Republican and Rich are Synonyms

"closed for repairs"

A week ago, former Senator Bob Dole said that Republicans should go behind locked doors, and post a sign stating that they were “closed for repairs.” Sunday several articles emerged questioning who members of the GOP represent, and pointing to rifts within the ranks. A Forbes writer pointed to the fact that Republican and rich are synonyms.

John Tamny’s article in Forbes today contained a great deal of truth. Although I don’t agree with some of his economic philosophy, and believe a few of his ‘facts’ may be wrong, he is 100 percent correct about what action the Republican Party should take.

He believes they should stop pretending not to be the ‘Party of the rich’, because they are. They must cease attempting to appear that they represent the average man, and stand for what they believe in. Mr. Tamny pointed out how ridiculous Romney looked in hiked up Levi’s and said how much he loved ‘cheesy grits’. He further asserts that they would fare better in elections if they were direct and honest about what and who they stand for.

Republican and rich are synonymous, it’s always been true, but for some reason they attempt to conceal the fact.

The other topic Sunday is the friction within the Republican Party. Agree with them or not, if a candidate runs under the banner of the GOP, he or she is virtually making a promise to support the Party’s policies in a manner voters have a right to expect.

A man I once greatly admired, who once stood his ground for the ideals and ideas of the GOP against those who would waver, is John McCain. Admittedly, he is becoming the ‘old guard’, but continues to maintain a closer relationship to the Republican Party of the past than most.

An increasing confrontation between Mr. McCain and Rand Paul has emerged. Paul’s continued posturing, and obvious campaigning for the 2016 White House, has become more than annoying to McCain and the American public.

The hostility between them began when Paul and other TEA Party members refused to debate the controversial ‘drone’ situation. McCain rightfully criticized Paul for acting out an actual filibuster, or as I prefer to call it, a publicity stunt. The Senator from Arizona accused the Senator from Kentucky of not showing a willingness to debate issues on the Senate floor, which is the purpose of legislators.

They have continued to openly disagree about other issues. The latest occurred Sunday.
McCain returned from Syria this week after meeting with leaders of the rebel forces. He favors giving aid to them, hoping to end the conflict in the near future. He believes the United States should help them obtain ‘lethal’ and ‘non-lethal’ weapons.

Paul says we should not give assistance to the rebels in any form.

“It is very clear that any attempt to aid the Syrian rebels would be complicated and dangerous, precisely because we don’t know who these people are,” Paul wrote in an opinion piece earlier this week. “The situation in Syria is certainly dire. … Al Qaeda is making confirmed inroads into the country. No one wants to see Syria become a bastion of extremism. But like other American interventions in the past, U.S. involvement could actually help the extremists.”

I seldom agree with Mr. Paul, but in this instance he is 100 percent correct. According to most reports, the rebels consist of radical Islamists. We must cease intervention in the Arab world. Not a single positive outcome has occurred from our participation in the violent confrontations of other countries.

Paul also points out that a bill to aid the rebels in Libya who were attempting to overthrow Moammar Gadhafi, was supported by McCain. Paul voted against it. After its passage, it was discovered that the rebels leading the fight against Gadhafi were actually members of al-Qaeda.

While these two Senators are bickering, House Speaker John Boehner is having his own problems. There is a huge separation between Boehner and his supporters, and the conservative extremists in Congress. Nothing has been or will be accomplished with these continued rifts within the Republican Party. Is there any chance that Republicans will talk to Democrats, if they don’t talk to each other?

Led by TEA Party Libertarians, the federal government has adopted a policy of ‘no government is good government’, and have embraced this policy regardless of the situation. Only the government is capable of solving certain problems.

In the area of disaster relief, Libertarians, if in name only, refuse to support aid to American citizens desperately in need of assistance.

Another situation that demonstrates division between Republicans is the proposed expansion of Medicaid. Four mayors of Republican dominated states were in favor of adopting the plan. Republican controlled legislatures voted against it, refusing to accept any form of government aid.

Ideologies and ideas are important components in discussions to solve our state and national problems. Just saying ‘no’ is never the proper answer. And there are increasing elements within the GOP that are moving away from the ‘no government is good government’ attitude.

There already exists a Libertarian Party. Those who use funds raised by the GOP, but unwaveringly support Libertarian ideals need to join that group already in existence, and let government get on with its business.

The reality of the GOP/Libertarians is that they are supported by the wealthy who support the Republican Party. Republican and Rich continue to be synonymous.

James Turnage
The Guardian Expresss

source1
source2
source3

2 Responses to "Republican and Rich are Synonyms"

  1. Graham Noble   June 4, 2013 at 6:37 pm

    Your assumption is reasonable, but It actually stands for Taxed Enough Already. Personally, I prefer the analogy to the Boston tea party.

    Reply
  2. Cato   June 2, 2013 at 5:57 pm

    Why do you capitalize “TEA”? Is it an acronym? I always thought they just named themselves after the Boston “tea” party.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.