Republican Party has ignored its principles

The Greenville News ^ | March 26, 2004 | Robert G. Butch Taylor (letter to the editor)

[Doohickey]

That's a goal, and a worthy one. What will you do after that?

[Doohickey]

Nixon was not impeached.

[Miss Marple]

Well, I don't intend to alienate the conservaive base. I consider myself one of them. However, I am worn out with arguing with people who are threatening to leave. Nothing is ever good enough, conservative enough, pure enough for them.

I supose I sound defeatist and cynical, but I have been reading this stuff for three years. Of course I wish people would reconsider and stay, but there are a certain number who will leave, no matter what. I daresay in a few years they will be leaving their third parties as well, to form fourth and fifth parties.

[WRhine]

Wow, what a screed of Strawmen there. I take it you believe, by your apparent sarcasm, that if someone does not agree with our job/industry exporting trade policies, they must be against all trade. I take it you believe that if someone has a problem with mass illegal immigration they must want to gun down Mexicans at the border. Good Grief. Tell me:

Do You like our present One-Way trading relationship with the PRC? You know, that nice communist country that threatened to Nuke America 3 years ago and is furiously building up their military with the help of American trade money and technological know how so they can exert their influence throughout the pacific rim--and Lord knows where else.

Do You like the notion of an America without borders?

Do You like the idea of Americans paying for the staggering social costs of Illegal Aliens?

Do You like the idea of offshoring America’s critical industries and technology to socialist/communist countries when those very same countries refuse to allow America any meaningful access to their markets?

Evidently you do.

[PRND21]

How are you helping end those liberal policies? By promoting Third Party Wing nuts?

[ladyinred]

Really? Kerry and Bush have the same political beliefs.

With all due respect, NO they do not.

[ladyinred]

My favorite part of this post is the name of the author.

[ladyinred]

My post should not have been directed to you, opps. My eyes are blurred from all of the spinning I have been subjected to lately!

[ladyinred]

All over this forum today, and yesterday actually, you will find example after example of our party fighting back against the rats. Usually I am also unhappy at the silence, but can't say that now as they are doing a good job of whomping on them.

[Smartass]

YUUUK.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

BUSH & CHENEY 2004

[Jim Robinson]

Not especially, but I do like the idea of capitalism and free markets in China. Could catch on. Would be much better than communism in China.

I like our borders just fine. Thanks.

No I don't like taxpayer provided social services for illegals. Don't like it for legals either. Nor anyone else for that matter, natural born American citizens, immigrants or whatever.

Offshoring per se doesn't necessarily bother me. Not in love with the idea of giving our technology to our enemies though.

[WRhine]

Thanks for acknowledging that there is a middle ground on the issues of trade and illegal immigration.

[GOP_1900AD]

I understand your frustration. What this entire thread demonstrates is the fundamental gap in terms of platform which the GOP needs to close this year. The whole globalist thing, while appealing to some in the business community as well as certain policy wonks, just does not resonate with most Americans and never will. It was obvious that outsourcing would become an issue in this campaign, and, as a party, we essentially failed to take our best shot at it early on. Now look at Kerry claiming he'll create 10M jobs by eliminating tax advantages for going overseas. If Bush had combined his tax cuts, which I wholeheartedly endorse, with a check and balance on excessive anti nationalist behavior of some in the business community (see the "Republican Party Platform of 1900" for comparison), then we could have had our cake and eaten it too. Clearly, wholesale tariffs or micromanagement of corporate siting are not the way to proceed. However, there are things which could be done, albeit ones not in line with the 100% hands-off Liberty Caucus / Catoite orthodoxy, which would win the hearts and minds of Main Street while not being overly harsh to business. Reagan was really good at striking this balance, but quite frankly, W (or perhaps, those with too much influence on his policies) are not.

[Luis Gonzalez]

A bill of Impeachment was introduced in the House of Representatives. The next step was for a committee of the House to examine the charges. After months of study, the House Judiciary Committee voted to recommend that President Nixon be impeached. Now it was up to the full House to decide whether the president should be impeached, charged with crimes and put on trial in the Senate.

Before the vote could be taken, a bombshell hit. In July 1974, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the president had to give up tapes of conversations about Watergate he had made two years before. In August the President released these tapes to the public. They showed that Nixon had known about the cover-up all along.

Even many people who supported Nixon were shocked. It appeared certain that he would be impeached by the House. It also looked as if the Senate would vote to remove him from office. On August 9, 1974, Nixon gave up his office. He became the first person ever to resign as President of the United States.

Source

[Luis Gonzalez]

"The whole globalist thing..."

There is no "globalist" thing.

There is the fundamental right of business owners to conduct business in accordance to the best interest of their business, and to now be overly burdened by government regulations and unconstitutional restrictions.

If I, as a business owner, want to subcontract an offshore company to do work for me, there is nothing in the constitution that grants either the government, or my employees, veto rights on my b business decisions.

To argue and debate the "globalist" thing, is to buy into liberal propaganda.

[Doohickey]

So, in other words Nixon was not impeached.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Do You like our present One-Way trading relationship with the PRC?"

Do you have a two way trade relationship with your grocer?

Your barber?

Your dry cleaner?

Your auto mechanic?

Your doctor?

Are you endangering your personal financial status because you buy from the local Piggly Wiggly, but they don't buy anything from you?

[AM2000]

It appeared certain that he would be impeached by the House. [...] On August 9, 1974, Nixon gave up his office. He became the first person ever to resign as President of the United States.

You're right. He wasn't.

[Luis Gonzalez]

That's right, Nixon was not impeached, and Clinton didn't lie.

[Doohickey]

Why can't you just admit you're wrong? "Would have been impeached" does not equal "was impeached". You would have the first aneurism if the Democrats played fast and loose with history like that (which they often do, by the way).

In fact, only two Presidents have been impeached: Andrew Johnson and William Jefferson Blythe Clinton.