Should the GOP Move Right To Save Itself? - Ramesh Ponnuru

[8j98j89jf9m98e2j92]

Ramesh Ponnuru is an anti-white, anti-Western, pro-Third World immigration neocon. He needs to be deported back to India.

[rrp1973]

I am baffled how the Republicans keep getting labeled by some as this extreme right wing group. Under bush the government grew MORE than under Clinton. Republicans are basically democrats. Maybe a little more pro war and little more prone to pleasing the christian right. Thats about it.

[MarmaladeINFP]

From the side info: "Will the party return to Reagan or will a new leader and a new direction emerge?" Actually, Bush jr was the inevitable conclusion of Reagan. Bush jr simply carried out the evangelical neoconservative vision to its most extreme end. If you want to find the true Republican party, you have to go back before Reagan. The GOP used to be a major proponent of civil rights & enemy of the KKK. MLK was Republican. Starting with Reagan, racial tensions became a wedge issue for the GOP.

[tonylee1973]

Forget the idiot clown.

DONATE TO RAND PAUL!

WOLVERINES!!!!!!!

[12oink12]

omg he sounds like a little girl. lol

[nylonhead116]

@12oink12 Sounds more like he's been inhaling too much helium if you ask me.

[foxh8er]

This idiot is a disgrace to asians...

[walterfireson]

being a liberal conservative i would say they need to move left quite a bit.

[dollaresque]

More civil liberties, less bureaucratic government. more positive world involvement with fewer wars, focus on the future with green tech and real plans for economic growth. That will make me move towards the Republicans, and I'm a Democrat and an Obama campaign worker. I'm also a law student and a company owner... so we are all ready to move to whichever party has a better direction for America.

[gizmosells]

The Republican lost chunks of the midwest really badly. The solution is common sense use of tax dollars, and stop co-opting with democrats on taxes.

No, compromise on spending bills vote all spending bills down.

[airlock2000]

is this guy a little guy ahahah

[bryandenehy76]

the republicans need to weed out all the Neo-Cons and get back to their roots. Smaller government, more civil liberties, ect.

[FaaarLeft]

The republican party will never win if it's economic program only benefits rich people.

[matriddle]

Not really, because currently lobbying controls much of politics and those with wealth have the means to fund lobbyists. Also, the republican party clearly has a lot of people voting for them purely based on social issues, which most truly wealthy people couldn't care about.

[nader85021]

who said the other party is different

[FaaarLeft]

I agree with that the two main parties agree too much on trade and war issues, but to say that there is no difference is simply untrue. Obama just increased taxes on the top five percent and expanded health care coverage, would the Republicans have done that? NO.

[GOPsithlord]

I've heard these types of arguments before, but I think Ramesh is forgetting that the GOP's greatest sin is in forgetting who they are/were in the past when it came to financial issues. Once the GOP gave into the perception that that they were just as bad spending wise, the message from their voters was that they should be punished. Does populism with a healthy spending jolt of some kind define them or are they simply being led to make lesser compromises with the Obama administration?

[lsnfoundation]

Should the GOP Move Right To Save Itself? I agree that the voters will wait to see what the Democratic Party will do before they make a determination on their votes in the four years. I agree that American might switch back and forth and if they do. It might be a mistake for all Americans. Also, if Americans decide to switch back and forth its going to be hard for us to know what to expect in Americans' future. So I agree that Americans are on a switch warfare of the parties.

[FRTothus]

Accusations directed at the Democrats of "socialism" which might benefit the ordinary citizens ignores the much larger and very expensive Hamiltonian "socialism" which is provided to the corporations (corporate welfare) through the Pentagon and A.I.D. "Our upside down welfare state is "socialism for the rich, free enterprise for the poor." The great welfare scandal of the age concerns the dole we give rich people."

(William O. Douglas, former U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1969 )

[valgehiir]

yep yep, let the Nation Review show GOP the way,

grab Kristol and Barns from Weekly Standard as well to generate some 'new' ideas and you're half way there

[cobwebhead]

The notion that republicans need to "return to their principles" makes it seem like they've been doing something else. They haven't, of course, it's just that the last 8 years have proven that most of them don't work. It's time for the republican party to come up with some new ideas.

[Keeban3]

Levianthan you are completely correct (I'd say right, but that would be somewhat misleading).

[LeviathanXX]

Exactly what does he mean by move to the right? If he means that they should adopt a more mainstream libertarian agenda- going back to basics by stressing on reducing size of government and increasing personal freedom and civil liberties, then I agree, that would help. But if he means continuing on the path of this Christian-right coalition, then it spells doom for the party. In the last few years, I moved away from the party because it moved away from the principles that I cared about.

[Bobbiethejean]

No. It should move off a cliff to save the rest of us.

[valgehiir]

Bobbiethejean, very good :D

[FoShizzle951]

This discussion was lame.

[toosinbeymen]

Have at it, Hoss! Please, please, please, please, please, move more to the right.

I'd love to see a Dem majority for generations to come. Please, move to the right, please

[ernestshelley]

TYT Nation!!!!!!

[arequipa1]

keep waiting, it's not happening.

[FarFromEquilibrium]

I dont think there will be any problem for Republicans getting elected if Republicans move right. After the money being printed causes the problems it will cause and the redistribution causes a taxpayer revolt, they will all be clammoring to be the 'most conservative' and wearing opposition to Obama as a badge of honor, as indeed it should be seen as such by any who value sound sustainable economic performance and national security. The Obamanation too shall pass.

[toosinbeymen]

Opposition to bush was worn even by Rs as a badge of honor just 3 months ago.

Do you really think Obama spending tax money on Americans (rather than in Iraq on the behalf of Halliburton and Blackwater or on the super rich in the form of tax cuts) is going to cause tax payer revolts? Ha! You all really do live in an alternative universe.

[FarFromEquilibrium]

Obama IS spending on Iraq, has added Pakistan and boosted Afghanistan.. cutting taxes to the super rich?? what the hell do you call 'super rich? 'not on welfare'? I got a tax cut and made under $50,000!! nearly every working person I knew got a tax cut under Bush , and I hated Bush anyway b/c he spent too much.. chairman BO spending > 2x as much in one budget is not change nor a good idea.

or in your "universe" does $800 billion not equal 2x400billion? he's not done printing either

[mikezephyr]

'chairman BO' is stretching much. ive seen many comments like this by americans and take it to mean that obama is a 'socialist', 'communist' or daresay 'marxist'.

increased state spending during cyclic downturns is the norm in late capitalism and even if obama exhibits Keynesian features it's only to save capitalism.

additionally, the existence of an industrial economy is predicated on the existence of a state subsidizing production. that's how there's war, rail, highway, aeroplanes, internet

[mikezephyr]

moreover, socialism in america, since the bolsheviks thanks to government propaganda, has exclusively meant autocratic dictatorship, despite even a history of US popular revolutionary movements and radical unions that have been the progenitors of the New Deal for example, which (like the obama plan) were reactionary measures by the political and economic elite to class resistance and mass grass-roots opposition.

[FarFromEquilibrium]

yes the capitalist eleite have "used" populism and sought to coopt it with such crap, and they are desperately selling the rope they would hang from shold such populistm get/be oput of conrol. Dont trivialize BO's excess,with relativism its a matter of degree that is why he's ove the top, and no thats not relative either. FDR didnt start out with huge debt. Bush went too far and even over the edge, BO is off the charts.. have you seen FED balance sheet?? 2008/09 is certainly anomalous. not good.

[mikezephyr]

no, that's certainly true- it's pretty massive for the US and the world. interesting times.

[truthadvocate]

Fiscal responsibility, reducing the size of government, reducing regulations and tax burdens on businesses in order to give freedom back to the people should be their strategy. It's simple. Filibuster anything that increases the already overwhelming power of government. Because everytime government grows, our rights are trampled, and frankly the American people deserve better.

[mikezephyr]

that has been the rhetoric of the New Right since LBJ in the states- privatizing public institutions, deregulating finance and establishing the welfare state (or as americans call it, big government) of capital.

hardly a success for anyone other than CEOs or a meaningful agenda for freedom, liberty, equality and effective democracy.

since the end of the cold war, income disparity has ballooned. Last year American CEOs earned 262 times the average wage of their workers-up tenfold from 1970.

[truthadvocate]

So what? ...If someone else is making more money, it does not mean you make any less.

If everyone was a millionaire. Nobody would work. Nobody would produce anything. There would be no food in the grocery stores, no medicine in the drug stores, no fresh water, no electricity... Is that the equality you long for?

[mikezephyr]

that's an unreasonable argument.

true enough people are currently wage-laborers because of the threat of poverty and starvation, but if one had their basic needs satisfied, a healthy person would still contribute the welfare of all regardless.

the rise in corporate wealth over the last 30 years is in direct correlation to the more uneven distribution of income in the USA. the average income of workers has been leveled off and decreased in the interest of capital.

[truthadvocate]

Unreasonable? I'm pointing out basic aspects of human behavior.

An uneven distribution of income is not a problem. It provides incentive to be productive, to increase one's skills and experience, to make more informed, responsible, smarter decisions, to pay more attention to the needs and desires of consumers.

"average income of workers has been leveled off and decreased in the interest of capital" So a business shouldn't be concerned with capital? Thank God you don't run mine.

[Krumbz2003]

Oh yes. Please GOP... please move more to the "right".

Make sure you run Sarah Palin in 2012!

And don't forget to put a nice pretty ribbon on that for us!

Thank you!