Home Editorials Quality of Life: Why the Alaska Republican Party Has Me Cringing Again...

Quality of Life: Why the Alaska Republican Party Has Me Cringing Again This Year


The Alaska Republican Party has got me cringing again this year.
If you thought last year’s legislative session was crazy, think again. We have reached a new level. In my first piece for Alaska Commons, nearly a year ago, I highlighted why I still believed in the Republican party.

“Small government. Local control. Responsible infrastructure projects. Reduced spending. Individual liberty. Strong defense. Creating entrepreneurial environments where small businesses thrive. These were the ideals I thought I had signed up for when I registered, for the first time, as a Republican at the age of eighteen…”

Today, I still believe in these ideals. It is difficult, but I still remain a registered Republican. This year’s legislative session has got me wondering, though, why am I still part of the party? On a national level, we lost what should have been an easy presidential election. There is a conversation going on within the party, at least among people I know, as to whether we need to be more humane and realistic on issues of immigration and marriage equality. I think this is a good thing, and it has me hopeful. Just because one is a Republican, the party that holds onto American traditions, that doesn’t mean we are against progress.
On a national level, I am hopeful the GOP will wake up soon, do their jobs in congress, and work to get things done. But in regard to the party in Alaska, I am scared. Some things are bothering me and they need to change.
So far the GOP has focused on attempting to get school vouchers through (without sending the proposal through the education committee), anti-choice proposals to attempt to abolish safe and legal abortions, and defying the will of the voters by reversing a rule that cruise ships cannot dump waste water in Alaskan waters.
What hits me even more personally is when asked about providing civil unions or equal rights for gay and lesbian couples, the Republican majority literally laughed. In a recent press briefing, Mark Miller of the Juneau Empire referred to a poll that indicated only 30% of Alaskan’s think there shouldn’t be some sort of recognition of same-sex couples, and asked how that issue might relate to the House Majority’s new guiding principles. It gives me hope that 70% of Alaskans think there should be some equality. It brings me hope because I happen to be one of those pesky “gays.”
Rep. Lance Pruitt answered that it wasn’t in their “Guiding Principles”  to have this discussion. He said he wanted to focus on the economy and infrastructure of Alaska,  and that the discussion wouldn’t be about what would happen in someone’s home. Frankly, he didn’t answer the question. Whether it is in their plans or not, recognition of same-sex couples should be a discussion. It does impact LGBT Alaskans like me. It has nothing to do with what is happening in my house, and everything to do with my quality of life as a whole. It has potential economic benefits for me as well. Currently, my partner and I do not share the same legal rights as Representative Pruitt and his wife. We have to find loopholes in the system and hopefully it will continue to work for us. Representative Pruitt may not be aware that even with a will that leaves everything to my partner of nine years, my family could go after anything I leave on this earth and have a good possibility to win in court. That, Representative Pruitt, has everything to do with my quality of life.
I am glad that Representative Pruitt has now apologized and I accept the House apology for their laughter.
This week I was listening to the Shannyn Moore Show on my way home from work. I don’t always agree with Ms. Moore. But I was in strong disagreement with her during a segment in which she essentially makes fun of anyone who is LBGT and Republican. While I can understand why she might have difficulty with the idea, as most LGBT people are either Democrats or mostly independent, sexual orientation or gender identity has nothing to do with party affiliation. While it is true that the Democratic Party has a better platform in regards to equality, not all in the party support full marriage equality. It will take people from both parties to get to where we need to be in this state and nation – just like it took people from both parties to get civil rights legislation passed for other minorities.
So yes, technically, I am gay and, technically, I am a Republican. But much like I am a Christian, those labels do not need to be combined. They are separate. Shannyn Moore, please continue fighting for equality. We need allies like you, but it does nothing to make fun of a person’s party.
The issue of getting closer to equality is just one example of how out of touch the Alaska Republican Party is. With 70% of my fellow Alaskans supporting some sort of legal recognition, my party really needs to take it seriously. For me, it fits into the ideals of a smaller government and individual liberty.
Like I have pointed out, it will take people of both parties to get to full equality. So why leave a party whose core ideals I still support over one issue? I can work within my party much more effectively than just walking away. Just like I will work within my party on environmental and other social issues.
I really want the Republicans in Alaska to thrive. I also want the Democratic party to thrive. When both groups thrive, we can have a healthy debate and figure things out. And I am hopeful we will figure this whole equal rights thing out soon.
To Alaska’s political parties: please, let’s be fair, civil, legal, constitutional, thoughtful, objective, and lend an ear from Alaskan’s on the direction they want the state to go on any myriad of issues.


  1. I am wondering exactly what the Republican platform is. They say they want limited government while expanding their own power. We are again looking at cuts in education and limiting the bargaining power of the Unions. Seems like they are limiting government alright, just not their part of it. They say they are want an economy where small business’s flourish but pander to big corporations and big banks. They say they believe all Americans should be treated equality yet laugh when the subject comes up. I used to think the Republican party was the lets-roll-up-our-sleeves-and-get-to-work party, the party of the working middle class. I thought I had a voice in the party but I don’t think that anymore. My wallet just isn’t big enough.

    • Can’t say I disagree with your sentiments. It seems from a historical stand point that it was in the 1980’s that the Republican party has started to take a turn into Corportism. They have been aided by the Democratic party. Though in some respects I disagree with the “My wallet just isn’t big enough” statement. Many social conservatives have much influence in the Republican party, yet they do not contribute much money. The one thing they do is vote religiously.

  2. I think Chris Bailey is deluded. Much like most self-styled ‘Republicans’ are deluded.
    The Republican Party isn’t one bit like the fictional identity Chris assigns it. It hasn’t resembled anything like that fictional identity for several decades.
    To think otherwise is simply delusional.

    • Can you tell me about what you think the identity of the Democratic party is? My guess is that it is different for every person. And I agree the GOP needs to make drastic changes. As does the Democratic party. For example, if you are an environmentalist and still a Democrat one could make fun of you for that.

      • I don’t think you can get away from the reality of how deluded you are concerning the Republican Party simply by trying to divert attention to the Democratic Party. That’s nothing more than a diversionary tactic to avoid addressing the reality.
        The deluded often refuse to believe they are deluded, but that’s natural, that’s staying within the definition of delusion.

        • If I was that delusional would I be bringing up my issues with the Republican party?
          Would you like me apologize for not agreeing with you? Trust me I get frustrated often with my party. But when I look back at history so many transformational leaders and idea’s have come from the Republican party. That is the tradition I want to uphold and bring to the forefront.

          • Transformational leaders and ideas?
            You can ‘look back at history’ all you want, it’s not going to change the present day reality, there are no leaders or ideas coming out of the present day Republican party that are worthy of any consideration.
            And you claim not to be delusional.

        • Name Calling 101, in Junior High…. In absence of an argument resort to name calling.. I was listening to your remarks until the second “delusional” reference (and yet another appears below) You do not sufficiently explain why Chris is delusional, you just keep repeating the word delusional… And you are just as culpable as anyone to the notion that the deluded refuse to believe they are deluded. Just words..no substance. And no, I am not a Republican.

          • Did you think you had something pertinent to offer or were you just wanting everyone to know that you’re around?

  3. Dude,
    When someone opens themselves up and talks about their internal conflicts, mocking their opinions and calling them delusional ISN’T HELPING.
    I subscribe to both social and economic theories from the left side of American politics, which provides a nice bit of cohesiveness on election day, even though I find myself enraged at some of things the Democratic party does and says; I can’t imagine how difficult it must be to walk into the voting both each April and November and have to weigh spending issues versus being recognized as a full-fledged and equal human being.
    Yeah, I too would like Chris to be convinced that progressive tax structures, generous welfare, and counter-cyclical government spending, are good things for our nation. Calling him stupid isn’t going to do that though, and the implication that he has to treat his sexuality as the most important facet of his politics is demeaning. Flies, honey, vinegar, etc..
    Show some compassion.

    • The one thing about me is that I am a hardcore moderate person. When I get into the voting booth I am not a Republican or a Democrat. I have gotten away from voting for or against someone based on their party.
      On a local level is where we need to take care of people and control spending. I just happen to want the federal govt to be small. I would rather have a 5% flat tax on a national level, and have the states levy their own taxes which work best for them. Though I do see the issue with that because we have some states that are much poorer than others. It is a hard thing to balance. For instance No Child Left Behind is a national, progressive program that IMHO is a huge failure. I fail to see how it has improved education overall.
      Thanks though for supporting the idea that someone can be both gay and Republican.
      More important to me in the long run isn’t the left vs. right during a debate, and what is best for the country or state that it is applied to.

      • Now you’ve just shown yourself to be woefully uninformed, (not coincidentally, since most self-identified conservatives are similarly challenged by reality), you’d be better off spending time researching that which you claim to know and less time trying to tell others what your misconceptions are.

          • Oh, please, you did when you wrote this piece and your first piece. Are you really so self-deluded as to think you can try some kind of rhetorical backpedalling or about face? Is up now down with you?

    • Keep your ‘implications’ to yourself, they aren’t mine.
      I said he’s deluded about the reality of the Republican party and you’ve not offered any evidence that’s inaccurate.

  4. No problems with homo’s being in republicans as long as they are true constitutional conservatives. They shouldn’ be advocating for “equality” they already have so many rights. Don’t like America MOVE! In America marriage means a woman and a man, not like the european country.

  5. Its people like Drill Baby Drill who are the problem. Gays shouldn’t be advocating for equality, they are already have so many rights? Are you ignorant or insane or both. Do you realize that Anchorage is one of few major municipalities that does not offer equality when it comes to sexual orientation as far as housing and employment? Even the federal government doesnt discriminate when it comes to sexual orientation! Thats pretty ass backwards and so are you Drill!

  6. It’s a stretch to call NCLB “progressive.” Bush signed it, after all; it was a bi-partisan piece of legislation, it was bad, and now it’s bi-partisanly reviled.
    Now a flat tax, *that’s* something that can get my progressive hackles up. You can get me going on about the sub-linearity of the utility of money and the spike in inequality since Regan’s top-level cuts, and even get me on a tangent about the nearly-100% effective marginal tax rates on those making $25,000-$40,000/yr. And maybe that’s a conversation that can be had, some other time.
    As for being Republican and gay… well, I’ve got an uncle. You can’t deny the existence of someone you love; I thought that was the message the left had for the right when it came to gay rights, and it hurts me to see people fail to see the resemblance when it’s reflected back at them. I want “my side” to be better than that. I don’t need hypocrites as allies.

    • The current iteration of NCLB is not ‘bi-partisan’ policy, it’s modeled directly off of a Texas state experiment. No Texas school reform has been ‘bi-partisan’ for decades. Yes, the legislation did pass with bi-partisan support, that doesn’t mean it’s a bi-partisan piece of policy.
      To attempt to portray it as ‘progressive’ in any way is simply nonsense.

  7. can i ask? is getting the issue of same sex marriage more important to the people in america as a whole or just the individuals wanting to get married. or is it to debase what are called our moral beliefs in what makes a marriage in our society. i’m not sure if that is the better on the whole of society. i fell that not every person has to be forced to be accustom to any alternative lifestyle. i see that every person can make a choice of their own.we have freedom in this country. and people make their choices in who how and what they love. i am not here to delegate that.what is it truly about is it about the love for the person or just benefits…. to me all it shows is greed or someone calling themselves a victims on their own choices so they can get a benefit of more money on something they do in their private lives. the gay community has used attacks like say people are sick for not letting them be who they chose to be. i ‘ve never heard of a doctor diagnose any one with homophobia.so i don think that its a real condition i’ve also seen it compared to what happen with civil rights with blacks. i’ve also which is not fair at all.never have seen a gay baby. because the choice of who you love is up to u as an adult. yet term like born this way are used to say what you doing is nature not your choice .we all have equal rights for all men and women in this country. marriage is a staple in society and has been for a long time only in this time is it really a matter of definition. i’m looking for the history of my ancestors right now and all of the connections of my parents grand parent and great grand parents and great or greats grand parents extending all the way back to Africa. its how our history got recorded and not form just any former partnerships or boyfriend girlfriend relationship.so marriage is not truly for every body that is why it comes with certain benefits. not to debase your right to your life style at all.i would rather see the people abolish alimony and child-support. and get rights of financial freedom to those attack by those systems before we determine about same sex marriage….

    • Gregular man, you are taking the phrase “born this way” much too literally. Im assuming you are heterosexual, so did you get a choice on who your body is physically attracted to? Despite being ostracized by their family, friends, and the general public, gay men and women live their life the way they were programmed. It can be difficult- but for the overwhelming majority- its not a choice- its just how there sexual orientation presents itself. Being gay is not all a person is either, anyone could see that if they actually met with people.
      As far as marriage is concerned, sorry Gregular I disagree with you there too. If it is a license offered by the state then it is a civil right. The churches can decided what they want to do, but to be discriminated on a government level is not okay. It means so much more to these people than just a piece of paper, it means hospital visitation rights, last wills, and other rights you probably take for granted.

    • Well, first off, we’re talking about recognizing domestic partnerships. That’s what launched this discussion. Completely different. Second, the ability for a couple to enjoy the same benefits I do as a married heterosexual; the ability to make medical decisions if tragedy strikes my wife; the ability to be involved as a legally recognized equal in the life of our child… Gay partners in a relationship absolutely do not enjoy that freedom in American society today, and that is an injustice that has nothing to do with what “alternative lifestyles” you personally may or may not approve of.

  8. there a ways that do not include marriage to give an individual power over your estates. write a will or give power or authority over your property. i’m saying they use it for a census and it helps with finding historical elements of self that is important for this country. besides people would abuse the right to marriage for same sex as bad as they already do for straight marriages. i feel that guys and or girls would consider themselves as married for any benefit that’s possible. this country runs on im not going to say we would start to marry sheep or any thing lol im saying the need of the marriage is to be between a naturally productive family.

    • I’m not sure I’m understanding you, so correct me if I’m wrong. Are you saying the legal recognition of marriage should only apply to couples who reproduce? Because otherwise I don’t understand your phrase “naturally productive family.”

    • Gregular man, you are taking the phrase “born this way” much too literally. Im assuming you are heterosexual, so did you get a choice on who your body is physically attracted to?………yes i did take that phrase seriously im an african american i was born that way….. i get insulted at black jokes cause it is about me the whole person. not a choice that i made it is my heritage though out time through the marriages and of the DNA connections of my parents and grand parents and ancestors even if i have kids outside of marriage they can trace where they are from this information from the marriages that happened before these times is not just about the right to domestic partnership…… that sounds like business tight roommates not love

  9. well yes i do only for the historical aspect of it……if your family does not produce that who in the future will care about your marriage no one marriage is suppose to be for ever a contract even in death it can be recognized by your future generations that is why i said s natural productive family. not to insult but to put fact to the matter

  10. no you can….. you just won’t have children looking up your history………. that is a fact gay or straight

    • If nature was our only imperative, we’d do away with marriage, monogamy, and intimate relationships entirely. Our genetic diversity would best be served mixing the gene pool as much as possible.
      Love has little to do with the reproductive urge, and marriage and relationships are entirely social constructs.

  11. i’m saying to have success in a marriage having child that keep the bloodline going is important to those in a marriage…that is why when your gay you have shamed your family that your not able to do that for your parents so you have to come out of the closet….and ask them not to be ashamed that you won’t do that for them…. to me it is very selfish…… but i would not hate my child……i would be sad that they will never get the chance to raise one like them self. or named their child after me or a relative….so being gay and getting married does damage like this for real. i don’t hate the person in love if that is what you feel….no one should hate anyone……my uncle is gay and my grandfather is a preacher i asked him how he felt about my uncle…he said that he is his son.and he loves him….he only wished he had been able to pass his name and blood line down and to leave stuff for his children…… but i did not mean he did not want his son to be happy but he would have been happy to pass wisdom down to his grandchildren if he had chose to have them…

  12. Shame is, variously, an affect, emotion, cognition, state, or condition. The roots of the word shame are thought to derive from an older word meaning “to cover”; as such, covering oneself, literally or figuratively, is a natural expression of shame.[1]

    • Interesting to know, but kind of beside the point. It seems that your definition of marriage, or more accurately who marriage should be reserved for, is pretty limiting. I know many heterosexual couples who wouldn’t qualify, as they don’t have children or have adopted their children. Same-sex couples can and do raise children together. Sometimes the child is biologically-related to one of their parents, and sometimes the child is adopted. I feel that family unit should have just as much recognition and access to benefits as that of a heterosexual couple raising children. But that’s beside the point. Western culture has never had the tradition of only recognizing marriages that produced children.
      And certainly in modern times, marriage is not tied to the presence of children or not. It’s a contract with the government between two consenting adults, which is why there is a licensing process. There’s no legal argument that holds up to granting one group of people a civil right and denying it to another group of people.

    • No, it’s not anything ‘natural’, it’s nothing but a subjective opinion.
      (and not very well thought out)

  13. it is shame not to discover ones self to get full potential…. shame mean your hiding something shame is being in the closet because your ashamed or what you are doing. in the end what shames you maybe the fact what your doing befits just you and not society in a whole. people need to have shame to change…not guilt

  14. And what about heterosexual married couples who choose to adopt instead of having biological children. Do they also shame their families …so i asked do they do adopted people feel shame? yes they do they want to know their family past too….
    i’m not trying to insult i’m just trying to inform

  15. i’ve been in foster homes and most of my friends and non biological family are adopted yes i am speaking on this for that matter…… not knowing who you are can bring shame…… look at any indigenous people who lost culture that is why it is important to keep this part of society “marriage” the way it is it gives you a direction to look at at least to find where your family and bloodline and personal history

    • Your personal experiences are not everyone else’s personal experiences. You’re not informing, you’re inferring. While understanding the history of your biological family may be important to you, it is not high in the ranking of concerns for everyone. It also does not give you a platform to argue against the civil rights of others. Your hangup about biological relations is not a reason to argue against couples gaining the same legal rights and benefits of other couples who share the same level of commitment.

  16. in the end a partnership is a business transaction and a marriage a life time tradition and are two different things………. why don’t they have fireworks every night instead of on just the designated holidays well then it would not be special any more that is why

    • I think it’s safe to say that you and I have a very different understanding of what marriage is. My marriage is not defined or lessened by another person’s marriage. My marriage is what my husband and I choose to make it. I think everyone should have that right.
      Gregular, while I steadfastly disagree with about every point you’ve made, I appreciate you being willing to discuss the issue civilly. Hope you’ll stick around, read some of our other posts, and be open to different ways of understanding the world.

  17. thanks i’m always open for a good talk or two…and i noticed you had requested that we speak of it in a civil matter…….. i feel too its more of a personal matter. i only found it interesting because i was doing the background on my family.i kept up with who was who through that information….i am just like your self i’m not trying to define love or how one feels for their husband wife or partner but we got to look at the situation in a whole. does it make us better as a society who is accepting of everything or does it make it so some one else can say yeah well now its a right.the reason they may have laugh is because its not going to make things better for everyone…….. legal or not do we we need more rules to make criminals outta already over legislated people….is it going to make the world better place i don’t know. enjoy your blessing people

  18. Hello everyone,
    As a contributor to the Alaska Commons, I am well aware that this discussion is controversial. I can tell that gregular man and joe blow have very strong opinions on this subject matter. Because Chris is a friend of mine, I would like to encourage you to be polite to him. He has always been very nice to me and I would like to encourage you to be nice to him as well. Regardless of my own liberal political opinions, I wish to ask that you consider the fact that he is a fellow human being. Please keep this in mind while you debate one another. And by the way, thank you for contributing.

    • I don’t think it’s ‘impolite’ to speak of realities. That Chris is deluded about much of what he’s written is a simple reality.
      It would be impolite to give the delusional a pass, no one is served by allowing fantasy and myth to be substituted for reality.

      • Can you please help me? I need to be diagnosed properly. Can you refer me to a good doctor who will ensure that I do not have any sort of mental illness. I am confident I do not, but since you show so much concern I am willing to explore the possibility. Also are you willing to help cover the costs that my insurance doesn’t? Thanks!

        • Being a deluded smart ass is not an improvement.
          Try addressing your misconceptions and try confronting your own misconstructions.
          Unless you’re willing to do that, you’re doing nothing but deluding yourself.
          That’s fine, if that’s what you want. You can be just as deluded as you care to be.
          Just don’t try to tell other people your alternate reality should pass for any sort of actual reality.
          Keep your delusions to yourself in that case, eh?

  19. Not what I said at all, Heather.
    Nothing I’ve said needs to be ‘clarified’ by misrepresenting what I did say. That kind of rhetorical bait and switch is a bit too sophomoric don’t you think? Perhaps you might review just what I did say.
    I said he has put forth opinions and proposed premises that aren’t based on any reality.
    I said if he cares to believe in fantasy and myth, it’s his prerogative.
    I also said if he tries to pass off his fantasies and myths as actual reality he should not complain when those fantasies and myths are shown to be unfounded fictions.
    Not one of his premises will he attempt to defend. It’s not surprising at all, they are indefensible. His premises aren’t based on any reality upon which to defend them.
    I specifically said he’s entitled to whatever crazed opinion he cares to personally nurture.
    He’s just not entitled to any sort of pass when he tries to pass off those delusions and foist them on others as though they represented any sort of reality.
    There’s no justification to attempt to ‘give equal time’ in a debate to utter fictions. That’s an unconscionable mistaken belief that’s led to our press being filled with utter nonsense being passed off as a competing ‘opinion’.
    No, utter fictions have no place in any debate. Play acting, maybe. Taking imaginary tea with tiny tots, …ok you can pretend.
    Public debate about political reality? No. Imaginary fictions have no place. In the debate on public policies, fiction deserves only scorn and ridicule. Fiction will never lead to good public policy. Many of the problems we face as a nation can be attributed to passing off fictions as reality. It’s not time to continue down a road that has proven itself to be leading to failure.

    • My intention was not to put words in your mouth, just to sum up what I was getting from your comments. My apologies if it came across as “sophomoric.” However, if the goal of your commentary is to take part in a discussion about the issue, you are not succeeding. Name calling, especially repeated name calling and taunting, is below sophomoric. If your intention is to take part in a conversation or debate, I suggest changing your tone if you want to win someone to your way of thinking. If your intention is to harass and tear down, I suggest you go find a more constructive use of your time.
      The author spoke about his own experiences and viewpoints. Your perspective on those viewpoints may run counter to his, but it doesn’t negate his point of view.

  20. Whether I am ‘succeeding’ or not is, I believe, highly subjective and maybe you’re not the only judge of what is or isn’t ‘successful’.
    If you judge success by whether someone can defend their declarations, I would have to wonder just who may or may not have been ‘successful’.
    I have and can continue to provide objective, substantiating evidence to support my claims. The ‘author’ is not able to do so, he’s shown himself to be unwilling to even attempt as much, no surprise, as there is no objective substantiating evidence to support his claims.
    For me to say that one is basing their opinions on fiction is not ‘name calling’ and neither is it ‘taunting’. It’s plain spoken fact, its’ reality, nothing more or less. Some folks don’t like reality. Claim it’s too harsh or some such. Reality makes some folks start concerning themselves with ‘tone’ rather than deal with the reality.
    I never feel I’m being less than constructive when I take the time to refute the attempts to pass off fiction as reality.
    My ‘perspective’ isn’t pertinent or material to his ‘point of view’, and I’ve certainly not injected any other ‘perspective’ other than a rational and realistic one . Not that it matters a great deal, my ‘perspective’ isn’t relevant to any point of the discussion which are germane or relevant to his particular fictions. They are fictions from any ‘perspective’. Fictions don’t change because you view them from some different ‘angle’, they’re fictions from any angle.
    The point that is relevant is that his ‘point of view’ is based on any number of fictions. Those fictions would be the same fictions no matter who pointed out that fact that they are fictions.
    Would you care to address the many fictions? He hasn’t, doesn’t or won’t.
    Do you think you should? I wonder if you’re not clear about those same fictions. I do know that there are plenty of people just like the author that are not at all clear about the fictions they base their opinions on. A far better world we’d leave for others if we put a stop to the promotion and cultivation of political fictions. Fiction has no place in any public debate.
    Is it your wish to defend fantasy and fiction as legitimate basis for public policy debate? I can’t imagine that, (though, it’s clear some people do think that’s just fine, just follow along with supporters at a CPAC conference.), …I just didn’t think that’s you.

  21. I’ll take a shot.
    The author postulates that the Republican party is, and I’ll quote him, “Republican, the party that holds onto American traditions”
    What American tradition can the author hold up that the Republican party hasn’t thoroughly trashed?
    The author states that he’s enamored of some notion that he wishes for, and again, I’ll quote, “Small government. Local control. Responsible infrastructure projects. Reduced spending. Individual liberty. Strong defense. Creating entrepreneurial environments where small businesses thrive.”
    None of the above that the author claims to be enamored with is at all descriptive of anything the Republican party has been akin to since likely before the author was born.
    Republicans historically hold all the records for big government. Despite what they say, any review of actual records shows that the talk isn’t and hasn’t ever been matched up with any action.
    Republicans haven’t promoted local control on any issue other than a faux claim to states rights when they wish to circumvent federal laws which prevent them from oppressing some minority or some class of people. Local control? Who is kidding who? Talking points don’t make something true just because it’s endlessly repeated. Republicans want to, and have worked diligently to have total control over all your actions in or out of the public sphere. Responsible infrastructure projects? What? Shall we review the irresponsible and just call it responsible because someone said up is down? There simply is no evidence of the Republicans promoting any kind of responsible infrastructure project. They’re famous for corporate welfare and subsidizing monopolies, for granting no bid contracts to donors, but did any of that lead to responsible infrastructure development as a policy norm? Again, who is attempting to kid whom? Reduced spending? Has the author ever actually researched which party spends how much? Evidently never. Creating an environment favorable to entrepreneurs? If by entrepreneurs you mean defense contractors, multinational corporations and fascist regimes, then yes, the Republican party has been working to promote an environment where that sort of entrepreneurial enterprise can thrive.
    The author couldn’t be more conflicted, every ideal he espouses as personal ideals he supports are not in any way represented by the Republican party. He can’t, I repeat, he can’t ask that the Republican party thrive and at the same time honestly wish to have his ideals survive. His stated ‘ideals’ are on the kill list of the Republican party and have been for many a decade.
    Wishing and hoping that Republican talking points represented any type of actuality is like a flat-earther wishing and hoping things didn’t disappear over the horizon. If anything can be learned from a Republican talking point, it’s that things are more apt to be exactly the opposite as what the talking point presents. They’ve been playing people for fools for a very long time. There’s no reason not to call them out for it.

  22. Pretty clear the author doesn’t intend to face his misperceptions.
    What’s that tell you, Heather?