What does the GOP stand for?

[nlm]

I read a statement this morning by Rep. Tom Tancredo (R) of Colorado, and thought to myself - hey, I was just thinking that yesterday. He said -

"The American people don't know what Republicans stand for anymore"

Their actions and their words don't seem to even come close to matching up as far as I can tell. Now this isn't a dig only against the GOP. The Dems haven't stood for anything cohesive in quite some time, and I don't even find myself wondering that much about where they stand, heck they can not even manage to write down some pretty BS like the GOP and pretend to stand for something at this point (did they not say they were going to release some sort of directional cohesive platform, more interesting than the J-HOSE plan Kerry used, over a month ago now). The grand Dem scheme seems to be to stand for nothing as a group and hope some individuals can shine in their races while putting forth the silent message that standing for nothing is better than what the GOP stands for. That seems like a rather stupid tactic to me, though it does seem to be having some limited success (but it's still too early to tell). But enough about the Dems, they have no power any how.

So what does the GOP stand for at this point in time in your mind?

[Democratic Hawk]

The 'Grand' part very little, since George W is anything but . I've long said he's taken the 'G' out of the GOP

Dave

[Frodo]

Republicans have always stood for smaller government in economic affairs, and they will do whatever it takes to get there.  If it proves too difficult to achieve this through a frontal assault on entitlement and discretionary programs, they will simply focus on cutting taxes ad infinitum and getting rid of federal regulations while allowing spending in the interim to continue.  They will let the federal budget deficit and debt soar to unsustainable levels until the dam inevitably breaks, by which point they can then ruthlessly focus on gutting the federal government of any function they feel is not explicitly sanctioned by the Constitution (constitutionally-sanctioned functions include national security, which also encompasses homeland security), all the while depriving Democrats of the ability to begin new initiatives through lack of money. 

They are a devious lot.....   

[CheeseWhiz]

The Grand Old Party

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Republicans have always stood for smaller government in economic affairs, and they will do whatever it takes to get there.  If it proves too difficult to achieve this through a frontal assault on entitlement and discretionary programs, they will simply focus on cutting taxes ad infinitum and getting rid of federal regulations while allowing spending in the interim to continue.  They will let the federal budget deficit and debt soar to unsustainable levels until the dam inevitably breaks, by which point they can then ruthlessly focus on gutting the federal government of any function they feel is not explicitly sanctioned by the Constitution (constitutionally-sanctioned functions include national security, which also encompasses homeland security), all the while depriving Democrats of the ability to begin new initiatives through lack of money. 

Correct!

---

They are a devious lot.....   

If is not devious to deny fuel to a fire.

[nlm]

Republicans have always stood for smaller government in economic affairs, and they will do whatever it takes to get there.  If it proves too difficult to achieve this through a frontal assault on entitlement and discretionary programs, they will simply focus on cutting taxes ad infinitum and getting rid of federal regulations while allowing spending in the interim to continue.  They will let the federal budget deficit and debt soar to unsustainable levels until the dam inevitably breaks, by which point they can then ruthlessly focus on gutting the federal government of any function they feel is not explicitly sanctioned by the Constitution (constitutionally-sanctioned functions include national security, which also encompasses homeland security), all the while depriving Democrats of the ability to begin new initiatives through lack of money. 

They are a devious lot.....   

Ah yes, starve the beast, correct. Ride our country in to financial ruin so they can win. Yippie. We must destroy our childrens future to save our childrens future! I don't know. There are some pretty dim folks up on capitol hill, but that may be pushing it. Granted, the level of stupidity and waste are excessive and a circumstantial case can be built that they are actually trying it - but the same evidence could be used to show they are simply stupid, corrupt and fiscal misfits. The voters will catch on sooner or later I think. It's not like fiscal incompitance or the starve the beast theory are attractive to the public. It is interesting to note that our one GOP reply seems to agree that the starve the beast tactic is what they are about. Whole sale deception to get what a small group wants, hmmmmmmm.

[John Dibble]

Granted, the level of stupidity and waste are excessive and a circumstantial case can be built that they are actually trying it - but the same evidence could be used to show they are simply stupid, corrupt and fiscal misfits. The voters will catch on sooner or later I think.

I think you're forgetting that it's the voters who put those people in power in the first place.

Sadly though, the likely result is gonna be that the voters will replace the current group of stupid, corrupt, fiscal misfit politicians with a brand spanking new group of stupid, corrups, fiscal misfit politicians(since they're new, they'll be shiny and thus more attractive to idiots).

[nlm]

Granted, the level of stupidity and waste are excessive and a circumstantial case can be built that they are actually trying it - but the same evidence could be used to show they are simply stupid, corrupt and fiscal misfits. The voters will catch on sooner or later I think.

I think you're forgetting that it's the voters who put those people in power in the first place.

Sadly though, the likely result is gonna be that the voters will replace the current group of stupid, corrupt, fiscal misfit politicians with a brand spanking new group of stupid, corrups, fiscal misfit politicians(since they're new, they'll be shiny and thus more attractive to idiots).

You are most likely correct. Honestly, all I ask for at this point is a split government that can not do very much of anything in terms of spending (or anything else for that matter) and is forced to grudgingly pay down the debt for lack of anything else to do.

[MODU]

You are most likely correct. Honestly, all I ask for at this point is a split government that can not do very much of anything in terms of spending (or anything else for that matter) and is forced to grudgingly pay down the debt for lack of anything else to do.

Fix it for good by breaking up the stranglehold the Republicans and Democrats have over the nation and start voting for parties that actually represent the people and not their own interests.

[John Dibble]

You are most likely correct. Honestly, all I ask for at this point is a split government that can not do very much of anything in terms of spending (or anything else for that matter) and is forced to grudgingly pay down the debt for lack of anything else to do.

Fix it for good by breaking up the stranglehold the Republicans and Democrats have over the nation and start voting for parties that actually represent the people and not their own interests.

While a few people will do that, it's unlikely enough will. I've determined what we need to do first is change the way our representatives are elected - the plurality system is what allows the two parties to maintain their stranglehold because people are too afraid to waste their vote on someone who probably won't win. I say approval voting would be good, but there are other systems.

[nlm]

You are most likely correct. Honestly, all I ask for at this point is a split government that can not do very much of anything in terms of spending (or anything else for that matter) and is forced to grudgingly pay down the debt for lack of anything else to do.

Fix it for good by breaking up the stranglehold the Republicans and Democrats have over the nation and start voting for parties that actually represent the people and not their own interests.

While a few people will do that, it's unlikely enough will. I've determined what we need to do first is change the way our representatives are elected - the plurality system is what allows the two parties to maintain their stranglehold because people are too afraid to waste their vote on someone who probably won't win. I say approval voting would be good, but there are other systems.

At this juncture I would sure as heck vote third party if I thought I was casting a vote that had meaning. I may do so any how (but spliting the current government in at least two I think is more important in the short term). It would be great to see the stranglehold the Dems and GOP have on the election system broken, I just don't know how that can be done any time soon.

It would be great to see the Libertarians start some coalition building and moderating some of their views. A lot of people buy into at least a part of what they are selling. If they could pull out some of the things that Joe average finds unacceptable, who knows where they could go. Granted, that would be casting aside a purity of ideals, and some would call it selling out; I'd call it being realistic, and getting a lot more good done that staying the course that leads to no elected officials.

[AkSaber]

The Grand Old Party

You took my answer.....

[nlm]

The Grand Old Party

You took my answer.....

It would actually be enlightening if a self proclaimed member of the GOP had the ability to explain what they believed their political party stood for, in their mind. The lack of an answer seems to only confirm that they stand for nothing more than Dems do, which does appear to be the case at this point in time.

[afleitch]

Greed Over Principles

[dazzleman]

The GOP stands for the following:

-More limited government than the Democrats (I say 'more' limited because it's hard to argue anymore that the GOP stands for small government).

-Strong national defense, rather than a Blame America First policy of adopting and accomodating the world view of those who wish to attack us

-Tough policies against crime rather than coddling criminals and blaming society

-Lower taxes than the Democrats support

-Traditional values as opposed to "alternative values"

There's probably more, but that's what I'm thinking at this time.

[dazzleman]

Greed Over Principles

Interesting.  I don't talk about it much, but I am exposed to an incredible level of greed on a daily basis at my job.  The only problem with your theory is that in real life, there is no correlation between level of greed and political leanings.  Those with Democratic leanings are just as greedy as those with Republican leanings, in my experience.

Greed can be a good motivator, though excessive greed can be a cancer.  I see a good amount of the latter.

[nlm]

The GOP stands for the following:

-More limited government than the Democrats (I say 'more' limited because it's hard to argue anymore that the GOP stands for small government).

-Strong national defense, rather than a Blame America First policy of adopting and accomodating the world view of those who wish to attack us

-Tough policies against crime rather than coddling criminals and blaming society

-Lower taxes than the Democrats support

-Traditional values as opposed to "alternative values"

There's probably more, but that's what I'm thinking at this time.

So they are the Democrats lite now? Your definition of the GOP is wholly based on defining the Democrats, just as the Democrats, when defining themselves, are wholly dependent upon setting their own definition of the GOP.

A small tweak to your definition would give us, with the removal of references in attempts to define the opposition, a more interesting definition, but one that also seems to make the point I was making.

I also just don't buy the smaller government than the Democrats thing any more. I used to, but no longer. Both parties stand for BIG government, they just vary on what elements should be big.

I'd take the statement that the GOP stands for lower taxes on the rich than the Dems and thus - in all likelihood, lower overall taxes. But I really don't see the poor or the middle class as being put at risk by the Dems.

Your crime and national defense comments are too partisan to hold any meaning for me. But, in fairness, I did ask for comments from partisans, I was just hoping to get an answer based on the GOP's merits as opposed to partisan smears of the opposition.

Traditional values, don't you mean Christian values. And you left out the part about wanting to legislate those values and act as a "big" government regulatory body for the morality of the people of this nation.

We are not as bad as they are. That really has become the battle cry for both of the big parties, hasn’t it?

[dazzleman]

We are not as bad as they are. That really has become the battle cry for both of the big parties, hasn’t it?

It probably always has been, for the most part.  There are rare times when parties rise above that, but apparently this is not one of them.

Parties have always defined themselves, to some extent, by their opposition to the other party.  But I agree that positive messages are needed.  But comparison with the other party doesn't necessarily preclude a positive message.

I disagree with you that traditional values aren't Christian values.  I think it shows how radical the Democratic party has become on this issue that you are arguing this point.  Democrats used to support Christian values without question.  Now there is a determined assault on Christian values, and in most cases, those waging it are part of the Democratic party.

I don't accept your contention that the GOP wants to force people to adopt Christian values through legislation.  I assume you're referring to abortion and gay marriage.  Gay marriage of course has never been legal in the past as far as anybody can remember, so I find it funny how its proponents talk as if those opposing it want to take away this great  right they've always had, when in reality it has never existed.  And abortion was traditionally illegal also on the grounds that it was murder.  Maybe we should repeal the laws against murder also, since they come from the ten commandments.  That would give people more 'freedom' to live life without the burdens of a theocratic government.

I realize I'm being a little sarcastic, and I hope you don't take it personally, but I find many of the arguments against traditional values to be some of the most pernicious stuff out there.

[nlm]

There are traditional secular values and traditional religious values. They often are the same thing. Secular values just leave out the stuff that doesn't cause harm to others. The whole gay marriage thing is an example of that. If you pull the religious candy coating off, all you have is discrimination against a hated minority.

That is, at least, how I view it.

I would also note that the view that murder is wrong, comes from a number of sources, some of which out date the 10 commandments by quite a bit, which makes that part of your arguement seem rather fatuous.

[Rin-chan]

The GOP stands for the following:

-More limited government than the Democrats (I say 'more' limited because it's hard to argue anymore that the GOP stands for small government).

-Strong national defense, rather than a Blame America First policy of adopting and accomodating the world view of those who wish to attack us

-Tough policies against crime rather than coddling criminals and blaming society

-Lower taxes than the Democrats support

-Traditional values as opposed to "alternative values"

There's probably more, but that's what I'm thinking at this time.

Good job.  I agree.

We also believe in capitalism and if we have a free economy, we will be more free.

Also, we believe in personal responsiblity and independence and we wish that everyone in America had those same values.

Rin-chan

[Rin-chan]

I don't accept your contention that the GOP wants to force people to adopt Christian values through legislation.  I assume you're referring to abortion and gay marriage.  Gay marriage of course has never been legal in the past as far as anybody can remember, so I find it funny how its proponents talk as if those opposing it want to take away this great  right they've always had, when in reality it has never existed.  And abortion was traditionally illegal also on the grounds that it was murder.  Maybe we should repeal the laws against murder also, since they come from the ten commandments.  That would give people more 'freedom' to live life without the burdens of a theocratic government.

Once again, you're so cool.

Rin-chan

[Sam Spade]

Since 9/11, in most polls conducted, the key defining issue as to whether you are a Republican or a Democrat is foreign policy.

So, if we want to define the GOP or the Democratic party at this point, it is probably best that we make foreign policy differences stand out above all others.

However, after this issue, the lines become much more blurred and confusing.

The truth is that both the American parties, Democrat and Republican, are large coalitions of people with a few similar ideals (right now the joining ideal is foreign policy) and many dissimilar ones.

On social issues, there are many people whose beliefs fit the more conservative Republican generalization and yet vote Democrat (mainly because of economic and foreign policy issues).  In the same way, on economic issues, there are many people whose beliefs fit the Democrat generalization on economic issues and yet vote Republican.

This should tell you where the center of the country is at present: slightly left of center economically, slightly right of center socially (center defined in American terms).

The economically conservative Democrat (or new Democrat) faded away on the national scene post-9/11.  The socially liberal Republican faded away on the national scene post-Reagan, esp. post 1992.

And yet, most polls find that the country is split one-third between Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.  The problem with this analysis is that when national elections arrive, suddenly a good bit of the Independents start moving to either the Republican or Democratic side, leaving a certain number of swing voters as true independents.

But I'm getting wordy right now; the truth is that both parties are tough to define now and would have been tough to define 50 years ago.

[The Duke]

We obviously stand for oil wars, religious fanaticism, and social darwinism, you prudes.

[opebo]

Hatred, violence, and oppression.

[nclib]

Preservation of the status quo.