Nixon was an extremely rugged politician who did whatever it took to win, but he governed on the basis that he knew better than anyone else. The very traits of stubbornness, paranoia, and secrecy that eventually led to his downfall would have prevented him from letting anyone dictate actual policy to him.

With regards to pandering to the religious right, it is hard to say. Nixon used similar politics, such as pandering to the “silent majority” which turned into the “moral majority.” He knew the Republican game was pandering and then ignoring them as much as possible policy wise. He might have gone along with Bush era infringements on separation of church and state as a matter of political expediency if he believed that it increased the chances for Republican victory.

This opens the whole question of whether it was politically beneficial for the Republicans to allow the religious right so much influence. In the short term it helped. Bush probably would not have been reelected in 2004 without them.  On one level, bringing in Sarah Palin helped McCain with volunteers and money, but it also made him ultimately unelectable.

The same is now true for the whole party. They are in a position where they depend upon the religious right for grass root support and donations and feel like they cannot survive without them. On the other hand, this association has turned them into a regional party of the deep south and Mormon belt which will have difficulty winning national elections.

Many of the people taken in by the mischaracterizations and propaganda from the right should know better, and would know better if they engaged in rational thought relative to economic issues. There is an ignorant, fundamentalist religious faith in monetarism as real and harmful to our economy as fundamentalist Christian social politics have been to our society. This overrides rational thought, sometimes in tremendously intelligent people who have no excuses for not being more rational on these issues.

It is rational to be afraid during difficult economic times, of course.

However, their fear is expressing itself in irrational, even paranoid ways and is often misdirected. It may be rational to be afraid of a bad economy, but it is irrational to be afraid of efforts taken to correct the economy. It might be rational to fear their failure or even doubt their success, but fearing the effort itself is irrational.

I suspect you really mean to say that their response is not rational (such as in the case of the person commenting above). There is certainly reason to be scared, but many of the responses coming from the right are irrational–as is seen when we look at the responses to the attacks discussed in the post above.

I am officially an ‘independent contractor’.

This means that I am a de facto employee, but under the letter of the law, my agreement with my ‘employer’, and for the purposes of taxation and benefits, I am a small business owner. My client is a moderately sized outfit, as are their clients. Neither ‘big’ nor ‘small.’ I can only judge how well everyone is doing by work volume. As I am doing well, I have to assume they are all doing well. I do not automatically assume this will remain the case, but I don’t see the stimulus package acting to undermine this situation either.

The fact that the business community is scared to death does not mean their fear is rational. The status quo is one of unrestrained license for those who have the capital to ignore the consequences of the market’s corrections (or who believed they did before this crisis) and quiet desperation for everyone else. Those who have hitherto enjoyed unrestrained license are naturally worried about losing it. Those who have survived under the status quo are naturally concerned about a change in the status quo.

That all of this is human nature does not mean the former status quo was in any way good for the country as a whole. Regulation is good for small businesses, as proper regulation allows them to survive and compete rather than be swallowed by anyone with greater capital. Tax credits and cuts for the middle class  will help most small business owners far more than they hurt them.

The bad economy will assuredly be bad for small business and I won’t deny that or pretend otherwise. A lot of businesses will probably suffer and some may fail. However, to attempt to blame the policies that will rescue some businesses and cushion the blow for the owners of others is irrational.

The Republicans are playing politics at the expense of the economy, because of a faith-based view of the market. President Obama’s policies deal with the economic facts.

You may agree or disagree with his solutions, but Obama has done quite a bit in the short time he has been in office. It is absurd to claim he has been weak. As to whether his solutions are lukewarm, the bulk of the country backs him and the bulk of his opponents say he is doing too much. I find it difficult to take serioulsy complaints that all that Obama has done in such a short time is lukewarm, especially when no alternatives are provided.

The most important thing I have learned (that is not taught): There is not, now and never was, enough rich voters to win an election.  The only chance they have is to determine who is the most gullible of the lower social-economic classes, then profess the same values eg:  guns, religion, abortion, different skin color, in short all the things that are considered virtues by the most gullible of our voters.  The easiest target.

I voted for the guy, but I had no idea he’d be this weak and ineffective. Yeah, he’s better than McSame would have been, but is THAT how low we must hold the bar for success?

“Is there anyone on this page that actually has any business experience”

Yes, I own a business. I am also an independent–this has nothing to do with a my team vs. your team mentality.

That said, the facts remain that 1) the Republicans were the ones in power and, to the degree government policy can be blamed, it is their policies which got us into this mess, 2) the Democrats are least are pursuing policies which have a chance at improving the situation, and 3) the Republicans have nothing to offer beyond their usual attacks and simplistic talking points.