It looks like One Party Rule is what Republicans want

[Elizabeth]

I have noticed this very disturbing trend with the Republicans lately, and that being the openly calling for one party rule. Does anybody remember what we have thought in the past of legislatures of totalitarian states all voting in lockstep without dissent? Yet that is now what we see in the Republican Party. All voting in lockstep and calling anyone who is not voting with them, "unAmerrican". Going after traditionally conservatives like Sen. Lugar, for having compromised with the Democrats. They don't want compromise, which is the foundation of a democracy. They want and get solid block votes for whatever legislation they approve and blocking any legislation they don't approve of.

And this is what the Republican Party has become. They are passing laws all over this country to make it harder for non Republicans to vote. A Right, that people have, not a privilege. We know there is no significant voter fraud, so we know it is only politically motivated. We have States like Michigan with their "emergency manager law" that allows them to cast away democratically elected representatives and void otherwise legally binding contracts. That taking away of Union rights is also high on their agenda.

So now many Tea Partiers are openly calling for the end of compromise and that it's unAmerican to be a Democrat. They want one Party, theirs, with all the power and the end of any voice of descent. I hope that those who would vote Republican are considering what and where they are headed. China is a one party totalitarian government with free market capitalism. It looks like the Republicans want similar control, not only over your money, but everything you do and your privacy.

Elizabeth

[Cainanite]

I'm seeing something of a merging in the USA of politics, and religion. Politics can and should change with the times, and should be amenable to compromise. Religion is not supposed to compromise and is supposed to remain rigid in its belief structure.

There has always been an implied separation between the two ideologies. Even within the doctrine of Christian faith, this has been recognized. "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, give unto God that which is God's."

Historically the two belief systems have not been interchangeable. Faith can and does influence politics, but has never controlled it outright. Political opinions have never been so immovable as to be considered a faith.

I'm seeing that change in the USA. Politics are being not just influenced by faith, but are becoming so immovable on topics, as to freeze out all other thought.

I'm struggling with my language here, and not getting to my point.

I'm a conservative. I believe in responsibility. I believe in the right to bear arms. I believe in a small government footprint. I believe in accountability. I even believe in the death penalty for some extreme individuals.

Yet, I also believe in marriage equality, social programs to keep our workforce strong. I believe in education. I believe in the rights of all LGBT people, and the rights of people of all colors, genders, and faiths.

What we are seeing in the USA is that if you want to be considered a republican, you MUST believe and follow all things we say you must. Nothing else is acceptable. You are either 100% for us with zero disagreement, or you are against us, and considered an enemy.

The only other thought process I can associate that with is religion. It is a worrisome prospect, because there can be no meaningful dialog with one of a "true faith". You cannot reach a compromise, when anything that varies even slightly from their core position is evil, and not to be tolerated.

I have a feeling that if the current group of republican thinkers get majority power, it will make George W. Bush's presidency look downright middle of the road and easy going by comparison.

I worry that if the most powerful nation on earth gives itself over to blind immovable ideologies, that it will have ramifications for everyone, not just US citizens.

[moi621]

Elizabeth -

The President can always "go over the heads of Congress, to the people"
as Harry Truman did.

Many of us wonder why that has not been done more better these last 3 years.

Moi

[Riverwind]

What we are seeing in the USA is that if you want to be considered a republican, you MUST believe and follow all things we say you must. Nothing else is acceptable. You are either 100% for us with zero disagreement, or you are against us, and considered an enemy.

Yep thats what I have been seeing as well. You are with me or you are the enemy. This group needs to loose badly and soon.

River

[Riverwind]

Elizabeth -

The President can always "go over the heads of Congress, to the people"
as Harry Truman did.

Many of us wonder why that has not been done more better these last 3 years.

Moi

Where have you been, he does this every time he speaks but you must listen to the message.


River

[Elizabeth]

Elizabeth -

The President can always "go over the heads of Congress, to the people"
as Harry Truman did.

Many of us wonder why that has not been done more better these last 3 years.

Moi

Virtually all of the congress is in the 1%. They have a 9% approval rating. They don't care about what the voters think. They have money to manipulate the masses, but what they are doing is far from what they claim to be doing.

Elizabeth

[moi621]

Where have you been, he does this every time he speaks but you must listen to the message.


River

He does not hammer on them hard enough, loud enough, strong enough ala Truman.
What he does is "oh so reasonable" to an unreasonable bicameral legislature.
Truman took on the legislative branch. Obama could do up to that measure.
Is he bashing Congress at George Clooney's dinner?
It should be like a three year old and an annoying drum
or one of those laryngectomy anti tobacco commercials, to get people angry, at Congress.
Every opportunity to speak should include a criticism of Congress like the ole Al Jazeera previous anti Zionist bias.
<subliminal & muttered "death to Israel"> Now they have Israeli ministers on the show being interviewed, that is not the ole Al Jazeera.

Obama's style has not been one of a Chief Executive regarding a dysfunctional Congress. It has been conciliatory as if he were the one of a split up couple, hoping to get back together.
Time for him to declare war on Congress. Boost his image and coat tail Democrat Congressional congress people.
Minimally a problem of style.

Moi

[Riverwind]

Your right about only one thing, style. However, at what point does ragging on congress become counter productive? become just over the top? what you would like and what the president does will always be different and you are not an Obama supporter so your criticism is in fact just a bitch. When I see John Boehner so mad he can't talk I think the president has made his point and is doing his job, could he make Boehner that mad on every day, yes I am sure he could but along with pissing off the house he must also give them a chance to cool off and plot before he attacks them again from a different angle. He is stirring the pot just fine.

I have always felt that this president has a very good grasp of how government works, he knows what his job is and what congresses job is and expects them to do it. He has the most even temper, never gets mad, or very happy, but is a rock if you will, I like that, he does not let things get under his skin and if it does it does not show, this is a quality of a good leader, one we have not had in a while.

Yes, I think the name of the thread is right, the republicans would love on party rule but only as long as they were the ones ruling it. Look out because this group of right winged (fill in the blank) do not have the country's interest in hand only their dogma. As Joe Biden said on Meet the Press, this is nothing new, its happened before, the last time it was the democrats back in the 70's moving so far to the left, the country rejected them and I have faith the same will happen here.


Food for thought:

What makes our country great our diversity, extremism right or left is harmful and needs to be stamped out.


River

[moi621]

Your right
<edit>
What makes our country great our diversity, extremism right or left is harmful and needs to be stamped out.

River

What makes the French greater is they had a real choice between an
austerity driven trickle down recovery and a social consciousness percolate up recovery.

Do Americans have such a choice?

Moi
FREEDOM


Plus the French replaced one frumpy middle aged bureaucrat and his hot ex-model wife
with another frumpy middle aged bureaucrat and his hot model girl friend.<Jon Stewart>
Viva La France!
<sigh> wish our candidates could have hot model wives or not be excluded for it

[A-1]

The ANSWER to your post is that the Republican Party in America is becoming JUST LIKE the politburo in Russia.

Or, as I said, they call Democrats Socialists and then turn around and act like a BUNCH OF COMMUNISTS...!

1. They will choose YOUR RELIGION. Russian Communists chose Atheism. This bunch has chose a FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANITY known as DOMINIONISM.

2. They uphold UNFAIR taxation laws that steal from the poor and give to the rich.

3. They BORROW and SPEND without a worry about where the money is coming from. Why? Because they will STEAL or BULLY the world into submission to THEM if necessary.

4. The REPUBLICAN PARTY is a bunch of COMMUNISTS that hope to change the Constitution to make America a DOMINIONIST (...they say Christian but THAT IS A BIG LIE...) nation that is in fact a THEOCRACY.

Please see the post at the end of Elizabeth's quote...

I have noticed this very disturbing trend with the Republicans lately, and that being the openly calling for one party rule. Does anybody remember what we have thought in the past of legislatures of totalitarian states all voting in lockstep without dissent? Yet that is now what we see in the Republican Party. All voting in lockstep and calling anyone who is not voting with them, "unAmerrican". Going after traditionally conservatives like Sen. Lugar, for having compromised with the Democrats. They don't want compromise, which is the foundation of a democracy. They want and get solid block votes for whatever legislation they approve and blocking any legislation they don't approve of.

And this is what the Republican Party has become. They are passing laws all over this country to make it harder for non Republicans to vote. A Right, that people have, not a privilege. We know there is no significant voter fraud, so we know it is only politically motivated. We have States like Michigan with their "emergency manager law" that allows them to cast away democratically elected representatives and void otherwise legally binding contracts. That taking away of Union rights is also high on their agenda.

So now many Tea Partiers are openly calling for the end of compromise and that it's unAmerican to be a Democrat. They want one Party, theirs, with all the power and the end of any voice of descent. I hope that those who would vote Republican are considering what and where they are headed. China is a one party totalitarian government with free market capitalism. It looks like the Republicans want similar control, not only over your money, but everything you do and your privacy.

Elizabeth

Christian Right & Theocracy

When Michelle Goldberg wrote “A Christian Plot for Domination?” for the Daily Beast she chose her terms carefully. The subhead stated “Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry aren't just devout—both have deep ties to a fringe fundamentalist movement known as Dominionism, which says Christians should rule the world.” Within hours both critics and supporters of Goldberg’s thesis littered the Internet with posts that drew no distinctions among the Christian Right, Dominionism, and Christian Reconstructionism. There are important differences, and this essay seeks to explain them. PRA takes no position on the 2012 elections, but we do take a position supporting the accurate use of language.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRA's definition since 2005:

Dominionism: The theocratic idea that regardless of theological view or eschatological timetable, heterosexual Christian men are called by God to exercise dominion over secular society by taking control of political and cultural institutions. Competes in Christianity with the idea of Stewardship, which suggests custodial care rather than absolute power. Used here in the broader sense, some analysts use the word only to refer to forms and offshoots of Reconstructionism.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inside the Christian Right Dominionist Movement That's Undermining Democracy

Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin have all flirted with Christian Right Dominionism, but there's lots of misinformation about just what that means.

Dominionists want to impose a form of Christian nationalism on the United States, a concept that was dismissed as eroding freedom and democracy by the founders of our country. Dominionism has become a major influence on the right-wing populist Tea Parties as Christian Right activists have flooded into the movement at the grassroots.

At the same time, legitimate questions have been raised about whether or not potential Republican presidential nominees Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, or Sarah Palin have moved from a generic form of Christian Right Dominionism toward the more totalitarian form know as Dominion Theology.

Clueless journalists and crafty Christian Right pundits have mocked the idea that Dominionism as a religiously motivated political tendency even exists. Scholars, however, have been writing about Dominionism for over a decade, some using the term directly, and others describing the tendency in other ways. Many articles on Dominionism can be found on Talk to Action, especially by authors Rachel Tabachnick, Bruce Wilson, Frederick Clarkson. Several of the authors who pioneered the discussion of Dominionism have written for the Public Eye Magazine.

Dominionism is a broad political impulse within the Christian Right in the United States. It comes in a variety of forms that author Fred Clarkson and I call soft and hard. Fred and I probably coined the term "Dominionism" back in the 1990s, but in any case we certainly were the primary researchers who organized its use among journalists and scholars.

Clarkson noted three characteristics that bridge both the hard and the soft kind of Dominionism.

Dominionists celebrate Christian nationalism, in that they believe the United States once was, and should again be, a Christian nation. In this way, they deny the Enlightenment roots of American democracy.
Dominionists promote religious supremacy, insofar as they generally do not respect the equality of other religions, or even other versions of Christianity.
Dominionists endorse theocratic visions, believing that the Ten Commandments, or "biblical law," should be the foundation of American law, and that the U.S. Constitution should be seen as a vehicle for implementing Biblical principles.
At the apex of hard Dominionism is the religious dogma of Dominion Theology, with two major branches: Christian Reconstructionism and Kingdom Now theology. It is the latter's influence on the theopolitical movement called the New Apostolic Reformation that has been linked in published reports to potential Republican presidential nominees Perry, Bachmann or Palin. All three of these right-wing political debutantes have flirted with Christian Right Dominionism, but how far they have danced toward the influence of hard-right Dominion Theology is in dispute. It would be nice if some "mainstream" journalists actually researched the question.

"While differing from Reconstructionism in many ways, Kingdom Now shares the belief that Christians have a mandate to take dominion over every area of life," explains religion scholar Bruce Barron. And it is just this tendency that has spread through evangelical Protestantism, resulting in the emergence of "various brands of `dominionist' thinkers in contemporary American evangelicalism," according to Barron.

The most militant Dominion Theologists would silence dissenters and execute adulterers, homosexuals and recalcitrant children. No...seriously. OK, they would only be executed for repeated offenses, explain some defenders of Christian Reconstructionism. Even most Christian Right activists view the more militant Dominion Theologists as having really creepy ideas.

Much of the controversy over the issue of Dominionism is caused by writers who use the term carelessly, often conflating the broad term Dominionism with the narrow term Dominion Theology. Some on the Left have implied that every conservative Christian evangelical is part of the Christian Right political movement; and that everyone in the Christian Right is an active Dominionist. This is false. Some critics even state that the Christian Right is neofascist. Few serious scholars of fascism agree with that assessment, although several admit that if triggered by a traumatic societal event, any contemporary right-wing populist movement could descend into neofascism.

Advocates of Dominion Theology go beyond the democracy eroding theocracy of Dominionism into a totalitarian form of religious power called a "theonomy," in which pluralistic democracy and religious tolerance are seen as a problem to be solved by godly men carrying out God's will. Karen Armstrong calls Christian Reconstructionism "totalitarian" because it leaves "no room for any other view or policy, no democratic tolerance for rival parties, no individual freedom." Matthew N. Lyons and I call Christian Reconstructionism a "new form of clerical fascist politics," in our book Right-Wing Populism in America, because we see it echoing the religiously based clerical fascist movements that existed during World War II in countries including Romania and Hungary.

According to Fred Clarkson:

Reconstructionists believe that there are three main areas of governance: family government, church government, and civil government. Under God's covenant, the nuclear family is the basic unit. The husband is the head of the family, and wife and children are "in submission" to him. In turn, the husband "submits" to Jesus and to God's laws as detailed in the Old Testament. The church has its own ecclesiastical structure and governance. Civil government exists to implement God's laws. All three institutions are under Biblical Law, the implementation of which is called "theonomy."
Christian Reconstructionists believe that as more Christians adopt Dominion Theology, they will eventually convert the majority of Americans. Then the country will realize that the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights are merely codicils to Old Testament biblical law. Because they believe this is God's will, they scoff at criticism that what they plan is a revolutionary overthrow of the existing system of government. Over the past 20 years the leading proponents of Reconstructionism have included founder Rousas John (R.J.) Rushdoony, Gary North, Greg Bahnsen, David Chilton, Gary DeMar, and Andrew Sandlin. Kingdom Now theology emerged from the Latter Rain Pentacostal movement and the concept of Spiritual Warfare against the literal demonic forces of Satan. It has been promoted by founder Earl Paulk as well as C. Peter Wagner, founder of the New Apostolic Reformation movement.

For many, President Obama and the Democratic Party are among these "demonic forces." This has real world consequences.

In 2006 former Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris told thousands of cheering Christian Right activists that beating the Democrats in the upcoming elections was a battle against "principalities and powers," which many in the audience would hear as a Biblical reference to the struggle with the demonic agents of Satan. Harris (who played "ballot bowling" in Florida to elect George W. Bush in 2000) told the audience at the annual Values Voter Summit in Washington DC that she had studied religion in Switzerland with the godfather of the Christian Right, theologian Francis A. Schaeffer. Her speech there, which I witnessed and wrote about, qualifies her as a Dominionist.

In 2004 Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, another Dominionist, oversaw the election apparatus giving his favored candidate George W. Bush a boost into the Oval Office.

Religion scholar Bruce Barron explains that "unlike the Christian Right, Reconstructionism is not simply or primarily a political movement; it is first and foremost an educational movement fearlessly proclaiming an ideology of total world transformation." According to sociologist Sara Diamond, Christian Reconstructionism spread the "concept that Christians are Biblically mandated to `occupy' all secular institutions" to the extent that it became "the central unifying ideology for the Christian Right."

William Martin is the author of the 1996 tome With God on Our Side, a companion volume to the PBS series of the same name (Martin and I were both advisers to the PBS series). Martin is a sociologist and professor of religion at Rice University, and he has been critical of the way some critics of the Christian Right have tossed around the terms "dominionism" and "theocracy." According to Martin:

It is difficult to assess the influence of Reconstructionist thought with any accuracy. Because it is so genuinely radical, most leaders of the Religious Right are careful to distance themselves from it. At the same time, it clearly holds some appeal for many of them. One undoubtedly spoke for others when he confessed, `Though we hide their books under the bed, we read them just the same.'
Martin reveals that "several key leaders have acknowledged an intellectual debt to the theonomists." The late Christian Right leaders Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy "endorsed Reconstructionist books" for example. Before he died in 2001, the founder of Christian Reconstuctionism, R. J. Rushdoony, appeared several times on Christian Right televangelist programs such as Pat Robertson's 700 Club and the program hosted by D. James Kennedy.

"Pat Robertson makes frequent use of `dominion' language," says Martin. Robertson's book, The Secret Kingdom, "has often been cited for its theonomy elements; and pluralists were made uncomfortable when, during his presidential campaign, he said he `would only bring Christians and Jews into the government,' as well as when he later wrote, `There will never be world peace until God's house and God's people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world.' "

Martin also pointed out that Jay Grimstead, who led the Coalition on Revival, "brought Reconstructionists together with more mainstream evangelicals." According to Martin, Grimstead explained "`I don't call myself [a Reconstructionist]," but "A lot of us are coming to realize that the Bible is God's standard of morality...in all points of history...and for all societies, Christian and non-Christian alike....It so happens that Rushdoony, Bahnsen, and North understood that sooner."

Then Grimstead added, "there are a lot of us floating around in Christian leadership--James Kennedy is one of them--who don't go all the way with the theonomy thing, but who want to rebuild America based on the Bible."

So let's choose our language carefully, but let's recognize that terms such as Dominionism and Theocracy, when used cautiously and carefully, are appropriate when describing troubling tendencies in the Christian Right that are helping push the current political scene toward confrontation and intolerance.

[gareth19]

I have noticed this very disturbing trend with the Republicans lately, and that being the openly calling for one party rule. Does anybody remember what we have thought in the past of legislatures of totalitarian states all voting in lockstep without dissent? Yet that is now what we see in the Republican Party. All voting in lockstep and calling anyone who is not voting with them, "unAmerrican". Going after traditionally conservatives like Sen. Lugar, for having compromised with the Democrats. They don't want compromise, which is the foundation of a democracy. They want and get solid block votes for whatever legislation they approve and blocking any legislation they don't approve of.

And this is what the Republican Party has become. They are passing laws all over this country to make it harder for non Republicans to vote. A Right, that people have, not a privilege. We know there is no significant voter fraud, so we know it is only politically motivated. We have States like Michigan with their "emergency manager law" that allows them to cast away democratically elected representatives and void otherwise legally binding contracts. That taking away of Union rights is also high on their agenda.

So now many Tea Partiers are openly calling for the end of compromise and that it's unAmerican to be a Democrat. They want one Party, theirs, with all the power and the end of any voice of descent. I hope that those who would vote Republican are considering what and where they are headed. China is a one party totalitarian government with free market capitalism. It looks like the Republicans want similar control, not only over your money, but everything you do and your privacy.

Elizabeth

This is not a recent trend. Karl Rove and Baby Bush aspired to a one-party Stalinist state, and since Joseph McCarthy, the Republicans have advanced policies aimed at the reduction or elimination of personal freedom. The opposition to free public education, birth control, abortion, gay rights, and desegregation are all principled against any expansion or preservation of the individual's rights. That they take their models from totalitarian states is not surprising. While Marx envisioned the state absorbing the factories and politicians becoming corporate heads and the Republicans evision business men becoming politicians, the effect is the same; the state becomes the sole means of production and its managers the managers of all aspects of life. The identity of Marxist and "conservative" thought is again not surprising since both are fundamentally based on antiquated nineteenth century economic dogma. And just as Orwell finally noted of his communist handlers in Animal Farm, the party elite are hypocrits. Bush-Cheney used opposition to gays, but were just as confident as Orwell's pig Napoleon that Cheney's daughter would never suffer from the discrimination they would inflict on the rest of the population. Right-wing loons like Ron Paul and Rick Perry who opposed national health care have no compunctions about accepting tax-payer subsidized health care for themselves. Rick Sanctimonious would have the Gestapo storm every abortion clinic in the country but doesn't expect Mrs. Sanctimonious to answer for her years living with an abortion doctor. Mitt Romney expects the average tax-payer to pay taxes on all income including interest on savings, but kept his own loot in off shore and Swiss banks.

No matter what scum they may actually be [think of drug addict Rush Limbaugh, moron Rick Perry, bully Mitt Romney], all of this ilk think of themselves as God's chosen and the elite, and the blue print for the totalitarian state was the Republic conceived of by that unregenerate elitist Plato.

[gareth19]

Elizabeth -

The President can always "go over the heads of Congress, to the people"
as Harry Truman did.

Many of us wonder why that has not been done more better these last 3 years.

Moi

No, the president can't by-pass congress. Congress makes laws; the president can only propose legislation and hope that members of his own party can get it through committee. Although Truman secured reelection using congress as an excuse, Truman really couldn't prevent his Republican congress from enacting stupid legislation like the term limits amendment or inviting MacArthur to address a joint session of congress as though that senile windbag had any understanding of national or international affairs.

In fact, when presidents try to go over the head of congress or the courts, the public usually is suspicious. FDR attempted to campaign against "Nine tired old men" to appoint additional jutices to override the Supreme Court's consistent rejection of his recovery programs and he suffered the worst electoral defeats of his career.

[bobover3]

Elizabeth, President Obama has tried repeatedly to do just that. He has made more public speeches than any other President. Most days of the week his remarks are on TV news. In his speeches, he likes to describe himself as the ally of the people against Congress, the Supreme Court, Republicans, numerous industries and business interests, racial and ethnic groups, and anyone else suspected of not supporting him. He seems to think he's "going over the heads of Congress to the people." One reason he's failed is that these many statements strike people as either whining excuses for his inability to accomplish his goals, or as an attempt to "divide and conquer" by fomenting hatred between groups. Roosevelt and Truman seldom used this strategy, and when they did, they had a real case to make. Obama has done this so often, usually on flimsy pretext, that he's no longer believed.

[Elizabeth]

Elizabeth, President Obama has tried repeatedly to do just that. He has made more public speeches than any other President. Most days of the week his remarks are on TV news. In his speeches, he likes to describe himself as the ally of the people against Congress, the Supreme Court, Republicans, numerous industries and business interests, racial and ethnic groups, and anyone else suspected of not supporting him. He seems to think he's "going over the heads of Congress to the people." One reason he's failed is that these many statements strike people as either whining excuses for his inability to accomplish his goals, or as an attempt to "divide and conquer" by fomenting hatred between groups. Roosevelt and Truman seldom used this strategy, and when they did, they had a real case to make. Obama has done this so often, usually on flimsy pretext, that he's no longer believed.

This post is a non-statement. It's the equivalent of saying "same to you but more of it". It has nothing to do with what I am talking about. Not to mention how dishonest it is to say he isn't doing anything while Republicans smash the filobuster record, by again using it in a non-democratic way to allow the minority to rule. You addressed none of the issues of the Republicans moving away from democracy and towards fascist one party rule. Instead you try to change the subject and say you are justified because the other party won't do what you want. The filobuster was never intended to be a means of shutting down congress or a presidents agenda when he has a majority. Democracy is majority rules, not one party refusing to compromise and bringing the country to a halt.

The Republicans ran on jobs, but instead have brought a thousand anti-abortion bills and budgets that break previous agreements they made while cutting medicare and gutting social programs to pay for a tax cut for the rich. And unfortunately constituents like you who will vote for them no matter how far the go. You don't care, it's just about your side winning at any cost. The entire Republican plans involves cutting all social programs and cutting taxes for the wealthy while raising them for the middle and lower income families. We seen it in states where Republicans control the state legislatures, like Florida where they raised taxes on the poor and elderly to pay for a tax cut to the wealthy. Who by the way don't need it. It changes their life in no way. We already know this does not work and will only lead to more bad economic times. It's what got us here. And yet people like you who will ignore the fact that the best economy this country ever had was under a democratic president, after raising taxes on the rich.

I guess the really bad part of the whole thing is that the wealthy don't need the money. It doesn't change their lives in any meaningful way. It just increases a number in an account. But the people they are taking it from, it changes their lives dramatically and in a negative way. I wonder where compassion for our fellow humans turned to complete unbridled greed for the sake of power, not bettering one's life.

Bob, is complete Fascism to far for you? Hitler and the Nazi's walked Germany right down the path and everyone blindly followed with the same justification. I promise if the Republicans keep on the path to impoverish the middle class, it will lead to another 40 year stint where the Republicans won't be trusted with Congress, just like following the great depression and the same tactics the Republicans used after that event, that they caused by accumulating all the wealth.

In the end it was all for naught because in the end we raised taxes really high on the rich and kept it that way for a very long time. Trying to take away the votes of the democratic constituency will fail. It may please people like you who want to win at any cost, but it truly is un-American to try to take away people's right to vote. One needs to look no farther than the Republicans in Michigan and their "emergency manager law" to show how the Republicans have claimed a majority they don't have, to pass laws they should not be able to pass, to take away the rights of citizens to represent themselves in their own communities. It's clear Republicans have no problems taking away rights, they are doing it left and right. For instance, now you can be arrested by the military. Why do you suppose the Republicans would want that power?

Elizabeth

[Dave]

Elizabeth, President Obama has tried repeatedly to do just that.
...
...

You never heard Democrats talking like that.
When GW Bush was in office his buddies declared a permanent Republican majority and actively worked towards it.
No Democrat ever did that.

Don't project your party's failings and excesses on the other side. Stand like a man and admit it or whimper like a child and lie it never happened. That is the way of commenting on anything that might reflect badly on Republicans that is used widely by Republicans.
It is called "projection" and used to present their failings as the other party's faults.

http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/t...4/30/busy.html

No one, with the possible exception of the President, will be more responsible for the success or failure of Bush's presidency. Which is fine by Rove. This is, after all, the culmination of a life's obsession. It began even before the mid-'70s, when Rove, then a college student in Utah, hit the young-Republican circuit with Lee Atwater, who became George Bush Sr.'s 1988 campaign mastermind. Rove, who dropped out to become a full-time operative, also worked for the father and thus met the son. He became the top consultant in Texas and eventually saw in Dubya a natural politician who--guided by Rove, of course--could not only reach the White House but also usher in a permanent Republican majority. "When the President was growing up, he wanted to be Willie Mays," says Mark McKinnon, the Bush campaign's admaker. "But when Karl was growing up, he wanted to be senior adviser to the President."

http://www.politicalruminations.com/...-norquist.html

Morning Quote: Grover Norquist, 05 July 2011
From the article by Gov. Deval Patrick (D-MA) “How Grover Norquist hypnotized the GOP”, emphasis mine:
“At our 25th college reunion in 2003, Grover Norquist — the brain and able spokesman for the radical right — and I, along with other classmates who had been in public or political life, participated in a lively panel discussion about politics. During his presentation, Norquist explained why he believed that there would be a permanent Republican majority in America. One person interrupted, as I recall, and said, “C’mon, Grover, surely one day a Democrat will win the White House.””
Grover Norquist’s response:
“We will make it so that a Democrat cannot govern as a Democrat.”
And isn’t that exactly what they’re working so hard to accomplish now? To the point where they are willing to cause an economic collapse.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/ma...on&oref=slogin
Do you see the election results as a repudiation of your politics?
Our new president-elect won one and a half points more than George W. Bush won in 2004, and he did so, in great respect, by adopting the methods of the Bush campaign and conducting a vast army of persuasion to identify and get out the vote.

But what about your great dream of creating a permanent Republican governing majority in Washington?
I never said permanent. Durable.