Thank God they dropped this because they had me worried. First Freedom Fries and now this? The GOP is BRUTAL!Republicans to Drop Measure Labeling Democrats 'Socialist'
Republicans to Drop Measure Labeling Democrats 'Socialist'
GOP Chairman Michael Steele had opposed the name-changing resolution, and other party leaders have called it "stupid" and "absurd."
AP
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
powered by BaynoteWASHINGTON -- Republicans on Wednesday abandoned an effort to label their opponents the "Democrat Socialist Party," ending a fight within the GOP ranks that reflected the divide between those who want a more centrist message and those seeking a more aggressive, conservative voice.
Supporters of the resolution asking the Democratic Party to change its name instead agreed to accept language urging Democrats to "stop pushing our country towards socialism and government control."
The initial name-changing resolution had drawn criticism from Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele. Florida GOP Chairman James Greer called the idea "stupid" and Colorado Chairman Wadhams called it "absurd." They said it made Republicans look petty during a troubling time for the nation.
The Democratic National Committee said the proposal reflected a political party so devoid of ideas that it was resorting to "name calling" and "petty politics."
Supporters dismissed the criticism Wednesday and said the publicity generated by the proposal was good for the GOP.
"It has generated the debate we had hoped for," said Indiana committeeman James Bopp. "It was an effort to educate the American people, and it was successful."
David Norcross, a committeeman from New Jersey, said it was a bid to raise awareness of the Democratic agenda so that Americans can be "properly fearful."
In a statement following the resolution's adoption, Steele said he was pleased the measure focused on "the Democrats' policies and their destructive effects on America's economic engine, rather than attempting to rename our opponents."
Henry Barbour, chairman of the RNC committee that handles resolutions, said the new language more closely reflects the sentiments of the full party and "helps unify our party."
At one point during informal discussions of the name change, some attending the meeting of state party leaders and other party officials said the proposed name might also include the label "nationalist." But Bopp said including "nationalist" was never proposed.
The RNC also approved resolutions honoring the late Republican congressman Jack Kemp, commending Republican members of Congress for opposing recent bailouts, and calling on Republicans to abandon local spending provisions known as earmarks.
The party's meeting this week was held as Republicans are trying to chart a new course after election losses in 2006 and 2008 that left them out of power in the White House, Congress and statehouses across the country.
Without a successor to former President George W. Bush, the party is in the midst of an intense debate over its iden y and facing an emboldened Democratic Party that's grown larger and stronger under President Barack Obama's leadership.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...est=latestnews
It looked especially stupid in light of the rising number of Americans who support socialist agendas.
When the economy gets bad, socialism starts looking good. When people lose jobs and health care and have to price private health insurance plans, socialized medicine starts looking more attractive.
Because the Federal Government delivers so much value for your hard-earned dollar, right?
What will we call that govt run health care plan?
Democracised Medicine?
"Federal Government delivers so much value"
Medicare, Medicaid, Soc Security all have lower overheads and deliver more service.
is why the health insurance industry is going to spend 100s of $Ms to kill Magik Negro's public health insurance option. They know they wouldn't be able to compete and would exposed as blood-sucking parasites inflating heatlh-care costs while delivering mininum health care.
is why dubya had to give the health-profit industry $50B subsidy in the last Medicare bill.
is why dubya made it illegal for US govt to negotiate drug prices with Big Pharma the way Big Pharma must do in foreign countries.
Stupid, in part because the GOP establishment subscribes to socialism for the wealthy.
Use of public funds to cover the losses of large financial services companies = "free enterprise."
Use of public funds to provide free to the unwashed masses = 'dangerous Euro style fascist socialism.'
Got it.
Can you provide proof of that?
I agree the free market should prevail here. It surprises me that you do!
For an ignorant weak americant who can't see the big picture.
Disgusting.
I know. Stupid poor people should keep their sick kids home to prove capitalism works! I know if I didn't have coverage I know it is more imprtant for capitalism to succeed than my kid being covered for basic health care..For an ignorant weak americant who can't see the big picture.
Disgusting.
A little transparent there, eh?David Norcross, a committeeman from New Jersey, said it was a bid to raise awareness of the Democratic agenda so that Americans can be "properly fearful."
Because the health insurance industry delivers so much value for your hard-earned dollar?
Elizabeth Edwards discussed how one year that out of every $700 spent in the US on health care, $1 went to pay the President of United Healthcare.
I would much prefer a system where my premiums go to a government system that is not created to make a profit rather than to the insurance industry that does everything to make money. I pay a ridiculous premium for a $5000 deductible policy from which I have never received one benefit just so I can have coverage for something catastrophic.
where to begin....where to begin....surely you'll take this the wrong way, but i'll make a blanket statement and say, we all make our own choices.
The only thing worse than relying on high quality services being provided for profit is to expect high quality services to be provided for no profit.
And, yes, paying for routine medical expenses with insurance doesn't help. Thank the tax code for that. It's not hard to see how consumers who pay a relatively small percentage of the true cost of the care they consume would result in ever increasing price inflation for medical goods and services.
We don't pay for the purchase of other vital goods and services with insurance. There's no reason that routine, small medical expenditures should be any different.
Will this be the defense conservatives will be using against it?
Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are all bankrupt, riddled with fraud and abuse, and short-service everyone.
No, because nationalized medicine will kill the incentive to innovate. It will ruin the prospect of every medical student of ever excelling in a career that once had endless promise. And, it will, in short order, run out of services for those who need it most.
You'll end up with long lines and interminable (and terminal) waits for necessary procedures. (See Britain and Canada).
I'm something of a conservative, but he's got a point, if the conservative talking heads keep refusing to deal with fact that workers in america are yearly being exculded from upward mobility,and access to repesentation in goverment for their concerns they will lose the nation to the idiocy of socialisim.Then both left and right will have killed the goose that laid the golden egg.
Cmon now, our military isn't that bad, is it?
Do you think mercenaries would do a better job?
While I agree with you in many aspects, health care is one of the 'essentials' to any developed nation. We accept non-profit police and fire depts; I don't see a huge difference with the essential service provided by healthcare.
Food and clothing are essential. We should pay for those with insurance as well. Government provided insurance would surely be optimal.Cmon now, our military isn't that bad, is it?
Do you think mercenaries would do a better job?
While I agree with you in many aspects, health care is one of the 'essentials' to any developed nation. We accept non-profit police and fire depts; I don't see a huge difference with the essential service provided by healthcare.
We spend at least half a tril a year on national defense, yet it couldn't stop an attack on the homeland no more sophisticated than one using $5 boxcutters. Is our national defense really that effective? And at least the logic for national defense is that otherwise it would not be provided. The problem with health care services is the government intervention in the marketplace, which exists to make us think its doing some good.
I'm not arguing about the size of the defense budget; merely the argument that a for-profit en y can provide better services than a government/non-profit en y can.
The only reason healthcare is not considered in the same emergency services section as fire and police is because if someone gets sick, it usually only affects that one person, whereas fire can spread and police handle things that tend to disturb a neighborhood in general.
Food and clothing are essential to a PERSON; notsomuch as a society. Access to food is essential to a society, as a people without food will soon turn to anarchy, but one person's food/shelter only affects that one person.
Healthcare, on the other hand, can affect many more. People with diseases can spread these throughout a community. As well, unless hospitals were to turn down patients that couldn't pay, then the costs are carried over to society; costs that would be better managed if most problems were caught/solved at an earlier stage.
Universal health care seems to be one solution to the two problems above.
Also, security is a limiting measure at best. Nearly any security can be bypassed given the proper knowledge/motivation. The problem is exacerbated the larger the system has to be.
Airline security is a joke.
How about we kill those with infectious diseases, so that society doesn't bear those costs? After all, it's not the person that matters...
As is our national "security." So we can obliterate the army of Iraq. I sleep much better at night.
Feel free to run on that platform.
Additionally, as a technical matter, that probably wouldn't work well... not without some sort of sanitation. Dead bodies aren't very conducive to a healthy society
Technically, we could obliterate nearly any army. Or country for that matter. Sure it's overkill, but you must agree that it does prevent CLASSIC warfare from happening (ie. a government declaring war on us).
However, our military/defense cant' do a whole lot right now about terrorists or rogue actors, which have come about due to our classic warfare superiority.
It's the reason why the army seems to be slowly transitioning into a quasi-police force. Given the people they've put in charge of CentCom and other areas, I don't see that changing anytime soon. However, those transitions will take time.
What are your expectations for a national defense, Marcus? Do you think we're covering your expectations, but at a much-too-costly/exaggerated rate?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
