GOP Presidential Debate

[MooseMom]

Cain wasn't able.

Oh, I suspect he WAS able, and that's what got him into trouble.

[Hemodoc]

Geez, are there any conservatives on IHD?

[MooseMom]

Geez, are there any conservatives on IHD?

Depends on exactly how you define the term...  I am not entirely sure what it means anymore.  Can you define it?

[Willis]

Geez, are there any conservatives on IHD?

At least two. 

 

[Hemodoc]

It's our mutual Army training. We have obviously been brainwashed. LOL

[MooseMom]

Well, then would the two of you define "conservatism" to me?  The general consensus is that the Republican party, which I assume to be the bastion of conservatism in the United States today, is veering ever more to the right.  But "general consensus" isn't always accurate, so would you say this is a true assessment?  When I see someone like Sarah Palin telling us that she knows who the "real" Americans are, I don't know if this means that "conservatives" also are privvy to this exclusive knowledge.  Is Sarah Palin a "conservative"?

What is it, exactly, that you are looking to conserve?

I've watched all of the GOP debates, and I am left astounded by the shallowness of so many of the candidates who have at one time or another been catapulted to the top of the polls.  Trump?  Palin?  Cain?  Perry?  Really?  Really?  I have listened very carefully to all of these people, including Romney, because I honestly want to hear what they have to say (otherwise I wouldn't subject myself to those debates), and whenever any of the candidates get a question they are loathe to answer, they immediately fall back to the default setting and rail against President Obama, calling him "anti-American" and "anti-business."  They are like parrots, and I want to hear something MORE from them.

Santorum is a bit fixated on "the family", and somehow "the family" is the answer to all of our prayers.  If you really want to support "the family", you don't eliminate funding for education, and you make sure that everyone in the family has access to good food, clean air and affordable health care, but those things don't seem to be on the Republican agenda.  So I would very much like to hear from Mr. Santorum on just how he is going to strengthen "the family".

I still wish that Governor Huntsman had more airtime, and I will be there front and center to see his debate with Speaker Gingrich.  Speaker Gingrich lacks integrity and has too many personality flaws to be President.  He is too combustible for my personal taste, and the very idea that he would pal up to someone like Donald Trump is revolting.  Why has the Republican party nominated Donald Trump to be their de-facto "presidential endorser."  Donald Trump?  What's going on?  What is it about Donald Trump, Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain that embodies conservative values?  I guess I just don't know what "conservative values" are, anymore.  I'm certainly willing and eager to listen.

[Gerald Lively]

If we gaze at the earliest settlers in the colonies on our east coast, we can see why we need “government”.  The idea of government is an exercise in teamwork based on the concept that a group of people can produce more than the same number of individuals working separately. This was essential for survival.

Lincoln rekindled this idea in his Gettysburg Address by defining a “government of the people, by the people and for the people.”

Our government no longer defines itself in these terms.  A politician I know told me once, that once he was elected his first priority was to get re-elected.  That has become the norm, the standard and now we see politicians marching in lock-step in Congress, and nowhere do the best interests of the people enter into this contemporary equation.  And where has this brought us:
-   Government shutdowns and the threat of.
-   Pre-emptive war.
-   Rampant ethics violations in the name of campaign contributions and other.
-   Foreign aid as an international bribe rather than actual aid.
-   Disregard for those dependent on Social Security and Medicare/the elimination of a safety net.
-   Anti-intellectualism.
-   Then there is Universal Healthcare, an idea that draws buzzwords such as socialized medicine and prompts people to shout “Let him die” during a discussion of a hypothetical man without any healthcare.

I ask myself, what happened to America since Eisenhower warned us of the “military  industrial complex”.  Who is a candidate for President that speaks to these issues?
 

[glitter]

Geez, are there any conservatives on IHD?

I'm here 

[Gerald Lively]

When the House GOP’s enormous freshman class arrived on Capitol Hill in January, it wasn’t uncommon to hear them sound off on the mistakes their predecessors made in 1995. Despite having shut down the government — twice!
— House Republicans under Newt Gingrich had caved too easily, didn’t push hard enough, didn’t embody the true spirit of conservatism.

But the new House leadership wasn’t so sanguine. Many had lived through the Gingrich revolution and its aftermath. Others had been around long enough to hear tales of it. And so they mapped out a strategy specifically designed to avoid what they believe were the party’s ’90s-era mistakes.

In other words, the two factions — the newly energized backbenchers and the veteran leadership — were pulling each other in opposite directions. The tug of war left the House GOP’s strategic center of gravity stuck in an unstable position. The party was committed to fighting as hard as possible, but stopping short of its most conservative members’ slash and burn instincts.

The 2011 version of the House GOP, in not always easy coordination with Senate Republicans, would approve must-pass bills, but only after dragging negotiations down to the wire and extracting as many concessions as possible from Senate Dems and the White House each time. We saw that strategy play out over and over again this year, with mixed results for both parties and largely poor results for the country at large.

Here’s a quick lookback at a year of living dangerously — and the series of recurring crises that it produced.

APRIL: Government Shutdown

This fight set the tone for the remainder of the year. At the tail end of the last Congress, Republicans blocked a bipartisan effort to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year in September 2011. They’d made big gains and wanted an early bite at the apple in the new Congress. With government funding set to expire, House Republicans sought to make good on their pledge to cut $100 billion from domestic federal programs right away.
In addition, they sought to attack the Obama administration’s power to govern from the executive branch with scores of legislative riders meant to limit access to women’s health centers, weaken environmental regulations and so on. The administration and Senate Dems sought to limit the damage — but it wasn’t easy. In negotiations that lasted until minutes before the government shutdown, Republicans locked in billions of dollars in budget cuts, and even a few riders, including one that reinstated a ban preventing the District of Columbia from spending local tax dollars on abortion services.

AUGUST: Debt Limit

This is where House Republicans overplayed their hand — but also made, from a conservative point of view, the most substantive gains. Republicans held the country’s borrowing authority hostage. They implicitly threatened to let the country default on its debt obligations unless Democrats agreed to massive cuts to federal programs over the course of a decade. For a time, the White House genuinely saw this as an opening to strike a fiscal “grand bargain” with House Speaker John Boehner. But in an early indication of the limited room Boehner’s conference would give him to deal, those negotiations fell apart over the GOP’s reluctance to increase taxes on the wealthy. So Democrats reverted again to a “contain the damage” strategy. The damage was pretty severe: $1 trillion in cuts to defense and domestic discretionary spending over the next year, enforced through statutory budget caps; a downgrade to the country’s AAA rating by Standard & Poor’s; and, because the Super Committee the debt deal created would ultimately fail, the prospect of another $1.2 trillion in across the board cuts to national security programs, Medicare providers, and other parts of the budget, which are set to kick in on January 1, 2013, unless Congress finds savings elsewhere.

The good news for now is that the budget cuts are somewhat backloaded and won’t become too severe until later in 2012 and 2013. In the meantime, the country’s fiscal fate — whether we’re on a bumpy path toward unwinding the New Deal or toward shoring it up — now hinges on the outcome of the 2012 elections. If a Republican beats President Obama, the GOP will continue to put the squeeze on government revenue and pursue a course of swapping out the automatic defense and Medicare provider cuts with cuts to other key support programs.

SEPTEMBER: Disaster Relief

The debt limit fight was a political disaster, and an embarrassment for Dems who found themselves outmaneuvered throughout. But it also marked the point at which they adopted a new, more confrontational strategy with the GOP.
That manifested itself in a small skirmish over funding the government in the new fiscal year that began in October. Republicans attempted to use the expiration of government funds at the end of the fiscal year as leverage to force Democrats to offset the cost of federal disaster relief with cuts to a successful hybrid vehicle incentive program. Indeed, House Republicans they tried to jam Senate Dems and skip town. In the end, Democrats refused to budge, FEMA managed to squeak by with the disaster relief funds it had, and a shutdown was again averted.


NOVEMBER: Super Committee

The debt limit fight led to the creation of the Super Committee, and a whole new fight over reducing federal deficits. But this fight was completely different. With the threat of a debt default off the table, Democrats drew a
line: no cuts to entitlement benefits until Republicans agreed to break the stranglehold anti-tax conservatives have on their party. That break never really happened, and so the 12-member panel failed. As a result, major across the board cuts to defense, Medicare providers and other programs are set to kick in on January 1, 2013, unless Congress comes up with something better. That’s why the coming year and the presidential election are so high-stakes. They’re all about the nation’s priorities.

DECEMBER: Payroll Tax Cut

The GOP strategy of pushing negotiations to the brink of crisis finally caught up with them in the fight over extending the payroll tax cut, giving Democrats their most decisive victory of the year. Not only did Dems manage to turn the Republicans’ reluctance to renew the 2011 payroll tax cut into a huge political liability, they reset the consensus entirely. And in the process they left the House GOP conference — and the relationship between House and Senate Republicans — in shambles. In the end, Congress renewed the payroll tax cut for two months, and both parties have committed to extending it through the end of 2012. But Republicans will have to do so on Democrats’
terms. If they learned nothing from the last month, and try to pick another fight over payfors and unrelated riders, they risk a much more severe political embarrassment in the middle of primary season and, many observers have speculated, losing control of the House in 2013.

[Gerald Lively]

Although the campaign hasn't really begun, the GOP has shown it's cards.  I like to think I have an open mind about the issues and that means I am looking to the candidates for solutions.  Quite frankly, I haven't heard anything about solutions to problems, only a condemnation of the President.
I am looking to hear solutions on these issues (and more):
1.  Jobs
2.  Economic recovery
3.  Debt management
4.  Position on war
5.  Position on social programs.

We are hearing cut, cut, cut but we are not hearing anything about the people who would be left out in the cold.  As the campaign unfolds I hope to hear that the GOP is compassionate and not as callous as they now sound.

[MooseMom]

I fear we are becoming ungovernable.

In 2008, we elected a president who promoted unity and compromise.  Our votes said that we no longer wanted red states or blue states of America, but that we wanted a United States of America.  We told the world that we wanted a united government that would work for the good of all of us.  We said we wanted bi-partisanship and Congresspeople who could work with their colleagues across the aisle.

So, what happened?  "Compromise" has become a dirty word and has been replaced by words like "cave".  There is no longer honor in compromise, only weakness.  So what did we do in 2010?  We elected the most intransigent group of representatives possible.  We ourselves took away the tools necessary to promote this bipartisanship we claimed we wanted.

This is all our fault.

We have allowed money to dictate everything.  Only people with money and connections can afford to run for Congress, yet we complain that they are "not like us."  What do you expect?  We complain about "elitism", yet the only candidates who can run are the moneyed folk.

We are schizophrenic.

[Gerald Lively]

A wise person once said, "The people get the government they deserve."

[lmunchkin]

Geez, are there any conservatives on IHD?

Im not a "liberal" so I guess that means Im "conservative".

lmunch

[Joe]

Geez, are there any conservatives on IHD?

I'm here doc

[MooseMom]

Again, I would very much appreciate a definition of "conservative" by a self-proclaimed conservative.  Also, how do you define "liberal"? 

Can you voice these definitions with clarity and without invective? 

Thank you.

[Hemodoc]

Again, I would very much appreciate a definition of "conservative" by a self-proclaimed conservative.  Also, how do you define "liberal"? 

Can you voice these definitions with clarity and without invective? 

Thank you.

No thanks.

[MooseMom]

No thanks.

Really?  You surprise me.  I was hoping to learn something from you.

How about if I rephrase the query.  How about if you (or anyone else who cares to respond) list five things that you consider to be traditional "conservative values."  Do you think these traditional values have changed in more recent election cycles?

[Hemodoc]

Come on Moosemom, these are pretty clearly defined. I am not really at interested in debating this issue, but I will answer your question. For myself, the values of hard work, self-responsibility and individual freedoms based on self responsibility and paying your own way are at the heart of my "conservative" values. Hard to find any more, but that is what I grew up with and that is what I expected. My parents were not very wealthy at all in any stretch of the imagination. I worked hard at school, and as a  doctor. I believe that is the American way.

In any case, as I stated, those are my personal beliefs not debatable by anyone else's personal beliefs. I have answered your question. Not interested in debating what so ever whether folks approve of my beliefs, but that is the basis of my personal "conservative" values in concert with my Christian faith.

Thank you,

Peter

[MooseMom]

I am not interested in debating.  I was asking a valid question, and you are usually very good about giving a clear and thoughtful response to just about every question ever posed to you, and I was hoping you'd do so again.  I have lived outside of the US for most of my adult life, and I was just trying to increase my understanding.

I disagree that "conservative values" is clearly defined.  Or, maybe it is, and I'm just stupid. 

I am not asking you to defend anything.  What I am asking is, rather, that you define "conservatism", and if you would like, to also define your understanding of "progressive" or "liberal".

Thank you, anyway.  Maybe someone else would care to respond.  Or not...

I personally believe that people should be responsible for themselves and work hard to retain their freedoms and support their families, and in accordance with my own Christian faith, I believe that people should be compassionate toward those who are in need.  I also believe that the personal freedom of others is as important as my own.  I don't know if this makes me liberal or conservative.

[Jean]

Moose Mom, you are in fact a conservative.At least to my way of thinking you are.  Good job!!!! Now, you need to decide who is going to go head to head with the 'Obama" machine, so we can get rid of him.

[YLGuy]

Here lies one of the BIG problems that I have with Conservatives.  They talk about their Christian faith.  I learned in church to give to the less fortunate.  Members of the Conservative movement are trying to get rid of Social Security and Medicare.  They do not care if the poor receives medical care.  They want to decide what to give to which charity on their own and they do not want the government deciding this for them.  The problem is that so many people do not receive the help the need without government mandated programs. 

[jbeany]

I'm firmly in the independent camp, having voted at various times for both sides.  I think both sides have good points, and I try to vote for the person I think will do the best job in a position, regardless of party affiliation.  Last time around, I voted for Obama, mostly because I thought the Republicans had plenty of time to fix some of the messes we were in and hadn't managed to do much of anything.  I thought McCain would have done a decent job, actually, but his choice of running mate made me seriously question his judgment. 

I don't think Obama has been as effective as I was hoping for, but I don't think he carries all the blame for that - he's been fought on every attempt to make any useful changes.  (And no, I don't agree with every last thing he's tried to change, but it's hard to rebuild a condemned house when people keep stealing all your tools.) 

So far, though, I'm finding most of the Republican candidates for 2012 more scary than anything else.  That anyone, even for a second, considered Trump a viable candidate just frightens the living daylights out of me.  Gringrich certainly doesn't strike me as any better.  I want to shake all of the Republicans and yell, "Pick someone with more than half a brain and get yourselves organized!"

[cariad]

I believe in hard work and personal responsibility, which includes exercising responsibility toward one's community by not practicing this ludicrously third-world 'everyone for themselves' policy. That's not a community nor a country, that's a hot mess. Which is why I have no time for that loser Bush jr. who had everything purchased for him by daddy, including a baseball team and a presidency.

I strongly suggest no one try to define me as Republican or conservative, though. I'll define myself, thanks very much.

Have to disagree on Obama not being that effective. Shall we go over a sampling of his accomplishments? Taking down bin Laden - there's a 7-year Republican failure. Healthcare reform - hundreds have tried and promised, only he has done it, and with all the foaming-at-the-mouth, pants-on-fire opposition (death panels?? he's a Kenyan muslim??!!) that the Republicans could muster. Teaching those Somali pirates a lesson. Dragging an economy back from the brink. Ending that hideous war that was started on admitted lies, and much more. Sure, there's always going to me more that I wish he could have done, but the man is only human.

Moose Mom, you are in fact a conservative.At least to my way of thinking you are.  Good job!!!! Now, you need to decide who is going to go head to head with the 'Obama" machine, so we can get rid of him.

[Gerald Lively]

So many questions; so little time!!

The two-dimensional political abstract of left/right and/or conservative/liberal  cannot be an accurate description of one’s personal political views. It is entirely too subjective.  It is, however, a persistent description used by those who wish to associate themselves with certain voter blocks.  This only leads to voter polarization. This is “slate” politics. Buy the entire package or suffer the name calling. In that environment, the so-called Independents suffer the most.

The question first raised was, “What is a Conservative?”  Here is an error filled description of a Conservative as I see it: traditionalist, war hawk, big government, social conservative, one who uses labels to describe others, weak on economics. 

By any description, prosperity was the rule during the Clinton administration. During that time the National Debt was slowly being paid down and we had several balanced budgets.  Conservative elements during that time took an irrational tact of “family values” and used that to impeach the President.  It wasn’t that far back in history when we had a President who should have been impeached but was not (Nixon).  George W. Bush took eight years to bring the US economy to it’s knees using what was described as “conservative budget management”.  The Fed during that time subscribed to the theories promulgated by Friedman despite wide criticism from Keynesian economists that “trickle down” economics will not work.  During that same time period, George W. Bush invaded a sovereign nation without the benefit of a legitimate reason.

Now we see Conservatives who wish to eliminate Social Security and Medicare, both were supported in the past by the GOP.  There is no mention of what happens to those who cannot house, feed or clothe themselves, nor is there mention of the children in this class of people. Not everyone can succeed as you might have, but Conservatives tend to look back over their shoulders and proclaim, “If I can do it, so can you.”  Not even close to a realistic observation.

What we may be seeing is a sharp turn to the right (for lack of a better description) out of fear, or fear mongering, about debt at various stages of our economy.  Yet, so-called Conservatives call for deregulation of the financial markets while turning their backs to the disastrous consequences of deregulation in 2008 (September 2008 DJI). 

I miss the intellectual Republicans of old, those who could inspire thought via a provocative question.  I can’t imagine these old-timers brining Congress to a halt and cutting off the funds required for government operations.    Consider this:  the National Debt  burden rose most under the two presidents: Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. The debt burden declined most under the Presidents Dwight Eisenhower, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.

The GOP extremists are fond of calling anything left of them, liberal.  This means to me that the GOP has labeled a group of Democrats rather than the left adopting it’s own label as the Republicans have.  Extremism at either end of the political spectrum tends to boil down to special interests. Some call Democrats socialists.  That is certainly incorrect but one wonders why “socialism” is considered a bad thing.

Bottom line:  Conservatives need to redefine themselves.  Contemporary descriptions are mostly negative.  I believe the Independents/Moderates hold the key to a prosperous future.  And we have to stop the constant warfare business.

Sorry if I offended anyone.

gl

l

 

[jbeany]

Bottom line:  Conservatives need to redefine themselves.

Yes, please!  The only ones who seem to get any attention are the Tea Party and the Religious Fundamentalists.  I know there are more Republicans than that, and that they have a much broader range of views - but it's hard to find anything else in the press.

Have to disagree on Obama not being that effective.

Sorry if my meaning didn't come across - I think he's done some really, really good things.  I was just hoping he'd get more done than he has, and I believe he hasn't because of the idiotic fighting between parties.  All the "Let's work together." ideals that everyone on both sides spewed during the election turned into vapor the minute Congress resumed.