Republicans are no longer the party that supports lower taxes and smaller government. That was proven in Virginia on Tuesday. Nor are we the party who supports those things on a national level. Republicans in Congress are now backing Obama’s TPP which will harm Americans. We are the Stupid Party. More proof is here.
Proof, We ARE the Stupid Party
written by Jeanine Martin
June 11, 2015
52 comments
Jeanine Martin
Also known as Lovettsville Lady, I am a Republican activist in the wilds of western Loudoun County.
52 comments
Jeanine – I disagree with you on this. Patrick Murphy is right on the money. Last week I read in the Washington Post (of all places) about the WONDERFUL conservative education reforms taking place in Nevada. I was ecstatic! And I have included the link at the end of this entry. Evidently, it costs money to enact this conservative reform and to rescue our children from the grips of this nation-wide network of liberal indoctrination centers formerly known as the public schools. Nonetheless, to fund this reform, taxes had to go up. So, what is the beef? And this is my problem with my Tea Party friends. They are so obsessed with lowering taxes and shrinking government, that they do not realize when to turn off their incessant, knee-jerk rhetoric. It is getting old. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/in-nevada-school-choice-on-steroids-and-a-breakthrough-for-conservatives/2015/06/03/3cdd2300-09ff-11e5-95fd-d580f1c5d44e_story.html
Thanks for the shout out, bro.
The GOP has bought into the Democratic philosophical principles wholesale. Practically, that means a little less and a little slower. That is why when so-called conservatives get elected, they easily get a case of “statesman-itis” and abandon the platform that elected them.
TL;DR
Have to admit, I was hoping Jeanine would respond with this: ¯_(ツ)_/¯
I would have given her credit for that.
¯_(ツ)_/¯
Speak for yourself, Jeanine.
Who else would I speak for if not myself? Yes, we know you prefer higher taxes and more spending on stuff you like.
Did you just literally in the same post say that you only ever speak for yourself, and then (wrongly) try to tell me what I believe?
You have the self-awareness of a patio chair.
And yet this blog post is entitled “Proof, We…”.
Jeanine, in the interest of coalition building or just “getting along”, it might not be advisable to tell commenters that you know they prefer higher taxes.
Why would you possibly think Jeanine is interested in either of those things?
Are Republicans more ” stupid ” ? Voters sometimes unaware make bad choices on election day.
MS. Martin now for Republican Representatives , YES they are way more ” stupid ” than Democrats and there is valid proof.
Please check out DOLI Press Release on ” new policy ” on Employee Misclassification.
Commissioner Davenport appears to be using fact and intellect.
He is currently out shining ; Del. Kathy Byron { R } , Del. Scott Garrett { R } , Senator Newman { R } , Congressman Hurt Congressman Goodlatte. and oh yea the whole previous Republican Administration { Gov, LT, Gov. and AG.
You may help stand up for Virginian Jobs lost to illegal immigrants and unlicensed contractors.
You can do a story on the amount of unlicensed contractors and those conspiring with the
Commonwealth and the percentages of cases that see prosecution.
Remember you taxes are subsidizing this illegal activity and labor exploitation.
Looks like Governor McAuliffe is doing way more than McDonnell or Cucinelli.
And Senator Newman how long has he been sitting on his hands ?
If Virginias longest serving Senator doesn’t have a clue , what Junior Republican does ?
Facts will not go away , sorry they are Stupid or Corrupt.
The GOP has been lost since the 80’s.
Some of these arguments are so easy to make, and yet none of the establishment people ever make them. For example, the ACA law. Here’s a law that was passed on a purely partisan vote, one of the largest entitlement programs in the countries history, and for some reason the GOP couldn’t make the most simple argument against the law that could be made … that it is fundamentally unfair to keep half of the country from having a say in a matter of such great importance. It’s the easy argument, and nobody ever makes it, it’s as if they agree with Democrats but don’t want to say so out loud. Checks and balances, just because you are able to cram such a monster like the ACA through on a party line vote doesn’t mean that’s the end of the story, as we are seeing now with yet another Supreme Court case, eventually checks and balances work and everybody gets a say, one way or the other, that’s just how our government is designed to work. The President is making an argument now that the Supreme Court would destroy health care (the “You wouldn’t dare” argument), so why aren’t any of our GOP Representatives making the most basic argument of all, that all the Supreme Court would be doing is sending it back to Congress, the people’s Representatives, because the law isn’t clear enough and needs to be modified ? Of course Democrats and the President don’t want that, but that’s how the system is supposed to work, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with the Congress taking up the law for a second, third, etc time … all Democrats have been doing for the past many years is doing absolutely everything in their power to make sure that the half of the country that doesn’t agree with them never gets a say in any of it. They passed the law on a party line vote, at the last moment before they lost their super-majority because they knew that they’d have to compromise if they didn’t, and since then they’ve done everything in their power to make sure that Congress never gets to touch it again. We (the GOP) have a majority in the House and the Senate, the people who make laws, and somehow Democrats have our leadership convinced that they can’t do anything about how the ACA is working ? What the hell ? And that’s our party, that’s how stupid we are. Democrats have everyone convinced that if the Supreme Court rules against the ACA law that it is an activist court destroying the fabric of the country, when the reality is that all they would really be doing is saying to Congress is .. “hey, you know, this law isn’t really clear, why don’t ya’ll fix it”, which is, like, what their job is supposed to be. It’s not the Supreme Court’s fault Democrats couldn’t hold on to their super majority, and that they can’t do whatever they want whenever they want to do it, that’s just how the country is supposed to work. Yet for bewildering reasons that no normal person can comprehend, the GOP leadership just lets Democrats keep on making the argument that nobody has the right to ever touch the law again, make modifications to it, or even talk about it, that what was passed is the end of the story.
And that’s just one of many examples of how stupid our party is.
Well said.
No, it wasn’t.
Ending the ACA does not fix healthcare, nor does it take government out of healthcare. Most of the so called Conservatives do not want government out of healthcare.
What a shame.
Just look at Republican’s now and the TPP, TPA legislation? Is Congress passing trade related legislation because it it good for American? Or, are the Republican’s passing trade legislation for campaign and PAC money from lobbyists/Corporations?
Same as government in healthcare. The deck is stacked for double digit increases in healthcare by Corporations with lobbyists. Government will not get out of healthcare as long as there is money for them in anti-consumer legislation, legislation designed to drive up the price of healthcare.
“Most of the so called Conservatives do not want government out of healthcare.”
Source? Perhaps even a statement with a reasonable inference?
“Legislation designed to drive up the price of healthcare.”
My healthcare costs were rising before Obamacare. Corporations encumbered by demands for shareholder wealth are under this pressure constantly.
Here is one of many government insurance mandates. Do you want more? Republican, government mandated healthcare. Do you think this will not drive the price of healthcare up? Oh, you think that it is free?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-politics/post/mcdonnell-signs-bill-that-provides-insurance-coverage-for-autistic-children/2012/02/07/gIQAH2zIxQ_blog.html
I’m challenging your assumption that it is “designed” to drive up the price. It’s more of that conspiracy nonsense that is making our party look stupid.
Do you challenge that the Legislation is Republican government mandated healthcare? Yes or no?
Can’t you see that most likely, drug company lobbyist’s are behind this, to force insurance companies to pay for expensive drugs that more than likely do not perform as advertised? In exchange for PAC and campaign money of course.
If the price of health insurance does not go up to pay for this government mandate, then tell us, just who is going to pay for this? You think it is free?
Gosh, if ever there was an article long on hyper-prose and criminally short on substance, this is it. Filled with self flagellation, but devoid of any details. Does anyone know what happened in Nevada to precipitate such an outburst?
Read the article. It tells you exactly what has happened in Nevada.
Well, not exactly what happened. The editorial declines to mention the purpose of the business tax is to fund conservative education reforms, which are sorely needed because Nevada ranks dead last among the states in terms of educational performance. Also doesn’t mention the Nevada’s annual budget is a scant $7.4 Billion (a seventh of Virginia’s budget, with a third the population).
Still, that’s not even the biggest oversight. The tax increase is squarely aimed at companies like Apple, who are headquartered in high-tax California, but opened a three-person office in low-tax Nevada through which all of their revenue is funnelled.
If you want to defend the use of tax-avoidance loopholes by opposing both a tax on .051% to .331% of a corporation’s gross-revenues that funds conservative education reforms, that’s fine and all, but I’d be careful about tossing the “stupid” label around.
(Disclaimer: Only reason I’m responding to this is because I worked on Sandoval’s first gubernatorial campaign back in 2010 and still really like the guy. Stupid he is not.)
Jerry you are correct about this article. I would never use Nevada as a role model for how any politician or party should govern.
On another note the Republican needs stop nominating the most extreme element of the Republican Party. We saw it with the empty suit Keith Fimian, we saw it with Cuccinelli and EW Jackson. Here is a thought how about nominating folks who actually have a chance of winning. Case in point, after Fimian was handed his ass in his first go around with Connolly, because of his own stupidity and lack of a campaign organization so some the geniuses in the Republican Party thought he should be given another try at losing again. Democrats were elated when Fimian entered the race that they made a point of voting in the primary for him.
Same goes with EWJackson and Cuccnelli. Again the geniuses thought lets elevate the candidates with the most political baggage for a statewide race this time and now we have a Democrat in the Governor’s mansion.
As my daughters always says whenever Republcans put their foot in their mouth, ” The Republican Party needs to stop finding ways to lose votes”
By the way Jeanine when you said on another site that the Tea Party did not help Susan. Jamie Radke was front and center on Susan’s facebook supporting her.
The TEA party is the stupid party. The only reason the GOP is struggling is because some of us don’t understand the difference between *limited* government and *no* government.
Just as we don’t understand the difference between Democrat and Democrat Lite? We should Republicans who are driving us off a financial cliff because they are driving with slightly less speed?
If by “Democrat Lite” you mean “moderate Republican” or “Republican who supports bipartisanship,” then yes, most people understand the difference. But unless you’re dealing with a more radical democrat the two can work together.
And yes, debt is a problem–but solving it isn’t as simple as saying “let’s stop spending money.” When it comes to something such as “cut some taxes here and there and increase the gas tax to establish a fund for transportation or watch all intelligent businessmen wave VA goodbye, I think ‘spend’ is a rational choice.”
It’s not just businessmen. The deteriorating conditions of America’s highways and roads costs the average driver $324 per year in additional vehicle maintenance.
You can either keep paying your mechanic and buying replacement parts, or you can pay an extra $0.05 per gallon for better roads and less traffic. That’s the choice. It’s going to come out of our pockets no matter which we choose.
My problem is not roads. Roads are a legitimate function of government. My problem is all the OTHER crap that the government SHOULDNT be doing. We’d have plenty for roads if the money was spent properly.
you’ve hit the nail on the head. you probably don’t mind paying taxes to support your military, but you don’t want to pay that tax money to study the sex life of shrimp. It is not the taxes or the spending. Its the judicious taxing & spending. We could probably all agree on that
But how do you propose defunding the “sex life of shrimp” program that may prove impractical to our citizens while funding the “study of invasive plants” program that may stop bamboo from taking over farmland? Or is the proposition to discontinue all scientific studies permanently?
Those that want to take radical steps to control costs conveniently elide that it may impact their own priorities. “I don’t want government in healthcare but damned if I am going to allow insurance companies screw me for a preexisting condition!”
another side of the problem.
But that’s the problem. If what you claim were actually true, then sure we’d agree to it. As in that .05 would actually go to the roads, but it never goes to the roads. They use that money on other things, create a budget shortfall and then generate a crisis where they have to raise taxes to pay for the crumbling roads. We’ve been through this too many times. They have room in the budget to pay for the roads without further increasing taxes. Have you ever heard of the Highway Trustfund or the Social Security Trustfund? These are sacred lockboxes that the govt keeps to protect our tax dollars and reserve it for Transportation spending or Social Security for retirees. The problem is both lockboxes are empty of money and only include future promises that must be met by raising taxes on our progeny. Calling it a trust fund doesn’t make me trust the govt. So no. I don’t support the .05 cent tax
Except gas taxes don’t go to roads they go to Metro and whatever else they want to spend it on.
No gas taxes go to roads? Bold claim.
Prove it.
Sadly, only the Democratic Lites see it that way.
Well, and many democrats. Kudos to them.
If only the gas taxes actually went to roads!
There are so many places where they could cut without raising taxes, again. But the democrat-lites in charge now never seem to do that.
I’d ask you to identify those things but know I’d be fed canned rhetoric.
Cutting pork is a good idea, we don’t disagree there. But it’s always easier said than done, something I’m beginning to doubt you understand. Either way, a consistent, dedicated fund is needed for the future. People have raised questions as to whether the funds from HB 2313 are being allocated correctly, but the idea behind it is solid. I’m not the biggest advocate of the bill, personally, but something needed to be done and I don’t dismiss it simply because it was a “tax hike.”
First of all, Jeanine, the gas taxes are going to roads as evidenced by the massive construction going on I-95 as I type these words. For ten years I did the 95 corridor commute and I can tell you first hand just how excruciating the commute was. Especially on a Friday during the summer.
As for debt, the only debt the Commonwealth has is in debt securities, i.e. bonds. The General Assembly is constitutionally prohibited (Article X, Sec 7; Constitution of Virginia) from deficit spending and the General Assembly cannot craft a budget that is more than 2.5 years out.
As for cutting spending, ok then….where do you wanna cut? Here’s the state budget http://lis.virginia.gov/151/bud/hb1400er.pdf. Here’s yer chance, Del. Martin, member of the House Appropriations Committee. Whip out that big red Sharpie and start a-slicin’!
I’m a tea party person and absolutely support limited government. Have you encountered tea party people who believe in anarchy?
Now they accuse you of anarchy if you don’t believe in trillion dollar deficits.
Actual anarchists from the early 20th century would probably find that very amusing.
None of them say they do, no.
So…kind of like a “dog whistle” of anarchy? Or could it be that you are simply hyperbolic?
Don’t immediately discount hyperbole if it’s intended to make a point. I don’t believe the TEA party will ever bring anarchy or collapse of government, but I do think that much of the rhetoric used by the party tends to lean towards a society without government, whether they realize it or not. Just my opinion.
And if you want to talk about hyperbole, well…re-read the OP.
Limited government, constrained by the legal framework of the Constitution, no government. I think you need to get out and speak with more TP folks directly.
It would be easier if they spoke less often in sound bytes.
Discontent for this blog aside, yes, I speak with TPers often–many of my friends would fall near or under this category.
Let’s be fair, though, my comment was hyperbole. I enjoy comparing TPers to anarchists–not because it’s accurate but because TPers so often simplify things with the intent of achieving more “limited government” while the effect is to, in my opinion, completely shut government out of some sectors where I believe it is needed.
Let’s not let my humor distract from the actual hyperbole in the article we’re discussing.