Saturday, April 01, 2006

For Those Who Think....

... National Review Online is nothing but a bunch of Hard Line Right-Wing Kooks who do nothing but tow the party line, here is an example of how that view of them, along other political outlets, either Republican or Democrat, is often short sighted.

Friday, March 31, 2006

REPULSIVE REPUBLICANS [Ramesh Ponnuru]

1) Republicans are preparing to bring the Federal Marriage Amendment to a vote. So I guess the plan from now on is to do this in all even-numbered years, and then throw the idea aside in odd-numbered ones? I know a lot of people support the FMA for principled reasons, but a decisive number of Republicans are clearly just picking on gays for political profit.

2) Republicans are leading a charge to subject "527 groups" to onerous regulations. A minority of them, again, have sincere and above-board reasons for doing this. Most of them just want to shut down groups that are trying to beat them in elections. For a majority to restrict the freedom of others to try to boot them out is pretty much a textbook definition of the abuse of power, isn't it?


Ramesh Ponnuru is a very conservative member of the NRO team, and I have disagreed with many of his political and philosophical positions. That being said, I think he hits the nail right on the head. This is another lame attempt by do-nothing Republican leaders to try and distract the base from their own shortcomings, much like the flag burning amendment was for the Newt crowd. The "FMA" again, when if failed so miserably the first time around. Problem with bringing this up again is, states are already passing state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage (boo), so why would you need to ban it federally, especially if you are supposed to be the party that favors states rights and small federal government? Restricting 527's will be seen as nothing more than another in a long line of actions aimed at trying to stifle competition and protect there incumbency, especially since their poll numbers continue to decline.

I have only remained registered as a republican because I think the best way to affect change in a party is to change from within, plus I like being the underdog out here in California. I had high hopes for both Bush and Arnold and both continue to disappoint greatly. Bush first ran on a platform which included overhauling baseline budget practices in congress, and Arnold on state spending reform. Each has completely abandoned these tenant's of fiscal responsibility, and are on track to ensure that taxes must be raised sharply in the future to pay for their financial callousness. The spending spree by both are completely reckless and stupid. These guys are running the government about as efficiently as GM has been running it's company. I'm tired of the excuse of the WOT to justify this financial binge.

OK. I'm done ranting. I just want to add that if the Republicans bring up either the FMA or more campaign spending restrictions, I will leave the party....

And no Scoot, I won't register as a Democrat. They have problems of their own, like being taken seriously on anything.

5 comments:

Scootmaroo said...

I would never ask you to be anything more than your lovely, bass playing, engine rebuilding,Oscar Wilde reading, Morrisey ticket holding, friend of Dorothy, libertarian self. (Sorry, I just watched CLUELESS again on a bus with a bunch of high schoolers coming back from New York.)

Sigh. A mention in your blog! I am all a twitter (NO, not a twit...a twitter!)

Citizen Deux said...

Settle down everyone, you're all pretty. Geez, after Scoot's lavish praise I really am feeling unworthy!

Sonic, great post! Problems with the GOP on the FMA - it's doomed to failure. In many ways we follow our old leader, the United Kingdom, on social issues. They have taken the mature societal step and recognized the virtue in sanctioning same-sex unions.

We will, I believe, follow suit in the near future. I do agree with you that the small government, low fiscal impact is a tenet that EVERYONE needs to embrace.

I left the republicans for the libertarians and then returned when the libs proved to be completely disconnected. WHat I would love to see is an Economic Technocracy party...

Scootmaroo said...

Is that anything like a techno house rave party?

sonicfrog said...

CD said:

WHat I would love to see is an Economic Technocracy party...

Well then, lets form one! The Penguin Party, named after Linux and and the Open Source Community, who have better solutions than the Big Government like entity Microsoft, and everyone works together for a common goal, with out the burden of profit to muck things up. Not that I'm against profit, mind you, I love it when a business is successful (including Wal-Mart), and I wish mine was more successful (I am a horrible business man, which is why I will be teaching soon - and tell the kids how to be better businessmen, er, people). But when dealing with government, it kinda mucks things up and gets in the way.

And yes CD. The British model is the best example of the proper role of government concerning this issue. The moment the churches decided it was OK to have non-religious ceremonies, i.e. state performed marriages by non-religious figures such as judges and captians, the church lost the exclusive licensing and authority to dictate what marriage should be.

Before I started blogging, I wrote an e-mail to my little bro, who is very liberal, that I was certain the FMA would fail and never get out of congress. After all, if you can't get an amendment passed prohibiting flag burning, then the certainly would not be able to get a discriminatory amendment through. And I was right (I love it when that happens).

PS. The Flag Burning one should rear its ugly head, it's been a couple of years, and the base needs an issue.

lloydletta said...

It was the principled opposition of conservatives - such as Chuck Muth - who articulated the state's rights case for opposing the FMA that made a difference with conservative republicans.