters” & former Republicans, who have rejected the GOP–not just Bush.

So all those persons convicted in the Hague, what? They were convicted for stealing lollipops? Now you’re just speaking untruths!

112

If the “left” agrees with those things it is pure coincidence. Bush held his immigration policies for the benefit of corporations that want cheap labor.

113

Yes, lovely, dark, and deep. But politicians have promises to keep.

114

What corporations want illegal labor? Aren’t most illegals employed in relatively minor service businesses like lawn care and landscaping , housework (mainly for politicians, it would seem :D), roofing, restaurants, etc.?

I’m not aware of large numbers of illegals working for IBM, GM, Intel, etc.

115

There’s this thing called “food.”

116

Are you aware of any large corporate food producers who employ large numbers of illegals, and which are large enough and influential enough to cause the president of the United States to decide to adopt a policy of virtually ignoring immigration laws so as to pander to them, despite the fallout, politically and legally, that would result from such a decision?

117

WalMart had a bunch - or its contractors did, but clearly the store managers paid no attention.

Intel is pushing an increase in H1B visas, which is the immigration they like. I see Indian companies who bring over people to write software in the US still whining about the need to raise the H1B cap; I wonder if American companies have the chutzbah to keep at this whine.

ETA: To be fair, I don’t think this had anything to do with Bush’s position, and I think he was on the side of the angels for this one. Maybe his grasp of the reality of the situation came from being governor of Texas. Too bad he couldn’t bring his party along.

118

“Even the feds aren’t crazy enough to shut down 45 percent of the nation’s beef supply.”

119

A comment made by a stock analyst. :rolleyes:

From your cite:

“During the raids investigators found evidence of ``substantial’’ identity theft involving a crime ring that produced fake documents including birth certificates and Social Security numbers, Julie Myers, chief of Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, told reporters on a conference call.”

Wouldn’t this indicate that the illegals themselves were misrepresenting their status themselves and not that these companies were hiring them knowing all the while that they were illegal?

Or is it your contention that the crime ring Myers refers to was operated by Swift?

After all, even your cite states that the authorities were only investigating the possible hirings of illegals, not that the meat plants themselves were complicit in the manufacture of their illegal documentation.

And then we have the following:

*“Swift & Co., the third-largest U.S. beef producer, said operations at six of its meatpacking plants were suspended after federal agents raided the facilities in an investigation into possible hiring of illegal aliens.” *

“During the raids investigators found evidence of ``substantial’’ identity theft involving a crime ring that produced fake documents including birth certificates and Social Security numbers, Julie Myers, chief of Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, told reporters on a conference call.”

“Hundreds’’ of arrests for violations of immigration laws and existing criminal warrants are expected, Myers said.”

*“More than 1,000 agents took part in the raids, the department said.” *

Etc., etc., etc.

So it doesn’t look like Bush was doing a very good job of reining in his henchmen, given that he was so pro-corporation and pro-illegal hiring, does it?

And doesn’t the fact that Tyson, the nation’s largest U.S. meat producer, has been spending money and lobbying for years (according to your own cite) for a “guest worker” program and “a process to allow illegals to gain legal status” fly in the face of BrainGlutton’s assertion that Bush favors corporations in the hiring of illegals for cheap labor? Why would Tyson find it necessary to lobby so hard and spend so much money in order to try to make these workers legal if Bush was already in favor of their being hired illegally for “cheap” pay?

It just doesn’t add up. One the one hand we’ve got BrainGlutton claiming Bush maintained a hands-off policy regarding illegal immigration so as to allow corporations to hire cheap labor, and on the other we’ve got those self same corporations hiring illegals by virtue of having been presented false credentials (you’ll note that it wasn’t claimed that Swift was producing these documents, now were they charged with doing so), and spending money to lobby for legislation to allow the hiring of these people as legal immigrants who would presumably fall under the same minimum wage and other laws regarding employee compensation as would anybody else.

So, given that these meat packing firms are spending money in order to hire people whose labor would presumably cost them the same as for anyone else, the claim that Bush is allowing illegal immigration in order to favor American corporations doesn’t seem to have much substance.

120

I think your comments about them were inaccurate. The GOP chose McCain and Palin got no more character assignation than Obama received during the campaign. He survived and rose above his. She did not.

That aside. I agree with you in part. I know plenty of good conservatives who would support someone who touted conservative principles **and ** presented themselves in a sincere, intelligent, problem solver.

That calls for some honest talk. The country is in serious trouble so empty political rhetoric and jockeying for position will turn voters off. McCain tried to win with the same ole strategy treating the public like morons who are easily manipulated. Sadly, some still are, but the votes show their numbers are dwindling