In the process of maturation when I abandoned some of my more liberal ideologies(translate - Democrat), I deliberately and with no malice opted to choose Independent status as a voter.

Growing up, right or wrong, I always associated Republican policies with business concerns. Being a small potato I chose not to align myself with the Big Guys,

When Bush campaigned on the platform of a 'compassionate conservative' it appeared as if he was marrying most of my beliefs. Sadly I was wrong.

In another thread the term ' democrat lite' was used. I went aGoogling. And came across the following editorial / opinion.


Bush's pro-corporate agenda crowds out GOP principles

So is my perception that Republican ideologies embrace Business over people wrong?

I'm not talking specifically about Bush because his 'plan' is just all over the place ( driven mainly IMO by his fervent desire to be a two term president)


"When President Bush announced his plan to permit illegal immigrants to work in the USA, he outraged conservatives from radio host Rush Limbaugh to Republicans in Congress. They questioned why Bush would advocate a policy that they say encourages unlawful entry into the country.
Viewed in isolation, the proposal does appear to run counter to the Republican Party's tough-on-crime philosophy. But when looked at in a broader context, Bush's plan fits a pattern: Since taking office, he repeatedly has championed big-business interests over other Republican causes. Indeed, business groups have pushed for an open-door immigration policy that increases the labor supply and keeps wages down."

Tough on Crime. I like that. So why promote an illegal immigrant policy?

................

"In fact, such concerns already are being voiced by more than 90 Republican members of Congress. They plan to meet later this month to publicize their dismay over the rapid growth of government under the Bush administration. Their worries may not pose an immediate threat to Bush, who continues to enjoy broad support in polls. But if his narrow focus on pleasing Corporate America continues to collide with a broader party agenda, it could jeopardize the Republicans' ambitions to rule the nation long term as the majority party."

Less government USED to be a GOP principle.

"While business concerns historically have been a high GOP priority, in recent years the party has focused more on Main Street than Wall Street. The 1994 Republican "Contract with America" — the manifesto it ran on when it seized control of Congress — promised to help small business through deregulation and tax cuts.

Now, as conservatives are quick to point out, big business is the primary beneficiary of many administration policies. In addition to the proposed relaxation of immigration policy, other examples include:"

Corporate welfare. "

See the article for examples

....................

"Wall Street tax cut. At the urging of many corporate leaders, Bush last year prodded through Congress $383 billion in tax cuts over 10 years on income from dividends and gains from the sale of stock and other assets. These tax breaks had little support among rank-and-file Republican lawmakers, who preferred to use the money to reduce taxes further for small businesses and families with children."

If rank and file did not really support this tax break how did it happen?


"States' rights. ............against conservatives who believe Washington should not tell states what to do, particularly concerning such a popular consumer issue."

My perception of less Federal government always assumed States rights were important. But the big pharmaceutical industry among others appears to have more influence than what the Constitution described.

.

"The administration is right that serving the needs of narrow interests also can benefit the broader public. But its eagerness to please the corporate world carries negative consequences, as well. The largesse showered on business contributes to an ever-swelling federal government that passes the bills on to future generations and undercuts core Republican principles.

As more Republican conservatives see the dangers in that approach, they recognize that what's good for business is not always good for America — or their party."

SO has the GOP abandoned its principles?


Link (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-01-16-our-view_x.htm)

Actually, your first thought that, traditionally, the GOP was the party of "big business" IS the correct statement.

However, with the advent of Goldwater, then Reagan and then Gingrich, the focus of the GOP began to have a new aspect; that of personal responsibility, smaller government and low taxes.

This is the battle within the GOP now. Do we stay the "old" GOP, the party of big business? Or do we go the Gingrich way? The party of the people?

Just like the fight within the Democrat Party is do we stay a party of the working man or do we join the socialists of Europe?

So, if you WANT the principles that you seemed to think are good, then staying away from the GOP only assists in the status quo, Big business guys win!

Originally posted by ColWTH
Actually, your first thought that, traditionally, the GOP was the party of "big business" IS the correct statement.

However, with the advent of Goldwater, then Reagan and then Gingrich, the focus of the GOP began to have a new aspect; that of personal responsibility, smaller government and low taxes.

That is what I thought Bush was campaigning on. I got fooled.

This is the battle within the GOP now. Do we stay the "old" GOP, the party of big business? Or do we go the Gingrich way? The party of the people?

If its 'old' GOP I don't want it.


So, if you WANT the principles that you seemed to think are good, then staying away from the GOP only assists in the status quo, Big business guys win!

THis confuses me(not hard to do).

The principles I think are good are NOT 'old' GOP.

Bush's agenda is Big Business. I don't want that unless it is coupled with less government, less spending, more personal responsibility. I view many of the things he has done in the 'populist' mode as being pandering- an outright plan to try to steal the Democrat stance. Yet his underlying actions are Pro Big Business.

Look at how he kowtowed to them on the Medicare plan.

Thats what I mean. If you want to get away from the old ideas then we have to work at the grass roots and elect people like Tom Tancredo and other conservatives that will go toward us, not old line guys like Nelson Rockefeller and Gerald Ford (the old country club Republican types) who will go away from us.

But leaving the party allows the power brokers to ignore the conservatives.

Lastly I don't know how you could have thought the Bush administration would be a "New" Republican administration? He never really campaigned as a conservative, never put forth new conservatives as his "people"(all his office holders are long time, old line operatives) and he never WAS considered a conservative in the fist place.

I think you fooled yourself.

The problem is that the Gore administration would have been a resumption of pure socialist hell unleashed upon the American people. The Democratic Party is married to socialism at its worst and ANY Democrat that gets into office is beholden to that anti-American agenda. Real American democrats are relegated to local or state politics.There aren't any of them in the Federal gov't anymore. All federal Democrats are beholden to the coalition of the fringe, extreme, wacko, leftists and are not allowed to vere to the center OR the right

So Bush is the lesser of two evils.Unfortunately, we are at a time where that slight distinction is the difference between a strong America and one under the thumb of the UN while being blown up by terrorists every third day.

Originally posted by ColWTH
Thats what I mean. If you want to get away from the old ideas then we have to work at the grass roots and elect people like Tom Tancredo and other conservatives that will go toward us, not old line guys like Nelson Rockefeller and Gerald Ford (the old country club Republican types) who will go away from us.

But leaving the party allows the power brokers to ignore the conservatives.

Lastly I don't know how you could have thought the Bush administration would be a "New" Republican administration? He never really campaigned as a conservative, never put forth new conservatives as his "people"(all his office holders are long time, old line operatives) and he never WAS considered a conservative in the fist place.

I think you fooled yourself.



Difficult to find on line sources for Bush's 2000 campaign but the following is from a commentary on the third debate.

'What about substance? Governor Bush scored points while addressing parental responsibility, judicious use of the military, and limiting the size and role of the federal government. '



http://usconservatives.about.com/library/weekly/aa101800a.htm


C-SPAN has some archived political ads where Bush was promoting his education platform ( which I think is important), his tax cuts, and the personal responsibility theme. Those elements all sounded like the 'populist' conservative to me.

His Social Security reform plan ( ie getting the Feds eventually out of the SS business by use of individual retirement options)I did not interpret as being necessarily Pro-Business but now I can see his pro-business agenda behind it.

The people he put into positions AFTER election are a different story. I admit I had not done extensive research into what kind of people he would install in key positions.

In one of the debates Bush even accused Gore/Clinton admin of nation-building which misled me in some opinions I had on how he would handle foreign policy.

Bush campaigned as being a compassionate conservative- traits I admire. Sadly he has not demonstrated either very well.

GOP Principles

Jeez the GOP has principles? :)

In all honesty its easier to espouse smaller government and budgetary reductions than it is to enact the policy. People have to be prepared to take the budget hit in serious way and accept it is the lesser evil. In the case of Canada it meant cutting transfers to the Provinces and social programs. In the case of the US it will mean cuts to Defence and Social Security. If you are not prepared to accept the hardship get ready for an even worse hardship down the road. And that is an understatement.

Reduce severely regressive taxes like Payroll taxes ( states have to be on board on that one) Quit worrying about reduction in Income taxes make them simpler. Who ever it was in the last election who was advocateing a flat tax had it right. How much money is spent on lawyers and tax accountants by all of us.

>>>In all honesty its easier to espouse smaller government and budgetary reductions than it is to enact the policy.

Cherry is 100% right on that one!

NEITHER side actually reduces spending.

It will take a MAJOR public outcry for that to happen.