so now the republicans care what the rest of us think. it’s about time. apparently they have this survey. here’s the sales pitch. (h/t- california conservative)
The goal is to help the Leadership of the Republican Party gain an on-going and in-depth understanding of the issues which are of greatest concern to Americans like you.
Please take a moment to complete the ASK AMERICA national survey online at www.NRCC.org/AskAmerica.
As we enter this all-important election year, we need to know exactly how you feel about Americaยs War on Terror, and how secure you feel here at home. We need to know your direct views on many of the most important issues facing our politically divided nation: the economy, national defense, overhaul of Americaยs tax system, health care, strengthening Social Security, illegal immigration reform, government spending, and much more.
It addresses issues important to every concerned American who cares about the future of this country. It is time that we find out what you, the hard-working American taxpayers, really want.
good idea. so…take this opportunity to share your opinion with them. they asked for it. here’s what i said in the comments:
Border security should be first and foremost in any immigration reform proposals. Current laws must be enforced. The American people are reasonable, and would consider allowing a temporary worker program IF AND ONLY IF the first two conditions apply to any proposed legislation. We just don’t believe either party is serious about controlling our borders. Speaking only for myself here, I would add that we need to be just as serious about securing our country as we are about securing Iraq. There’s quite a bit of anger out there about illegal immigration. I hope that all of you will take our concerns seriously.
if there’s any advice/criticism you have for the republican party, you can also add it here in comments, or trackback from a post on your own blog. just keep it clean, please. ๐ notably absent from this survey…direct questions about their reckless spending habits. maybe they know the answer to that question.
Your party is out of control. Corporations have taken over America because of Republicans. Americans have been wronged because of Republicans. Foundations of our democracy have been destroyed because of Republicans.
And you call yourselves the Grand Ol’ Party.
(That’s what I sent them.)
I’m thinking I may regret posting that link.
You are right…and wrong, at least in my view anyway. The Republican party is out of control, but not for the reasons you suggest. It’s popular to hate corporations, but it doesn’t make sense. That’s where jobs generally come from. For every Enron that is out there, there are quite a few big businesses making a positive contribution to America’s economy and workforce.
There will always be big money influencing politics and politicians. That’s just the way it is. I’m not excusing corruption of any kind. None of that should be acceptable. But what needs to change (along with any corrupt politicians) is the system that enables them to be corrupt.
I’m not sure why you believe that Republicans have wronged Americans. That’s a rather broad statement. As far as the foundations of democracy…NSA? I’m drawing a blank here.
I suppose the survey doesn’t pertain to me.
It’s my guess that the person who put the survey on the NRCC site is going to regret doing it as well. I would think it would be nothing but a headache for anyone trying to keep up with all the responses that are returned. Not that they all will be negative responses, because I’m sure there will be many more positive than negative, but it will be very difficult answering them or at least making those who vote Republican feel their needs are being met from such a survey. Sounds like a good job for the interns.
Like you mention, the only thing that will get their attention is money (or a riot). You know what they say, money talks and bull**** walks.
Oddly enough, there didn’t seem to be any requirements about who could answer the survey…although I’m sure they would be happy to get an outside opinion like yours. ๐
I think that survey would be harder to “grade” if it was more in-depth than the one I saw. What stood out to me as I was reading the questions was that most of them were about common-sense things that most people could agree on. (They did throw in the last question about “obstructionist Democrats” that was just a little biased, but overall I think they were fair questions. Definitely a job for the interns. Gotta make ’em earn that college credit.
Here’s what I don’t get about the Republican party right now, and Bush in particular. The base stopped the nomination of Harriet Miers and put the Dubai Ports deal into deep freeze. So why don’t they have the same pull when it comes to our feelings on illegal immigration???
I read through some of the questions and they seem very fair indeed. I’m sure if one were to search for a similar Democratic survey they would find references to “Republican incompetence” somewhere in there as well. Parties are known to be nothing but biased most of the time.
I doubt they would want my opinion though. I have very little in common with their platform.
I get what you mean about the Party currently and Bush in particular. Though I’m not sure it was the Republican base that stopped Miers or Dubai ports. I think it was more of an overwhelming consenus from the American people in general than anything Party related. The problem with immigration is definitely a problem for the Bush base, however.
Some of the reasons Bush is not jiving with his base on the issue might be because of the electoral strength of the Hispanic diaspora. Unlike black Americans which vote 90% Democratic, Hispanic Americans are split 50/50. At 30% approval ratings Bush can’t afford to lose any of the 50/50 that he enjoys. Especially with midterm elections 5 months away.
Another reason why (maybe) is that Big Oil employs a lot of the illegal immigrants. Along with big corporations who donate high dollar amounts to the RNC. When your supporters (Big Oil, Big Business– the true Bush base ๐ ) benefit from those immigrants very little will be accomplished. Hence Bush’s focus on gay marriage this last week. When all else fails, change the subject. Bush wants to talk about gay marriage hoping that his ultra-conservative supporters will stop talking about immigration and national security.
My analysis of course ๐
With Harriet Miers, Bush wasn’t really paying attention to the base. That is, until the bloggers and some of conservative talk radio started examining her record and getting pretty vocal about their opposition. I don’t think that the debate over Harriet Miers had any significant impact on the rest of the country (except of course for the politically geek-ish among us).
On the other hand, the furor over the Dubai Ports deal touched a subject that the American people take more seriously than SCOTUS nominees –national security. This is the guy we thought would have more of a handle on the subject than John Kerry would have, and it was part of the reason Bush got more votes. It was hard to sell that idea to the rest of America, and he couldn’t do it. So he gave up on both ideas, one of which, in my opinion, had a reasonable argument to be made for it.
Your argument that Bush doesn’t want to alienate the Hispanic vote by tightening up on immigration makes sense, except that many Hispanics actually support enforcing our immigration laws. There were some polls showing that. I forget where I saw them though.
Wouldn’t it be fair to say that any party in power gets most of its money from corporations though? Maybe the Democrats have forgotten how that works, with their current power drought and all. I can’t dispute Bush’s ties to big oil.
I also don’t think that in itself, getting money from big oil and from corporations is wrong. As I said before, that’s the way the current system works. Rich people and corporations give money to candidates. That’s the way it will always happen.
I would argue that corporations help workers more than the current crop of trade union bosses, who generally support Democrats. But that’s an argument for another day.
I’m opposed to gay marriage AND civil unions, as you know. But the timing of this is a little curious to me. If this is a measure designed to give the decision about marriage back to the states (and I will admit I’m not totally following the details of this legislation), then I don’t see a problem with it. California and Massachusetts will still allow gay marriage. That’s a real possibility. I still contend that there could be legal ways to get some of the things they claim to want without legalizing gay marriage in the whole country.
I see your point on Miers and do agree that a majority of the country was not involved in the debate for her nomination. But I will add that I was working in the senate during her nomination and the Dems and those of us on the left were not all that thrilled by her nomination either. Remaining somewhat silent on her nomination was one of the best things the Dem leadership has done in 10 years. Had Bush not caved and withdrawn her nomination the Dems would have filibustered her in the senate. No doubts about that.
The Miers nomination and her total lack of qualifications and juris doctrination, I believe, was the beginning of the end for Bush.
I would be curious to see polls that shows many hispanics support enforcement of immigration laws. If it’s simply enforcement, sure; but if it’s stricter enforcement, I would have to see that one.
Sure it’s fair to say that any party in power gets most of its money from corporations. It’s also fair to state that any party, whether in power or not, gets money from corporations. But a corporation can be a single individual. Or a coporation can be 1,000 people. A quick glance at opensecrets.org shows that a vast majority of Republican money comes from business in general and a vast majority of Dem money comes from unions. Though a very high percentage of Republican cash will come from large corporations such as the large energy corporations (big oil).
Gay marriage doesn’t bother me. Civil unions I’m also okay with. This issue is probably the most liberal thing about me. I have yet to be convinced that marriage itself is the holy union the religious right makes it out to be. If marriage is so holy and so ordained, then why in the world are we allowed to get divorced?
Though I will add that Bush’s measure is not designed to give the issue back to the states like you mention. And I totally understand not being up on the topic. A Constitutional Amendment would do the opposite of giving it back to the states. It would make gay marriage illegal in all states. Now if Roe were overturned, then yes that would reverse it back to the states.
Personally, I think Roe should be left alone and I absolutely do not support amending the Constitution to fit a right wing agenda.
You’re probably right that the Democrats would have killed her nomination, but I’m not sure that they wouldn’t have been pleasantly surprised on some of her rulings on the Court. She would not have been Alito or Roberts, that’s for sure.
I’m not as convinced with your argument for gay marriage. Honestly, I don’t think either side has made a very convincing case, even though I’m totally against gay marriage. Even if you don’t attach any religious significance to marriage, it is still an important institution in this country. Just because marriage has been devalued, divorce is more common, and people no longer find it necessary to marry to have kids, that doesn’t invalidate the argument for traditional marriage.
I also don’t believe that a gay marriage amendment such as the President’s could ever pass in Congress. There just aren’t enough votes for it, and there certainly weren’t today. I’m not sure of the difference between DOMA and the Federal Marriage Amendment other than the fact that one proposes amending the Constitution. So you will have to enlighten me on that. ๐
This is not a big issue for me. Even though I don’t see a legitimate argument FOR gay marriage, I also don’t see a convincing argument that we need something like the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Howard Dean, your fearless leader, on the other hand, seems conflicted on the subject of gay marriage, at least in what he is saying about it.
We may have to agree to disagree on this issue, because debating something like this doesn’t seem to accomplish much.
Fair enough about gay marriage. I will admit that I’m not tickled to death about gay marriage, however. I just don’t see gay marriage as an attack on straight marriage. As long as straight people are still allowed to marry, then I don’t understand the argument that we need to defend marriage.
Plus if we are to defend traditional marriage, what model are we to use? The Bible where marriage is a form of property and which men commonly had numerous wives and mistresses. Or marriage of the last 300 years where marriage is still a form of property transaction. Needless to say, I’m confused as well.
Nice jab for Dean though. I owe ya ๐