A few things:
If the neocons didn't give a rat's ass about social programs why did they even bother to come up with a healthcare plan in the first place?
The way that I understand neoconservatism, or at least the way that I hear people use the term, is that it's mostly a label that describes one's view on foreign policy. I know that there's a history to it and that it goes back to people like Bill Kristal's dad, and a rejection of liberalism and what not, but I think that most of us would associate it with the foreign policy of George W Bush and his first term specifically. Not all Republicans or conservatives are neocons. Rand Paul and Ron Paul, for example, advocate drawing back our military entanglements. And then there are the realists. And I used to sometimes run with the libertarians who tend to lean more to the right, especially these days since Obama has gone back on most of what he promised in terms of civil liberties.
In any case, they came up with a plan because we have a laughably inefficient health care system that costs more and delivers less than the systems that are enjoyed by citizens of other developed nations. They came up with a plan because they wanted to have an alternative to what Bill Clinton was trying to do. And at the time, I'm sure there were plenty of people that thought it was the right thing to do and that something should be done. Mitt Romney, after all, used this as a model for his health care reform bill in Massachusetts.
By the time W came into power they had other priorities, like wars, tax cuts, social security reform, medicare reform, and immigration reform.
I do not see the same level of dishonesty from the left, nor have I ever.
And you never will if your only source of info comes from a sympathizing source.
You really should take the time to actually listen to the opposition, not just what your sources tell you about what the opposition has said.
I think that I agree with both of you. I don't think that I've ever seen a campaign as dishonest as the one that Mitt Romney et al are running. All politicians bend the truth to meet the needs of the narratives that they are trying to establish, but this is something else entirely.
That said, I don't think that you can just read Think Progress and watch Rachael Maddow and feel like you're being as informed as yo can be. I don't think it'd hurt to go take a look at say, the National Review Online or the Daily Caller.
Democrat Alan Grayson
Please bare in mind that the Obama plan IS a Republican plan.
How's that for dishonesty?
You're misrepresenting his remarks. He's riffing on the idea that the Republicans had no plan. Yes, Obama's plan was based on the Republican plan from the 90s, and the Romney plan. But by 2009, the Republicans in Congress had abandoned that plan.
Another major part of the of the stategy of staying in power for Republican is to please the Religious Right, and I'm not part of the religious right, and part of their interest would be to KILL me, having them not in power is in my own interest.
The dominionists that might be in favor of that sort of thing are of the religious right but they do not constitute the whole of it. They're a fringe of the fringe. As wacky as Michelle Bachman is, for example, I've yet to hear her say anything to indicate that even if, God forbid, she were able to somehow managed to come into power she'd try to kill us.
Furthermore, I see the relative health of national economies that are capitalist with some socialist elements such as Germany or Denmark, and the horrible economies of purely capitalist societies like Somalia. The Democrats seem to be closer aligned with the former, and the Republican with the latter, it is in my best interest to vote Democrat.
I've never heard a conservative argue that we should have no government whatsoever. Where conservatives and liberals disagree is on what the scope and size of that government should be. I've never heard a mainstream conservative argue that government shouldn't be able to do things like police neighborhoods, protect property and contract rights, provide national security, educate children etc. I've heard plenty of disagreements about how and what services might be delivered, ie should we allow school voucher programs, but no one is arguing for anarchy. Even the most radical Republican plans would just do things like cap government spending at something like 18 percent of GDP.
Really, one of the issues that they're trying to push in the convention is this idea that under Obama there is regulatory uncertainty. Business, they say, needs to be able to have some reasonable expectations of what sort of regulatory environment they will be dealing with going forward. That's not exactly pining for the lack of a functioning government.
Oh, another example that might fit with the "kill" comment. Their position on health care, abortion, contraception, and other women's issues, will mean more women dying. Examples? Planned Parenthood provides breast cancer screening, often to lower income persons who would otherwise not have access. Those women might DIE if they miss an early diagnosis because of such policies. I, for instance, was diagnosed as stage II with a mammogram.
There are a lot of (current) republican policies that are anti-life, in my opinion.
Honestly, however heterodox you are in your views, I think it's important for people who vote for Republicans to understand that this is what you are voting for too. So yeah, you can brush off the comments about legitimate rape, about personhood amendments, about cuts to Planned Parenthood, etc. Maybe it's not what you believe, personally. But this is what you're voting for if you're voting Republican in 2012.