An Open Letter to the Republican Party

Dear Republican Party,

For several years we (loyal conservatives) have supported the Republican Party because of its promises to return our country to its prior greatness of limited government and numerous freedoms, most notably economic and educational.

You really captured our hearts in 1994 with your proclaimed Contract with America, which we in turn responded by overwhelmingly voting republicans into office. In case you have forgotten, in the Contract with America you promised to:

• FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;
• SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
• THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
• FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;
• FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
• SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;
• SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
• EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.

Granted, there is opposition from the Democrat Party, and thus not all segments of your plan could be implemented, but some of your actions have been downright hostile to what you promised. Take for instance the first issue of making all laws apply to Congress as they do the public and explain to us how the new campaign-finance law does not violate this? It seems that we can no longer speak freely 60 days before an election, yet I do not remember the same constraints being put on members of Congress.

As for your second plank, who needs an independent auditing firm to audit Congress for waste when the waste is as blatantly obvious as it is today? Then again I guess that $200+ million dollar bridge to Gravina Island in Alaska to serve approximately 50 people is a good use of OUR hard earned dollars. I wonder if members of Congress would think the bridge was as necessary if they had to donate the money themselves? Then to top it all off, Tom DeLay comes out and proclaims victory, telling us that there is no waste left to cut from the budget. This is an absolute insult to our intelligence. It is safe assume that any attempt to instill zero baseline budgeting, thereby requiring agencies to figure out each year what they will need for the next rather then just adjusting upwards, has also been relocated to the trash heap of history. Well, so much for your eighth plank.

On a more positive note you did cut taxes, as miniscule as those cuts were. However, you still have not made those cuts permanent. Returning back to the Contract with America, you seemed to have abandoned any attempt to pass a law requiring a supermajority to raise taxes as you promised in your seventh plank. And thanks to the absolute insane spending that has occurred in recent years, any attempt to pass such a bill would now be futile.

Understandably, new needs emerge in our ever-changing world and sometimes issues that were important years ago need to take a back seat for the time being, but unlike the democrats the Republican Party rarely ever revisits them. For instance, what ever happened to the call to end the Department of Education and return control to the states? Are we to believe that increasing spending and national regulations will achieve that outcome? What about the spending for the arts, also once slated for elimination? Apparently, increasing spending on that program will achieve that result?

Speaking of new needs, how about our borders? It seems that no matter how hard the nation cries to have both the northern and southern borders secured, the GOP chooses to turn a deaf ear. Is it that the Republican Party is afraid that the will not capture the Hispanic vote if they do? Is that how one builds a party, by focusing on groups rather then ideas? Incidentally, if the GOP truly wants to make inroads to minority groups why not revisit the idea of school vouchers? This is an idea-based solution that does not focus so much on a group of people as it does the idea of freedom itself.

Repeatedly we have been told to support the Republican Party with phrases like “if we only get the White House” or “increase our numbers in Congress”, and my personal favorite “this election is too important”, because of the War on Terror or possibility of Supreme Court nominations. Well, the War on Terror would be more believable if the borders were actually closed. As for the Supreme Court, we were given a candidate, Harriet Miers, who had a suspect past at best concerning her compatibility with our beliefs, yet we were told to trust Bush on this nominee? Seriously, after never using his veto pen once and expanding government in a manner that would even make the likes of LBJ and FDR blush were we really supposed to go on trust?

We did not support the Republican Party so that we could get an arguably watered-down version of the democrats. And frankly, watered-down may be a courteous way of describing the GOP’s actions since the Contract with America. Unless the Republican Party wants to return to its long history of being the minority party it had better stop ignoring the promises that put it into the majority in the first place.

Sincerely,

Concerned Conservative

 

Signed, Tony DiPasquale

Newt-Newt-Newt-Newt-Newt-Newt-Newt-Newt!

 

Yeah, so seeing that I support such a letter would you perhaps be inclined to agree that I am not a "Republican Extremist", or a "Bush Backer"?

And yes, Tony DiPasquale did write it but when he sent it out to those of us who publish his work he did not include nor request his name be attached.

 

I never called you an extremist. But you do tend to stick up for Bush more than any man should stick up for another man he doesn't personally know.

 

Pffffft. What a lie that was.

 

zman, you hate republicans though, right?

 

hmm... Ive never really felt I stick up for him. Now when people cry "Bush lied and took us to war in Iraq when we should not have gone" I do have to take a stand and point out what I always thought would be the obvious.

For example:

Bush should not have taken us to Iraq for war you may say. If that is the case, then why do we not here the same said about John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger, Ted Kennedy and on and on and on?

Let's review the pre-war quotes

These are just a few.

Now, I don't hear any of these names coming into play at all. It seems to be only GW.

So if all you are going to do is sit around on the "Bush Lied" bandwagon then yes, I will say something.

If you choose to get off your ass and stop bitching and start actually openening up a debate of ideas that will better our country then that is another story.

 

Well hate is a bit strong. I would say I have a "distaste" for both sides of the two major parties.

 

For one thing none of the above people are president, so independent of what they said they were not the one who made the decision to start this war.

The other reason is that a lot of this people were duped by lies that Bush administration provided to them, so I can agree that they were stupid to believe this administration on the face value of their statements.

The reason people are discussing Bush and not the others is that he is still president and it is continuing with same lies and aggression policy against other countries that is getting American soldiers killed on daily basis.

But if it makes feel better that other people should be mentioned, I can generally say that "Anybody who believes what Bush says, is either stupid, duped or has hidden personal agenda". Happy?

 

Can I use that in my signature?

 

I here ya zman, about democrats backing the war as well. Thing is they were basing their positions off of flawed info as we all know. So that's not at question. What's at question and truly the heart of the debate is whether the Bush administration knew it was flawed/untrue and went forward anyway. A lot of Republicans (and Democrats) don't quite understand that.

Question: If the war is just and had to be done because of a WMD threat then why isn't the Bush administration pushing for war on North Korea and Iran? Oh yeah, the North Korean and Iranian leadership didn't try and have his father killed

 

What a convienent way of saying it.

"Anyone who disagrees with me is lost"

Another solid block of advice from DP's very own gworld.

 

Great post!

But that last part is easy. Would the left support another war lead by Bush? I think Bush would probably go into Iran as well if he could. I could be wrong on that though, just giving my opinion.

 

I didn't say that anybody who disagrees with me is lost. for example:
I believe in democracy, you believe in dictatorship. I believe in human rights, you think it is OK to abuse human rights. I think torture is wrong, you think torture is good. These are difference of opinions but to relay on information (facts) provided by Bush or his administration as bases of your opinion and judgment is stupid at least or proves that you have hidden personal agenda.

I mean look at their record, is there anything that they don't lie about?

His latest: "we don't torture people" , "I will veto any law that forbids torture"

Does he think people are really that stupid, if you don't torture people, why should you have anything against a law that forbids something that you supposedly don't do?

 

Since you are just going to post smileys that roll eyes and wink cluttered around some text that really doesnt prove anything, lets ask this.

How did you come to the conclusion that I believe in a dictatorship and you do not?

 

oy vey!
....

 

"The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus ... are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it [the Constitution] contains. ...[T]he practice of arbitrary imprisonments have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny.
The observations of the judicious [British 18th century legal scholar] Blackstone, in reference to the latter, are well worthy of recital:
"'To bereave a man of life,' says he, 'or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore A MORE DANGEROUS ENGINE of arbitrary government.'''

Alexander Hamilton

I suppose you know who Alexander Hamilton was? One of the people who signed a piece of paper called U.S.A Constitution.

How can you defend the imprisonment of anybody without charges, trials or conviction and still talk about democracy?

 

Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. I have to protest here. Taxation is a very important part of the democratic process and you want to stifle it by making ia 3/5 instead of 1/2? 2/3 is far more palatable (sp?)

 

Because GW is responsible for starting the war and he is the president, nobody else. Not really a tough argument.. just trying to put the blame game on everyone instead of the actual person responsible

 

Im not blaming anyone. I'm merely looking for a solution to our future problems with terrorism.

The debate of ideas is where it begins. Not the idea of trying to "blame someone". Do you know how many years you guys have been trying to blame someone for something? Imagine all that time spent figuring shit out and fixing our problems. Just look at the past 12 months. Wow, a lot has been accomplished huh?