The problem with the GOP

Who here is keeping up with the GOP primaries? If so, do you have a favorite? Mine recently went Libertarian after the GOP ignored him and called him a troublemaker. Other than him, I honestly don't like anyone running in the GOP.

With my politics, most who know me would probably expect me to support Obama. Well, I did. I supported him through the Democrat primaries and voted for him in the general election of 2008. The way I saw it was that he was fresh to politics and still had ideals, rather than just being another slippery turd in a business suit. I don't regret my vote. McCain would have been worse... it would have been like Bush having a third term. But I am disappointed in Obama.

I had hoped he would hold onto those ideals that had endeared him to me if he got elected. Sadly, he did not. He carried on many of Bush's policies, such as the inappropriately named "Patriot Act," and more recently, the NDAA. Other than that, much like any politician, he's too much a coward to make any big moves or to push for any big changes. It could be blamed on the obstructionism coming from Republicans, but no one said that being president would be easy, and only a fool would think it would be. Especially being the first black president, sadly. Birthers can deny all they want, but I doubt they would be making such an issue if not for his race.

With this - the bad economy and the continuing slow erosion of liberties, I think that people on both sides are taking a "it's just more of the same" mentality when they look at their leaders and candidates. It's hard to get excited about what either party is offering.

I'm firmly convinced that the TEA Party is going to be the downfall of the Republicans. While the movement in itself is not racist, many in it are. They also keep pushing the most extreme and theocratic candidates up to the front in the Republican primaries, forgetting that it's ultimately the Independents and moderates that decide, come the general election. I will say right now that as an Independent and a moderate, I do not want an extremist in office, and would happily vote Obama another term before accepting one of those the TEA Party has pushed.

Every Republican candidate has shown certain extremist ideas. I won't harp too much on Bachmann, only because she's dropped out already. But, let's look at Rick Perry, who seems proud that Texas has had so many executions under his rule (some of whom have later been proven innocent), or Newt Gingrich who is one of the biggest noisemakers and hypocrites that I've seen in my lifetime - lambasting Clinton from one side of Capitol Hill to the other over an affair while he, himself, is having an affair, which is nothing new. And yes, in general while I am not myself gay, I do consider equal rights for gays to be an important issue. If nothing else, one's stances on this is very telling of their character as a whole, I think.

To summarize, the GOP really isn't uniting on much of anything other than hate, whether it be of Obama or of gays. The candidates presented are weak and sometimes too much alike. None is offering real change... and as for the economy, they just keep presenting plans to balance the budget by the time they are long out of office. That's not fixing anything, it's just passing it to the next guy.

Wag the Dog

There is a phrase often used in politics - "wag the dog." No, I'm not referring to the movie. I actually haven't even watched that movie yet. It refers to when an issue of secondary importance is pushed up to detract attention from a perhaps more important issue. It comes from an old saying  - "a dog is smarter than its tail, but if the tail were smarter, the tail would wag the dog."

This tactic is not at all unusual in politics, although while certain issues are rightly secondary issues, one can still, in a sense, wag the dog by overstating the importance of the more important issues to the point of attempting to make someone feel guilty by even bringing up the secondary issues.

This is what Bachmann seems to be doing in a perhaps outdated story I read, as she has dropped out of the election after the Iowa stuff: Bachmann throws a hissy-fit when asked if she still holds her stance

To summarize, a CNN anchor asked Bachmann if she pulls back any of her very strong stance on social issues, most specifically that of homosexuality. She goes on to list a couple of quotes from Bachmann on the subject - "Gays live a very sad life," and "it's part of Satan."

Bachmann was quick to respond, saying she thought it was a bizarre thing to bring up when the economy is in shambles, then going on to say that she came from a family that was below poverty, and that she had to earn her way out of poverty.

To me, that honestly seems a cop-out on Bachmann's part. While certainly the economy is an important issue, so is that of equal rights, I think. If she made the economy somehow perfect, this issue would still exist just the same. We all know her stances, but I'm fairly sure she was trying to wiggle out of having another flare-up before the Iowa caucuses.

If not for how strongly she voiced her opposition to equal rights for gays, and the fact that she linked them to Satan, then I may be able to overlook this. With her passionate hate for them however, I know that the economy is certainly not taking the level of priority in her own mind that she suggested by her rebuttal to the CNN anchor.

My point is that no matter how important you think one issue is, don't ignore a candidate's stances on other issues. It will bite you in the ass.