Michael L. Hays: GOP facing self-irrelevancy or self-extinction

My pre-election analyses and post-election assessment led some to accuse me of trashing the Republican Party.

[Sarcastic Bombastic]

Dr. Hays, I'm disappointed in this piece...only because it appears to be a regurgitation of most of your other articles re Obama. I'm not trying to be rude either, so I'm sorry if you interpret it that way.

So, are you going to contribute to the current discussion re Susanna Martinez running for the governor's seat? I'd like to know your take on that more than hearing the same claims re Obama. The likelihood is that you already had your column prepared prior to her announcement. I'd like to know your opinion on this matter though.

[NJBRED]

Repubs are not losing favorability because of their bashing of Obama, you could actually say the same about the Demos who bashed Bush relentlessly and continue to do so, or did you forget those times? Both parties are failing because they continue to ignore "the people" who voted them into office.

[Casual Mark]

Mr. Hays -- while difficult to make it through your polemic, I did notice one glaring inaccuracy that leads me to question whether this was intended as analysis or an emotional screed. When discussing the budget, you say Republicans released only a "19-page recitation of Republican principles on current issues," and imply that they did not release an actual budget. Here, sir, you're either ignorant of the facts or purposefully dishonest. Boehner and HOuse Republicans did release an actual budget document. You can find it here: http://www.house.gov/budget_republicans/hbcre... . The "19-page" document you mock was the sort of document legislators always put out BEFORE actual legislative text. That's why the CBO just saw the Democrats' health care bill, even though the President outined his goals (that "19 page recitation") many weeks, if not months ago. I hope, sir, that you will admit your error and correct the text of this article to reflect the truth. Thank you.

[good luck with that]

Casual Mark wrote:

Mr. Hays -- while difficult to make it through your polemic, I did notice one glaring inaccuracy that leads me to question whether this was intended as analysis or an emotional screed. When discussing the budget, you say Republicans released only a "19-page recitation of Republican principles on current issues," and imply that they did not release an actual budget. Here, sir, you're either ignorant of the facts or purposefully dishonest. Boehner and HOuse Republicans did release an actual budget document. You can find it here: http://www.house.gov/budget_republicans/hbcre... . The "19-page" document you mock was the sort of document legislators always put out BEFORE actual legislative text. That's why the CBO just saw the Democrats' health care bill, even though the President outined his goals (that "19 page recitation") many weeks, if not months ago. I hope, sir, that you will admit your error and correct the text of this article to reflect the truth. Thank you.

don't hold your breath... he's still high from the kool-aid....

[The Columnist]

To the writers of the first three comments:

I am sorry that some are disappointed in this article. It means to be a summary assessment of the party only on domestic politics and issues (no foreign policy). It does repeat some ideas from previous columns, but it also adds some (some facts bear repeating and may need to be in different contexts). My article on the Democrats four weeks ago was also a summary assessment which repeated some ideas, but I do not recall that anyone complained about it on that ground.

I know little about Susan Martinez. I have one reliable but unconfirmed source who reports that she does not enforce the ordinance on school attendance. If so, it looks like a calculated disregard of the law to avoid giving offense to a significant segment of the population. As I learn more, I may consider a column on her candidacy. Thanks for the compliment of wanting my opinion.

There is no comparison in kind between “bashing” Bush and “bashing” Obama. Questioning the legitimacy of the election involved widespread voting irregularities and legal processes; questioning the legitimacy of his birth certificate involves absolutely nothing of merit. I leave out the entire catalog of slurs of Obama’s name, race, religion, and who knows what all else; he and his wife have been the pincushion of bigots everywhere and forever. BTW, those who opposed Bush pretty much avoided mentioning that Laura committed a vehicular homicide as the result of drinking, speeding, running a stop sign, before killing a classmate. The incident was covered up—no investigation, no charges.

The facts are the facts about the Republican budget. It was announced with fanfare, the 19-page “summary” was presented to experienced media reporters of all political persuasions, and they expressed their dismay at its lack of budget numbers. Whatever else the document was, it was not a precursor to a legislative proposal. The missing budget numbers were not provided to them a week later as promised. Those are the facts, and I stand by them, without apology to those who apparently have received the Truth from an alternative universe. If, at some later date, the GOP put some budget document on a website days or weeks later, almost no one knows about it, and it does not matter.(I cannot open any of the four documents at the site which you provide, but their URLs indicate the year 2007, not 2009.) Since the entire point was to make a resounding retort to Obama’s challenge, this response was a piece of ineffectual public relationship.

[The Columnist]

One other comment.

I received a lengthy response to one of my blogs. Although I found it mistaken or misdirected in its entirety, I published it in its entirety. I report this fact to remind readers of my blog and my willingness to publish blogs which do not not agree with my views (as well as those which do) but do not resort to ad hominem remarks of any kind.

[jirons]

I believe Dr Hays' article is the most "spot on" on the current status of the republican party, but its future, and, the reasons for both! I have joyfully sent it to the few republican freinds I have, but, as always, expect to receive no responses!

[jimbob]

The Columnist wrote:

To the writers of the first three comments:
I am sorry that some are disappointed in this article. It means to be a summary assessment of the party only on domestic politics and issues (no foreign policy). It does repeat some ideas from previous columns, but it also adds some (some facts bear repeating and may need to be in different contexts). My article on the Democrats four weeks ago was also a summary assessment which repeated some ideas, but I do not recall that anyone complained about it on that ground.
I know little about Susan Martinez. I have one reliable but unconfirmed source who reports that she does not enforce the ordinance on school attendance. If so, it looks like a calculated disregard of the law to avoid giving offense to a significant segment of the population. As I learn more, I may consider a column on her candidacy. Thanks for the compliment of wanting my opinion.
There is no comparison in kind between “bashing” Bush and “bashing” Obama. Questioning the legitimacy of the election involved widespread voting irregularities and legal processes; questioning the legitimacy of his birth certificate involves absolutely nothing of merit. I leave out the entire catalog of slurs of Obama’s name, race, religion, and who knows what all else; he and his wife have been the pincushion of bigots everywhere and forever. BTW, those who opposed Bush pretty much avoided mentioning that Laura committed a vehicular homicide as the result of drinking, speeding, running a stop sign, before killing a classmate. The incident was covered up—no investigation, no charges.
The facts are the facts about the Republican budget. It was announced with fanfare, the 19-page “summary” was presented to experienced media reporters of all political persuasions, and they expressed their dismay at its lack of budget numbers. Whatever else the document was, it was not a precursor to a legislative proposal. The missing budget numbers were not provided to them a week later as promised. Those are the facts, and I stand by them, without apology to those who apparently have received the Truth from an alternative universe. If, at some later date, the GOP put some budget document on a website days or weeks later, almost no one knows about it, and it does not matter.(I cannot open any of the four documents at the site which you provide, but their URLs indicate the year 2007, not 2009.) Since the entire point was to make a resounding retort to Obama’s challenge, this response was a piece of ineffectual public relationship.

More drivel from a person who is totally blinded by his ideology!

[Matt Lynch]

You are right on the money Michael Hays. And "they" claim that the media is in Obama's pocket like that so called "cartoon" Mallard Fillmore on the same page as your article. Where were these people and the media when Bush started TWO wars that there children most likely didn't participate in like our Marine son whose's been to Iraq 3 times!!
You are so articulate. Thank you!!

[Disco Lemonade]

NJBRED wrote:

Repubs are not losing favorability because of their bashing of Obama, you could actually say the same about the Demos who bashed Bush relentlessly and continue to do so, or did you forget those times? Both parties are failing because they continue to ignore "the people" who voted them into office.

Mr. Hays outlined a number of reasons that the Repubs are losing popularity but your filter only allowed that they're losing popularity due to Obama-bashing. Go back and read the WHOLE column.

[Disco Lemonade]

Casual Mark wrote:

Mr. Hays -- while difficult to make it through your polemic, I did notice one glaring inaccuracy that leads me to question whether this was intended as analysis or an emotional screed. When discussing the budget, you say Republicans released only a "19-page recitation of Republican principles on current issues," and imply that they did not release an actual budget. Here, sir, you're either ignorant of the facts or purposefully dishonest. Boehner and HOuse Republicans did release an actual budget document. You can find it here: http://www.house.gov/budget_republicans/hbcre... . The "19-page" document you mock was the sort of document legislators always put out BEFORE actual legislative text. That's why the CBO just saw the Democrats' health care bill, even though the President outined his goals (that "19 page recitation") many weeks, if not months ago. I hope, sir, that you will admit your error and correct the text of this article to reflect the truth. Thank you.

I remember when Senator Boehner, with great fanfare, stood before the media on April 1 (no april fool's day joke, or was it?) and held up a red folder, proclaiming, "President Obama, you wanted an alternative budget. Well, here it is." And when the media asked why there were no numbers in it, he explained that it was just an outline and that the actual real budget would be out next week. What a maroon! Why didn't he just wait for the real budget and then perform his theatrics? Sigh, Republicans.

[Disco Lemonade]

jimbob wrote:

<quoted text>More drivel from a person who is totally blinded by his ideology!

You didn't think it was drivel when he criticised the Democratic party last month! Or did you?

[JayKay]

Hays says in his comments: "If, at some later date, the GOP put some budget document on a website days or weeks later, almost no one knows about it, and it does not matter.(I cannot open any of the four documents at the site which you provide, but their URLs indicate the year 2007, not 2009.) Since the entire point was to make a resounding retort to Obama’s challenge, this response was a piece of ineffectual public relationship."

I checked the links and they were dated 4/1/2009 and they contain detailed budget information as indicated by "Casual Mark," so either Hays is a liar or he's unusally incompetent in using a computer. In previous columns, he indicated that he was an "independent." I guess the Democrat party must be too conservative for him and the Communist Party apparently doesn't take members from New Mexico.

[jimbob]

Disco Lemonade wrote:

<quoted text>
You didn't think it was drivel when he criticised the Democratic party last month! Or did you?

When it's Hay's doing the writing, it's drivel.

BTW, did you know that Hays is also an expert on any and all topics? He's also a lying hypocrite if you haven't been following his drivel until recently.

[Rubberband Man]

I skimmed over the Republicans alternative budget and there were numbers in it but it wasn't very detailed.

[Rubberband Man]

And it was posted on 4/1/2009, so maybe it was an April Fools Day joke.

[Rubberband Man]

jimbob wrote:

<quoted text>When it's Hay's doing the writing, it's drivel.
BTW, did you know that Hays is also an expert on any and all topics? He's also a lying hypocrite if you haven't been following his drivel until recently.

I've read his critiques of both parties, and while I don't agree with everything he's written, he's much more analytical and intelligent than you'll ever be. Say 'hi' to everyone at the trailer park.

[JSPY]

jirons wrote:

I believe Dr Hays' article is the most "spot on" on the current status of the republican party, but its future, and, the reasons for both! I have joyfully sent it to the few republican freinds I have, but, as always, expect to receive no responses!

Well Jirons, since your republican friends won't reply, I will!! These comments and no one mentioned the blatant lie told by "Dr" Hays. Blaming republicans for "Dallas in 1963". Dr. Hays thinks it is completely okay to be rich just as long as you have made it from Politics, lawsuits against insurance companies like Edwards, teaching the future generations like Dr. Hays, and of course Demorat's biggest supporters the Arts! Hollywood, the place where more hipocrits live per capita! Speaking of hipocrits, Dr. Hays, in your bio it says you had a career in Defense and the Environment. Have you given all the money you made because of the Defense Department back? You sure did blame that your in your piece, but since your intentions were good it was okay to make that money from the industry you live off of, right? Democrats want to keep the ruling class right where they are, in the Ghetto's. After all most of their votes come from the people who get a check every month because of all the taxes we have paid. Welfare is the biggest scam ever done in the history of America. Regulate that and I will support your bigger government.

[Disco Lemonade]

JSPY wrote:

<quoted text>Well Jirons, since your republican friends won't reply, I will!! These comments and no one mentioned the blatant lie told by "Dr" Hays. Blaming republicans for "Dallas in 1963". Dr. Hays thinks it is completely okay to be rich just as long as you have made it from Politics, lawsuits against insurance companies like Edwards, teaching the future generations like Dr. Hays, and of course Demorat's biggest supporters the Arts! Hollywood, the place where more hipocrits live per capita! Speaking of hipocrits, Dr. Hays, in your bio it says you had a career in Defense and the Environment. Have you given all the money you made because of the Defense Department back? You sure did blame that your in your piece, but since your intentions were good it was okay to make that money from the industry you live off of, right? Democrats want to keep the ruling class right where they are, in the Ghetto's. After all most of their votes come from the people who get a check every month because of all the taxes we have paid. Welfare is the biggest scam ever done in the history of America. Regulate that and I will support your bigger government.

Typical of a Republican to attack the columnist instead of the column. Which, ironically, is one of the reasons that Republicans are losing popularity, as stated in Hays' column. Which you would know, if you had bothered to read it.

[The Columnist]

JayKay wrote:

Hays says in his comments: "If, at some later date, the GOP put some budget document on a website days or weeks later, almost no one knows about it, and it does not matter.(I cannot open any of the four documents at the site which you provide, but their URLs indicate the year 2007, not 2009.) Since the entire point was to make a resounding retort to Obama’s challenge, this response was a piece of ineffectual public relationship."
I checked the links and they were dated 4/1/2009 and they contain detailed budget information as indicated by "Casual Mark," so either Hays is a liar or he's unusally incompetent in using a computer. In previous columns, he indicated that he was an "independent." I guess the Democrat party must be too conservative for him and the Communist Party apparently doesn't take members from New Mexico.

The four links on the web page indicates 1 April 2009. When the links are clicked, the URLs read "(2007)." Unlike you, I do not jump to a conclusion that someone who disagree with me is either an incompetent or a liar. But Republicans like you will do as Republicans like you do.