Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
The destruction is almost complete
Published on May 20, 2006 By Draginol In Politics

It's ironic that Democrats despite President Bush so much when Bush has worked so tirelessly to destroy the Republican party.  The Republican party as we know it is dead. It's still moving around, still animated, but as the midterms are likely to show, the carcas has passed on.

To be fair, it has taken Bush about 6 years to destroy the Republican party and Democrats, who are certainly not the party of rocket scientists (both literally and figuratively) have seemingly been unaware that Bush has been painstakingly gutting the core principles of the Republican party such that as the summer of 2006, few former-Republicans would even consider voting for a Republican let alone Bush.

Where do we start?  Let's start with the spend-a-thon that Bush has been on since 2000.  Republican apologists on TV and in print have made the pithy, if unhelpful, statement of "We're at war, deficit spending is normal in times of war."  Please.

As a % of our GDP, our military spending isn't remotely where it was during the cold war.  The most generous description of our military spending is that Bush halted the decline of the US's military spending as a % of GDP that we saw during the 90s.  I am not arguing that we need massive military spending increases, only that military spending has little to do with why we have deficits now.

The biggest reason we have deficits has to do with the economy slowing down when Bush took office.  That wasn't his fault.  But the wasteful spending in congress -- a Republican congress -- shows that Republicans are no better than Democrats when it comes to spending. 

Here's the thing that many Democrats don't understand about Republicans and it's a very straight forward thing -- most Republicans do not believe that it is the JOB of the federal government to provide a social safety net for its citizens.  It has nothing to do with being "greedy" or "not caring" or "being mean". It's a matter of principle.  I don't expect my cable company to provide me with prescription drug coverage and I don't expect my government to make sure I have health insurance.  When the government does something, the citizenry that benefits from the program, over time, begins to feel entitled to it and it takes away the personal responsibility element that every citizen should have in my opinion.

But thanks to Bush, the Republicans have gotten the federal government into the health care business. Not as bad as it could be but still.  And while he does get points for trying to get the federal government out of the social security business, that ultimately failed.

Besides the unchecked spending, what really opened Republican eyes to the real George W. Bush was him picking his personal lawyer to be on the supreme court.  That choice unraveled the Bush presidency in my opinion.  It permanently took away the benefit of the doubt that many Republicans had given the President.  It set Bush up for what amounts to the most disastrous immigration plan in American history.

Which is what the hot topic is.  Immigration.  Personally, I don't get hot and bothered about illegal immigration.  What I do care about are sudden, significant, demographic changes in my country.  I like my culture. The American culture, and don't kid yourself that there isn't one, travel abroad for a few weeks and you will be left with no doubts that there is an American culture, is worth preserving.  I don't believe in laws forcing people to speak a language, but I am glad that we have a culture that essentially forces people to speak English in order to function (92% of immigrants learn English within 5 years).  Language is what ties a culture together.

Bush's plan would do more to alter the demographics of the United States than any "amnesty" plan in the history of the country.  Besides providing a fast-path to citizenship for 12 million immigrants (an instant 3% population demographic change). It also paves the way for those people to be able to easily bring in their relatives which instantly creates a multiplying effect.  Some estimates say that another 30 million latinos could become part of the population (on top of the 12 million we already have) within 10 years.  You are talking, at that point, a major demographic shift in our country. 

In the early 20th century when Americans were up in arms about immigration due to the Irish, Italians, and others coming in from Europe, you were talking a relatively trivial % difference in the overall demographics of the United States.  What also makes this different is that these immigrants would be coming from a country that they could easily return to "to visit" which slows cultural assimilation.  Moreover, unlike immigrants of the past, latino immigrants are much less interested in assimilating to begin with.  Spend some time in southern Texas or Arizona or southern California and there is not only a vocal (and sizeable) minority of Mexican immigrants who have no interest in becoming part of the American culture, they see those border states as belonging to Mexico and would love nothing else than to use their political power to cede those states back to Mexico in all but name.  I was at a T-shirt store picking up vacation shirts and there was an entire rack of T-shirts with slogans (mostly in Spanish but I could read what they said) that said things like "This land belongs to Mexico".  The attitude is obviously popular enough that someone selling T-shirts sees a demand to sell such shirts.

So what should Bush's plan been if he had...you know, principles?

Let me put forth this:

  1. Create a Guest Worker program that only people who are residing outside the United States can apply for. If you're already illegally residing in the United States, then you should go back to your country of origin and sign up.
  2. No mass deportations, just common sense -- if you get caught, either doing something illegal or using services then yes, you'd be deported. We wouldn't go out of our way to deport people, no mass raids of businesses or communities, just a common sense - if you get caught shop lifting or applying for welfare or going to the emergency room (yes, that sounds mean and I would support someone going to the emergency room getting full treatment first but they're not supposed to be here -- ask Mexico what THEY do with illegal aliens).
  3. If you do get caught here, it would make it harder to get a guest worker program permit and make it much harder to become a future citizen.
  4. Significantly tougher border security. Each state's governor would be able to call in up to 3,000 national guardsman. Not for enforcement but to free the border patrol to do more enforcement. The guard would handle logistics and monitoring (similar to what has been proposed but each state would be able to call in different numbers).
  5. Funding to build several massive border detention centers to hold captures illegal aliens for up to 90 days before deporting them back to Mexico.

I'd also support a public pounding of any fool that feels the need to say "We are a nation of immigrants".  Yea, and the Germans coming into Poland in 1939 were merely immigrants too.  Immigration is one thing, invasion is another. Every culture has a threshold of when immigration becomes disruptive to a society.  A nation of 300 million people (of which approximately 15 million are already unassimilated latinos according to some of the stats I've seen) is not in any position to throw on another 40 million unassimilated latinos. It's not about their skin color or whatever nonsense libelous charge that pro-amnesty forces like to use to silence their critics. It's about a society's ability to assimilate masses of people.

And George W. Bush clearly doesn't understand that or doesn't care.  It's the end of a long line of dumbass Republican actions.  And the result is that in the next election, citizens that might have been inclined to vote for Republicans are going to be taking a cold hard look at the voting record.  The politican that thinks "the masses" are stupid and don't pay attention to these things is in for a wakeup call.


Comments (Page 2)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on May 21, 2006
It seems some - no many, just believe the MSM. Clinton destroyed the democrats. Now Bush has destroyed the Republicans.


Politics is...well, compromise. Rarely does anything get done. *Laughs* And WE elect these people into office...

A person I know on another website said once, "Anyone who is president is either A) Foolishly brave, or Completely stupid.

(I picked

It would be best (IMHO) if we just wipe the slate clean. Get rid of the complete trash of a congress we have and a president, who despite the fact that I do like him...he is not effective.


Anywho...I lost faith in politics, politicians, and our country. Kind of sad really...

~L
on May 21, 2006
LW - LOL.

On a saner note, it is au courant to say Bush has killed the Party & the Golden Goose, but there's a catch with all this talk about the Dems getting ready to come roaring back.

Do any of us really think any of these Democrats are going to get done what Bush has failed to achieve? There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that any of the ideals on which Bush has failed to deliver will survive a return to power by the Democrats. We may all be upset & disappointed that Bush has squandered such an opportunity, but we haven't all suddenly become Michael Moore. We're still going to look for candidates who at least haven't already proven they won't deliver. Which means the Republican primaries may be where the real action is to be found.
on May 21, 2006
Not to be too cynical, but we are always faced with the following choice in an election:

1. The lying sack of shit.

2. The future lying sack of shit.
on May 22, 2006
I would be great if we all, I mean everyone in the US, would just not go to the polls and vote. Send the message that we will not tolerate this crap anymore. Wonder what they would do then?

Oh well, it will all just go back to the way things were anyways.
on May 22, 2006
Anonymous trolls are proof god doesn't exist.


I would almost agree with you there.
on May 22, 2006
It would be great if we all, I mean everyone in the US, would just not go to the polls and vote

In 1998 and 2002, 63% (!) of eligible voters stayed away from the US mid-term elections. Since 1960 (at least) mid-term turnout of eligible voters has been consistently less than 50%, with a 'high' in 1966 of 48.4%. It doesn't seem to make much difference...

Since 1952, 286 abused Hispanics have been NEEDLED in Flint!! ... ...

So much funnier than the 'original'!!! (It's strange how that works )
on May 22, 2006
In 1998 and 2002, 63% (!) of eligible voters stayed away from the US mid-term elections. Since 1960 (at least) mid-term turnout of eligible voters has been consistently less than 50%, with a 'high' in 1966 of 48.4%. It doesn't seem to make much difference...


I mean almost everyone. I mean about 90 to 99% of voters not to go and vote at all. That would be an easy election to count.
on May 22, 2006
The problem is even if 99.99% boycot the polls, the other 0.01% would still be enough to decide the outcome. It seems to me that they need a minimum percentage of turnout for things to count. What if there was a law/statute/whatever that said that if the voter turnout was less than 70%, they had to do the campain over?

The statistics are only based on eligible voters. How much lower would voter turnout be if it were based on population, or at least included people who COULD register, but just haven't due to appathy?

The fact that turnout is around %50 is the main cause, and symptom of votors feeling marginalized by the whole poltical process.
(mmmm alcohol, the cause of, and cure for, all the world's problems) -- best Simpson's Quote ever.
on May 22, 2006
As bad as Bush is, I certainly can't say "I wish it would have been Gore or Kerry". The inherant problem with politics is, I personally think you have to be a bit off your nut to want to be president in the first place. You either have something to prove to yourself or others, are power hungry, or you are convinced that you have been called to do so by a higher power.
on May 22, 2006
You either have something to prove to yourself or others, are power hungry, or you are convinced that you have been called to do so by a higher power.


Gone are the days of the founders like Jefferson and Washington. It is unfortunate, and I agree with you here.
on May 22, 2006
"We are a nation of immigrants


~ehhh....We are...in a way. I mean, *my* ancestors immigrated from England, France, Germany, etc...

on May 22, 2006
Lucas, you're a douche.
on May 22, 2006
Lucas, you're a douche


Well, I guess I'll take that as a compliment. I mean, hell, now there shouldn't be any others. God knows I've been more than one piece of the verbal moniker montage.
on May 23, 2006
I'd like to think that most people start in politics with all of the right intentions. It just seems that by the time they're in a position to run for President, all of that has been swept aside. Politics is a game of compromise, and it seems like more often then not it is one's values that are compomized.

It could be worse, it could be President Logan Link

on May 23, 2006
There's always vocal artists painting answers.... Why is it their art of reason so often emanates from living room, never at the plate, and facing the game of compromise known as Democracy.

4 Pages1 2 3 4