LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Republican Party No Longer Responsible

Sudbury resident Don Chauls says Tea Party extremists have ruined what the party once was.

Here is a great quote from Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein's book "It’s Even Worse than It Appears":

“However awkward it may be for the traditional press and nonpartisan analysts to acknowledge, one of the two major parties, the Republican Party, has become an insurgent outlier — ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”  

The Republican Party used to be a responsible party. Now that it has been taken over by Tea Party extremists, it is well on its way to destroying America. Think carefully about each of the five elements of Mann/Ornstein’s criticism. If any of the five informs a government’s policy, it is harmful to our nation. All five become a disaster.

If you vote for any Republican these days, you are de facto strengthening this know-nothing element of your party. It is too late: you cannot take the party back from these hard-line extremists. Our country’s only hope is for those of you who are reasonable Republicans – who used to support reasonable people such as Ed Brooke, William Weld, and even the 2002 version of Mitt Romney — to abandon your party and establish a new one.

Don Chauls
92 Blueberry Hill Lane

Rob August 07, 2012 at 08:11 PM
LMAO. Dems havent become more liberal just republicans have become more conservative. I dont recall support for partial birth abortion, free tuition for illegal immigrants and on and on; back in the day of Jesus christ and JFK on my Grand moms wall. Both sides suck. End of the day they are at the same parties laughing at the rest of us. To defend one side is sophomoric.
Kirsten Vandijk August 07, 2012 at 09:41 PM
Let's be Independent together;)
Don Chauls August 07, 2012 at 09:48 PM
I believe that we should do way with the property tax completely becuase it is a regressive tax.
Don Chauls August 07, 2012 at 09:49 PM
I oppose the use of drones.
Don Chauls August 08, 2012 at 12:01 AM
No-one has addressed my main point: You reasonable, responsible Republicans need to establish a new party now that the Republican Party has been taken over by non-reasonable, irresonsible people.
x August 08, 2012 at 12:31 AM
Don, Your main point has been addressed. Republicans and other patriots have no desire to 'compromise' with Democrats and thereby hasten the accelerating decline of the Republic. November Sixth will be a pivotal day. Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III
siobhan hullinger August 08, 2012 at 09:37 AM
There are extremists in both parties ... for one to suggest that the other is irresponsible is simple rhetoric and too vague. This town is controlled by extremists and they are destroying our future and sustainability with their self interest and insider backpatting as well as wallet padding. I would suggest to you, Don, that you examine your own extremism and support for these people and reevaluate who is irresponsible.
Don Chauls August 08, 2012 at 10:39 AM
Peronally, I am far more interested in national and international politics, and don't really follow what happens regarding town issues and personalities...In any case, I have presented a detailed argument that posits that the national Republcan Party has become far more extremist while the Democratic Party has not. You have not responded to any of the five parts of that argument. Claiming that there also are (a few) Democratic extemists is not a response,
siobhan hullinger August 08, 2012 at 11:37 AM
We will have to agree to disagree on your involvement in local politics - it is well documented on another site as well as individual's inboxes. The fact that we have a political class makes both parties irresponsible and demonstrates the need for term limits. Whether there are good or bad eggs is of no matter, the Founding Fathers never intended for there to be a political working class. The fact that THAT political class does not have to abide by the same rules and regulations as the rest of us makes them all irresponsible. They shouldn't have a different helath care than those they serve, those who serve on oversight committees should have blind trusts so as not to be able to legally engage in insider trading, no pensions, limited staff, etc etc etc
x August 08, 2012 at 12:22 PM
Don, Your argument of Republican extremism has landed with a thud. Other Patch leftists haven't even written in support. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III
Edward Stark August 08, 2012 at 12:30 PM
Great point Mr Stein. I get those e-mails every year and am always disgusted as to how one sided they are. Look no further than Don's comments on this thread to see that he is indeed "in touch" with town politics: http://sudbury.patch.com/articles/letter-to-the-editor-special-event-the-root-of-the-problem. Moving forward Don's comments and letters will be left with little to no credibility after his recent statement.
Don Chauls August 08, 2012 at 12:32 PM
I am very curious how my personal involvement in local poitics is "well documented on another site." Can you enlighten me? The Constitutional Convention agreed with you that there should be citizen-politicians and no political parties. That reality did not even last to the end of George Washington's Presidency. Bemoaning that fact does not make "both parties irresponsible." Tea party Republicans are irresponsible; Democrats are not. There is big difference.
Enuff August 08, 2012 at 12:37 PM
Come on Don, get real. Should we start posting all the local political opinions that you have written? It is about time you started to be a little more honest with all of us.
Don Chauls August 08, 2012 at 12:48 PM
I have never sent out an email concerning the specifics of Sudbury poitics. I have sent out letters to the paper suggesting that voting for ANY Republican - at any level - is detrimental. But that comment is primarily related to the extremism of the national party - Republicans winning at local or state level wiil make it more likely that Republicans win at national level which, with today's extremism, is a disaster for our country..
Don Chauls August 08, 2012 at 01:03 PM
That one letter was based solely upon my frustration reading about a private party being discussed at length for weeks on end ad nauseum. I do know now that there might be other issues - although I haven't been sufficiently interested to learn more. I am far more concerned with the national election.
siobhan hullinger August 08, 2012 at 01:11 PM
I would suggest to you that Warren's most recent tv ad referring to China's infrastructure spending in comaparison the the US's is not only irresponsible but incorrect. 1) the US does not control GDP as China does 2) the US GDP is far more than China's hence the dollars spent on infrastructure are decidedly more. Democrats want to expand unemployment without a work requirement - irresponsible to those who don't see the need to get off public assistance as well as those who work hard and pay taxes to support those on public assistance. Democrats want to redistribure wealth and punish achievers, in return rewarding those who don't achieve creating an entitlement class. Democrats want public assistance to be a way of life not a temporary hand up. I think these are incredibly irresponsible and far more debilitating to our country.
Enuff August 08, 2012 at 01:14 PM
Don, So you are frustrated that the people that make the laws, enforce the laws and monitor the adherence of the laws do not have to follow the same laws? Lavender is just one incident of what is wrong with the political situation in Sudbury and yet you defend the actions of our elected.
Rob August 08, 2012 at 01:40 PM
Don, I would defend your right to speech to my death but i do wonder two points. Do you pay at the higher optional tax rate? You were very active in anti-war protests under the Bush years. Where have you been under the Obama years with the same criticism?
Don Chauls August 08, 2012 at 02:27 PM
You are going on the offensive, rather than respondng to my specific points. Thus far, no-one has even attempted to refute my argument that the Republican Party - not both parties - is the problem. Nevertheless, re your points: 1. Warren's TV ad says that China spends a higher PERCENTAGE of its GDP on infrastructure, not a higher amount. Brown and his buddies voted against attempts to increase our funds for infrastructure. 2 "Democrats want to expand unemployment [asistance] without a work requirement." If you were to get your news from anywhere other than Fox, you would know that this is untrue. 3. "Dems want to redistribute wealth and punish achievers." Any kind of taxation is a redistribution of wealth; some taxes are progressive, but more are regressive. The basic fact that the income gap between rich and poor has been growing for decades shows that American wealth has been redistributed to the rich (and, especially, the ultra-rich). Democrats want to reduce this redistribution to a more reasonable level.
Enuff August 08, 2012 at 02:37 PM
Don, I am an independent and always have been. I am not a democrat or a republican specifically because of comments like yours that divide people. I agree with many other posters, your credibility here is long gone.
siobhan hullinger August 08, 2012 at 02:48 PM
Don, it is misleading, at best, to say to the populice that we contribute far less than China does for infrastructure. We don't. Warren is showing a pattern of misleading information in order to gain - this is not unlike the misleading statements regarding her American Indian status. She's wrong to do it. We earned our wealth, small that it is, but it was not "redistributed" to us. We got our fingernails dirty, used some elbow grease and made a nice life. No one has the right to claim that we gained because of redistribution. It's false. Progressive taxation punishes achievers and rewards the new "entitlement" class. It's wrong. For the record, I'm not on the defensive, I'm illustrating answers. You don't seems able to recognize that your questions have been answered or... You don't like the answers
SkimThreePercent August 08, 2012 at 03:01 PM
Guys, go to the Sudbury Democratic Town Committee web-site and read the Minutes of the Meetings posted there. Chauls extreme socialist positions are all posted there. How he can call anyone unreasonable is quite remarkable. Why anyone would waste their time arguing with him on specifics, I don't know, but to do so is truely a waste of time. Quiz: Best describe such behaviour as: a) FUD, b) troll, c) kook, d) extremest, or f) all of the above! I'll go with f) as in FAIL!!!!
siobhan hullinger August 08, 2012 at 03:27 PM
If we follow Warren's tv ad - the middle class will be saddled with an additional 3,000 in taxation. Hmmm
Rob August 08, 2012 at 04:50 PM
Great quote to share. "I can;t stand to hear his [Obams's] voice anymore. He's A LIAR and worse. ~ Caroline Kennedy
Mike Hullinger August 08, 2012 at 06:25 PM
Don, 1. Please provide us with your analysis of how wealth has been redistributed to the rich. I haven't had the time to analize wealth trends, how much wealth there is today compared to the past, who holds wealth now versus in the past, how much the middle quintile of household wealth has increased overtime relative to inflation, and whether the people who are in the various quintiles of household income today are the same people as 10 or 20 years ago. I know that 30+ years ago when I left college, I was in the lowest quintile. Today I have significantly more wealth than in the past. It wasn't because the federal government redistributed it to me, and it was in spite of the Federal government's unending efforts to confiscate more and more of my individual Income. 2. Regarding candidate Warren's infrastructure spending commercial, see my letter to the editor this coming Friday for an analysis of what a shallow concept it is for Warren to suggest US government infrastructure spending should increase to a percentage of GDP more like "our competitors" such as China. 3. I am not a Republican, but am concerned about the gross expansion of Federal powers at the expense of State rights and individual liberties. One party has lead the way (while the other was many times complicit) in the progressive dismantlilng of the Constitution and the seperation of powers vital to ensuring our Federal Government is a Government with limited powers.
Sid Bourne August 08, 2012 at 09:17 PM
Re: Mike Hullinger response to Don Chauls of Aug 8. Mike, you say that you do not know the actual distribution of wealth by quintile. I was curious also, so I looked it up. Most informative. There is a good article by Michael Norton of Harvard Business School and Dan Ariely of Duke University Department of Psychology which shows the actual distribution, the perceived distribution, and the preferred distribution by group (Republican, Democrat, poor, wealthy, men, women, etc.). Results are most informative. You can get a PDF of the article through this path: Wikipedia / Distribution of Wealth / in that article go to Reference 22 and click on the PDF version. Look at Figure 2 and Figure 3 for a quick summary.
Sid Bourne August 08, 2012 at 09:23 PM
Further discussing the article about wealth distribution in the US, all groups polled significantly underestimated the actual wealth distribution inequality. But most interesting, all groups polled indicated that they would prefer a much more equitable distribution than actually exists.
siobhan hullinger August 08, 2012 at 10:17 PM
Wealth is not distributed - it is earned. Let's refrain from phraseology that implies that wealth is a line at a government door.
Mike Hullinger August 09, 2012 at 02:02 AM
Thank you for the reference Sid. The paper you refer to at reference 22 asks what Americans think an appropriate distribution of wealth should be. I am sure you noticed they were not asked what they were willing to do to earn the wealth, what they were willing to do sacrifice to achieve personal wealth, what their perception of an appropriate distribution of wealth is based on, and wether they are entitled to the wealth (property) earned and owned by someone else. Neither does the paper examine wealth mobility. I found it interesting that thier question about an appropirate distribution of wealth resulted in an unequal distribution of wealth across the population. I also found it interesting that the report failed to comment on how Federal welfare programs have resulted in generational welfare and a quartile of population with no earned wealth and a % of wealth too small to be measured on a graph. From my personal perspective, I do not feel the need to be in any particular group holding any particular percentage of hte nation's aggregate individual wealth on the basis of entitilement and government enforced confiscation of one person's labor and wealth to be given to another. I'll continue to make decisions about charitable giving on my own, not under the coercive demands of the Federal government. Neither do I envy someone else's wealth. I am not entitled to it, I didn't earn it, and frankly its theirs, not mine. Thank you again for the reference.
arbly August 09, 2012 at 03:11 AM
Don I just heard that Justin Beiber has said that he is part indian maybe you could help him win a grammy along with granny's election. The nation and town would love your redistribution of causes, not wealth.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something