Are the Isolationists back? Meet the Kucinich Republicans

But what is the explanation for the 87 Republicans, including the likes of Indiana's Dan Burton and Wisconsin's Jim Sensenbrenner, who transform themselves into isolationists when a Democrat takes over the White House? Michele Bachmann, the Minnesota tea party favorite, also voted for the Kucinich retreat, which means she will start her campaign to become Commander in Chief by running to the left of President Obama and Nancy Pelosi. Teddy Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan, Mrs. Bachmann is not.

Link

On Friday June 3, 2011 87 Republicans lined up to vote Yea on the Kucinich Resolution to have all troops out of Libya within 15 days and declare that the President violated the 1973 War Powers Act. I would like to give great congratulations to each of the Republicans and also to the Democrats who were courageous enough to stand up against the President who is a member of their own party. The Republicans who voted Yea are listed below:

Adams, Akin, Amash, Bachmann, Bartlett, Benishek, Berg, Brooks, Broun, Buchanan, Burgess, Burton, Camp, Campbell, Capito, Cassidy, Chaffetz, Coble, Cole, Davis, Duffy, Duncan (SC), Duncan (TN), Fincher, Flake, Fleming, Foxx, Garrett, Gibson, Gohmert, Gosar, Gowdy, Graves, Guinta, Hall, Harris, Huelskamp, Huizenga, Johnson (IL), Johnson, Jones, Kingston, Labrador, Landry, Lummis, Mack, Manzullo, McClintock, McHenry, McKinley, Miller, Mulvaney, Noem, Nugent, Paul, Paulsen, Pearce, Petri, Pitts, Poe, Posey, Price, Reed, Ribble, Rigell, Roe, Rooney, Ross, Royce, Schmidt, Schweikert, Scott (SC), Scott, Sensenbrenner, Southerland, Stearns, Stutzman, Terry, Upton, Walberg, Walsh, Webster, West, Westmoreland, Wolf, Woodall, Young.

Link

Late in May President Karzai of Afghanistan warned that if the air strikes from this point forward are not restricted they will take unilateral action and the United States will be treated as an occupier. This ultimatum issued a response from a potential 2012 Republican Presidential candidate:

“If President Karzai continues with these public ultimatums, we must consider our options about the immediate future of U.S. troops in his country. If he actually follows through on his claim that Afghan forces will take ‘unilateral action’ against NATO forces which conduct such air raids to take out terrorists and terrorist positions, that should result in the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan and the suspension of U.S. aid.”

The potential candidate who said this was Sarah Palin. Such a stance coming from a well-known Neocon is strange but perhaps it is because of the departure of Scheunemann and Goldfarb from her staff which she replaced with Schweizer. Nonetheless it is a position advocated not normally from Neocons.

Link

What about the vote on the Kucinich Resolution by Michele Bachmann? If I recall correctly she also voted against the Iraq Troop surge as well but this vote is pretty amazing. Given this voting record as it stands she would be running left of President Obama in 2012 on foreign policy, placing her alongside Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. But I digress.

Perhaps we are seeing a reawakening of the true conservative spirit in America, one where staunch interventionism abroad which results in loss of blood, treasure, and freedom will be disapproved of. How could it have ever been justified? Maybe it had been forgotten but the truth is simple, nothing expands the size of government quite like a war.

The Tea Party Republicans who came into Congress from the 2010 Election are definitely a change from the GOP of Bush II. They may not quite be to the point of constitutionalism but are as close to it as we have seen in the past 20 years at least. Add to that the surge of support for Ron Paul in the Republican Primary polling and we are seeing a new conservative America, one quite different than ever two years ago.

Could we be looking at the revival of a long American conservative tradition of believing in individual liberty, limited government, non-interventionism, and gold standard? Only time will tell if our new Republicans are Robert Taft or Ronald Reagan Conservatives. I can only hope and pray they are like Taft.

It is quit sad though that it takes us being on the edge of total insolvency and economic collapse for our members of Congress to even begin waking up from their slumber. Issues are now being addressed which have been silenced since the 1960s. Is it not time for this discussion though? I believe it is long overdue.

i would love to see a dramatic

and long lasting dose of isolationism hit american politics

for too very long we have been force fed this interventionist bs by both sides

we should isolate our selves enough to focus on our issues locally

not globally

Originally posted by Misoir
Could we be looking at the revival of a long American conservative tradition of believing in individual liberty, limited government, non-interventionism, and gold standard? Only time will tell if our new Republicans are Robert Taft or Ronald Reagan Conservatives. I can only hope and pray they are like Taft.

In short, no.

It works in the interest of the GOP to oust Obama. (See: Clinton Oval Office Blow Job.)

It is quit sad though that it takes us being on the edge of total insolvency and economic collapse for our members of Congress to even begin waking up from their slumber. Issues are now being addressed which have been silenced since the 1960s. Is it not time for this discussion though? I believe it is long overdue.

What issues? You of all people should know that the current members of congress work together quite well and reach across the aisle easily. What they have done here is no break through, it isn't new. It is the same tired GOP tactic of dig their heels in and do everything in their power to derail the presidency.

Look at the political game of chicken they are playing with the economy. Look at the levels of deregulation that led to the crisis. Look at the political blender Social Security, WIC, Medicaid, etc have been put through for the past few presidencies.

Time and time again, the Republican Party proves it is not for the people but their corporate interests.

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum
Look at the political game of chicken they are playing with the economy.

How are they playing chicken with the economy? Because many are rising up and telling the White House 'no we will not continue to fund your extravigances any longer' that means they are playing chicken? The ones truly playing chicken with the economy are the Democrats and GOP establishment who tell you not to worry about the debt.

Look at the levels of deregulation that led to the crisis.

How did deregulation lead to this crisis? If anything it was the fault of protective regulations suited to defend the interests of big business. There are few regulations in place that actually protect the interests of the people. Most that are in place today are for the protection of the 'too big to fail' banks and the monopoly sized businesses which only got that big because of government regulations that favor them. I would argue the economic crisis is more the fault of too many regulations than too few.

Look at the political blender Social Security, WIC, Medicaid, etc have been put through for the past few presidencies.

This is no surprise. Politicians need money so they can spend it on worthless adventures and new programs they conveniantly thought up while having lunch with lobbyists. None of these programs are safe in the hands of government and why? Because truth is they do not belong there. Perhaps on the local level it would work without problems but not at the federal level. When the government learns it can use the public money to manipulate the public, freedom is lost.

Originally posted by Misoir
How are they playing chicken with the economy? Because many are rising up and telling the White House 'no we will not continue to fund your extravigances any longer' that means they are playing chicken? The ones truly playing chicken with the economy are the Democrats and GOP establishment who tell you not to worry about the debt.

They are playing chicken with the economy over the debt ceiling issue. No one is saying 'we won't fund your extravagance any longer', if they were they would be attempting to lower their pay and push for progressive taxation.

How did deregulation lead to this crisis? If anything it was the fault of protective regulations suited to defend the interests of big business. There are few regulations in place that actually protect the interests of the people. Most that are in place today are for the protection of the 'too big to fail' banks and the monopoly sized businesses which only got that big because of government regulations that favor them. I would argue the economic crisis is more the fault of too many regulations than too few.

It was through deregulation that a derivatives market was able to be propped up on the backs of markets that had no business being speculated upon, ie real estate debt swaps. It is also through deregulation that those "too big to fail" businesses and institutions can find protection. Higher ups end up in a position where those businesses or institutions truly are too big to fail because by not propping them up you create an economic disaster that would make this recession look like an amusement park.

This is no surprise. Politicians need money so they can spend it on worthless adventures and new programs they conveniantly thought up while having lunch with lobbyists. None of these programs are safe in the hands of government and why? Because truth is they do not belong there. Perhaps on the local level it would work without problems but not at the federal level. When the government learns it can use the public money to manipulate the public, freedom is lost.

It is less safe in the hands of corporate interest. Government and the Corporation must be separate. One is to serve the general welfare the other is to create profit. The Promotion of the General Welfare is the arena of Government and Profit that of the Corporation.

Both are necessary for positive growth in America at this point in history. Gutting one or the other is playing with fire and that is what we saw yesterday and that is what we are seeing today. Cutting social safety nets to tackle a rising problem that could otherwise be headed off through tools already existing, ie SEC, that just need some teeth and man power and all for what? So the GOP can look good to its constituency which is so uneducated and brainwashed to believe that a Corporacratic governing system is superior to a representative republic?

Because truly, that seems, to me, to be the underlying belief system of the current GOP party and its members.

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum
They are playing chicken with the economy over the debt ceiling issue. No one is saying 'we won't fund your extravagance any longer', if they were they would be attempting to lower their pay and push for progressive taxation.

Their salaries are pretty small all that would be is a publicity stunt and everyone knows it. Nice place to start, I agree, but it would be a publicity stunt nonetheless. We need something with teeth. As for the issue of raising taxes to solve the debt crisis I must ask how in the world government has the right to take private property from individuals and corporations just because they cannot keep their own budgets in order? I would prefer the entire country collapse than people who did not have anything to do with this debt crisis have to pay one more penny because Washington is completely incompetent.

It was through deregulation that a derivatives market was able to be propped up on the backs of markets that had no business being speculated upon, ie real estate debt swaps. It is also through deregulation that those "too big to fail" businesses and institutions can find protection. Higher ups end up in a position where those businesses or institutions truly are too big to fail because by not propping them up you create an economic disaster that would make this recession look like an amusement park.

Realistically no banks could become 'too big to fail' without someone propping them up and the 'them' is known as the federal government. They regulate the industries for the benefit of their contributors so as to lock the middle and small businesses out of competition. Corporations have no problem befriending government when it means they do not have to actually compete in an open market place. Had competition actually been occurring this whole time we would not even be here discussing this issue.

It is less safe in the hands of corporate interest. Government and the Corporation must be separate. One is to serve the general welfare the other is to create profit. The Promotion of the General Welfare is the arena of Government and Profit that of the Corporation.

Agreed.

Both are necessary for positive growth in America at this point in history. Gutting one or the other is playing with fire and that is what we saw yesterday and that is what we are seeing today. Cutting social safety nets to tackle a rising problem that could otherwise be headed off through tools already existing, ie SEC, that just need some teeth and man power and all for what? So the GOP can look good to its constituency which is so uneducated and brainwashed to believe that a Corporacratic governing system is superior to a representative republic?

Government had no right to start these social welfare programs in the first place. Had they never been created once again we would not be in this situation. Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid will either been bankrupt or privatized in my lifetime and I am glad for that. I do not want nor need those programs. The purposes they serve would be served more efficiently and productively through charitable means and local management.

"We have the right as individuals to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money." - Davy Crockett

In addition why must you call Republican constituency "uneducated and brainwashed"? Is it because you disagree with them? Can you not respectfully disagree rather than attack them in such a way? I would venture to say calling others uneducated and brainwashed simply for their political preferences is an elitist attitude and perhaps it is crazy for me to ask but, what makes you any better than them?

Because truly, that seems, to me, to be the underlying belief system of the current GOP party and its members.

I believe the problem you have is understanding conservative principles. Unless you can understand a viewpoint there is no way for you to possibly relate so you decide to attack the adherents simply for your lack of understanding.

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum

It was through deregulation that a derivatives market was able to be propped up on the backs of markets that had no business being speculated upon, ie real estate debt swaps.

I really disagree with Misoir (the OP and my friend)

Regulation is another way to refer to law or rules.

Somehow when the word regulation is applied to business people go to a psychological place which is not reasonable IMO, I really wish my friend would never say such a categorical disapproval of such a complex consideration. The deregulation you speak of, Absurdum, had many effects... there were many safe guards
put into place to mitigate fraud. Insurance and modern finance need special attention because the contracts do not relate to tangible goods which makes plenty of room for deception in inception or intent of the contractual schemes. In 1999 the LAWS were dismantled that separated finance and insurance, i.e Travelers and City group
merged into Travelers group. And what did this do??? It allows one company to issue loans AND insure the loans they issued, this is deregulation by the way...

this is the concept of the first phase ( all I have time for )


I have $5.15

* I loan you $5.00

you agree to pay back $10.00 over the next thirty years

you have $5.00

I now have $0.15

I now insure my loan to you within my own organization (but as you can see I only have $0.15, I loaned all my money)

Then I create another contract, which is like double insurance, I ensure others that I will pay them back
them a given amount for the success of my endeavor; where I will one day, recapture my $5.00
plus 100% on the principle of $5.00.

I sell my risk for $.30, which I have insured already and now I have $0.45 and risk of losing my five dollars
and the projected $5.00 on top of that (which I have already added to my future lending plan) and I promise
to repay that $5.00. Due to deregulation I can also use my projected income to reflect my current liquidity/lending capacity.

Did I mention that the $5.00 I lent you actually belonged to people who trusted me to hold it? Oops

Guess what I do now??? Go up to * and read back to this point...

I am not sure why the word regulation inspires some mystical hole to emerge, certainly there is plenty of regulation that does promote monopoly, but for the love of Jesus, please consider each situation. The
people who LITERALLY robbed this country, depend on the simple ten word dismissal to empower their agenda,
the more you repeat, the more your program others who do not have the critical thinking skills you have.
Deregulation is changing the law, more importantly it is changing what breaches the law, the way that is handled
is as unique as finger print. It can essentially legalize criminal concepts by rearranging several small components if that is the goal, there is no doubt with GLB, no doubt, just look above. I guess this is for you Mis, I owe you a u2u too, hope you are well

reply to post by Misoir

What about the vote on the Kucinich Resolution by Michele Bachmann? If I recall correctly she also voted against the Iraq Troop surge as well but this vote is pretty amazing. Given this voting record as it stands she would be running left of President Obama in 2012 on foreign policy, placing her alongside Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. But I digress.

Bachmann also voted for the renewal of the Patriot Act. I wouldn't place her next to Paul or Johnson.

reply to post by Janky Red


I do not mean to convey that all regulations are bad. Actually I wish they would reinstate one set of regulations that actually worked until the Neoliberals got rid of it; Glass-Steagall. It worked at keeping our financial systems in check for decades and did not impede upon proper business practices, it also did not create a climate of favoritism.

Like I said before and will say again and again, some regulations do work but most are created by politicians after they get back from lunch with special interest lobbyists.

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by Janky Red

 

Like I said before and will say again and again, some regulations do work but most are created by politicians after they get back from lunch with special interest lobbyists.

I would advise you to take a gander at who's been placed where in certain positions of regulating aspects of our government. They've actually cut the middleman out of it; both democratic and republican administrations have placed former executives and other high positioned corporate employees into positions of regulating these very businesses. You don't need to worry about regulation if you're a multinational corporation if you write the regulation.

Originally posted by Misoir
Their salaries are pretty small all that would be is a publicity stunt and everyone knows it. Nice place to start, I agree, but it would be a publicity stunt nonetheless. We need something with teeth. As for the issue of raising taxes to solve the debt crisis I must ask how in the world government has the right to take private property from individuals and corporations just because they cannot keep their own budgets in order? I would prefer the entire country collapse than people who did not have anything to do with this debt crisis have to pay one more penny because Washington is completely incompetent.

Perhaps, but the reasoning is that they would be willing to sacrifice themselves, firstly then turn to the rest of America. Lead by example and all that.

As for taxation, they are not raising taxes because they can not keep their budget in order. They would be raising taxes at the higher levels of income to help lessen the load on those poorer. There is such a thing as civic duty. Paying taxes is one of those duties.

Realistically no banks could become 'too big to fail' without someone propping them up and the 'them' is known as the federal government. They regulate the industries for the benefit of their contributors so as to lock the middle and small businesses out of competition. Corporations have no problem befriending government when it means they do not have to actually compete in an open market place. Had competition actually been occurring this whole time we would not even be here discussing this issue.

No, in capitalism monopolies happen. No government involvement required. Regulation is needed to ensure that doesn't happen. So while there very well could be favoritism involved when dealing with who gets what federal contract, that does not solely create monopolization.

Competition is happening, the problem is we are competing with business globally not just nationally. So, as an example, you can go start that shoe business of yours but you will never beat out Nike because of the size of their market share.

Government had no right to start these social welfare programs in the first place. Had they never been created once again we would not be in this situation. Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid will either been bankrupt or privatized in my lifetime and I am glad for that. I do not want nor need those programs. The purposes they serve would be served more efficiently and productively through charitable means and local management.

There is nothing in the Constitution stating that social welfare is not allowed.

And you are right, we wouldn't be here because we never would have climbed out of the late 18th century. Charity has its own slue of problems as well, but nonetheless I don't believe anyone should have to recourse to it.

In addition why must you call Republican constituency "uneducated and brainwashed"? Is it because you disagree with them?

No, It is because in my experience they tend to be uneducated and brainwashed, the capitalistic version of the 'useful idiot'.

Can you not respectfully disagree rather than attack them in such a way?

I have no respect for some that would gladly trade a democratic republic for the tyranny of corporatism.

I would venture to say calling others uneducated and brainwashed simply for their political preferences is an elitist attitude and perhaps it is crazy for me to ask but, what makes you any better than them?

You would be wrong in that assumption and you might as well ask if I still beat my wife.

I believe the problem you have is understanding conservative principles. Unless you can understand a viewpoint there is no way for you to possibly relate so you decide to attack the adherents simply for your lack of understanding.

No, I understand conservative principles. They are not the issue here, this isn't a conservative party but a Neo-Con party. Either way, you are positing that I must be ignorant on the subject in order to hold the views I have because if I understood the 'truth' then I wouldn't think the way I do.

That sir, is a fallacy.

No, in capitalism monopolies happen. No government involvement required.

Name one monopoly that exists today that wasn't created due to the states manipulation of regulation, foreign policy or trade agreements. One. Do it. I dare you.

Regulation is needed to ensure that doesn't happen.

Yeah, the government is doing a great job with regulating Monsanto for example. How many former executives from them went to work for the FDA again? Oh yeah, over 6 in the past 3 decades.

Originally posted by SpectreDC
Name one monopoly that exists today that wasn't created due to the states manipulation of regulation, foreign policy or trade agreements. One. Do it. I dare you.

What does that have to do with price of tea in China?

Yeah, the government is doing a great job with regulating Monsanto for example. How many former executives from them went to work for the FDA again? Oh yeah, over 6 in the past 3 decades.

edit on 7-6-2011 by SpectreDC because: (no reason given)

Right, thanks for proving my point.

Originally posted by SpectreDC

No, in capitalism monopolies happen. No government involvement required.

Name one monopoly that exists today that wasn't created due to the states manipulation of regulation, foreign policy or trade agreements. One. Do it. I dare you.

Regulation is needed to ensure that doesn't happen.

Yeah, the government is doing a great job with regulating Monsanto for example. How many former executives from them went to work for the FDA again? Oh yeah, over 6 in the past 3 decades.

edit on 7-6-2011 by SpectreDC because: (no reason given)

again...

There are many aspects to regulation, I think you are very correct in being angry at regulators and many regulations too, however that does not make all regulations bad. Can you tell us why industries spend tens of millions of dollars a year lobbying to end specific regulations??? From you little corner there you make it sound
as if corporatists categorically LOVE regulations. They certainly love deregulation, dismantling of existing
LAW