Reasonable Republicans should be sickened

If there was ever any doubt about how some far right conservatives feel about their fellow countrymen, Monday’s Republican Presidential debate should have removed it once and for all.

When Rep. Ron Paul was ask a hypothetical question about who should help a young man pay his medical bills after six months in a coma, the crowd at the debate hectored to let him die.

Yes. Your far right friends and neighbors would just as soon see you die rather than see any tax money go to your support.

To their credit, the candidates were taken aback — and some were even shocked — at the crowd’s reaction, but it is apparent that what passes for the conservative wing of the Republican Party has no compassion whatsoever for people who have fallen on hard times — which includes a lot of folks here in Milam County.

Indeed, they are more than a little bloodthirsty. Last week, the crowd at a California Republican debate venue cheered lustily when told that Gov. Rick Perry presided over 237 executions.

Responsible Republican candidates for leadership of this country, along with local Republican leaders, must repudiate this trend toward hatred. If not, we truly are barely one step away from the blood sport of Roman-style bread-and-circuses. Without the bread.


About Richard Stone

... is a husband, a father, a writer, a journalist, an activist, an avid reader of trash science fiction and an occasional folk/bluegrass guitar player. He loves to travel, UT sports, community theater and sharing a good bottle of wine with good friends.
This entry was posted in Tea Party Republicans and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Reasonable Republicans should be sickened

  1. Pingback: Bread and Circuses: The CNN/Tea Party Debate « Politics as Hughesual

  2. James Walker says:

    The question about financial responsibility for the intentionally-uninsured man with cancer, posed during the recent Tea Party debates, cuts to the core of several issues. Ron Paul struggled to answer but suggested that the churches should assume some responsibility and contended that doctors in his zone of practice never refused service to anyone. What he failed to acknowledge is that those doctors almost certainly factored the unpaid fees and expenses into the fees and expenses charged to patients who are able and willing to pay.

    Michele Bauchmann just refused to address the issue. Even after being reminded of the question, she simply continued to condemn Obama care. I was disappointed that Wolf Blitzer gave up on getting an answer and moved on to other questions.

    Notwithstanding the sentiment expressed by the debate crowd, I doubt that there are many Americans who would advocate letting the man suffer. As a society, there are limits to the suffering that we will tolerate. Without a mechanism in place to alleviate the most severe types of suffering, the suffering will be alleviated in a random, inefficient, and expensive manner.

    Social Security, and mandated medical insurance, require payment in advance. These programs make it less likely that the ants will end up having to support the grasshoppers (and those who try to save, but fail for lack of luck or expertise). Surely these programs can be made more efficient. However, candidates who would eliminate the programs, or make them optional, should be required to explain how their proposals will address the plight of those who fail to provide for themselves.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s