The last Republican vote

This time around, I voted for Romney, the Republican candidate. This election is the last one in which I will go with a Republican national candidate ... unless the Repubs can come up with another Reagan, which is not likely.

Here's the deal:

The Republicans are on the way out. While they have retained control of the House, and in our own back yards the Colorado 3rd and Colorado 4th, they are essentially has-beens. And by now, they should have taken the Senate, but they have not. More on that one in a minute ...

The Republican Party is not now, and never has been, a party that appeals to me, and I certainly do not appeal to them, other than perhaps I might vote for them. In fact, in the past, I have voted for more Democrats for national office than not. But in the last decade or so, the Democrats have moved to a leftist extreme that I do not like. Rather than the Democratic Party of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson, we now have a Democratic Party of Pelosi, and Reid, Obama and Biden, Barney Frank and Rahm Emannuel, all of whom I consider either whackjobs, or socialist extremists, or Chicago-type political crooks, or all of the above.

So why am I fed up with the Republicans, to the point where I would actually vote for the Democrats as they now exist?

First, I don't like the way they cannot separate religion from politics.

Leece is of the view that if one is a 'Christian', and adheres to Christ's teachings, then this will be evident in one's behaviors toward others, and in how one conducts one's daily business. A truly 'Christian' politician will therefore exercise his office properly, without the need to make his religious beliefs and perspectives part of an official political doctrine.

It is not necessary to advocate that students, for example, be required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance with God, by God, included in it; it is not necessary to have the Ten Commandments posted on the wall behind a judge's bench; it is not necessary to require Christian prayers at the opening of school board meetings, or the meetings of political bodies (and if you don't think 'Christian' is a requirement, try having an imam give a Muslim invocation sometime). It is not necessary to deny gays a marriage option because 'God says it's an abomination' (it may be, but that's between our gay friends and neighbors and God, not me, not you, and certainly not some politician); if they want to deny such a union because of the fiscal impact (which is really what drives all this anti-gay marriage nonsense, I think) then they should have the guts to spit it out there rather than hiding behind cherry-picked verses from Leviticus.

And only a Republican could think that a pregnancy resulting from rape means it wasn't really a rape.

Then we get into the whole creation versus evolution thing, wherein we are to believe - and have our kids so taught in the public schools - that the earth is only 6,000 years old and there are herds of stegosauruses hiding somewhere in the jungles of Cambodia. Or some nonsense like that. Or Huckabee's '... at gun-point ...' endorsement of David Barton's garbage. Religion, especially mindless fundamentalist religion as a political doctrine scares the crap out of me.  You have to understand that while most people think the First Amendment protects the church from the government, most people miss the point that it also protects the government from the church. We are not a 'Christian' nation, never have been, and despite the rants of the Tea Party's pathetically uninformed 'constitutional scholars' and the others of the so-called 'Christian' right, the Founders never intended it to be so. 'Christians' have always been, in this country, the most virulent oppressors of the faith of others, including the faith of fellow Christians of the 'wrong' denominations. Based on the history of Christianity in the New World, one can make good argument that the religion clause of the First Amendment was written to protect us from so-called 'Christians'.

Then, of course, there is their flag-waving super-patriot garbage. This is the attitude that led to the beatings of Jehovah's Witnesses over refusing to recite a bit of doggerel, written by a national socialist in Baptist clothing, and which has taken on a status that is mind-boggling in the levels of hatred the Repubs can spew over it. This is the attitude that led - as but one example - to the wretched treatment of men like Hugh Thompson, a man who did in fact stand for Christian values in the face of mass murder, yet who was vilified by the very politicians and citizens who claimed to stand for all those Judeo-Christian values. I haven't seen anything recently to indicate a change; quite the contrary.

Then, there is the fact that when I take issue with some of their positions, I become some kind of leech upon society. Twenty years in the United States Air Force and service - five tours, in fact - in and for their Holy War in Vietnam is no longer 'patriotic'; I should probably not bother showing up at Veterans' Day celebrations.  To them, I am nothing more than leech sucking at the public tit for a paycheck, while they all work their asses off at 'real jobs'. Nowhere was this more evident that when we had our little dustup with the Otero County Republicans over their pathetic behavior, joined by RNC committeeman Mark Hillman. They want my vote, but unless I sign onto their crazy nonsense, I am otherwise just a POS to them.  And, especially after their last display of incompetence in the 2008 elections, the only way I would vote for a Republican in Otero County or the State of Colorado is if the Democrats had a child molester on the ticket.

None of that 'political doctrine' or whatever it is that is part and parcel of the Republican platform has anything to do with running the country. It's emotional pukery, most of it not even based on reason or logic.

Then, there is the deficit, and the economy.  The Repubs insist that the deficit is Obama's. It is not. It is theirs. They hold the House, and have since the last mid-terms. The deficit is theirs. Obama cannot unilaterally and /or arbitrarily borrow or spend money. Congress does that. Taxation arises from the House, not the Oval Office. The budget must be approved by the House, no matter what arises out of the Oval Office. That's the Republicans. They do not have the political balls to put a stop to the spending, and blaming Obama for it is political cowardice. Obamacare is about to slamdunk us; we have seven doctors basically fleeing the community in the next couple of months; we are going to have people standing around clutching their Congressionally-awarded ObamaCare cards, with nowhere to go.  That's Congress, not Obama. It may have been a Democrat-controlled Congress that passed it, but it's a Republican-controlled Congress now. When are we going to see some of that gutsy principle-based Republican leadership, rather than 'continuing resolutions?' When are we going to see some real concern for we middle-class, middle-of-the-roaders rather than the upper crust rich? Then we get into their infatuation with Ayn Rand and "Atlas Shrugged," ignoring utterly the contempt Rand had for the unwashed masses of the middle class. 

This was the last time I will vote for a Republican presidential candidate. Or a Republican congressional candidate. The Republicans have had their chance; and they have lost it. I may not vote for a Democrat, but I will not vote for a Republican.

Just one vote. Do they really care what I think? Of course not. But I'm not the only one who sees it this way. Here are some points from Rich Galen's latest column:

  •     In the past two elections Republicans have nominated at least four candidates for the U.S. Senate that resulted in what should have been easy wins to losses: Delaware and Nevada in 2010; Missouri and Indiana in 2012.
  •     If the Senate comes back on January 3 with an effective 53-47 Democratic majority, you can see how important those kinds of mistakes can be: It should have been 51-49 R.
  •     The Tea Party which began as a purely anti-deficit, anti-spending movement has morphed into demanding fealty to its fiscal and social policy positions.
  •     The "right wing of the Republican party" has become a redundancy. It now IS the Republican party and there simply aren't enough voters who agree with all of the Tea Party doctrine to win a national election.
  •     The future of the Republican party is in the hands of the Republican party.
  •     A smaller and smaller share of a larger and larger market is no way to win an election, much less win the future.
 And that's why what I think does in fact matter. Because it ain't just me. It's a whole lot of people, who, if not just like me, have for their own reasons decided that the Republicans do not represent our values, our concerns, our goals and dreams for the nation, and especially for our kids' and grandkids' futures.

At the moment, neither do the Democrats, not really, not in the Congress nor in the White House ... but they scare us less than do the Republicans. Or maybe it is just that they seem to hold us in a lesser degree of contempt ...

And a PS: Here's an interesting article from Relevant. I don't necessarily agree with all of it; in many respects it seems a bit naive, but I certainly understand where it's coming from, and agree with the sentiments expressed, if not the means of execution.

Update 11.09.2012: Here is a very good analysis of why and how the 'conservative' media utterly failed the American public:  How conservative media lost to the MSM and failed the rank and file