Dear Sirs and/or Madams,
I am a life-long Republican. The son of Republicans who were, themselves, the children of Republicans. At fifty-five years old, and as the owner of two small businesses, I believe very strongly in the importance of conservative fiscal policies, and that hard work is the key to success.
I believe it's better to get ahead by the sweat of your own brow than by legislative mandate. And, I believe that the greatness of the United States comes in great part from the flexibility and tolerance we have developed as a culture, rather than from the rules we choose to choke down each others' throats.
By being comprised of so many other cultures, from so many other places, the United States is less a melting pot than what I prefer to think of as a wonderful curry. A rich mixture of flavors and textures which might not be intuitively combined but which, nevertheless, coalesce into a wonderful, incredibly flavorful dish.
It is our strength, not our weakness, that we are not all one thing or another. We are many things, together, and it is this broad exposure to others' cultures, to their ideas, and to both our similarities and our differences that makes us different and, in some cases, a little better.
I was taught, and I still believe it to be true, that the American dream is that any of us, if he or she is smart enough, or lucky enough, or works hard enough, can become rich, or successful or, heaven forbid, even grow up to be the President of the United States.
The America I believe in was built on the basis of limited legislative restriction, broad applicability of free will, and the value of hard work. But it has become increasingly obvious that that is no longer the position of the Republican party and, frankly, I am embarrassed.
When did it become acceptable to overtly attempt to insert not just religion, but Bible-beating creationist Christianity, into our government? Yes, many of the formers of our Constitution were Christians but they clearly, and with no room for misinterpretation, made it absolutely clear that no form of religion--including their own--should have any part in our government.
And, when did it become acceptable to limit the rights of American citizens because of who they choose to love? It is apparently the ignorant and inexcusable position of this party that being gay or lesbian is a choice people make rationally, like choosing a car. That they somehow have opted into a much more difficult and persecuted lifestyle just because, I don't know, because it seemed like fun. And that, regardless, those who make that "choice" are somehow inferior or worthy of lesser forms of equality, or of lesser opportunities.
It is narrow-minded thinking of the worst and most damaging kind, and that's why the Republican Party of today has become a national embarrassment.
I can't think of any clearer way to say it.
This party's obstinate insistence on marching in lockstep with the most radical and narrow-minded creationist right-wingers has crippled its ability to represent and motivate the actual, real live citizens of this country. From what I can tell, "my" party is being run by a commission of geriatric white Southern Baptist preachers and they have made the party look ridiculous, vindictive, and idiotic.
I don't think there is really much doubt in most voters' minds that, of last night's two candidates, Mitt Romney is the one vastly more qualified to turn up the wick on our stagnant economy. And yet, he had his hat and walking papers handed to him because, it turns out, most people don't vote based on only one issue.
By being elitist and arrogant, "we" turned off both the middle- and lower-classes who, not coincidentally, constitute the bulk of the electorate. By insisting on the wrongness and inexcusability of gay marriage, "we" not only turned off the 10-15% of the population that is gay or lesbian, but also the huge portion of the population that is young and/or sympathetic to gay people.
By insisting that abortion should be illegal and Roe vs Wade overturned, "we" turned off the women. And, by being passionately against any kind of immigration reforms, "we" turned off the fastest-growing portion of the American population, Latinos and Hispanics.
What I want to know, in all seriousness, is: For what?
When Todd Akin publicly said, "...If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down...," or when Richard Mourdock said, "...even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, ...it is something that God intended to happen," you, the leaders of the Republican party, should have cut them loose. Just said to yourselves, and to us, "they are a cancerous growth on our party and we're pulling all support in a very public way."
If, in response to both of those, Mitt Romney had said, "that is both ignorant and wrong and I cannot endorse someone so wrong-minded," we would have lost those two seats--which we did anyway--but it would have done worlds of good not only for Romney's chances with women but with a lot of others of us, too.
Except, of course, he didn't. Instead, he shuffled around it, no doubt in great part because that's what he was told to do. We still lost the seats, but Romney's actions, by implication, defined him to be as much of an idiot on women's issues as Akin and Mourdock.
And, that's just one example of many.
It is long past time for the leaders of the Republican party to wake up, look around, and see what an incredible mess they have created for us all. No longer is this a country driven merely by the wants of rich white men. Today, more than ever, we are a multi-cultural blend of the best and worst the world has to offer.
There is a whole country out there that is about social justice, personal freedom, and the rights of individuals. And, unlike even a decade ago, there is no escaping immediate and ubiquitous social communications throughout all strata of the society. If you're an idiot, it will be found out both quickly and publicly.
The people of this country, as am I, are, on the whole, appalled by the vast majority of the positions and actions taken by this party. We remain moderately loyal, simply because of this party's conservative fiscal policies.
But it won't last much longer.
This party has lost all touch with the people of the United States. I'm not talking about the people of the United States back in 1950, I'm talking about the people of today's United States, and it is high time to re-evaluate and reconnect.
Get to work, boys, before it's too late.
1. Devin Olson11/07/2012 10:58:10 AM
EXTREMELY well said.
2. Andy Donaldson11/07/2012 11:04:41 AM
3. Andrew Pollack11/07/2012 11:10:01 AM
I strongly agree with your sentiment to your party, but disagree that Mitt Romney would have been the right person to move the economy forward. We can get into that over a beer at some point.
4. sarah curme11/07/2012 11:13:30 AM
nice scott! sarah c
5. Sue Walmsley Amash11/07/2012 11:33:17 AM
Such clarity and reasonableness is exactly what we, and the rest of this world need right now. Thank you Scott. Maybe you should run for office?
6. Andrew Pollack11/07/2012 12:11:15 PM
The other thing to worry about -- the success of the nationwide campaign of redistricting has both helped and hurt the Republican party a great deal.
In the House of Representatives, it has helped them a great deal. The ever more careful redistricting (just short of gerrymandering) has taken all the house seats that the states have and carefully split them so that the large population centers that vote Democratic are in one or two districts and the rest are arranged to be as Republican as possible. You saw this on the map s last night as whole states would look "red" as those districts went Republican, but one or two blue spots in the states that reported later due to the population size just overwhelmed the statewide totals.
In the Senate, it hasn't help as much because the district sizes are so large that it really isn't possible to segment out half the state that way. You're also dividing by two so if you do lump all the cities in one district you're guaranteed to never do better than 50% for your party.
In the House of Reps, this is great for the Republicans. It has assured another solid majority, and will probably keep doing so for at least a few more election cycles. But this is short term, and it's actually really hurting the party overall.
Longer term, these highly selective districts are very bad for the parties. They mean that in order to get re-elected, the representative has to appeal only to the very specific selected group he represents. That's why you get these absolutes of no-compromise and no interest at all in considering alternatives. Only the most partisan of candidates can be elected in that kind of setting and on a national scale that's not any way to govern.
The Presidency is the worst-case result of this because the party becomes entirely controlled by these micro-blocks of the most extreme partisans and that doesn't result in candidates who can be elected on a national scale. It's the problem of the Senate, but larger.
7. Jason Hook11/07/2012 12:19:51 PM
I enjoyed reading.
The problem isn't just the party but the people that have hitched their wagon to it.
Even if Mitt Romney was the person America needed and had distanced himself from the likes of Akin's and Mourdock's there are still millions of people who think like them, would be willing to be led by them or support them.
Interestingly but not surprisingly the right wing of the party are in denial http://www.thestar.com/news/world/uselection/article/1284089--u-s-election-republicans-look-to-lay-blame-after-romney-loss-we-were-wrong
Perhaps it would be better not to try and fix the old but start with something new but deep down there is a problem with people not just a political party.
8. Nicki11/07/2012 12:24:29 PM
Well done! This is one of the best letters I have seen from a Republican about their own party.
9. Scott Good11/07/2012 12:28:39 PM
I think it's quite arguable there's a very big problem with our entire political process, circa 2012, and not just the Republicans. Both parties have worked tirelessly to put as big a gap as possible between themselves, to characterize every issue as us-verses-them.
What we should be doing is working to find a middle ground, a position that's actually good for the country but, apparently, that's not how you raise money. And, let's face it, this is more about raising money than about anything else.
When the two parties (and their hidden friends) spend nearly SIX BILLION dollars to put a man into a $250,000 per year job, clearly there's a lot more at stake, and a lot more people getting favors and kickbacks and who knows what, than any of us will ever know about.
It's rather despicable.
10. Luke11/07/2012 12:50:28 PM
#6 - The boundaries of Senate "districts" are state lines. All Senators are elected state-wide.
The districts you were seeing on TV, BTW were counties. There's no requirements that counties be of equal size, and county lines don't affect House districts necessarily.
11. Tracy Goode11/07/2012 12:56:55 PM
Very well written, and one of the reasons that for the first time in 30 years, I voted for a candidate OTHER than a Republican for President (and no, it was NOT for Obama.)
12. Mike McGarel11/07/2012 01:08:08 PM
Thank you, Scott, for saying it so well and so clearly.
13. Fellow Long-Time Republican11/07/2012 01:59:35 PM
Your reasons are amongst those on why I voted for somebody other than Obama/Romney this cycle.
This should have been a no-brainer win for Republicans, but they fielded the wrong candidate. They need to embrace the Libertarian philosophies (particularly social tolerance), and focus especially on the civil liberties and anti-war fronts where the Democrats have been failing horribly. And actually talking (i.e. with an actual PLAN) about fiscal responsibility would be good. There are plenty of Independents who would love to enter the GOP - if the values are there.
14. Bobby McGuire11/07/2012 02:19:20 PM
Well stated, Scott.
What we've been seeing happen to the Republican party over the past few decades is a replay of what the Democrats went through in the 1940's with the Dixicrats. Only the Democrats of the 1940's refused to allow that extreme faction to take the party hostage as the religious right and Tea Partiers have succeeded in doing to the party of Lincoln today.
15. Ray Bilyk11/07/2012 02:21:00 PM
Well said, Scott! That's why neither 'big party' candidate got my vote, but I did vote! Hopefully, enough Americans will listen to the content of what is said and not who said it or what political party they are aligned with! Perhaps someday we can vote for the best person, and not the person who is part of a certain 'party'...
16. Nathan T. Freeman11/07/2012 03:57:46 PM
"...nearly SIX BILLION dollars to put a man into a $250,000 per year job..."
The President is paid $400,000/year, with an additional $50,000/year expense fund and an additional $100,000 travel account for family. Obviously all living, dining, vacation, medical and transportation expenses are covered during his office term.
Upon completion of his term, the President has a guaranteed pension of about $200,000/year, along with travel and office expense accounts.
Former Presidents typically find easy employment as consultants, lobbyists, speakers and authors.
So regardless of wealth when they enter office, all recent Presidents have left office as multi-millionaires.
17. Scott Good11/07/2012 04:14:29 PM
Okay Nathan, I stand corrected.
And, yes, I know they aren't hurting when they come out. However, even doubling the President's income does little to change the basic math. To spend six billion to end up with, let's call it, six MILLION in Presidential income on the way out of office, is not exactly a good use of money.
Assuming the people spending the billions are not stupid enough to spend a thousand dollars just to give the guy a buck, I'm saying they are expecting something commensurately large in return.
You can decide whether or not to use the phrase "bought and sold the Presidency," but I can see how it could easily be considered appropriate.
18. jcrist11/07/2012 04:56:25 PM
We need to work harder at the next convention. It seems that a candidate needs to embrace the religious right to get the nomination, therefore ruining his/her chances of getting votes in the open election. Change needs to happen from within
19. Becca11/07/2012 05:08:24 PM
Very well said. I am a science graduate student who has always hidden my political affiliation because of the above mentioned problems with the Republican party. The Republican party needs to evolve or we need to start a new party. I feel that a lot of people my age (25-40 years old) are fiscally conservative, for smaller government but are more liberal on the social issues. Where is the happy medium for us? How do you propose evolution of the Republican party?
20. Nathan T. Freeman11/07/2012 05:14:59 PM
@17 Oh, I wasn't disputing your point. Just that particular fact.
As for the $6 billion, well let's see: The Fed admits to increasing the money by $1.5 trillion since 2008. Where do you think all that money enters the economy? Spending $6 billion in contributions to ensure that $1.5 trillion gets spread across your accounts over the next 4 years is a great ROI.
21. Tony11/07/2012 06:14:20 PM
Scott, the fiscal conservatism you seek may no longer be present in the republican party, either. The republican party has turned into a party of tax cuts for the wealthy as a cure for everything including job creation. As a small business owner, you know the tax rate could be zero, and you wouldn't hire any more employees unless business demanded it.
When presented with a reasonable, rational plan to bring down the deficit that consisted of $2.50 in spending cuts for every $1.00 in tax hikes, what did the republican party do? They walked away.
The candidates in the primaries walked away from a 100 to one ratio of spending cuts to tax hikes.
I would submit that this is not fiscal conservatism, which is something I support.
22. Scott Good11/07/2012 07:05:55 PM
@Nathan: That's my point, exactly.
@Tony: I agree with you, too. This country has several hundred million citizens, nearly all of whom can and do understand that the only real solution for the long haul is both to cut spending AND increase taxes. I sure as heck don't want to pay any more taxes, and I'll bet you don't, either, but what other alternative do we rationally have? There are no easy solutions here but they are all the worse with politicians unwilling to do what's right, for fear of falling off the money wagon.
23. Lisa Duke11/07/2012 07:33:51 PM
As a small business owner, I would really like to vote for the small government, low taxes party. In fact, in the 90s I did a lot of volunteer work turning "Yellow Dog Democrat" Southeast Arkansas red. But I'm also a woman, and some of the comments made by Republicans lately are disturbing.
I typically vote against the scariest people, and sadly, lately, that's been the Republicans.
24. Andrew Pollack11/07/2012 07:45:41 PM
No, Nathan. You're wrong again (or is it still?). The Obamas, as have all previous families, actually receive a rather large bill every month for everything from food to cook's salary, dry cleaning, and so on while they are in the White House. There has been some discussion that should an actual middle class person ever be elected, the salary of the President would be hard pressed to cover the expenses. The President also does not keep gifts from foreign leaders unless he compensates the government for the value of said gift.
25. Andrew Pollack11/07/2012 07:47:37 PM
Wow, you're wrong about the economics, too. Increasing the money supply has a negative impact on the value of any liquid assets the wealthy have, not an increase (though in this case, since it basically saved the economy, the effect for all of us was quite positive).
26. Kevin Mort11/07/2012 08:01:12 PM
Great read, thank you. I have had a few conversations in the last 24 hours on this very subject. While I am registered NPA today, the only party I was ever registered as, since the beginning, was Republican. The party has lost its way, focused on the wrong things and stayed quiet when it should have spoken up. My parents taught me about working hard, and I always try to keep that in mind. I know full well as Republicans themselves that they did not harbor the asinine views today's GOP seems hell bent on pushing.
Today's climate of massive financial contributions to elections is a serious threat to the integrity of our republic.
A large part of the problem is that the GOP cannot seem to understand that the country is essentially center-right. The GOP primary puts an emphasis on being as "conservative" as possible, but really it means as far right as you can possibly be. The notion of being "conservative enough." From that point on, the candidate then must jump on the binders, clip the apex and turn left towards the center, because that is how you win national elections.
Sadly last night's results mean nothing has changed. Nothing. There is a reason the markets are in the tank today.
27. Dee Wescott11/07/2012 09:02:44 PM
Very well spoken article. This is exactly why, although i had no intention of voting for Mr. Obama, I could NOT in good conscience, vote for Mitt Romney either. I wrote in someone whom I felt would embody the better parts of each man. I look forward to the day when NONE OF THE ABOVE becomes part of our national ballot!
28. Tiffany11/07/2012 10:35:24 PM
And I think that's how the Democratic Party became the new Republican Party, at least in part, and congratulations to our right-wing, authoritarian leaning president on winning his second term.
I really love the political ideology test they have up at politicalcompass.org; are you familiar with it? Here's how I stacked up with our presidential hopefuls: http://goo.gl/V2myP
(AHEM, NO ONE TO VOTE FOR AT ALL. I'm real hopeful about the pirate parties and Occupy, though.)
29. Nathan T. Freeman11/07/2012 11:02:56 PM
Interesting Andrew. If the Obamas are footing all the bills, I wonder why the EOP requisitioned $13.2 million to run the Executive Residence, then? http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2013-eop-budget1.pdf
Maybe that's just the electric bill.
As for the economics of Fed... I don't spar with toddlers.
30. Scott Good11/07/2012 11:06:29 PM
@Tiffany: I'm a little more centrist than you (http://alturl.com/ix74g), but still a lot more libertarian than either Romney or Obama. On a positive note, I'm mighty close to Nelson Mandela (and the Dali Lama, too, although he's not on this chart).
31. Hope11/08/2012 02:08:47 AM
So over 57 million people who voted for jobs should bow to your way of thinking because they are narrow-minded, elitist, arrogant, and ignorant? Do your really think a mother or father who has been out of work for the last couple years, lost their home and life savings gives a rat's ass that someone is gay? Explain to them when they are at the point of despair why you would rather see them out of work because of an ignorant unfounded fear that abortion can be magically repealed by the President. No job for you, you ignorant fool until you agree with me. If you ask me you are the one who is narrow-minded, elitist, arrogant, ignorant and inexcusable?
32. Vickie11/08/2012 02:25:56 AM
"Yes, many of the formers of our Constitution were Christians but they clearly, and with no room for misinterpretation, made it absolutely clear that no form of religion--including their own--should have any part in our government.
Commander-in-Chief in the American Revolution; Signer of the Constitution; First President of the United States
"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."
[Washington, Writings (1932), Vol. XI, pp. 342-343, General Orders of May 2, 1778.]
"You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life and, above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention."
[George Washington, The Writings of Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. XV, p. 55, from his speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs on May 12, 1779.]
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports."
[Washington, Address . . . Preparatory to His Declination, 1796, pp. 22-23.]
"True religion affords to government its surest support."
[George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, Jared Sparks, editor (Boston: Ferdinand Andrews, 1838), Vol. XII, pp. 166-167, to the Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church in North America in October 1789.]
"It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor."
[Washington, Writings (1838), Vol. XII, pp. 119-120, October 3, 1789; see also James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897 (Published by Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, p. 64, October 3, 1789.]
Signer of the Declaration of Independence; One of Two Signers of the Bill of Rights; Second President of the United States
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
[John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Frances Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts on October 11, 1798.]
Signer and the principal author of the Declaration of Independence; Third President of the United States
"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever."
[Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia(Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), Query XVIII, pp. 236-237.]
Signer of the Constitution; Fourth President of the United States
"Before any man can be considered as a member of civil society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe."
[James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance Presented to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia at their Session in 1785 in Consequence of a Bill Brought into that Assembly for the Establishment of Religion (Massachusetts: Isaiah Thomas, 1786), p. 4.]
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS
Statesman; Diplomat; Sixth President of the United States
"Is it not that in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? – that it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? – that it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?"
[John Quincy Adams, An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport at Their Request on the Sixty-First Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1837 (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), pp. 5-6.]
"My hopes of a future life are all founded upon the Gospel of Christ and I cannot cavil or quibble away…the whole tenor of His conduct by which He sometimes positively asserted and at others countenances His disciples in asserting that He was God."
[John Adams and John Quincy Adams, The Selected Writings of John and John Quincy Adams, Adrienne Koch and William Peden, editors (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1946), p. 292, John Quincy Adams to John Adams, January 3, 1817.]
"The people of the North American union, and of its constituent states, were associated bodies of civilized men and Christians in a state of nature, but not of anarchy. They were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of the Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledged as the rules of their conduct."
[John Quincy Adams, An Address Delivered at the Request of the Committee of Arrangements for the Celebrating the Anniversary of Independence at the City of Washington on the Fourth of July 1821 upon the Occasion of Reading The Declaration of Independence (Cambridge: Hilliard and Metcalf, 1821), p. 28.]
Patriot and Statesman
"Righteousness alone can exalt [America] as a nation. Reader! Whoever thou art, remember this; and in thy sphere practice virtue thyself, and encourage it in others…[T]he great pillars of all government and of social life: I mean virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone, that renders us invincible."
[Henry, Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 592, to Archibald Blair on January 8, 1799.]
"The Bible is a book worth more than all the other books that were ever printed."
[William Wirt, Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry (Philadelphia: James Webster, 1818), p. 402; see also George Morgan, Patrick Henry (Philadelphia & London: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1929), p. 403.]
"The view which the rising greatness of our country presents to my eye is greatly tarnished by the general prevalence of deism; which with me, is but another name for vice and depravity. I am, however, much consoled by reflecting, that the religion of Christ has, from its first appearance in the world, been attacked in vain by all the wits, philosophers, and wise ones aided by every power of man, and its triumph has been complete."
[Henry, Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 570, to Betsy Henry on August 20, 1796.]
"An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!…Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power…Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us…Is life so dear, or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!!!"
[William Wirt, Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry (Philadelphia: James Webster, 1818), pp. 121-123.]
Signer of the Declaration of Independence, "Father of Public Schools under the Constitution," "Father of American Medicine"
"My only hope of salvation is in the infinite transcendent love of God manifested to the world by the death of His Son upon the Cross. Nothing but His blood will wash away my sins. I rely exclusively upon it. Come, Lord Jesus! Come quickly!"
[Benjamin Rush, The Autobiography of Benjamin Rush, George W. Corner, editor (Princeton: Princeton University Press for the American Philosophical Society, 1948), p. 166.]
Signer of the Declaration of Independence, President of Princeton University
"I entreat you in the most earnest manner to believe in Jesus Christ, for there is no salvation in any other [Acts 4:12]…If you are not reconciled to God through Jesus Christ, if you are not clothed with the spotless robe of His righteousness, you must forever perish."
[John Witherspoon, The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh:J. Ogle, 1815), Vol. V, pp. 276, 278, The Absolute Necessity of SalvationThrough Christ, January 2, 1758.]
Patriot and Educator, called "The Father of American Geography"
"To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness, which mankind now enjoys…Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government – and all blessings which flow from them – must fall with them."
[Jedidiah Morse, A Sermon, Exhibiting the Present Dangers and Consequent Duties of the Citizens of the United States of America. Delivered at Charlestown. April 25, 1799, The Day of the National Fast (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1799), p. 9.]
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution
Benjamin Franklin's Request for Prayers at the Constitutional Convention
July 28, 1787
"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that "except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.
I therefore beg leave to move-that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business"
[James Madison, The Papers of James Madison, Henry D. Gilpin, editor (Washington: Langtree and O’Sullivan, 1840), Vol. II, pp. 984-986, June 28, 1787.]
33. Charity11/08/2012 02:28:14 AM
I agree with Hope. You are trying to make people deny there fundamental beliefs and you are so uncaring that you would vote for Obama out of spite. Let our country go down the tubes and our economy tank, not to mention our safety and freedoms
34. Jason Hook11/08/2012 05:35:31 AM
The constition was adopted on Sept 17 1787 many of Vickie's quotes come at various times after that some much later. So I'm not sure how valid they really are in the context of refuting Scott's argument.
This web page seems to offer quite a comprehensive examination of the arguments that the founding fathers were Christians designing a constitution for Christians: http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html
Isn't it possible that the FF intended the constitution to be something that people of all faiths or none could rally around and bind themselves to?
It's impossible to have a rational argument over things that to me are irrational.
I've suggested elsewhere that sometimes it's better not to change an organisation but to move on and start again.
35. Tiffany11/08/2012 06:45:22 AM
@Scott, you lefty you ;)
36. Scott Good11/08/2012 08:19:33 AM
@Hope: Chill, girl. You have missed my message entirely. Wipe the venom and froth off your mouth for a sec.
I have said nothing about nor against the people who voted for Romney. I voted for him myself. Apparently you did, too. Maybe you missed the fact he lost.
What I said, is that the reason the Republican party lost an election that, by all rights, should have been probably the most winnable contest in our lifetimes, is that the party, not the people, is completely and entirely out of touch.
@Vickie & @Jason: You may also want to consider the information on this page (http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html) which makes incredibly strong arguments against the founders and religion.
But, if we're going to drop down to individual quotes, consider:
John Adams: "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion." That seems pretty clear to me.
Regardless of the individual religiosity, or lack of it, of the founding fathers, the Constitution makes no reference to Christianity or any other religion, except in two places.
First, of course, is the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
The only other reference to anything which might be construed as religious is the date of the document, which is written as, "...the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." In this case, "the Year of our Lord" is the translation for Anno Domini, or AD, the calendar system used in western civilization.
@Jason: With regard to needing to just throw out the party altogether and start over, it's certainly possible you're right. The problem is, doing so is an incredibly big job made all the more difficult by the fact the Republican party isn't just going to shut the doors and hang a "We're closed" sign on the door. So, if you're going to take that tack, you're going to have to pull away people from a group intent on not losing them. See "Tea Party."
What's broken here is fixable and, if the response to this blog posting is any indication, there is a grea deal of passion in the country right now to do just that.
And, from what I can see, the passion is not only to fix the Republican party but to try to fix politics in general. On both sides of the aisle. We are limping along on the bum leg of an irresponsible, un-representative, and mostly broken governmental process. Isn't it time we did something to change it for the better?
37. Ellen11/08/2012 12:22:33 PM
This is a well written letter, but it does not cover all the reasons people have abandoned the republican party. I once would have identified myself as republican, but have been gradually driven away to the point I now identify with the democrats. Interestingly, I still agree with the republicans on some issues you mention (though with a lot less venom and more compassion aboput mitigating circumstances).
The things that drove me from the Republican party? The militarism of Reagan and George W. The restrictions of freedom under George W., who refused admittance to a hearing to a woman who was wearing a t-shirt protesting the war in Iraq. The support for tax cuts for the rich and for large corporations (not small businesses), while US CEOs are compensated so far beyond those who actually do the work (and so far beyond the president). And the venom in their stances on social issues.
38. lynn rogers11/08/2012 12:39:11 PM
Thank you . I am given hope that not all Republicans are so deluded and misguided. A new push for intelligent politics, working with all parties who have unified goals. That is my dream for America. I believe your party, all parties, should wise up and get back to working in concert. I am an optimist struggling with our current convoluted and ridiculously polarized system.
39. Hope11/08/2012 01:28:42 PM
@ Scott, It's not venom it's justified anger. You want conservatives to capitulate to a liberal world view. The fact you agree conservatives could right the economy but should yield to a superior liberal view on moral issues indicates you are agreeable to holding the economy hostage till conservatives convert. Suppose the politicans capitulate and it would not suprise me a bit if they do, now who are the millions of people going to vote for who do not agree that liberals have a superior view on moral issues? Rather than have the courage of conviction and present a case for conservatism and Christian values (yes Christian values because that is what liberals deeply hate) and persuade the liberal you would rather surrender to get votes. Make no mistake there is a battle between two different views of morality and sadly the moral decay indicates who is currently winning. Someone quoted John Adams above "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." The collaspe of the economy in my opinion is a trailing indicator of a already collasping morality. Once you totally remove the remaining vestiges it will not be long till all will experience a collasped economy.
40. Chris Hughes11/08/2012 01:34:57 PM
Well said Scott. I hope this crushing loss serves as the wake-up call we need to begin to address the problem. While Romney and the republicans certainly made some poor choices in the general election, I think the root of the problem is really with the Republican primary process. As long as the special interest money and the fringe zelots dominate the primary process (and not just at the presential or even national level) we will never see strong principled candidates that can win on the republican ticket.
Romney certainly would have been better than Obama, but its a stretch to call him a 'strong' candidate. Look at how both he and McCain had to completely abandon core beliefs to get through the primary, only to make it that much more difficult to appeal to the broad base you need to win in the general. Until that dynamic stops, what really good person would subject themselves to it?
In some ways I'm glad to live in a state that was going to go strongly Obama so I could vote in good conscious for the best candidate - Gary Johnson... would have been hard to do in a swing state!
41. Vickie11/08/2012 01:45:56 PM
Notice all the references at the end of each statement? It is not necessary to take my word on the subject unlike other posts I have read. A little more for your perusal.
"With one heart and one voice the good people may…join the penitent confession of their manifold sins…that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of remembrance...that it may please Him...to prosper the means of religion for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consisteth in righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."
[Continental Congress, Proclamation for a Day of Solemn Thanksgiving and Praise, November 1, 1777]
"We are a Christian people...not because the law demands it, not to gain exclusive benefits or to avoid legal disabilities, but from choice and education; and in a land thus universally Christian, what is to be expected, what desired, but that we shall pay due regard to Christianity?"
[Senate Judiciary Committee Report, January 19, 1853]
"At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged…In this age there can be no substitute for Christianity…That was the religion of the founders of the republic and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants."
[House Judiciary Committee Report, March 27, 1854]
42. John Nivens11/08/2012 02:07:03 PM
My God Missy, you are as smart as you are beatiful! That was very well wriiten.
I am a republican and had no idea I beleived all of that you said I beleive..
Thanks for the heads up.
Love you Johnny
43. Josef11/08/2012 02:12:36 PM
"I don't think there is really much doubt in most voters' minds that, of last night's two candidates, Mitt Romney is the one vastly more qualified to turn up the wick on our stagnant economy."
Pffft. The policies of Romney/Ryan might have helped crony capitalists, but they wouldn't have done much for our economy overall. The data is clear: if it were in fact the case that government intervention in the economy through regulation and redistribution prevented growth, then this would be evident in the growth rates of welfare states like Norway and Sweden. It is not. They grow just fine. Similarly, the US grew at a fine pace when our tax rates were much higher than they are now (under GOP presidents like Eisenhower and Nixon, even).
This "Republicans are more fiscally sound" argument is common and completely without merit, yet for some reason people keep repeating it.
44. Raymond Mason11/08/2012 02:25:06 PM
Scott Good is obviously a liberal in disquise. The positions he claims the Republicans' hold is inaccurate. Btw: homosexuals constitute not more than 3% of the population. But they make enough noise as if they were 40%!
45. Vickie11/08/2012 04:41:48 PM
I take no credit for any quotations in my posts. I am an American who loves God, Family & Country. I search for the Truth only to teach my children & grandchildren to combat the falsehoods of the media. If you diligently search for the truth, you will find it.
@Jason Do not take my word or any other website as Truth. Search for yourself. I have not had much time to read all the quotes on the website in your post to search if they are true. The following quote that is attributed to John Adams, "God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world", grabbed my attention immediately. According to the Library of Congress Exhibit on "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic" (http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html), "John Adams described himself as "a church going animal." "
The truth regarding the quote:
(From the website http://fakehistory.wordpress.com/2010/04/25/john-adams-and-the-awful-blasphemy/)
"John Adams and the Awful Blasphemy
Posted by sbh on Sunday, 25 April 2010
Did John Adams say
God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world
No. The two sentences given above were both written by John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, the first in 1820 and the second in 1825, but (as the dates show) they were not joined together, not written on the same topic, and not even part of the same letter.
Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, fellow firebrands in the American Revolution, became bitter political rivals in the early constitutional period, Adams being of the Federalist party and Jefferson of the Antifederalist. The election of 1800, in which Jefferson defeated Adams to become the third president of the United States, was extremely divisive, and left lasting wounds. Nonetheless, when the sound and fury had died, the two ex-presidents resumed their friendship and exchanged what has become a classic series of letters on a wide variety of topics. One of those topics was religion. Neither man believed in the orthodox doctrine of the trinity, that desperate fourth-century compromise that tried to insist that the deity could be both tripartite and unitary. And neither bought into the doctrine of the incarnation, either. In a letter of 22 January 1825 Adams expressed his dismay about Jefferson’s plan to staff his college with European scholars because
"The Europeans are all deeply tainted with prejudices, both ecclesiastical and temporal, which they can never get rid of. They are all infected with episcopal and presbyterian creeds, and confessions of faith. They all believe that great Principle which has produced this boundless universe, Newton’s universe and Herschell’s universe, came down to this little ball, to be spit upon by Jews. And until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world."
The bolded section will be recognized as the source for the second sentence in the frankenquote as given above. As for the first, in a discussion of matter and spirit suggested by a book the two had recently read, Adams wrote on 17 January 1820:
"When we say God is a spirit, we know what we mean, as well as we do when we say that the pyramids of Egypt are matter. Let us be content, therefore, to believe him to be a spirit, that is, an essence that we know nothing of, in which originally and necessarily reside all energy, all power, all capacity, all activity, all wisdom, all goodness."
He followed this by signing off with “Behold the creed and confession of faith of your ever affectionate friend.” Again, the portion in bold is obviously the source for the first sentence of the alleged quotation. Had this been quoted
…God is … an essence that we know nothing of…
it could be said to be a fair quotation, though it would have been better to be a bit fuller, say
… God is a spirit … that is, an essence that we know nothing of, in which originally and necessarily reside all energy, all power, all capacity, all activity, all wisdom, all goodness.
Something like that, anyway. But following it with the 1825 sentence makes it seem as though the “awful blasphemy” is the concept of god, rather than the specific doctrine of the incarnation. (Which is why it earns the red designation, even though the words are all those of Adams himself.) The source for this misleading combination seems to have been a BBC program entitled Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief (later shown in the US as A Brief History of Disbelief) that first aired in 2004. Google Books shows it appearing in a 2008 book entitled The Quotable John Adams, compiled by Randy Howe.
It looks as though the editing of the 1820 quotation was done in the interest of making John Adams appear to have atheist leanings, something that would have been harder to maintain with a fuller quotation. However, I haven’t seen the program, or how the quotations were used, and the context might explain a lot. In any case, this quotation, as usually given, is bogus."
Letter to Thomas Jefferson 17 January 1820 (John Adams)
Letter to Thomas Jefferson 22 January 1825 (John Adams)
46. Mary S11/08/2012 08:37:19 PM
I couldn't disagree more with his critique of the Republican party. (1) - Not sure where when the party tried to "insert religion" into the government. Could be be referring to the fact the the RNC had God mentioned in their platform, but it took the Dems to all God in an embarrassing vote on day two?. (2) - Republicans do not want to limit the rights of Americans because of who they love. The issue is the word marriage....we do not need to redefine it we need to reinforce it. The gay and lesbian community should have ALL THE SAME RIGHTS and they can have their own word for it. G&L have taken over the word Gay, there are lawsuits out there where the word gay can not be used to refer to happy, etc, Why should G&L community get to dictate words being changed in the dictionary. ( And as for loosing a "huge" portion of the young..... Romney won the vote of 18-29 year old white voters. ) (3) - I find it amazing that Mr. Good called the republicans elitist and arrogant. Is it not arrogant that President Obama doesn't need to provide any of his records from college? Or that he can Lie to the American people regarding Libya? (4)- Insisting that "we" turned off women....Mr. Good once again boiled women down to their uteruses. The issue about abortion is just as much about personal responsibility as it is about abortion itself. Most intelligent people know that Roe V Wade can not be overturned by the president. Mr. Romney could have cut funding to Planned Parenthood, but could not have reversed the supreme courts decision. (5) - I do agree that we are not a country driven by the wants of "rich white men". We are a country of many colors and needs. The Republican party sees the best in people. They want to create or help create jobs for all able bodied citizens, let the feel pride and dignity, get them away from the entitlement mindset. Require that all people be responsible for their actions. The conservative fiscal policies is the foundation to the entire Republican platform.
47. Tony Twillie11/09/2012 12:07:08 AM
Well spoken, and intelligent, sir. I appreciated the read. Independent here; I agree that mistakes were made and have been made for some time with your party. I only hope that more people like you can help to drive it back to the center - in the meantime, I hope someone can do the same for the Democratic party - there is a moderate majority that needs politicians to govern and stop playing politics.
The libertarian party has a lot of openings for fiscally conservative/socially liberal people, and there's a bunch of folks disillusioned by the current system. I honestly hoped Gary Johnson had made more of a showing, just to get everyone's attention... not being able to participate in the debates and not having anyone to back him to the tune of $3 billion puts one at a disadvantage...
As for your detractors, they are the people you spoke of in your original statement. There is room for everyone at the table - isn't that a religious teaching? For people who claim religion as their guide in things political, the religious teachings of love and tolerance seem to be lost...
48. Dorothy Tittle11/09/2012 11:22:58 AM
I am a Democrat sir, and your views sound very similar to my own. I think you would have an easier time effecting the changes you seek within the Democratics party, instead of "yours". Democrats worry about the deficit too. We are an inclusive bunch, after all what's in a name? Democrat, Republican, we are all Americans.
49. Cheryl Godard11/09/2012 01:05:28 PM
You should email this letter to the editorial staff of the Columbus Dispatch, The New York Times and The Washington Post. It's so exactly right on, to the point and extremely well written. You will save millions of dollars in market research studies for the Republican Party. I was a Republican (but now am an independent) because your revelation regarding social issues was becoming apparent to me in the 2004 election. When Karl Rove decided to become the architect of the Republican Party and the extreme Christian right became the voice, I as a moderate who is fiscally conservative but socially open minded, was left out in the cold. It was impossible to side with a party of Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Donald Trump and other extreme and unintelligent individuals who think they are more American for some reason than the rest of us. Give me a break. Extremes on either side cannot be allowed. Common sense, tolerance, acceptance and mutual respect might be a starting point to work through our differences. We're all on Team USA and if we don't start acting like it, China, India and others will be laughing at us all the way to the bank. Thank you for your voice of reason and sign me up for any group you wish to start that embodies this common sense approach to respectful dialogue.
50. Olga Lifson11/09/2012 01:19:41 PM
Very impressive! I am also a Republican and agree that the party needs improvement. Cannot stand the sanctimonious anti-abortion stuff, which, to my mind, has no place in politics at all. Six BILLION dollars could have been put to much better use in the current economy. But in the absence of any viable third party option one had to choose the lesser of two evils. And Obama is the worst evil imaginable. Take it from an old woman who spent the first 38 years of her life in the Soviet Union. Protest votes either don't work at all, or sometimes lead to undesirable results: once we voted for Jessy Ventura for Governor of Minnesota, and - oops! - he won... I can only hope that you, young guys, can eventually form a third party that would be somewhere in the middle.
51. david11/09/2012 02:10:21 PM
Well thought out and thoughtfully stated. Or maybe all I am saying i that I agree with most of it.
But this idea that the GOP is somehow "Fiscally Conservative" is wrong - maybe silly.
Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 Broke the bank with profligate spending, and in the case of W, by throwing huge amounts of money at the filthy rich.
52. ike11/09/2012 06:07:15 PM
you're a libertarian
53. Fabio11/10/2012 02:12:43 AM
As a relatively new American and a proud white Liberal, I see that there is still hope for having a constructive debate if more people like you and most of those who replied (save for the usual loonies that always find a way to pop up) are able to take over the GOP.
It's refreshing to read a Republican who sees the same reality that I do.
For those who don't, I like the words of your own Senator Graham: “We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.”
One last thought for the Bible lovers, look up the Treaty of Tripoli of 1796 and re-read the 1st Amendment (possibly w/out having Fox on at the same time), which is much less ambiguous than the 2nd that some of you guys love so much.
And if taking over the GOP doesn't work out, our tent keeps getting bigger...
54. cyphur11/11/2012 01:08:02 AM
55. Hannah11/11/2012 10:47:13 AM
I agree with many of you, Scott's letter is well versed, and a great synopsis of the decline of the Grand Old Party.
Interestingly enough, the comments, beliefs and ideals reflected in those who disagree most strongly with Scott's letter are attitudes that support his thesis.
56. Rob11/11/2012 10:05:19 PM
I agree with just about everything you say. I grew up in a staunchly republican family. And they are very much still the same. Compared to their views, I'm a flaming "sacrilegious liberal." It is sad that we equate so many "personal" values with being liberal or conservative. Fiscally, I'm very conservative. I'm in strong favor of a small government run mostly by the states. If I'm going to associate myself with any party, It would be libertarian. And I think if most people knew what libertarians thought, they would probably agree. Simplified, it's a live and let live view point. My biggest disagreement with most people who consider themselves more liberal or democratic, is the issue of abortion. I totally respect the fact that it's a woman's body, but that baby inside is not the woman's. Nor the man's. By what right do we as humans have to decide who lives and dies? I understand that sometimes very shitty things happen to very good people (i.e. rape). And I understand that something like that can have a huge emotional impact on a woman. But there are option. And I feel like I'm preaching to the choir, because everyone has heard them. But there are many couples that can't even have children. Why not have the child and then put it up for adoption? I'm sure there are plenty of gay and lesbian couples who would love to have your baby! If you're a dude and you like dudes(I don't quite understand that), but hey...that's your life. Be as gay you possibly can be. And the same goes for the ladies that love the ladies. Do your thing! Adopt a child from a woman that has been the victim of terrible circumstance! Give that child a chance! Let it determine it's own quality of life. This is one issue I feel I will never change my mind on.
Other than that, great post!
57. Scott Good11/12/2012 08:59:11 AM
Hi Rob, and thanks for your note.
Personally, I see abortion differently. While I think pretty much everyone agrees it would be better if women didn't need to have abortions, in fact, they do. Okay, maybe "need" is too strong a word as that gets a little too deeply into Maslow's hierarchy but, in many cases, it approaches need.
And, there is arguably a social benefit to abortion, but let's deal with what I understand to be the basic question: Whether or not it's okay to take a human life.
This is a question our society has spoken very clearly about, in many different ways. Final verdict: It is absolutely okay to take a human life. To wit:
Seventy-five percent of US citizens are in favor of the death penalty (source: AmericanCatholic.org).
There is a growing belief that terminally-ill patients, particularly those doomed to live the rest of their days in terrible pain, should be given the option to gracefully end things with physician-assisted suicide.
According to Reuters, in 2007 the US had 9 guns for every 10 citizens. Although I'm not a gun owner myself (at least not yet), I have many friends who are. many of whom are quite against abortion and yet have no qualms about the idea of using their guns to protect themselves or their families if someone were to break into their homes.
And, of course, we have wars. The US has spent untold trillions of dollars, busily killing people of pretty much all kinds. Since I was born in 1957, the marquee events were in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iran, Libya, Grenada, Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Sudan, and Serbia. But, don't forget the war on drugs in Columbia, Boliva, and Peru and, of course, we have little skirmishes all over the place. As of 2012, we spend in excess of $700-million each year on defense which, despite its name, is about killing people.
So, clearly, under some circumstances--actually, under many circumstances, we are just as right as rain with taking human lives.
Okay, sure, but that's just war and criminals and crazy religious fanatics and such. Of course it's okay to kill them, but abortion?
If you love the fact we live in a democracy, surely you believe that a democracy should be governed by the wishes of the people, which is to say by the majority. In everything there will be losers. In a democracy, the losers are the minority, whatever the subject. That is, at its heart, the underly tenet of democracy. We vote and the most votes wins.
Well, the votes are in and pro-life lost.
According to Harris Interactive, in 2011, 36% of Americans felt a woman should have access to abortion under all circumstances. Only 17% were opposed to abortion under any circumstance. That, of course, leaves 47% in the middle, believing that abortion should be legal under some but not all circumstances.
So, to be clear, 83% of Americans think abortion should be legal under at least some circumstances. Ergo, in this democracy, abortion should be legal. Period.
There's plenty of room to argue about when and why abortion should be legal, and when or why it might not be, but it seems pretty clear that the basic underlying question is really not a question at all.
Abortion in the US? On the whole, we're good with it.
58. Oldtime repub11/12/2012 05:56:57 PM
@57 - Actually we don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic. The majority does not, and should not always win.
59. Michael in Israel11/14/2012 02:42:00 AM
As a centrist who wishes there were Republicans worthy of my vote, I applaud you for a mostly well-written and insightful letter. I do take issue with one statement, however:
"I don't think there is really much doubt in most voters' minds that, of last night's two candidates, Mitt Romney is the one vastly more qualified to turn up the wick on our stagnant economy. And yet, he had his hat and walking papers handed to him because, it turns out, most people don't vote based on only one issue."
Here, sir, you are 100 percent wrong. There was tremendous doubt that Mr. Romney was qualified to turn around the economy. That, for me, was the very first reason not to vote Republican this year (as it was for most of my centrist friends). Mr. Romney represents the very people who destroyed the economy, not the people best able to fix it. Asking Mr. Romney to fix an economy staggering from decades of outsourcing good-paying manufacturing jobs, as well as reeling from two unpaid-for wars because of Republican foolishness over tax policy, is a perfect example of putting the fox in the hen house. A Romney presidency (I shudder to write the words) would have destroyed the four, long, hard years of work done by President Obama and the Democrats and would have decimated the steps made toward recovery.
America is so fortunate that President Obama will lead it for another four years. With luck and a lot of hard work, he and the Democratic Senate - along with the millions of people like me who will be DEMANDING that the Republican-controlled, gerrymandered House cooperate and work with the Democrats and Mr. Obama - will finally consign "supply-side economics" to the dustbin of history.
If the GOP wants to regain my vote, it must do the following:
- Immediately announce that it intends to cooperate FULLY with President Obama and the Democrats. Honest bipartisanship is the only way forward and that means the GOP must quit being obstructionist.
- Announce its full and unequivocal support for the progressive income tax system. This is the backbone of American strength and why America became the greatest power in the world.
Remember: America was at the height of its power when people like Mr. Romney paid a 90% tax rate. Why? Because to lower their taxable income, people like Mr. Romney had to invest in American jobs, rather than outsource them abroad. That is no longer the case. Cutting taxes on the Romneys of this world provides no incentive for them to invest in America or American jobs. All those extra millions just get funneled to off-shore tax havens and that's why "supply-side economics" is, and always will be, a failure.
Bottom line: The GOP must drop its resistance to raising taxes on the richest 2% of Americans and it must support revising the capital gains tax so that wealthy people again have incentive to invest in American business. Every time you give a Romney a tax break, he will hide his money in off-shore tax haven. Or, if he does decide to "invest" in job creation, it will be investing in creating jobs overseas. That's Mr. Romney's type of job creation, as his record plainly shows.
- Separate itself from the hatred, bigotry, and blatant, outright racism so evident in the party today. I was appalled at the poisonous hate I saw and read coming from Republican supporters. You should all be ashamed of yourselves for not condemning that.
- Stop the war on women. The GOP must show 100 percent support for a woman's right to choose. This means to choose birth control as well as abortion. You have no right to legislate (dictate) to anyone about their health and their reproductive rights.
- Stop the war against health care reform. I live in a country with Universal Health Care. I pay - literally - just pennies a day for complete and comprehensive health care (my monthly health care costs come to about $35, including the cost of prescriptions). Anyone opposed to UHC either doesn't understand it...or is just plain stupid.
- Lastly, the GOP must acknowledge that the Democrats are the fiscally conservative party today, just as it has been for the past 30 years. The National Debt rests almost entirely on the shoulders of the GOP. You people love to spend money but you hate to pay the bills. I will NEVER vote for a Republican again, until you stop your economic foolishness.
Sadly, I don't see much hope for the GOP. You didn't get humiliated enough at the polls this time. Thanks to your gerrymandering of Congressional Districts around the country, you still control the House of Representatives and think you have some sort of mandate as a result. You don't. You only control the House because of gerrymandering and the definition of gerrymandering should have the word "cheating" in it, right at the start.
You lost the popular vote for President, for the Senate, AND for the House. Yes, you lost the vote for the House (by approximately 500,000 votes), but your cheating allows you to control it.
Most of you reading this comment will start to rant and rave and call me a Socialist, I imagine. Good. I'd much rather be a Socialist than a hate-filled, racist, bigoted Capitalist Republican in the 21st Century. And what a sad commentary that is on your sad, pathetic, out-of-date, and (possibly) beyond-redemption party.
Prove me wrong. Reform your party and become the Republican party of Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower. Until then, I'll continue to vote for the Democratic party; the truly "big-tent" party of Barack Hussein Obama.