Show me the money, show me the money, show me the money...

It si all about the money they get from their corporate sponsors who would like to see us last in the industrialized world in all of those catagories...because that would mean profits keep on going up. (see question 1)

They are trying to insure nothing gets accomplished. Let us not forget - "Government is not the solution it's the problem."

Eight words that have done more harm than good.

Much of the right has always been for an "every man for itself society". Many incline toward libertarianism and social Darwinism. They instinctively oppose sharing wealth, sharing risk and sharing responsibility. Many are opposed to these things on principle. Many others are opposed to them not because they object to sharing arrangements in principle, but only because they are against sharing with blacks, Catholics, Mexicans, Yankees and the others whom they consider morally degenerate, parasitical or lazy.

They tend to think state sovereignty trumps national sovereignty; local communities sovereignty trumps state sovereignty; and individual sovereignty trumps community sovereignty. Their romantic ideal is the man in the shack who kills his own food, asks nothing of others, gives nothing in return, pays no taxes and is a sovereign emperor of his own little domain. The invocation of words like "community", "society", "unity", "world" and "we" that give the left warm fuzzies only make them want to grab their guns.

The right is uninterested in where America ranks on various lists, because their goals are local and individualistic, not nationalistic. The only role they warmly accept for collective action is cooperation in defending territory by chasing off attackers and marauders.

Why do Republicans say no to everything? Why do their surrogates incite the crazies to come out of the woodwork at town hall meetings? I think their strategy is to create a sense of discontent and distruption (with the help of the media) so that even those who voted for Obama start to think there is a really big problem. Obama is indecisive. He's not in control. He isn't a leader. Where did the positive Obama image go? Advantage Republicans.

After all the crap that went on in August, Obama tried to regain his image with his speech last night. It was a great speech. A CNN poll says that 7 of 10 viewers of the speech support his plan. Advantage Obama.

But of course, now the ball is back in the hands of Congress. And Republicans will just keep saying no. But what will they do to regain the chaos of town hall meetings? I'm sure they'll think of something.

As far as what is really going on at the head of Fox News, the very real pseudo-christian mafia

(that has men like Sanford telling us he's an angel of God and he's trying to sort out his missions or some such hooey), and other far right leaning powers that be, what do 'they' really want?

That is the question I also wish I knew the answer to.

It is clear that they want control and to amass wealth and power. They develop relationships with foreign leaders etc. According to David Coe they value the leadership of Hitler, Mao, and Stalin.

What their ultimate goal is?? They have every intention of keeping it secret.

Is it to bring on Armageddon... maybe in the minds of those among them that are less aware but according to what I've learned so far they really don't have much use for religion or they have completely revamped Christianity to fit their goals. The 'Family' meets in pods, they consider themselves 'elite' and chosen. They are members of the Senate and Congress, they are CEO's and shareholders of corporations.

But they use and manipulate the public through fear, distortions, and misinformation wherever they can.

I have no freakin' idea what 'they' want. And I doubt that the people lower down the chain know either.

The right wing is not unified by any program or belief that certain things must change. They have come together to defend themselves from the loss of privileges.

That is why the group subtends such vast differences in economic class interest. Whether it is getting into Harvard or being from the only group being hired for manufacturing jobs in a small community, the desire to preserve a special status becomes the basis of a political consensus.

To measure what is "accomplished" or not by this political machine should not be measured by what they bring forward as an advancement of some common good but how weak are the people are who would usurp their relative strength.

Dan K's comments above are pretty fascinating ... and thought-provoking. Puts a much more philosophical framework around what I was stumbling with in the comments I'd thrown together. Maybe they explain what I could see that seemed so very complexing.
-----------------
It almost seems like that it is super simplistic:

2 strong core beliefs:

1) Democrats/liberals are wrong, whatever they want to do. Therefore, if they get in power, there is only one goal: get them OUT of power. Nothing else matters. Oppose everything because everything they do is wrong.

2) Republicans are right, whatever they want to do - or *not* do. Therefore when they get in power, they don't have to *think* about what to do ... just follow their instincts, which are always right.

And often, it seems, their instincts are to do nothing. -- I mean, think about it. They had the White House for 8 years and both houses of Congress for 6 of those years. WHAT did they do?
* Start two wars (granted, one was very understandable) and execute them poorly;
* Take a budget surplus and transform it into a huge deficit;
* Let business and banking slide into the worst financial crisis since the Depression by the time they got out;
* Passed No Child Left Behind Act (with significant help from Kennedy) and then refused to fund it;
* Played with the tax code so that the percetange of wealth held by the top 2-3 % of the people became way, way out of proportion;
* And did some things under the covers that we don't even want to think about (attorney firings, wiretapping, torture).

Am I missing anything?

I started out thinking that perhaps what they are trying to accomplish now would be along the lines of or have some connection to what they *did* accomplish when they had power. But I can't for the life of me figure out what THAT was.

To me it doesn't look much like "governing" -- more just being in power and enjoying being in power. ??? There's got to be more, but I'm just not seeing it.

Good question, Face -- *very* good question.