Move the people forward

As inflammatory, divisive rhetoric pours forth through the media, I hear only silence from a party that waves the flag of patriotism but stands silently by while its right wing subverts the Constitution and the principles on which our country was founded.

I keep hoping for a modern-day Margaret Chase Smith, who had the courage to denounce Sen. Joe McCarthy’s vicious attack on fundamental American principles in the 1950s. But I see no one among today’s Republican leadership — not Susan Collins, not Olympia Snowe, not any of the would-be GOP governors of Maine.

Who will step forward and say out loud that the bigoted, slanderous, anti-American ravings of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, the Cheney kid and their ilk do not represent the true Republican view of America?

Who will articulate a constructive alternative, based not on “just say no,” but on a vision that will move this state, this country and all its people forward?

Bill Berlinghoff, Farmington

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.

Advertisement

Comments

Mark Wrenn's picture

Veto

So, what you're saying is Ronnie was so afraid of those mean democrats he didn't dare use the veto pen? And, using your reasoning, the Reagan tax cuts weren't his at all because the democrats were in charge and got whatever they wanted. So, the democrats are responsible for the Reagan tax cuts? Can't have it both ways...

Ray St. Onge's picture

Then Speaker of the House Tip

Then Speaker of the House Tip O'Neal and President Reagan agreed on the tax cuts. They also agreed to some of the spending increases. The problem was the spending increases were at much higher rates than the President wanted. So why didn't President Reagan use his veto pen at that point. Unemployment was over 10%, inflation was out of control and interest rates were in the high teens. He knew and understood that in order to get the economy moving, he need to get money back into circulation and the best way to do that was through tax cuts.

 's picture

don't worry

they are excellent at the blame game, they'll figure it out.

Sabine Christakis's picture

blame game?

"they are excellent at the blame game" by Tron   -   look who is talking...

 's picture

I am

have you got anything pertinent to contribute, or are you just going to be a jerk?

Sabine Christakis's picture

I'll leave you with this. I

I'll leave you with this. I am reading your comments almost every day and know what you are contributing. All I can say is, that name calling is not nice ... You are allowed to disagree but with manners. Thank you.

Mark Wrenn's picture

ratings

Ratings determine facts - just ask the pirate.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

After having considered the

After having considered the source, the Pirate takes that as a compliment.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

"The bigoted, slanderous,

"The bigoted, slanderous, anti-American ravings of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, the Cheney kid and their ilk"....

That must be why Limbaugh and Beck have the #1 and #3 rated talk shows in all of radio. The parrot, a liberal, has a catnip induced theory; "that which we don't understand, we fear; that which we fear most, we hate." So, hate away, Bill, while Beck, Limbaugh and their ilk keep Americans informed of the highjacking of their country that is taking place at the hands of the radical left wing democrats.  

RONALD RIML's picture

Hate sells.  Limbaugh and

Hate sells.  Limbaugh and Beck stage their everyday Nuremberg Rallies.  The only difference being that Hitler actually fought for Germany and was wounded.  Neither of those ÜberClowns with a microphone ever swore an oath of enlistment to Uncle Sam.  It's clear that's the gold standard their patriotism is based upon.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Neither did Clinton or obama

Neither did Clinton or obama

RONALD RIML's picture

Clinton and Obama hold don't

Clinton and Obama hold don't host "Daily Hates" (Nuremburg Rallies) like your liddle Nazis do.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Only because they couldn't

Only because they couldn't draw the audience. How's Airamerica doing these days. Or, what are Rachel Madcow's ratings for her show?

RONALD RIML's picture

Elected Presidents have a

Elected Presidents have a duty to give speeches.

What's Palin and Liz Cheney running their Pie-Hole's for???

 

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Freedom of speech guaranteed

Freedom of speech guaranteed by the 1st Amendment? It's all about expressing opinions. Which is what we're all doing here. Well...most of us.

 's picture

Always

followed by a republican denial, or temper tantrum.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

And your little diatribes are

And your little diatribes are often at odds with reality. So what?

Tim Lajoie's picture

No fake?!  He hijacked the

No fake?!  He hijacked the post from someone else?  Damn...and I gave him a compliment, too.  I am feeling gracious today.  Where's veritas?  I want to chest bump him!

MICHAEL LEBLANC's picture

If Republicans are the party

If Republicans are the party of just say no, Democrats are the party of just hear nothing but their own words.  It's ironic that Obama chose this Thursday for his umpteenth absolutely final date for passage of his health mangling bill.  With Wednesday being St. Patrick's Day, we're in for a double load of blarney this week.

Tim Lajoie's picture

Examples please

I appreciate yor passion, Bill, and I would certainly not want to be on the side of anyone subverting our Constitution.  If you would be so kind as to provide a few specific examples of how Beck, Limbaugh, or Cheney have done that, and provide the article and section where I could find that violation in the Constitution, I would greatly appreciate it.  If you are right, it appears that I have been deceived.  Thanks!  Good morning to the "big three!"

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Oh, hum...zzzzzzz

Oh, hum...zzzzzzz

Tim Lajoie's picture

Well done post

Sincerely, I mean that.  I, too, have been following this textbook argument.  But I do have a serious question (no, really).  The objections that have brought up are well known.  The question is this:  when it comes to history, what exactly is historically incorrect about what they wish to include or emphasize?  I know that you take issue with what they are excluding (separate argument) and I can respect that based on your political ideology which, of course, is different than mine.  I see you take issue with what they are choosing to emphasize, but what is incorrect about it?  I see this more as an issue of opposing ideological emphasis on which history is important, as opposed to distortion of facts. 

1.  Aquinas, Blackstone, and Calvin were influential historical figures.

2.  Many of McCarthy's accused persons were shown to Communist sympathizers, although I personally think he an abusive drunk.

3.  Germans and Italians were interred during WWII...it was not isolated to Japanese (it was still wrong)

4. Separation of church and state?  Yeah...but not how it has come to be defined.  The gov't should advocate no religion and hinder no religious groups (I am Christian).  Let all freely worship according to their conscience (that is what Jefferson believed), even if I believe the Christian faith to be superior (Jefferson believed that, too)

5.  The Black Panthers did advocate violence while MLK advanced his righteous cause with passive and peaceful demonstration.

6.  There was a significant Christian influence in the founding of this country.  Were there also some deists?  Sure.  But that doesn't erase the Christian influence.

7.  There was a conservative resurgence in the 70's and 80's.  See my hero...

I don't want to list every example...but seriously, which of these things that you listed did not happen?  If it's the ideological emphasis you oppose fine, say that.  It's honest.  But to say they are making up history is inaccurate.

John Chick's picture

Minor correction...

Jefferson didn't believe the Christian "religion" to be superior, just the teachings of Jesus Christ, more specifically, those words attributed to Jesus.

He, like many people of his era, had no use for "organized" or government-mandated religions (i.e. state dictated churches). Quite frankly, the worst thing that ever happened to Christianity was Constantine making it the official state religion of Rome.

You are spot on with your view of the original intent of the 1st Amendment. The federal government actually over-stepped their authority when they took prayer out of schools. Ironically, here in the LA area, exceptions have been made for Somali children who wish to practice their faith during the school day. For the record, I have no problem with that, but I think other faiths should be allowed to do so as well.

And also for the record, the phrase "Separation of Church and State" appears nowhere in any of our founding or legal documents. It was a phrase that Jefferson used in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. The exact phrase he used was "wall of separation between church and state," and it was to assure them that the federal government did not have the authority to dictate, mandate, or otherwise interfere with the free exercise of religion, and no single religion or denomination would be adopted as the "official" religion.

A transcript of his letter may be viewed here: http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html and there is a link on this page to his original letter at the Library of Congress.

John Chick
Monmouth, ME

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384

 's picture

You don't get it

they DO represent the true Republican view of America.  That's why republicans are so dangerous to this country.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Republicans are the only

Republicans are the only chance this country has of being saved from what the current crop of democrats are trying to do to it. I realize that isn't saying a whole lot, but it is what it is.  obama and his clowns have spent 14 months focusing on only 1/6 of the economy (national health care) while the other 5/6 of the economy (jobs, unemployment, banking, housing, national security, two wars,) is flushed down the s***h**e of party politics and indifference.

Tim Lajoie's picture

Dangerous?  C'mon, tron. 

Dangerous?  C'mon, tron.  What Republican ideals are dangerous?  I don't know how old you are but I would guess that you have lived through at least 20 years of Republican presidencies.  Please tell me what danger they have placed us in?  Seems to me this is still a pretty secure place to live.

Mark Wrenn's picture

Financial ruin

Republican presidencies have put the country on the path to financial ruin, starting with "triple the debt" Reagan.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

And what do we have now with

And what do we have now with your boy in charge.. and Bush's fault doesn't wash anymore. The goon squad have had 14 months and things have only gotten worse. Now, they're telling us unemployment will remain in the 9.7% range for the next two years. That isn't exactly the platform your man-child ran on, is it?  

 's picture

Enough of your racist tripe

the days of calling African Americans "boy" is over.  There is no excuse for such blatant bigotry!!

Tim Lajoie's picture

Yeah, you're right about that

Yeah, you're right about that but are you seriously trying to say that Republicans are the ONLY ones responsible for the debt?  I am not defending debts or deficits but, seriously, you don't think any of the blame can fall on Democrats?  All spending bills must, by Constitution, originate in the House of Representatives and, subsequently, be approved by them.  The Dems had the House from 1954 to 1995 (including the Reagan years) and regained it 2006. Any increases in the debt or deficit spending, then, must fall on them.  Clinton increased it some, too, in his first couple of years.  But is also went down under the Republican Congress in the remaining years.  W’s a little different…he ran up the debt, too but he also had some help from the Democratic Congress in his 8 years (’07 and ’08).  In W’s early years, he has his own party to blame and I, as a Republican, am willing to hold him and the party accountable for that.  I blame the RINO’s but that’s another story.  Now, are you willing to admit that there is plenty of blame to go around or are you just going to blame Republicans?  And will you have similar scorn for President Obama, whose projected budget is quite high?  If we are going to fix these problems, we have to be willing to admit our own errors.  I did.  Are you?

Ray St. Onge's picture

Common Lil

Lil, you know that is completely false. President Reagan's tax cuts double revenue to the Treasury. The problem was the spending that the Congress past, which was controlled by the Democrats.

Mark Wrenn's picture

executive order

Unless Reagan pushed through tax cuts using an executive order, then the dems were also responsible for the tax cuts. Can't have it both ways.

Ray St. Onge's picture

President Reagan did not push

President Reagan did not push through tax cuts using executive orders. If you have info to this, please supply links. I'm not saying the Dems are not responsible for the tax cuts, what I'm saying is they are responsible for the spending increase.

 's picture

So

the Democrats increased spending by over riding President Reagan's and President Bush's veto?  Please show references for such outlandish charges.

Ray St. Onge's picture

Never said that

Never claimed the Presidents veto the budget or that the Democrats overrode the veto. Please show where I said that.

 's picture

Then what are you saying?

Stop changing the subject.  Prove that the tax cuts produce sufficent revenue to pay our bills, ever.  Hasn't happened, and with Reagan the Demcrates helped pass the tax cuts but Reagan passed the budget increases, maybe believing that the tax cuts would balance the budget, which it NEVER has.  Time to admit that those precious tax cuts your prize so highly, JUST DON'T WORK!  They never have.

Ray St. Onge's picture

one more time

Not changing the subject, answering your question.

Tron, I'll go through this again. When President Reagan took office revenue was $517 Billion and when he left revenue had nearly doubled to $991 Billion. Now we both agree that a deficits grew and so did the debt. The reason they both grew was the increase in SPENDING. They were SPENDING MORE than revenues were increasing. What would have happened if revenues had not increased?

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

ST...As the great Western

ST...As the great Western Philosopher, Filmore East once said. "Reasoning with a liberal is like trying to pick up a turd by the clean end".

 's picture

yeah, so

the deficits grew even larger.  Every President who enjoys a stable or booming economy is going to see increases in revenues.  When times are good people make more and pay more taxes.  That was true under Reagan, Bush I&II and Clinton.  However it was only during the Clinton Administration that we saw the deficits go down, so much so that toward the end of his Presidency, he proposed a surplus budget for BushII.  Instead he squandered it by giving the surplus to wealthy folks and stuck future generations with triple the debt.   Republicans cannot admit they're wrong, tax cuts do NOT produce sufficient revenue.  It  has been proven dramatically over the last thirty years.

Ray St. Onge's picture

The reason the economy grew

The reason the economy grew was because of the tax cuts. Go back, research when the cuts took place and when the economy started growing. The economy grew after the tax cuts. Tax cuts cause the economy to grow. If President Kennedy was alive today, he would agree with me.

 's picture

perhaps

Adolph Hitler would agree with you too, but what does it matter, the facts are the facts.  During the Clinton administration most of the tax cuts were repealed, the economy did just as well as during the Reagan administration AND the budget was almost balanced.  NONE of that has happened under a republican administration.  Please open your eyes.

Ray St. Onge's picture

The words from President Kennedy

Here is what President Kennedy said:

"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference

 's picture

No doubt

He believed it and so do you, however he did not have the benefit of living long enough to see that it isn't true.  You have.  Look at the results and you have to believe that while cutting taxes may increase revenues, it NEVER has been enough to eliminate the deficit and begin paying down the debt.  NEVER.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Only because the politicians

Only because the politicians never reduce spending to coincide with the cuts; it's always an unbalanced equation.

 's picture

so

I guess that means tax cuts do NOT increase revenues, at least enough to equal spending.  Isn't that the way it's suppose to work?

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Don't you understand

Don't you understand anything, or do you just enjoy being obstinate?

Ray St. Onge's picture

wrong

Tron, tax cuts increase revenue. We've established that. If the Reagan tax cuts would not have been past and spending would have increased at the rate it did, the deficit would have skyrocketed. The Reagan tax cuts doubled revenue during the 80's. Spending more than doubled. Revenue to the Treasury is not the problem even today. The problem is there is more going out then coming in.

 's picture

And tax increases

increases revenue, the trick is to try and balance income with outlays, something that  happened under President Clinton, but has NEVER come close during a republican Presidency.

Ray St. Onge's picture

what?

why is it necessary to balance the income with outlays? Just because you have more money coming in does not mean you need to spend it. When more money comes into a household, most people either pay down debt or save. They don't go on a spending spree which is more than the increase of income.

 's picture

so when

has this ever happened with your  precious tax cuts?  NEVER.  What don't you understand?  The tax cuts may increase revenue, but it has NEVER been enough to equal the outlays.  Only minimal tax increases revenues enough to equal what we spend.  Yes we could reduce spending, and that may be a good idea, so what programs do you want cut?  And why hasn't the republican party done that?

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Why are you so against tax

Why are you so against tax cuts? Do you even pay taxes? Afraid tax cuts will force cuts in your entitlement bennies?

Ray St. Onge's picture

wrong again

I don't disagree that spending was not cut. That was the problem. Tron, I didn't say that the Reagan Budgets should have cut spending. What I said was that the increase did not have to be as large as they were.  They could have increase the existing programs, but not introduce all the new programs that they did.

Ray St. Onge's picture

half right

Your only half right. You are right when you say cutting taxes increases the revenue. If spending was kept flat, the deficit and debt would go down. The problem is and was that spend grew at a rate much faster than the rate of revenue. Even if President Obama increase taxes, he will still face the same problem. Revenue will not come in at a rate fast enough to offset the increase in spending. Revenue is not the problem, spending is.

Tim Lajoie's picture

Reagan's tax cuts may have

Reagan's tax cuts may have done that, RST, but the debt and deficit spending did increase under Reagan.  I see it as an investment in the defeat of Communism, money well spent, I think.  But everyone who has studied Reagan's ideology and his Presidency knows that he never got the budget reductions he sought from the Democrats.  Reagan often had to compromise on that to get other things through.  But you are right when you say that Democrats controlled the budget for the Reagan years.  Any budget increases into deficit spending is on them.

Mark Wrenn's picture

Iran

Maybe he should've charged Iran a bit more for the weapons? Or maybe leave Iraq on the known terrorist countries list, and charge them more for weapons, too?

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Always something positive to

Always something positive to contribute, eh, Lil?

Advertisement

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...