I'm not sure why you think it's up to me to explain or justify the motivations for every single action or position taken by the Republican party, as if I agree and endorse every one of them. You word those questions as though my previous answer makes you think I am in favor of each of the things you list. My home theme was that I dont support everything, but am willing to grin and bear it thru the bits I'm not fond of to support the bigger picture. Like eating your veggies even if you think candy tastes better.
I was refuting the original premise that a Republican supporter is taking a position of party before country. Not sure how pointing out that Republicans actually rallied around TARP doesnt refute the OP's premise that Republican obstructionism is the root of all evil, and I know you have each others back. Your post went way off topic there...
No, I dont think Obama is a Muslim. I'm not sure I agree with the insinuation that it is the official position of the Republican party that he is Muslim, or any other number of things. They haven't gone out of their way to repeatedly denouce anyone who says he is for the same reason that the Obama camp has not gone out of it's way refute ads which disingenuously suggest that Romney indirectly murdered Joe Soptic's wife when Bain shuttered a factory. Yes, unfair mudslinging comes both ways, no party is clean. How can you live with that? Oh right, you are "not familiar with that ad".
Like I said, it's not a menu. Sadly, you dont get to pick and choose, you can't construct some franken-candidate. Believe me, I wish you could.
I will support the group which I believe overall will be best long term. No choice is ideal; I'm sure even many Democrats cannot honestly say they are enthusiastic supporters of every single Democratic position on everything.
I dont think that reducing debt will create more jobs short term. Like I said, I'm more a long-term, big picture kind of guy. There is an economic catastrophe coming, and the Democrats response is like throwing gasoline on a fire. In the 1950's, there was something like 5.x taxpaying workers for every senior collecting benefits. And, due to the shorter life expectancies, they typically collected off the system for less than 10 years. Today, that number has fallen to something like 2.6 or 2.4 workers per senior, depending on how you do the math. To top it off, the number of years a person lives now compared to then has increased substantially as well, by some measures up to 15 years.
The load is now supported by less than half the people it used to be supported by, and it needs to be supported by twice the length of time it used to be supported. It seems these ratios will only get worse, financially speaking (not suggesting a longer life is a bad thing in isolation)
Bottom line, declining birthrate + increased life expectancy = future financial catastrophe. How anyone can think about those numbers and not be scared of how we will deal with this is beyond me. Is it cruel to gradually start clawing back seniors benefits now? Sure. Dont do it if you can avoid it. But, what will happen 40-50 years from now, when the shit really hits the fan if you dont? There will be <2 taxpayers for every senior who will require support for 30+ years. How do you pull that off? Increasing taxes on the 1% wont do the trick; there arent enough of them. Something is going to implode. Is it less cruel to kick that can down the road, let it snowball, then let those people (like YOUR KIDS) see what real misery is like? At least they will remember that dear old dad supported the party which allowed the gay couple down the street to marry, on principle, so they can chew on that when there's not enough money for any financial subsidy for expensive medical treatment due to living way beyond our means today.