Seen at SquareStare.net
by: Bill Egnor AKA Something The Dog Said
Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 07:36:00 AM MST
What is it, exactly, that the Republican Party stands for? They have a PR rep for being strong on the military, strong on fiscal discipline and strong on traditional values. The problem is that over the last couple of years we have seen that, as a group, they really don’t have any credibility on any of these issues.
The idea that a part who is calling for 700 billion in tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, money that will have to be borrowed, while at the same time braying about the size of the deficit is not one that can truly be credible on the issue of financing the government. The tax breaks they are ready to defend, at the cost of raising the taxes on the middle class in the middle of the worst economic climate in more than two generations. Not a single Republican would answer what they would cut to pay for this windfall for the ultra wealthy prior to the election or even now.
The utility of tax cuts for the wealthy has been discredited too. The wealthy might use the extra money, but they won’t use it in ways that fuel the economy. If they buy art or gold plate their toilets that is money which does not return to work in the economy. Sure some goes to the auction house and the gold plate company, but once the rich have this item, it just sits there, unproductive.
If being strong on values is to be accepted then you really have to walk the talk. Yet time and again and again we see so-called “Family Values” Republicans caught in affairs or in a wide stance in a public bathroom or being outted for patronizing prostitutes. That is before we look at the numbers of high ranking Republicans who have been divorced multiple times, often leaving wives for younger women.
They have made a real fetish of standing with the military in the past decade. The war and patriotism bandwagon was one that Republicans climbed on early and with a will. They used it to question the patriotism of those who apposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even going as far as to ask “Why do Democrats hate our troops?”
I have always believed that it is a very dangerous thing for the civilian authorities to say that they would “listen to the Generals” and basically do whatever they said. One of the things that distinguish a functional democracy from a non-functional one is civilian control of the military. Putting the onus on General Petraeus and using him as a prop to push their favored policy was a big step on a slippery slope.
Read the rest of this great article at SquareStare.net