Conservative Activists Not Sold on GOP 'Pledge To America" Just election BS?

In my opinion the so called "Pledge To America" is just a PR campaign to get Republicans elected in November. Call me cynical, but it seems that The Republican Congress under Bush violated most of this "pledge", and that these are the SAME people that now swear they won't screw up again!
Dems are often accused of blaming Bush, I think the Repubs do the same thing! This "we lost our way" stuff seems fake to me. I don't trust 'em!

Conservative Activists Not Sold on GOP 'Pledge To America"

"The document is heavy on economic themes, pledging to keep the Bush tax cuts, cap federal spending, institute a federal hiring freeze, and whack Congress' budget. But traditional GOP social issues literally fell to the back of the line. A proposal to permanently end federal funding for abortion was listed last under a series of health care proposals, while enforcing immigration laws and strengthening America's borders came only at the end of a section on national security"

Is it me or does this thing sound like just trying to give voters what the GOP establishment thinks they want to hear?

It's the same thing both parties do before every election. They make a lot of pretty speeches and promises, tell us what they think we want to hear, and have little intention of following through unless it benefits them in some way. At this point i don't believe a word any of them say and judging by recent polls I've seen I'm not the only one who doesn't.

The problem for both parties is that in the vast majority of states, they are the two "official" parties. Sure you can start a 3rd party. But if there is a schism, a defector can sue in court for control (This happened to Perot, and countless others.) But if you are the red or blue team, your central committe has authority sui generis, and your central committee is the court of final appeal---not a state court. Thus, the two "approved" parties will never lose control "just because our members don't like us." You and your upstart party don't get such legal protections; and if you write them into your incorporation pages, a judge will strike them when you are sued.

I'm a conservative (not a Republican), I will probably vote mostly for them, since they will screw less with the things that I really care about.

But their day of ballot-reckoning is coming.

Today's Repubs will never willing push for a REAL definition of citizenship, any more than the Dems, since construction companies and the hotel industry wouldn't pay them....er, contribute, any more.

Today's Repubs will never push for a flat tax, since many of their big contributors pay practically nothing thanks to the maze of current regulation (exactly the case with the Dems. Ted Kennedy paid less tax than most of you did, the last year he was alive....)

Nor will they stand for campaign reform, decency standards for elected officials, etc.

I expect that the Tea Party will ebb after the election; God knows the "Big Tent" of the Republican party is doing its best to water them down, to "dilute the tea" as much as possible.

The pathetic thing is, the RNC still doesn't get it; the Tea Partiers are the only source of energy and life that the Republican party has left. When they try to dilute the tea (and they work hard at it) they are only making themselves less relevant.

The pathetic thing is, the RNC still doesn't get it; the Tea Partiers are the only source of energy and life that the Republican party has left. When they try to dilute the tea (and they work hard at it) they are only making themselves less relevant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you think they don't get it, or that they just don't care?
This whole thing seems to meet to express a lot of contempt for their own base. It's like they think they are idots and will be satisfied with goofball platitudes.
I'm no fan at all of the Republican Party, it seems to me they are only anxious to continue the Bush years of making the rich richer.
Is patriotism a thing of the past?

the republicrats stink i say term limits then we will start to see some positive change oh and get rid of the fed to i didnt see either of those two on there bloody list so i say they are the same old bunch of crooks vote them all out come nov

reply to post by OldDragger


I try to keep an eye on Eric Cantor and his efforts toward getting some kind of fiscal reform going. He *seems* to be genuine in his efforts, at least so far as the "YouCut" program is concerned. Interestingly, if you go to the YouCut site and look at all the expense cuts Americans have voted for and which have been presented to Congress ... and review the voting records on those things ... it is overwhelmingly the Democrats who are refusing to cut spending.

I'm conservative in most of my views, though not a Republican. I don't understand why so many people are so firmly attached to the two parties-in-power. If they were truly so different behind closed doors, we wouldn't be in the mess that we're in. On the other hand, if we look at all the sessions of Congress since 1945 ( uspolitics.about.com... ), we can see that most of the Sessions in which one Party held the majority, that majority has been held by the Democrats. Further, we can see that during the Clinton years (when the Country did better financially ... by comparison), it was the Republicans who held the majority. Presidents don't vote those laws, spending sprees, etc. in ... Congress does and, from my perspective, specifically it's been the Democrats.

That said, the Republicans who held the majority briefly under Bush didn't do much better than the Democrats who preceded them where spending is concerned and the Democrats that came in behind them were even worse.

Perhaps (*ahem*) SOME of the elected Republicans mean well with their Pledge; however, if any of them regardless of Party affiliation want ME to believe anything, then they're going to need to:

Pass a law stating no Bill can be more than 50 pages long;
That the Bill must be titled clearly with its intent;
That nothing in the Bill can pertain to anything but the title.

And then pass one limiting terms.

They mentioned tagging any bills with the Constitutional authority (terribly paraphrasing there; sorry) ... when they're ready to add to that they will remove themselves from office if they violate it ... and have that statement notarized and publicized... maybe i'll consider believing them then.

And i'd feel a lot better if a whole bunch of the Democrats joined them and produced their own notarized statements of that promise, too.

I believe there are some honest people (regardless of political affiliation) out there who truly DO want the good of American citizens. I just don't think many of them hold public office.

reply to post by OldDragger


Aren't all campaign promises just giving voters/activists what they want to hear? I fail to see why or how this is any different. These pledges don't work very well anyways. All the most respected studies of the "Contract with America" show that most people who voted GOP that year were unaware of the contract. Both parties do these pledges and contracts and 'first 100 days,' before and after elections so they can be part of the first-draft-of-history. These things are more about branding a particular election for future generations and later elections then they are about winning current elections.

The problem with congress is like the problem with police.

Sometimes, the guy who becomes a cop was the kid who, while never puny, never quite felt "manly enough." That, plus the fact that they always wanted to be able to carry a gun and order people around.

Who runs for Congress? The guy who was president of his senior class, and did a bit of modeling work before he developed a pot-belly. They guy who is always happy to see you but misprounounces your name.