"Instead of a "Pledge to America," the Republicans should have written an "Apology to America.""

I hope they don't think this is going to help them in Nov? It's horseshit. When they start acting like conservatives - then I'll buy into their pledge.

Reluctantly, I'm voting mostly republican (SF Bay Area, Hellloooo) in November- but in the primaries I made DAMNED sure the more fiscally conservative republican got my vote (except Fiorina, because I loathe Boxer and I think Carly is the only Republican who stands any chance at knocking Babs "Call Me Ma'am" Boxer off her seat).

I give money to Tea Party candidates across the country, especially when they are unseating an entrenched Republican Incumbent. Establishment Republicans are just as bad as Liberal Dems in my book.

If a third party (Independent, Libertarian, Constitutionalist, conservative) is going to give the election to the Democrat - I'll vote Republican.

I'd prefer a viable third party, but in this political climate it's like splitting the baby. The best chance we have is to focus on reworking the Republicans into the party of fiscal conservatives. This means even if someone is say, for gay marriage (as it exists *right now* I do not support it) but is a die hard fiscal conservative - I'll vote for them. If the Independent or Libertarian has a shot, I'll vote for them.

I don't care where the Republican stands socially, I only care that they are hard core conservatives when it comes to economic and constitutional principles.

It's so disgusting how utterly unqualified all the candidates for governor are in California.

Everyone is unimpressed with Republicans. They're not known as the Party of Hate for nothing. The only time Republicans mobilize for anything is when they have a common object of loathing.

patrick, the only thing republicans (real republicans) hate is liberals who wanna spend everybody elses money. I was a proud republican until dubya, now I am of no afiliation, but I still loathe bleeding, pussy assed liberals, so I guess republicans don't have a corner on the "hate" market, you pussy assed liberal

Patrick's comment illustrates why I despise liberals. There can never be any honest disagreement about outcomes or processes, it's just demonization of those who disagree.

I think as much of them as they do of me.

Your heading for a cliff. A vote for republicans is a vote to stay on cruise control. A vote for democrats is a vote to hit the gas pedal.

A vote for libertarians is a vote to hit the brakes. Unfortunately, that vote somehow results a driver that hits the gas.

I may just have to hold my nose and vote republican this year though. That's the only hope we have to derail ObamaCare at this point.

I'm not a liberal. I'm an independent. I detest liberals as much as I detest conservatives. I also detest people who are so stupid as to think those terms are polar opposites. They're not even mutually exclusive, and there isn't a dime's worth of difference between them.

They have both sold us out on the immigration issue, which is why I have to laugh when Republicans point the finger at liberals and say, "Look! They're soft on immigration! They like illegals in this country!"

Uh, so do you.

This thread is about Republicans, so I injected my thoughts about Republicans. They are the Party of Hate, and they can only successfully mobilize when they are hating.

They ignored real issues that were infecting this nation and have now escalated, only to pursue a personal vendetta against a popular and capable president. Why? Because hate is the most powerful source (indeed the only source) of motivation for Republicans.

For good or ill, they oppose everything the current administration supports. Why? Because they hate President Obama. Not over philosophical differences, since they've been caught fighting what they support, and claiming credit for things they opposed. Such as the stimulus.

@Patrick: They are the Party of Hate, and they can only successfully mobilize when they are hating.
_________

I'm no republican either, but I find them less hateful and more tolerant than the democratic party, who can't seem to argue a point without making baseless allegations of sexism, intolerance, xenophobia, homophobia, islamaphobia, racisms, bigotry, ____phobia, ___ist, etc.

The left also has no business talking about hatred of Obama, considering they way they treated Bush.

Both parties stink. but I reject calling the GOP the party of hate for the same reason that I reject calling Islam the religion of peace. It isn't that there aren't people in it that deserve that title, it is that as a whole the alternatives deserve it more. It gives the wrong parties a pass.

How many politicians would need to be sent to bed without supper to leave just a few who really want to decrease government and increase freedom?

The real change will probably come only when we have a monetary crisis and the rest of the world stops buying our debt. Until then, the government will continue to grow regardless of who is in power.

They're not known as the Party of Hate for nothing.

Wait...that's the same party that fought a war to free slaves, and was the vote that passed the Civil Rights Act over the objections of Robert 'KKK' Byrd (also the last Senator to drop an N bomb on the floor of the Senate without repercussion) and others of his ilk?

That 'party of hate'?

And I am unimpressed with the Libertarians. Every time they poke their heads up it's to complain about taxes. They rarely address social libertarian values, like marriage equality, ending the drug war, allowing everyone to serve in the military, etc. Both Democrats and Republicans are equally horrid on these issues, too. But it's like the Libs actually agree with restrictions in the social realm, as long as they pay less taxes.

I don't condone nor forgive the obvious Republican hypocrisy and dishonesty, but the real effects may not be as bad as we think.

Just to provide a contrary view, the alleged fiscal crisis may or may not actually come to pass.

It's principally driven by Baby Boomer demographics. And according to Dean Baker ( get your "argument to authority" darts out now ) the Fed can buy Treasuries and remit the interest from those Treasuries back to Treasury in large volume and almost literally forever.

Government Debt Is Different - the British government is still paying on notes incurred during the Napoleonic Wars. And the peak of British government debt was around 400% of GDP in the 19th Century. But they had large-scale economic growth to make the real value of the debt decline relative to nominal value. We must regain a pattern of growth, or they *will* sink us. But folks, a no-growth economy ( nominally led by massive rent-seeking ) will present us with the possible destruction of our civilization - or at least Chinese Mandarin-style hidebound stagnation.

And finally, the Brits paid off the last of WWII in 2006. Because of economic growth, the amount borrowed seems ridiculously small.

I don't see a hole in the plan. Any argument against is is roughly equivalent to the Physiocartic arguments of the 91th Century.

Trust writes: "The left also has no business talking about hatred of Obama, considering they way they treated Bush.

Which pales in comparison to how the Republicans treated Clinton...which they candidly admit was payback for Nixon...who got what he deserved.

Your move.

I was, originally, pleased about the Tea Party movement. However, when all of the "values voters" jumped on board, they lost me. Invasion in my personal life is unacceptable to me no matter where it comes from.

"It's so disgusting how utterly unqualified all the candidates for governor are in California."

I do not want Jerry Brown as Governor. I do not want Jerry Brown as Governor. I do not want Jerry Brown as Governor.

"I was, originally, pleased about the Tea Party movement. However, when all of the "values voters" jumped on board, they lost me. Invasion in my personal life is unacceptable to me no matter where it comes from."

This works both ways, and I don't see much in the way of them being able to legislate morals in this political climate with much support. I do however, see a lot in the way of legislating to take away fiscal freedom by way of social liberal policies.

I'll keep supporting the Tea Party. No need to get quixotic by withdrawing support over moral issues that don't have much support and don't impact me fiscally.

I really like Allan West. Out of all the candidates, he's my favorite - and best of all, he does not play the race victim and he has had the toughest words for Islamic Fascism of any politician thus far.

I'll be impressed with tbe Libertarian Party when they actually get any of their agenda passed.

Shoe. Foot. Other.

Amy, I'm curious, is this somewhat related to the reason that you're not a big fan of Meg Whitman?

Look, we're already screwed. Gridlock in the House and Senate won't fix our problems - it's too late for that. We can't coast, we sure as hell can't hit the gas, and even hitting the brakes isn't enough. We need to move this train in reverse. The government's runaway spending, backed largely by borrowing, that has been going on for years now has already put us past the point of no return.

If we keep spending like we are on wars and entitlements, we will eventually reach our credit limit. Either because the lenders will cut us off, or we'll just borrow to the point where we can't pay the interest anymore. Then the government will have to print more money, and those Social Security checks won't buy much more than a bag of groceries. If we stop the spending in the first place, the Social Security checks just get smaller, or people have to wait until they are older to get them. NONE of these options is going to make anyone happy, but one of them is GOING to happen.

What WE need to do is figure out how to take care of our old people when the government safety net, and perhaps our entire currency system, fails. And before that can happen, Democrats and Republicans have to quit wasting everyone's time with the finger-pointing. I am sick of listening to it. The roots of this situation go far deeper than political affiliation. We need to look back over the last 70 years and identify all those misplaced senses of entitlement we had that got us into this hole. We've got half of the people in this country riding in the wagon.

The people riding in the wagon, the very old, the very young, the sick, and the unemployed - we should have been taking care of our own dependents from the very beginning. The crux of the matter was that we put corrupt bureaucrats in charge of what WE should have been doing ourselves, at the family and community level. I hope that when we emerge from this crisis, if I am even alive by then, we have learned that lesson.

I'm always amused by 'independents' (snort) like Patrick who decry the 'hate' by Republicans ... by listing all the things he hates about them.

Projection. It's not just for breakfast anymore.

Really, jimg? Show me where I listed all the things I hate about Republicans.

Personally, I'm always amused by Kool-Aid drinkers like yourself who have to erect strawmen to make their points. As a friend of mine likes to say, "If you have to lie to make your point, not even you believe your argument is valid."

You may not agree with Jerry Brown politically, but you can't say he's not qualified for the job. He's y'know, done it before. You may not like how he does it, but I'd rather have someone in office who knows how to work with the state legislature, rather than some privileged know-nothing who thinks she's entitled to a governorship if she can afford it.

Someone please tell me what the Libertarians have ever accomplished? Please don't claim the Tea Party; they aren't Libertarians.

Is being a Libertarian more a personal philosophy? Right now I'm thinking it means "leave me alone liberal."

No one asked, but I'll tell you what I think of liberals: The Democratic Party is the Party of Hypocrisy. They claim to be the staunch opponents of discrimination of all sorts...and they elect Obama, an obvious racist, to the Presidency.

Had a white person been attending the services of a white supremacist for twenty years, then had the colossal nerve to try to run for president, the Democrats would have boiled him in oil.

But when a biracial person with his black family does it, it's all right.

And Jeremiah Wright has to be among the most disgusting people on this planet. He's had a moderately privileged upbringing and has gotten rich by promoting hate between the races.

**It's pretty sad when the best hope of keeping this country from going under is gridlock in the House and in the Senate.

Couldn't agree more! I trust the majority of the GOP about as far as I can spit. The best that can be done, at this point, is to work hard with individual races- even and perhaps especially the "small" ones at the state level- to elect people who will govern responsibly.

Speaking of, I am in love with Chris Christie in NJ. Too bad he's not interested in running for higher office.

@Patrick: I dislike Obama most of the time, but only hate him from time to time. He does occasionally do something I agree with, such as getting the Feds to back off from the war on medical Marijuana, but overall, I think he's the wrong man for the job.

So let me get this straight: this is your view of the Republican party?

@Patrick at September 25, 2010 3:21 PM

I've got to give you props for being consistent. And I don't see how anyone could disagree with what you said about Jeremiah Wright and his church.

Forgive me if I"m unimpressed with what the leader of a party who can not field a decent candidate says.

I'm quite liberal, and I'm still very disappointed with the governor's race in CA. I kinda like Jerry Brown, but not for governor again. When Meg Whitman first came on the scene, I was optimistic but she's been so disappointing. Her campaign is awful; it's not exactly clear to me what she wants to do, but it is clear that if she's elected she hasn't considered at all that a state doesn't run like a company. She's thinking she'll be CEO of CA, and what we'll get is another governor who can't work with the legislature at all (not that they don't have their own issues) and nothing will change.

The Pledge to America is a decent start, aiming at low-hanging fruit. It's also specific enough that Republicans can be held accountable for how well they do against it.

The pledge is primarily the work of the "young guns" contingent in the Republican party. I loved watching John Boehner's ess-eating grin on the Sunday talk shows as the pledge was stuffed down his throat. It's obvious they've handed him his task list and he doesn't like it one bit.

Sure, thre's a lot of really important stuff not addressed -- earmarks, entitlements, etc. I take that as deliberate.

Everything specific in it is immediately actionable and will be political poison to vote against. This thing is the voice of the tea party mixed with tactical political savvy. Yes, a lot of it is symbolic, but symbols and momentum matter. Let's not let the best be enemy of the good. There's a lot of good here:

* Extend the Bush tax rates
* Repeal the 1099 IRS power grab
* Repeal Obamacare and block funding it if they can't repeal it.
* Require each bill to cite Constitutional authority (what an awesome symbolic win)
* No omnibus bills
* Return unspent stimulus money to the general fund
* Cut Congress' own budget (another great symbol)
* Pick something to cut each and every week
* Kill TARP
* Allow medical insurance purchases across state lines
* Stop the union card check power grab
* Block cap and trade

Those are my favorites. Now come on, if they managed to get all that done, wouldn't you call it a wildly successful Congress?

And if the GOP does blow off the Pledge, I'm done and I think the Tea Party is done too. Time for a third party and its name will be The Republican Party.

Tea Party people, including myself, gave Christine O'Donnell over a million dollars in two days after the Republican establishment threw a hissy fit over her victory. I think Christine O'Donnell is a whackjob, and I gave her $5 purely as a vote against the Republican Party, not as support for her. I think the same goes for most of the rest of that million she got thrown at her.

If we can spontaneously generate a million dollars in 2 days as a protest vote in a relatively obscure Senate race, what do you think we can raise to get a new party started if the Republicans betray us again?

The rules have changed, including the rule that it's nearly impossible for a third party to challenge the establishment. Either the Republicans submit with more or less good grace to the Tea Party takeover, or we'll put them on the outside looking in.