Jump to content

Home

Corruption and the Fall of the Republican Party


SkinWalker
 Share

Recommended Posts

Is the Republican Party about to fall? Here is the short list of scandals associated with the corrupt bunch that controls our government:

 

 

  1. Karl Rove/"Scooter" Libby treason: outing a CIA agent and an undercover operation to spy on terrorist assets
  2. Tom DeLay's Money Laundering
  3. Jack Abramoff's political misdealings as a republican lobbyist
  4. David H. Safavian, a former Rove business partner
  5. House Administration Committee Chairman Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio) "Ney used the power of his office to help a Washington lobbyist buy a casino company in Florida. Shortly after the deal fell through, the company's owner was killed in what police describe as a professional hit."
  6. Harriet Meirs - an unqualified nomination to the Supreme Court
  7. The Iraq War
  8. The Katrina/FEMA failure
  9. Memogate: The Senate Computer Theft
  10. Halliburton's No-Bid Contracts and "pumped up prices" for gas
  11. Republicans jam Democratic Party phone banks
  12. Phoney News releases on medicare
  13. Illegal Campaign Contributions: John Ashcroft
  14. George W. Bush AWOL (might need to watch a short ad to see the article)
  15. Abu Ghraib
  16. GITMO

More to come....

 

Where are the Pro-Bush supporters now? Perhaps some would care to defend some of the actions above?

 

Bush always was unqualified to be President. His adminstration is stocked with cronies and unqualified hacks. WTF? We can't wait another three years.... that idiot has to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

BBC had another story last night on how all but bush's most loyal (texan religious) supporters are starting to turn on him And how even they think he's been sidetracked when he should have been cracking down harder on stem cells, gay marriages and abortions.

 

Seems like no-one likes him much on either side at the moment.

 

The DeLay issue seems just as indicative of a party that has become so involved in the corporate and religious interests, and allowed its most extreme members to become its most powerful members, that it seems to ahve forgotten WHY its there in the first place.

 

But, on the other hand, this seems to be how two-party politics works. One party will get in power with a lot of momentum and support, then over the years people will notice more and more of their mistakes, then the press will turn on them, then all the dirty secrets come out... then they are defeated in grand style.

Then the other party comes in all full of promise, and everyone thinks it will be different... and the same cycle repeats itself.

 

We never seem to get anywhere, as the two parties are continually locked in a cycle of power where every 8 years or so they swap places and start undoing everything the other party did.

 

What is really needed on a lot of issues is for some people to start with a blank slate, and look afresh at how to tackle some problems... but all the ever get are the same ideas recycled and slightly altered over and over again.. and often canned before there is any chance they might have any effect. Its a total waste of time and money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, well... the event of Katrina sorta turned a lot of people. All I have to say is: Screw it, I don't care any more.

 

I can't see anything happening to Bush. No one is moving at all to take him out of office, and I doubt anyone will... at least not yet... unless he screws up even more... on a huge scale...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there's a lot of old fashioned conservatives and members of the Republican party that are waking up to find that their party's platform has been totally hijacked by a Christian-Fundamentalist, NeoConservative, Big-Government political agenda. I'm pretty sure there's a lot of Heartland, Middle American folks currently scratching their heads and saying "Hey waitaminnit... THIS isn't what I voted for!" I've already seen that in a couple of the people I know voted for Bush in the last election. They're starting to become disillusioned with the Administration.

That, plus the fact that all the folks that voted for Bush/ Cheney out of fear of terrorism and the promise of safety are starting to question if the Government can't swiftly react to a very predictable natural disaster, how will they react to unpredictable man-made disasters?

 

It's also very hard to throw all your support behind a lame-duck administration... especially one that's doing so badly at this point. It's time to start looking for viable replacements at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

That seems to be the gist of what they are reporting over here...

 

I gotta say that the whole process of Supreme Court Judges seems very odd to me. The fact that they seem blatantly politically motivated, and they are appointed for life seems odd.

 

I guess you could justify the "for life" bit based on the fact it should mean they aren't trying to always angle for re-election.

 

But the way the elections work seems to mean that you end up with a colleciton of the most hardline right wingers and the most hardline left wingers... and then the decisions are based on whoever happens to have the majority at the time due to recent deaths/appointments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More importantly, what will happen if the Republican party does fall?

 

Will the Democrats let anyone step up to the plate? Not that our two party monopoly was very good, but a one party system is even worse...

 

But, all this assumes that political parties can't weather scandals. Both parties have done excellent jobs at living those down for decades.

 

Out of the list of the Bush administration's sins, #7 is the worst. If it weren't for that I'd say no problem, they'll walk, just like past presidents have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I think #8 is more likely to do the trick. #7 and #8 are equally spectacular screwups but #8 has an effective casualty count a couple of orders of magnitudes greater (effective as in vote-moving efficiency: It is common knowledge amongst reporters that one of your own countrymen is worth 100-1000 3rd world citizens in terms of public interest. Sad but true).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um.

 

The Republican party falling?

 

Do we not remember all the scandals that raged across the news when Clinton was president?

 

It's Bush that's losing serious support - not the Republicans who are. You don't see any mass party defections, do you?

 

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding the topic here ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush has lost a huge amount supporters after Katrina. Then there was the other 15+ things you put up there. I can't imagine the Republican Party falling. It's the Bush administration that's crap. I expect government will not agree to mostly what Bush wants anymore.

 

I mean, take money from the levees? C'mon!

 

But, what's done is done. I would like to see Bush out of there, but it seems very unlikely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More importantly, what will happen if the Republican party does fall?

 

Will the Democrats let anyone step up to the plate? Not that our two party monopoly was very good, but a one party system is even worse...

 

But, all this assumes that political parties can't weather scandals. Both parties have done excellent jobs at living those down for decades.

 

You say that, but the Democrating party has been effectively in the wilderness ever since clinton (though i wouldn't say that is exactly down to Clinton's actions). So you have near-enough had a one party system for the whole of Bush's term in office. the opposition has been so unsure and divided that he's had a pretty free reign.

 

Its the same inthe UK, whent he conservatives fell out of power so spectacularly with such a whiff of corruption around them they let the Labour party back into power for the first time in 17 years.

But then they pretty much self destructed and even 8 years later are looking far from electable.

 

Which has meant almost no opposition, and therefore Tony Blair has gotten away with loads of things he would never have even tried with an effective opposition to call him to account.

 

The funny thing is that though Bush and Blair have both had open playing fields, no opposition and widfall opportunities like the War of Terror they have both spectacularly failed to make any major improvements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But at least Blair hasn't managed to make any major disasters either (barring Operation Iraqi Screwup). And it's my impression that he hasn't been quite as heavy-handed as W. That has to count for something... One of the risks you run by playing heavyhanded during periods of weak opposition is that, unless you plan on staging a coup, the tables will turn on you eventually, and then the former opposition just might decide to play heavy-handed with you...

 

(And let's face it: If you want to make major changes during the short timespans available in politics, you'll almost always have to play heavy-handed)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Althought I agree that #7 and #8 are right up there at the top of Bush's worst failures, I'm more angry at #1. I'm almost 17 and even I see how bigheaded and selfish the government was in "letting slip" that agent's name. People all over the world could be getting killed specifically because of that "slip," all of them dying without recognition. And why is that happening? Because Karl Rove, Bush and his personal supporters couldn't stand seeing someone actually grow the balls to speak out against the Iraq War... especially when former Ambassador Wilson was correct in most, if not all of his statements.

 

I know the Iraq War and Katrina were and still are terrible disasters and causes, with thousands of good lives being lost for a cause that's becoming blurrier by the day, or because of a slow response to a natural disaster, but there is a more disturbing aspect to the CIA agent "slip" if you ask me. It's the fact that the people working for our own government to try and help our country out now know that Karl Rove and the other officials don't give a damn about their lives, as long as the Republicans can settle a grudge.

 

Another link about the ineptitude of Michael Brown.

 

 

...This coming from a former supporter of Bush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...] but there is a more disturbing aspect to the CIA agent "slip" if you ask me. It's the fact that the people working for our own government to try and help our country out now know that Karl Rove and the other officials don't give a damn about their lives, as long as the Republicans can settle a grudge.

 

Welcome back Reborn. I sense a poetic irony in your choice of name, given your last paragraph... It's good to see that someone here has the moral courage to admit that he's changed his opinion in the face of evidence. Most, probably myself including, would just have backpedaled... My hat's off to you.

 

You've got a point, as well. One that I had previously overlooked: All of Skin's examples except #1 are either 'ordinary' corruption or criminal incompetence. But deliberatly compromising your own country's intelligence services out of sheer spite is an all-time low even for this administration.

 

I guess the casualty counts of Operation Iraqi Screwup and Katrina kinda blinded me to this point.

 

I still think, though, that Katrina is going to be the most serious of W's many failures and treasonably incompetent (or just outright treasonous) actions, because it took place on American soil, killed Americans, and incontrovertably demonstrated the inexcusable lack of preparedness against large-scale terrorist attacks. I don't happen to think that terrorism is all that important a consideration, but W's entire campaign has been focused on internal security. Katrina is going to hurt him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a prediction: Cheney will resign after the New Year, citing his health as a concern. But the move will allow the Republican Party to position a likely Presidential Candidate since the President will be able to appoint a VP replacement.

 

The logical choice for VP would be his SecDef or SecState, but neither of these are electible. So I'm stumped for a replacement.

 

Could this cause Bush to swallow his pride and select a popular or Moderate Republican? There aren't many of those. McCain? Chafee? Snow? Specter? Or perhaps he'll choose a rock-star like Guiliani.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McCain would be a problematic appointment. Last time I checked, far more Democrats seem to like him than Republicans. I once had a Neo-Con leaning acquaintance tell me flat-out that McCain "...isn't really a Republican." So Bush's base isn't likely to sit well with that type of move.

(Yet he's the darling of the many in the more liberal crowd, for some reason. Hey, I can understand it: I really respect him, too! I met him once. He really seemed on the ball.)

 

Add in the fact that McCain is pretty damn rip-**** over the prisoner abuse scandals and all the various other detainee rights violations, I honestly can't see him working well with Rumsfeld (who he clearly has no warm, fuzzy feelings for) and Rice (ditto) for any length of time, and they would have to be cut loose.

Pile that on even further with the fact that Rove pretty much attempted to ruin his live in a very personal way in the run-up to the 2000 election, and that's one name you can pretty much keep off that list.

 

I don't know the others that well, but I would love to see more moderates and centrists gain a foothold in Washington.

 

I just don't really see it happening as long as Rove is still pulling all the strings, though... moderation is not much of a respected quality in those circles these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats kind of when it all started to go wrong for the Republicans... when a very small minoroty with very extremist views managed to get control of the party.

 

I happen to think McCain would be the best guy to lead the country after bish, but thats probably because i agree with a lot of what he says. I can't help but think edlib is right when he says the republican elite extremists won't let him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Republican Party won't die, nither will the Democrates, and honestly, if the Democrates did stuff like the Bush Administration has done, you'd bet we'd be saying the same damned things about them stupid liberals destroying the nation, like how Republican naysayers are destroying the country.

 

Personally, I'm ratehr sad about the demise of the G.O.P, I was hoping to use them as a launch pad into power. ;_;

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you suffer from wishful thinking, Skin. W is too head-in-the-sand, denial-of-reality bare-faced stupid to realise that he's even got a problem. The man is delusional. Besides, no matter what he does the Republicrats are going to take a beating in the next election if the Democans manage to find their ass with both hands for a change. And W and his crowd seem to me to be the kind of people who will grab onto power and wealth with both hands and not let go for as long as they can.

 

Maintaining their course until the next election would provide them no significant disadvantage, since the outcome of the next election depends less on his actual performance during the rest of his term than on whether the opposition get their act together (and how well W's people manage to rig the voting).

 

It would, however, both allow them to keep embezzling right until the end and fit well with the messian, marthyr-going-down-in-flames-for-the-cause-of-Good style they seem to favor.

 

Maybe they think that they are players in a Wagner opera...

 

Then again, maybe not. I somehow doubt the name would ring any bells with any of them...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...