Ken777 From United States, joined Mar 2004, 2926 posts, RR: 12 Posted (1 month 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1184 times:
The unusual events playing out in New York's Congressional has seen Republican Conservatives strongly back an independent candidate and pressuring their own candidate to drop out of the race.
The general feeling that I get from what I have been reading for the last year is that it may be time for Conservatives to walk away from the Republican Party and start their own Conservative Party.
There is certainly a lot of force and power behind the Conservatives these days - probably enough to start the Conservative Party and bring a lot of Republicans over with them. Maybe even some conservative Democrats would move over.
That leaves the moderates and left of moderates in the Republican Party but they won't feel like outcasts without all the conservatives around. Log Cabin Republicans would probably be the happiest.
I believe that a Conservative Party could have a fast start The popular ones (from Sarah to Rush) could do a good job a spearheading the rapid development (and fundraising) and there could be a strong start in the 2010 elections. Lots of Republican Conservatives would move over and the ones in office would provide additional credibility,
Quote: Everyone agrees that the grass-roots insurrection against the Republican Party's official candidate means something significant, but exactly what it means depends on who's asked.
RedState's Erick Erickson -- a Hoffman supporter who said after Scozzafava's exit that the "GOP establishment dies on our hill" -- bluntly drew the parallel: "We must now do to Crist what we did to Scozzafava," he wrote Saturday.
KC135TopBoom From United States, joined Jan 2005, 7700 posts, RR: 51 Reply 3, posted (1 month 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1131 times:
Agree, being conservitive does not mean being a republican. I have been saying all along the repubs currently in office are just as bad as the dems in office. We need to get rid of all of them. I will be going to vote today as in TX we are having some TX Constitution Amendments on the ballot (no candidates on the ballot in my district). But it is going to be interesting to watch the NY 28th Congressional and the VA and NJ Governor's races.
Dreadnought From United States, joined Feb 2008, 2551 posts, RR: 5 Reply 5, posted (1 month 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1120 times:
I would not mind a new party based of classical liberalism - i.e. fiscal conservatism, and a lesser emphasis on social conservatism. The problem with today's Republican Party is that many of them are progressives - no difference with Democrats on economic issues. That was the case in NY-23.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. - Winston Churchill
Fr8Mech From United States, joined Sep 2005, 1567 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (1 month 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1102 times:
Once again we are allowing others to define what what a Conservative or a Republican is.
A Conservative is a Republican and a Republican is a Conservative. The problem is, that we have allowed too many non-Conservatives run on the Republican ticket. NY-23's 'Republican' candidate was a perfect example. Hell, she's endorsing Owens the Democrat. If she were a Republican, she would endorse thec
Now, I'm not saying that every Republican has to fully toe the Conservative line, but they need to be in boat on the major, hot-button issues.
What has happened to the Republican Party, is that we've allowed outsiders to define who we are. They define the Moderate and the Conservative. In their (and let's not mince words, they are the Liberals) language a Moderate Republican is one that compromises their core beliefs with the Liberals. Except, that compromise is capitulation.
I don't know...do we need a new party? Do we need to replace the Republican Party? Or do we need to return the Party's candidates to the Party's core values?
Airstud From United States, joined Nov 2000, 480 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (1 month 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1091 times:
I would love for conservatives to have another voting option besides the Republican Party - and at the same time, I bet liberals wouldn't mind having a credible alternative to the Democratic Party. I believe in free markets and states' rights and personal responsibility and law and order and justice. I may often vote Republican, but I don't consider myself to be a Republican, because I don't believe in Bible-thumping or school prayer or Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter (or Dubya or Cheney for that matter). I believe in a woman's right to choose and in strong environmental protection and a strong edumacation system. I don't vote Democrat because on the whole I find them to be bunch of idealistic hand-holding folk-song-singing criminal-coddling pantywaists.
Probably there are those in the Dem party, with brains (talkin 'bout Al Gore types, Dianne Feinstein types), who would like not to be associated with the Howard Deans and Cynthia McKinneys in their ranks, just like 'Publicans who aren't allied with Cheney, Joe Wilson, etc. Though the Democrats probably aren't as uncomfortable about their party's liabilities because they can count on the media not to play them up.
Dreadnought From United States, joined Feb 2008, 2551 posts, RR: 5 Reply 8, posted (1 month 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1091 times:
Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 6): I don't know...do we need a new party? Do we need to replace the Republican Party? Or do we need to return the Party's candidates to the Party's core values?
I don't think a third party is viable in the long term - our system is designed for two main parties. The real Republicans would flock over to a new party, and either the Republican Party gets the message and re-establishes its principles and re-absorbs the new party, or it dies out.
Here is an interesting scenario. A recent study showed that only about 20% of the population consider themselves liberal, and the rest are more or less evenly split between conservative and moderate - around 40% each. What if the Republicans continue their move to the left, and pick up all the Democrats who voted for Obama and are now in "Oh, Shit" mode, and the new party comes up to replace it. In that case it would be the Democratic party that ceases to be a player.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. - Winston Churchill
Aaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 4593 posts, RR: 22 Reply 10, posted (1 month 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1073 times:
Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 6): Now, I'm not saying that every Republican has to fully toe the Conservative line, but they need to be in boat on the major, hot-button issues.
Such as? The primary reason I'm not a Republican is that I hold mostly libertarian values, especially with regard to a substantially limited foreign policy and government's primary responsibility being securing the rights of all citizens. The free market, gun control and immigration platforms of the insignificant Libertarian Party are pretty consistent with the assumed Republican platform. Unfortunately, the Family Research Council wing of the Republican party would be perfectly happy to abridge freedom in the name of pleasing the almighty, and the incarnation of the party in the last administration was all too happy to continue expensive and unproven foreign policy far beyond the scope of what's needed for our defense. If those two things changed I likely wouldn't have to be in the netherworld of other parties anymore.
"Sentimentality plays with sweet intentions in place of good sense." - Jane Jacobs
CasInterest From United States, joined Feb 2005, 1189 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (1 month 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1048 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Thread starter): believe that a Conservative Party could have a fast start The popular ones (from Sarah to Rush) could do a good job a spearheading the rapid development (and fundraising) and there could be a strong start in the 2010 elections. Lots of Republican Conservatives would move over and the ones in office would provide additional credibility,
Problem is that the Conservatives are two split groups. Fiscal and Social. There is overlap as some believe in both, but there are a lot of people that don't want the Government legistating from the far Right's views on Family.
DL021 From United States, joined May 2004, 11078 posts, RR: 97 Reply 12, posted (1 month 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1044 times:
Well, it's going to be interesting watching those who call themselves Republicans and Conservatives pull themselves out of contention for any offices by splitting instead of finding common cause and moving forward. The more sure fire way to bring about the sort of economy and laws that are feared most by such people is to keep letting Democrats win elections.
GQfluffy From United States, joined Apr 2005, 3152 posts, RR: 6 Reply 13, posted (1 month 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1040 times:
I'm registered independent, but if push came to shove, if I had to call myself one or the other, I'd lean Republican. Why? Because of the Fiscal Conservative aspects of it. Generally (except for W), the GOP pushes for a smaller Federal Government, very pro-2nd amendment, less government intervention in our lives, doesn't benefit the lazy, etc etc. Now, when it comes to things like Gay Marriage, abortion, what universal healthcare SHOULD be (not what the current bill has packed in it), I lean more to the left.
A combination of both, but frankly, more fiscally conservative. The social conservatives (one could call them bible thumpers I suppose) have taken control of the party, and have led to the GOP downfall.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3): Agree, being conservitive does not mean being a republican. I have been saying all along the repubs currently in office are just as bad as the dems in office. We need to get rid of all of them
Amen Brother! Let us throw them all out. Now that is change we can believe in and benefit from. How could we not?
Fr8Mech From United States, joined Sep 2005, 1567 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (1 month 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1007 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 9): Are you the arbiter of what a conservative is?
I know what I think is a Conservative. But, how about this? Let's not let the media define Conservatism or Liberalism, for that matter. Let the practioners or followers define it by their words and actions.
Quoting D L X (Reply 9): Well, that's clearly not true, as it does not square with your following sentence:
Actually, it does. It doesn't sqaure you demand a black/white political world. When someone says ALL 'x' must believe 'y' and ALL 'a' must believe 'b', well that's when you get schisms in a party.
The major issues, in my world, are fiscal restraint, limited government, sanctity of life, foreign policy designed to advance our own needs and a couple of other bits and pieces.
Quoting DL021 (Reply 12): Well, it's going to be interesting watching those who call themselves Republicans and Conservatives pull themselves out of contention for any offices by splitting instead of finding common cause and moving forward. The more sure fire way to bring about the sort of economy and laws that are feared most by such people is to keep letting Democrats win elections.
Correct, we, Republicans/Conservatives, need to hold together. 2010 will be interesting to say the least.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8): I don't think a third party is viable in the long term - our system is designed for two main parties.
A 3rd party can only weaken one of the major parties. Look at Nader and his gang; Gore may well have been president if it wasn't for them...maybe, I haven't looked at the numbers. For damn sure Perot wiped out any chance for Bush.
We are set-up for 2 parties. Can other parties win? Sure, at the local and state level and occasionally at the federal level, but the Presidency or enough to form a voting block. NOt gonna happen.
Aaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 4593 posts, RR: 22 Reply 16, posted (1 month 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 992 times:
Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 15): limited government, sanctity of life, foreign policy designed to advance our own needs and a couple of other bits and pieces.
See that's just not the platform that would truly define "conservative" for me. Limited government becomes oxymoronic when we start widdling down individual liberty - sanctity of life is an idea with largely faith-based roots, and in a country of many beliefs regarding faith, that just doesn't fly on the national level - and when we start expanding foreign policy to "advance" our interests rather than just defend them.
"Sentimentality plays with sweet intentions in place of good sense." - Jane Jacobs
Seb146 From United States, joined Nov 1999, 6522 posts, RR: 24 Reply 17, posted (1 month 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 988 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 5): I would not mind a new party based of classical liberalism - i.e. fiscal conservatism, and a lesser emphasis on social conservatism.
There already is a party based on classic liberalism. It is called the Liberaterian Party. My dad was a card carrying member.
The problem with "conservatives" forming their own party is it will probably be made up of those who currently lock out the moderates in the Republican party. Those like Rush and Palin who think anyone who does not tow their official line are "liberal" or "socialist" or "evil" or something similar. They have already torn apart the Republican party and will just make a new party and keep up the attacks sprading their half-truths and trying to all lead us down a very bad path.
Dreadnought From United States, joined Feb 2008, 2551 posts, RR: 5 Reply 18, posted (1 month 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 973 times:
Quoting Seb146 (Reply 17): The problem with "conservatives" forming their own party is it will probably be made up of those who currently lock out the moderates in the Republican party.
What you call "Moderates" others would call "Democrats". Why do we want them? Look at what Scuzzifawa (whatever her name is) did in NY-23.
The whole point of a political party is that it consists of people with similar political and economic views. And if you believe in progressivism, you CANNOT believe in limited government, personal liberty, responsibility, personal exceptionalism, and a distrust of power, all the things that lie at the heart of the conservative movement. Oil and water, the two do not mix. That's why I would prefer not seeing people like Scuzzi, McCain, and Graham (all progressives) lumped in with the rest of us. It's simply dishonest, and it's the reason why the GOP is aimless now, as you have the progressive branch in charge, which has led us to failure over the past decade, and the conservative wing trying to get control back.
[Edited 2009-11-03 09:24:45]
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. - Winston Churchill
N1120A From United States, joined Dec 2003, 23671 posts, RR: 89 Reply 19, posted (1 month 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 963 times:
The people calling themselves "conservatives" currently are absolutely not conservative. They should call themselves the "Christian Elite" or something of the sort.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
DXing From United States, joined Nov 2008, 2528 posts, RR: 13 Reply 20, posted (1 month 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 946 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3): I will be going to vote today as in TX we are having some TX Constitution Amendments on the ballot (no candidates on the ballot in my district).
Slow poke, I voted last week.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 5): I would not mind a new party based of classical liberalism - i.e. fiscal conservatism, and a lesser emphasis on social conservatism. The problem with today's Republican Party is that many of them are progressives - no difference with Democrats on economic issues. That was the case in NY-23.
Unfortunately what that race shows is the absolute need for primaries. Scozzafava was picked by party leaders, not the party. I doubt that even moderate Republicans would have selected her as the candidate if given the choice.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8): What if the Republicans continue their move to the left, and pick up all the Democrats who voted for Obama and are now in "Oh, Shit" mode, and the new party comes up to replace it. In that case it would be the Democratic party that ceases to be a player.
As the democrats will find out today, the pendulum swings both ways. If they continue their leftist agenda their reign will be very short since that scares the hell out of the general public.
Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 6): Hell, she's endorsing Owens the Democrat.
Correct, which tells you that she is a true RINO.
Quoting CasInterest (Reply 11): Problem is that the Conservatives are two split groups. Fiscal and Social. There is overlap as some believe in both, but there are a lot of people that don't want the Government legistating from the far Right's views on Family.
Therin lies the difference between the conservatives in the GOP and the liberals in the democratic party. The democratic party will suck up to just about anybody to get a vote.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
Ken777 From United States, joined Mar 2004, 2926 posts, RR: 12 Reply 21, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 900 times:
Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 6): A Conservative is a Republican and a Republican is a Conservative. The problem is, that we have allowed too many non-Conservatives run on the Republican ticket.
Does that mean that moderates shouldn't be allowed in the Republican party? What about Log Cabin Republicans? Or have you already pushed them out.
Your attitude is exactly why I believe that Conservatives need their own party. I'm not putting you down with that comment - I'm trying to look at the current split in the Republican Party. The hard right swing of so many members over the past years presents this time as an excellent one to reshape the political landscape with clearly defined parties for conservatives and moderates.
Quoting Seb146 (Reply 17): The problem with "conservatives" forming their own party is it will probably be made up of those who currently lock out the moderates in the Republican party. Those like Rush and Palin who think anyone who does not tow their official line are "liberal" or "socialist" or "evil" or something similar. They have already torn apart the Republican party and will just make a new party and keep up the attacks sprading their half-truths and trying to all lead us down a very bad path.
Agreed. That is the primary reason for Conservatives to take on a Party of their own, leaving moderated and Democrats to do what they want.
With popular leaders like Palin and Rush this is one time in our history when Conservatives can really move forward.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 18): Look at what Scuzzifawa (whatever her name is) did in NY-23.
Maybe she did what she believes her constituents wanted her to do over the years. We'll see when that election result is known. Gonna be very interesting.
D L X From United States, joined May 1999, 7825 posts, RR: 55 Reply 22, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 891 times:
Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 15): Let the practioners or followers define it by their words and actions.
I just don't think that's possible. I'm thinking specifically about another current thread where some posters were suggesting that they were Christian, while others were not. For better or for worse, many Americans now treat political ideology on nearly the same plane as religion. Even as a Christian, it is "above my pay grade" to decide who is and who isn't a Christian - that is a decision people must make for themselves. The same for political parties.
Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 15): It doesn't sqaure you demand a black/white political world. When someone says ALL 'x' must believe 'y' and ALL 'a' must believe 'b', well that's when you get schisms in a party.
Well, I was just responding to your sentence, "A Conservative is a Republican and a Republican is a Conservative," which sounded a lot like a black and white political world, and a lot like "all x is y and all y is x."
Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 15): The major issues, in my world, are fiscal restraint, limited government, sanctity of life, foreign policy designed to advance our own needs and a couple of other bits and pieces.
1) you just said "in your world" AND
2) your definition (which is not even consistent) differs from many conservatives, let alone republicans.
Quoting DXing (Reply 20): Correct, which tells you that she is a true RINO.
Or, she is pissed that other members of her party abandoned her. I don't care who you are -- if I were the party's nominee and members of my party endorsed some other jerk, you really think I'm going to endorse that jerk when I drop out? Get real.
Starbuk7 From United States, joined Apr 2008, 170 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 891 times:
Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 13): less government intervention in our lives, doesn't benefit the lazy, etc etc. Now, when it comes to things like Gay Marriage, abortion, what universal healthcare SHOULD be (not what the current bill has packed in it), I lean more to the left.
If you want less Government intervention then why would you want them involved in our health care. This is something most Americans have been handling on their own for years and should continue to do so.
I myself would lean more towards the conservative side, getting back to personal responsibility, less government, and working to support yourself, not the government supporting anyone.
GQfluffy From United States, joined Apr 2005, 3152 posts, RR: 6 Reply 24, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 866 times:
Quoting Starbuk7 (Reply 23):
If you want less Government intervention then why would you want them involved in our health care. This is something most Americans have been handling on their own for years and should continue to do so.
Maybe...maybe not. The fact that premiums are skyrocketing, especially when it comes to prescriptions...is a signal that has been ignored for the past 5 years that something needs to be done. My insurance costs this next year is double what it was 3 years ago for the exact same coverage. See a problem? I do. Costs everywhere have gone up, meaning someone is making ALOT more money than they need. Yes I want less government intervention. I also want a smart government that knows when to step in and when to stay out. This is one of those areas that needs governing.
Seb146 From United States, joined Nov 1999, 6522 posts, RR: 24 Reply 25, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 837 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 18): it's the reason why the GOP is aimless now, as you have the progressive branch in charge, which has led us to failure over the past decade, and the conservative wing trying to get control back.
I think the GOP is aimless now more because of in-fighting. More because there are moderates that want to listen to opinion within their own party and "conservatives" that just want to ram legislation through and label those that want to talk as "evil" and "socialist" and "liberal" and "Democrats." Much like the Democratic party, they need a theme. For a while, it was Christianity. You remember? "Our God is better than your God" statement and that reached out to a lot of voters. Now, however, they talk fiscal conservatism but spend like there is not tomorrow. Talk religion and family but hire prostitutes and go on drug binges and hide out in public rest rooms. Talk about the good of Main Street while selling out to China, Japan and Saudi Arabia.
BOTH parties need core themes, but, since this thread is about "conservatives" I am just sticking with that.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 18): What you call "Moderates" others would call "Democrats".
And, then, go on to call "socialist" and "marxist" and "communist" and "evil."
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 18): Look at what Scuzzifawa (whatever her name is) did in NY-23.
This is my point: The GOP candidate was more concerned with issues in that district, as is the Democrat. However, the "conservative" candidate is more conserned with issues at a national level. He has forgotten, it seems, he is not going to Congress to represent the United States at large, but to represent the 23rd District of New York. I think that is why the GOP candidate put her support behind the Democrat.
N1120A From United States, joined Dec 2003, 23671 posts, RR: 89 Reply 26, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 865 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 21): Does that mean that moderates shouldn't be allowed in the Republican party? What about Log Cabin Republicans? Or have you already pushed them out.
Your attitude is exactly why I believe that Conservatives need their own party. I'm not putting you down with that comment - I'm trying to look at the current split in the Republican Party. The hard right swing of so many members over the past years presents this time as an excellent one to reshape the political landscape with clearly defined parties for conservatives and moderates.
Again, the "Conservatives" are anything but.
Quoting Seb146 (Reply 25): This is my point: The GOP candidate was more concerned with issues in that district, as is the Democrat. However, the "conservative" candidate is more conserned with issues at a national level. He has forgotten, it seems, he is not going to Congress to represent the United States at large, but to represent the 23rd District of New York. I think that is why the GOP candidate put her support behind the Democrat.
Not to mention that true conservative Republicans, like Scozzafava, are much closer in ideology to the modern Democratic party than they are to the Theocrats who now call themselves "conservative"
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
EA772LR From United States, joined Mar 2007, 1847 posts, RR: 7 Reply 27, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 830 times:
Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 10): he primary reason I'm not a Republican is that I hold mostly libertarian values, especially with regard to a substantially limited foreign policy and government's primary responsibility being securing the rights of all citizens. The free market, gun control and immigration platforms of the insignificant Libertarian Party are pretty consistent with the assumed Republican platform.
Completely agree. Having been repeatedly disappointed with Republican candidates, and reading the basic tenets of the Libertarian Party, I identify myself as a libertarian.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3): I have been saying all along the repubs currently in office are just as bad as the dems in office.
Amen.
Quoting D L X (Reply 2): Quoting Jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 1):
What does it mean to be conservative.. more libertarian or more bible thumper?
More libertarian.
Why don't we do away with the Republican Party and return to a Federalist Party, a party similar to the way our Founding Fathers' would have it...now that would be something.
I like intelligent women. When you go out, it shouldn't be a staring contest.
D L X From United States, joined May 1999, 7825 posts, RR: 55 Reply 28, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 804 times:
Quoting EA772LR (Reply 27): Why don't we do away with the Republican Party and return to a Federalist Party, a party similar to the way our Founding Fathers' would have it...now that would be something.
The guy that wrote the Declaration of Independence was opposed strongly to Federalism. So you can't say it's the way our Founding Fathers would have it.
In fact, if you wanted to go the way of George Washington, you wouldn't have political parties at all. They're a bad idea for anything other than facilitating electing particular candidates.
OzarkD9S From United States, joined Oct 2001, 3830 posts, RR: 29 Reply 29, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 768 times:
I would rather see a Moderate Party to keep the left and right in check. I don't see how this nation can function if the political pendulum swings back and forth every 2-4 years.
Of course the Senate would practically cease to function under it's current set up, and some would argue that's not a bad thing.
Fr8Mech From United States, joined Sep 2005, 1567 posts, RR: 1 Reply 31, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 750 times:
Quoting N1120A (Reply 19): The people calling themselves "conservatives" currently are absolutely not conservative. They should call themselves the "Christian Elite" or something of the sort.
I don't know, I consider myself Conservative and don't regularly attend Church, nor push my faith, or lack of it on others.
Quoting D L X (Reply 22): Or, she is pissed that other members of her party abandoned her. I don't care who you are -- if I were the party's nominee and members of my party endorsed some other jerk, you really think I'm going to endorse that jerk when I drop out? Get real.
And is putting her vindictive self above the country. If she were truly a Republican, she would have endorsed Hoffman.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 21): Does that mean that moderates shouldn't be allowed in the Republican party? What about Log Cabin Republicans? Or have you already pushed them out.
No, it means that, again, in my world, moderates are welcome. But, they need to be moderates and not Democrat-lite. I'm not a one-issue voter. I can accept, what I consider, faults in my candidates. They don't need to be 'pure'. I know I'm not. My ideology doesn't always square with the GOP oe Conservatives.
N1120A From United States, joined Dec 2003, 23671 posts, RR: 89 Reply 32, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 738 times:
Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 31): I don't know, I consider myself Conservative and don't regularly attend Church, nor push my faith, or lack of it on others.
I wasn't evaluating how conservative you may or may not be. I was commenting on how these people who call themselves "conservatives" are nothing of the sort. They are big government, big brother, stick-their-nose where it doesn't belong theocrats. That has nothing to do with conservatism.
Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 31):
And is putting her vindictive self above the country. If she were truly a Republican, she would have endorsed Hoffman.
Huh? Perhaps she just realizes that, as a true conservative, she has more in common with the Democrat than Hoffman.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
JpetekYXMD80 From United States, joined Jul 2003, 3466 posts, RR: 38 Reply 33, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 738 times:
Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 31): I don't know, I consider myself Conservative and don't regularly attend Church, nor push my faith, or lack of it on others.
You represent one side of schism of the right at the moment, and I feel its important for people like you to 'take the party back' to classical Republicanism more like the Reagan era and fight back against what I would call a sort of evangelical hijacking we've seen in the last decade of the Republican party.
JpetekYXMD80 From United States, joined Jul 2003, 3466 posts, RR: 38 Reply 34, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 736 times:
Quoting N1120A (Reply 32): I was commenting on how these people who call themselves "conservatives" are nothing of the sort. They are big government, big brother, stick-their-nose where it doesn't belong theocrats. That has nothing to do with conservatism.
N1120A From United States, joined Dec 2003, 23671 posts, RR: 89 Reply 35, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 732 times:
Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 33): I feel its important for people like you to 'take the party back' to classical Republicanism more like the Reagan era and fight back against what I would call a sort of evangelical hijacking we've seen in the last decade of the Republican party.
People need to stop revering Reagan. He wasn't a conservative either. He bloated budgets, pushed voodoo economics (I borrowed that from his own VP), supported strong men, interfered in all kinds of world events and allowed this "tell people how to live" attitude to fester.
Nixon was a much more "classical" conservative Republican.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
Jpetekyxmd80 From United States, joined Jul 2003, 3466 posts, RR: 38 Reply 36, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 723 times:
Quoting N1120A (Reply 35): People need to stop revering Reagan. He wasn't a conservative either. He bloated budgets, pushed voodoo economics (I borrowed that from his own VP), supported strong men, interfered in all kinds of world events and allowed this "tell people how to live" attitude to fester.
You're right that he isn't the perfect example, but much more so than GWB, thats for sure. I also find conservatives who idolize Reagan often don't have an idea what he stood for on some issues- particularly nuclear weapons and arms control. They just wear the 'what he said' t-shirts and call anyone on the left a pussy.
N1120A From United States, joined Dec 2003, 23671 posts, RR: 89 Reply 37, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 717 times:
Quoting Jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 36):
You're right that he isn't the perfect example, but much more so than GWB, thats for sure.
Rachel Maddow is significantly more conservative than GWB, but that doesn't say much. George H.W. Bush, except for his "lets listen in" spook past, is a much better example of a classic conservative than Reagan or his son. Some other very good examples are current and former Supreme Court justices Hugo Black, Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
Ken777 From United States, joined Mar 2004, 2926 posts, RR: 12 Reply 39, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 710 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 28): The guy that wrote the Declaration of Independence was opposed strongly to Federalism. So you can't say it's the way our Founding Fathers would have it.
In fact, if you wanted to go the way of George Washington, you wouldn't have political parties at all. They're a bad idea for anything other than facilitating electing particular candidates.
George Washington would have looked in amazement at the world today - and I believe he would have had a difficult time deciding the proper balance in todays environment as to the balance of states and the federal government.
Their approach was made at a time when loyalty to one's state was more important than loyalty to the new idea of a united states. Today people move from state to state with no hesitation and loyalty to one's state is sometimes more focused on the sport teams in the state.
And George would have been more than a little impressed that we actually walked on the moon, can communicate immediately via phone, internet, radio, etc. And communicate around the world with ease. Communication was a problem back in those days.
I tend to believe that the very bright minds that worked to create this country would have used a lot of their original thought processes if they were given today's world, but they would have made a lot of changes to their original approach.
Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 31): And is putting her vindictive self above the country. If she were truly a Republican, she would have endorsed Hoffman.
Or maybe she made the decision that she thought was best for her District, or even her country.
WarRI1 From United States, joined Sep 2007, 2335 posts, RR: 4 Reply 41, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 706 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 39):
Or maybe she made the decision that she thought was best for her District, or even her country.
No, no, we cannot have that, that might mean, that the woman has "principles" We must bend to the party, screw right and wrong, or being concerned for her fellow citizens. Do not vote the man, vote the party. Man, are we screwed up.
Why is it that grown men in the Republican party resort to vilification and name-calling to attack those they do not like?
Forgive me for shortening her name. But that vote shows the importance that Republicans ensure that they nominate... Republicans. Scozzafava intentionally handed the Democrats that seat, to the detriment of the party that nominated her. Why didn't she run as a Democrat? Her beliefs sure seemed to be more in line with Dems.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. - Winston Churchill
Fr8Mech From United States, joined Sep 2005, 1567 posts, RR: 1 Reply 45, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 619 times:
Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 41): No, no, we cannot have that, that might mean, that the woman has "principles" We must bend to the party, screw right and wrong, or being concerned for her fellow citizens. Do not vote the man, vote the party. Man, are we screwed up.
I have no problem with someone voting their conscience, but she should have chosen a party that more closely represented her views. That is the Democratic party, not the Republican.
Dreadnought From United States, joined Feb 2008, 2551 posts, RR: 5 Reply 46, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 611 times:
Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 45): I have no problem with someone voting their conscience, but she should have chosen a party that more closely represented her views. That is the Democratic party, not the Republican.
I've just been reading the Daily Kos - they are gloating like crazy about NY-23. They seem to be missing the point that most voters wanted either a Republican or a conservative, that 5% voted for a non-existent candidate (probably those who selected a straight-party selection).
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. - Winston Churchill
Fr8Mech From United States, joined Sep 2005, 1567 posts, RR: 1 Reply 48, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 587 times:
Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 47): I dare you to go say that in the Maine Gay Marriage thread.
Why? If some people's view are too narrow to accept the fact that gays exist and should be allowed to marry, then they should vote that way.
Too me, if someone claimed to be Conservative or Republican and supported gay marriage, it would not be a disqualifier. But, if you then add: pro-tax, pro-stimulus, pro-labor, pro-abortion (I mean choice), et.al, then you are not a Republican, you are a Democrat and deserve to be drummed out of the party.
Dreadnought From United States, joined Feb 2008, 2551 posts, RR: 5 Reply 49, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 580 times:
Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 48): Too me, if someone claimed to be Conservative or Republican and supported gay marriage, it would not be a disqualifier. But, if you then add: pro-tax, pro-stimulus, pro-labor, pro-abortion (I mean choice), et.al, then you are not a Republican, you are a Democrat and deserve to be drummed out of the party.
And before certain people complain about Republicans drumming out "moderates" and sucking up to the extreme wing of the party, I have two words for them: Joe Liebermann.
And Joe is still a Democrat on a majority of issues - that really was a case of a moderate being chased out. Scuzzifava was not a moderate - she was a democrat.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. - Winston Churchill
How does giving government control over an individual's life decisions constitute more limited government? Again just way too inconsistent if one claims to be for one but not the other. I just can't get there.
"Sentimentality plays with sweet intentions in place of good sense." - Jane Jacobs
D L X From United States, joined May 1999, 7825 posts, RR: 55 Reply 51, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 568 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 44): Scozzafava intentionally handed the Democrats that seat, to the detriment of the party that nominated her.
Hah! You mean the party that submarined her candidacy? Yeah, she owed allegiance to those yahoos.
You have to start being honest with yourself one of these days: the REPUBLICAN PARTY handed this seat to the Democrats. Don't blame Scozzafava, blame the NY Republicans, blame Palin, blame Thompson. Look at YOURSELVES for losing a seat to the Democrats that you haven't lost in 100 years.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 49): And before certain people complain about Republicans drumming out "moderates" and sucking up to the extreme wing of the party, I have two words for them: Joe Liebermann.
Hate to break it to you, but Liebermann was NOT drummed out of the party. Who does he caucus with? What leadership positions does he have?
Dreadnought From United States, joined Feb 2008, 2551 posts, RR: 5 Reply 52, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 565 times:
Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 50):
How does giving government control over an individual's life decisions constitute more limited government? Again just way too inconsistent if one claims to be for one but not the other. I just can't get there.
Let's clarify something. This country's voters are fiscally conservative - now more than ever and with good reason. But they are not socially conservative. They aren't really socially liberal either, more like socially 'laissez-faire'. America has a history of adapting and accepting strange things and behaviours for a couple of centuries, and we will continue doing so, but at the same time we don't want it shoved in our faces, ACLU-style. We are fiscally conservative, socially moderate.
The NY-23 race is an excellent lesson. Scuzzifava was a fiscal and social liberal - she shouldn't have even been nominated. In the backlash, Republicans saw another candidate in Hoffman, a fiscal and social conservative, who bashed his opponents for supporting gay marriage with equal ferver as he attacked their reckless economic policy, as if the two have the same importance. They do not. To me, and I think the majority of the country, gay marriage has about 1% of the importance of economic policy. Abortion is a little more important, but again - far down the totem pole.
The lesson I see from NY-23 is that Republicans need to shore up their limited government credentials and put their socially conservative agenda far down their list of priorities where it belongs.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. - Winston Churchill
CasInterest From United States, joined Feb 2005, 1189 posts, RR: 2 Reply 53, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 565 times:
Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 50): How does giving government control over an individual's life decisions constitute more limited government? Again just way too inconsistent if one claims to be for one but not the other. I just can't get there.
It doesn't. and in that lies the Paradox of the Republican Party vs true conservatism.
As long as the Social Conservatives are attempting to legislate Family values onto folks that don't see Family issues such as sexuality and abortion as any business of the Government , then they will continue to drag down the Republican party, and keep it from being truly conservative. Same goes for the holy war folks that want to bring the American way too far flung corners of the world where they don't want the American way.
EA772LR From United States, joined Mar 2007, 1847 posts, RR: 7 Reply 54, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 542 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 28): In fact, if you wanted to go the way of George Washington, you wouldn't have political parties at all. They're a bad idea for anything other than facilitating electing particular candidates.
You're right. I forgot that he wanted nothing to do with political parties. I wish we would have listened to him...
Quoting OzarkD9S (Reply 29): Of course the Senate would practically cease to function under it's current set up, and some would argue that's not a bad thing.
Not a bad thing at all. Our Congress and Senate are cancerous to this country, and are no more moral, ethical, or honest than our worst enemies abroad.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 39): I tend to believe that the very bright minds that worked to create this country would have used a lot of their original thought processes if they were given today's world, but they would have made a lot of changes to their original approach.
I agree completely
Quoting D L X (Reply 42): Why is it that grown men in the Republican party resort to vilification and name-calling to attack those they do not like?
...and men in the Democratic Party don't do the same??? Character assassination is part of the every politician's game.
I like intelligent women. When you go out, it shouldn't be a staring contest.
Fr8Mech From United States, joined Sep 2005, 1567 posts, RR: 1 Reply 56, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 538 times:
Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 50): How does giving government control over an individual's life decisions constitute more limited government? Again just way too inconsistent if one claims to be for one but not the other. I just can't get there.
This is not an abortion debate, but to answer your question...you return the debate to the people, where it belongs. Allow the States to determine whether abortion should or should not be allowed. This is not a federal issue. SCOTUS butted in where it didn't belong.
Quoting D L X (Reply 51): Hate to break it to you, but Liebermann was NOT drummed out of the party.
The DNC supported someone else during the primary. He ran as an Independent and won. He caucases and identifies with the Democrats because he is a Democrat, but the leadership could not stomach his position on one issue. ONE issue!
By that way, you do know that Scuzzifava was not vetted by primary, right? Had she and Hoffman gone head-to-head in a primary, he would have won.
Quoting D L X (Reply 51): Don't blame Scozzafava, blame the NY Republicans, blame Palin, blame Thompson. Look at YOURSELVES for losing a seat to the Democrats that you haven't lost in 100 years.
The only way that seat was going to a Republican was if Hoffman won...both Owen and Scuzzifava are Democrats, one just claims the title.
D L X From United States, joined May 1999, 7825 posts, RR: 55 Reply 57, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 529 times:
Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 56): The DNC supported someone else during the primary.
No, the voters of Connecticut supported someone else during the primary. Lieberman ran and lost, fair and square.
Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 56): but the leadership could not stomach his position on one issue. ONE issue!
If that one thing you speak of is his going to the Republican Convention and telling everyone why they should vote against "his party", then your'e right. But even then, he was not drummed out of the party. (Though I suspect he will get not another dime from the DNC.)
Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 56): By that way, you do know that Scuzzifava was not vetted by primary, right?
Right. She was picked by convention, just like Bob McDonnell was in VA.
Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 56): Had she and Hoffman gone head-to-head in a primary, he would have won.
It's likely that neither she nor Hoffman would have won. Hoffman isn't a resident of the district, from what I'm hearing.
Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 56): both Owen and Scuzzifava are Democrats
Wrong. Scozzafava is a Republican. You just can't stomach that there are people in your party who do not agree with everything Rush says, so you call her a democrat.
EA772LR From United States, joined Mar 2007, 1847 posts, RR: 7 Reply 58, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 518 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 55): Quoting EA772LR (Reply 54):
Character assassination is part of the every politician's game.
Dreadnought is not a politician.
Come on D L X, you're a smart guy, you know what I was talking about. Character assassination is something done by men on both sides. I mean, the character assassination done by Liberals towards GWB was just as intense as we're seeing now by Conservatives towards Obama.
I like intelligent women. When you go out, it shouldn't be a staring contest.
D L X From United States, joined May 1999, 7825 posts, RR: 55 Reply 59, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 507 times:
Quoting EA772LR (Reply 58): Character assassination is something done by men on both sides.
I don't assassinate people's characters, and I don't condone it in others. I never signed on when liberals did it to W either. You could say I'm fair and balanced.
Dreadnought From United States, joined Feb 2008, 2551 posts, RR: 5 Reply 60, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 505 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 55): Quoting EA772LR (Reply 54):
Character assassination is part of the every politician's game.
Dreadnought is not a politician.
Who have I "Character assassinated" in this thread? How?
Quoting D L X (Reply 57): No, the voters of Connecticut supported someone else during the primary. Lieberman ran and lost, fair and square.
After being vilified by Democrats and the DNC for the terrible crime of thinking for himself on a few issues.
Quoting D L X (Reply 57): It's likely that neither she nor Hoffman would have won. Hoffman isn't a resident of the district, from what I'm hearing.
"Hoffman is a certified public accountant who lives in Lake Placid, just outside New York's 23rd District. He has said he would move back to Saranac Lake, where he grew up and most of which is inside the district, if elected."
Remember that district borders shift frequently. His current home was in the 23rd district in the past. No big deal.
Quoting D L X (Reply 57): Wrong. Scozzafava is a Republican. You just can't stomach that there are people in your party who do not agree with everything Rush says, so you call her a democrat.
You are exaggerating again (no surprise there). But to run for office, as a Republican, Democrat, or whatever, don't you think that you should at least agree with at least some of your party's positions? Can you tell me any key issues on which she agreed with the Republican party and disagreed with the Democratic position? She was a RINO.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. - Winston Churchill
Seb146 From United States, joined Nov 1999, 6522 posts, RR: 24 Reply 61, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 494 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 60): After being vilified by Democrats and the DNC for the terrible crime of thinking for himself on a few issues.
There is a HUGE difference between "thinking for himself" and walking in lock-step with the opposing party, which Leiberman did.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 60): Can you tell me any key issues on which she agreed with the Republican party and disagreed with the Democratic position? She was a RINO.
But, when a Republican thinks for themselves, they need to be drummed out of the party and called names? Nice.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 39): Or maybe she made the decision that she thought was best for her District, or even her country.
I don't understand why this is "for the good of the country." Ken, you have it right by putting the words "her district" in there. This election, as are the elections for governer in VA and NJ, are STATE and DISTRICT issues. NOT national issues.
Dreadnought From United States, joined Feb 2008, 2551 posts, RR: 5 Reply 63, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 487 times:
Quoting Seb146 (Reply 61): But, when a Republican thinks for themselves, they need to be drummed out of the party and called names? Nice.
Answer the damned question. When you disagree with EVERYTHING the party supports, are you really a member of that party or not? Plenty of Republicans think for themselves - just look at all the Republicans in Congress and in the streets - Plenty of variety. This prattle that liberals keep going on about Republicans not allowing anyone to think for themselves is a testament of your own stupidity. We don't demand that you agree with everything on the party platform, just a significant portion of it, just like the Democrats and anyone else. If Doug Hoffman had asked to be nominated as a Democrat, how well do you think that would have gone over among the local DNC chapter?
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. - Winston Churchill
Yellowstone From United States, joined Aug 2006, 2329 posts, RR: 11 Reply 64, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 479 times:
Quoting EA772LR (Reply 62): Kinda like the way the DNC treated Joe Lieberman??? Yeah, something like that...
The DNC did not "drum Lieberman out of the party." They quite correctly decided that they would respect the decision of the Democratic voters of Connecticut, who decided that they would rather have Lamont as their candidate than Lieberman.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 60): Can you tell me any key issues on which she agreed with the Republican party and disagreed with the Democratic position?
Wikipedia is your friend. Scozzafava is against gun control and cap-and-trade, and wants to keep the Bush tax cuts in place.
The concept of hell as a place of eternal fiery damnation is thermodynamically unsound.
Fr8Mech From United States, joined Sep 2005, 1567 posts, RR: 1 Reply 65, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 461 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 57): Wrong. Scozzafava is a Republican.
Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 64): Wikipedia is your friend. Scozzafava is against gun control and cap-and-trade, and wants to keep the Bush tax cuts in place.
From the same article:
Pro-Abortion
Pro-Gay Marriage
Pro-Organized Labor
Rumor also has it that she supported Stimulus, but I can't find it anywhere, so we'll leave that out.
So on the 6 issues above, she gets 50%. Hardly Conservative, barely Republkican, Barely Democratic. Independent? Then run as an Independent.
JpetekYXMD80 From United States, joined Jul 2003, 3466 posts, RR: 38 Reply 66, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 452 times:
Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 65):
So on the 6 issues above, she gets 50%. Hardly Conservative, barely Republkican, Barely Democratic. Independent? Then run as an Independent.
Well, first of all there are plenty of conservatives that are pro-choice and/or pro gay marriage.
And Michelle Malkin called her a 'radical leftist'!!
Yellowstone From United States, joined Aug 2006, 2329 posts, RR: 11 Reply 67, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 449 times:
Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 65): Hardly Conservative, barely Republkican, Barely Democratic. Independent? Then run as an Independent.
She's been winning election to the New York Assembly as a Republican for the past 10 years. Clearly the Republicans of that district feel that she is sufficiently Republican to earn their support.
The concept of hell as a place of eternal fiery damnation is thermodynamically unsound.
Fr8Mech From United States, joined Sep 2005, 1567 posts, RR: 1 Reply 68, posted (1 month 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 437 times:
Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 67): She's been winning election to the New York Assembly as a Republican for the past 10 years. Clearly the Republicans of that district feel that she is sufficiently Republican to earn their support.
Maybe there wasn't anyone better. It's the reason I voted for McCain...there was no one better on the ballot in November.
Hoffman is clearly more Republican than she. He should have been given the nod, but for whatever reason, the party bosses in NY decided on her. A mistake on their part, in my opinion.
The GOP will not get stronger by diluting its core principles. Nor will it get stronger by excluding those that differ on a couple of points.
Scozzafava did not differ on just a couple of points. She went against the party on some of the hot button issues in play today. That's a problem.
Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 66): And Michelle Malkin called her a 'radical leftist'!!
I haven't called a soul a 'radical leftist' in this thread. All I'm saying is that Scozzafava is not the Republican she claims to be.
To sum this up, because, I do think we've digressed a bit:
We don't need a new party. The GOP needs to decide on its platform and stick to it. It can not allow others to dictate who represents the party and what the party represents. Identify candidates across the country that are most closely aligned to the platform and support them. Identify those encumbants that have strayed from the platform and, either primary them or do what they can to bring them back into the fold.
NJ and VA have shown that a GOP candidate can attract the Independent and I'm guessing some Democrats. Yesterday's results bode for an interesting 2010.
Ken777 From United States, joined Mar 2004, 2926 posts, RR: 12 Reply 69, posted (1 month 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 421 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 44): Why didn't she run as a Democrat? Her beliefs sure seemed to be more in line with Dems.
She has been a Republican for a long time as I recall. She has won elections being the Republican she is. The only reason to change would have been the rise of the conservative stars - who thought they could move the District to Conservative. Obviously they couldn't. Could that mean that opinions vary in this country and the 23rd District was in sync with the lady?
Quoting D L X (Reply 57): Wrong. Scozzafava is a Republican. You just can't stomach that there are people in your party who do not agree with everything Rush says, so you call her a democrat.
ANd the invasion of the national conservative elites like Rush & Palin has turned a District that has been Republican for a LONG time (since the Civil War as I recall) into a Democrat's District.
Most impressive achievement on the part of the conservatives.
Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 68): Hoffman is clearly more Republican than she. He should have been given the nod, but for whatever reason, the party bosses in NY decided on her. A mistake on their part, in my opinion.
Hoffman didn't even live in the District. But he said he would move to the District if he won. Now that's rather queer.
EA772LR From United States, joined Mar 2007, 1847 posts, RR: 7 Reply 70, posted (1 month 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 406 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 57): Wrong. Scozzafava is a Republican. You just can't stomach that there are people in your party who do not agree with everything Rush says, so you call her a democrat.
Huh?? Where do you come up with this stuff? I hate to break it to you D L X, but Rush is merely 'a' voice in the Republican Party. He doesn't speak for all Conservatives. I think it's hilarious how much the left let's a guy with a radio show get under their skin. You'd think Rush was a terrorist...
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 69): And the invasion of the national conservative elites like Rush & Palin has turned a District that has been Republican for a LONG time (since the Civil War as I recall) into a Democrat's District.
What about all of the traditionally Democratic areas that just lost to Republicans in New York and New Jersey? Is that a sneak peak of what 2010 will be like?? Which Democrat was it that said Conservativism is dead, that the 2008 election was a mandate by the country to go left...and now 40% of the country identifies themselves as conservative, while only 20% liberal...in just a year. Quite an achievement by the Democrats I'd say. They have too much power and have broken nearly all of their promises. What do the Liberals expect...Americans wouldn't notice??
I like intelligent women. When you go out, it shouldn't be a staring contest.
FURUREFA From United States, joined Feb 2004, 517 posts, RR: 3 Reply 71, posted (1 month 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 400 times:
I echo the statements of the others on this board. I am fiscally conservative, believe in small government, civil rights (including the 2nd amendment), and limited government intervention. That said, I also believe that government has no business regulating citizens' private lives; I believe in a woman's right to choose and gay marriage.
Neither party really fulfills my needs. I would rather vote Republican, but can't at the moment; it seems like the GOP's priorities consist of family values and not small government.
And thus I wouldn't be opposed to a third party; one that is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Could we see the libertarian party expand?
JpetekYXMD80 From United States, joined Jul 2003, 3466 posts, RR: 38 Reply 72, posted (1 month 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 401 times:
Quoting EA772LR (Reply 70): ..and now 40% of the country identifies themselves as conservative, while only 20% liberal...in just a year.
I'm not sure what you're looking at, but as party ID slips across the board as the trend has been for awhile, the Repubilcan identification is as worse as it has ever been
EA772LR From United States, joined Mar 2007, 1847 posts, RR: 7 Reply 73, posted (1 month 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 398 times:
Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 72):
I'm not sure what you're looking at, but as party ID slips across the board as the trend has been for awhile, the Repubilcan identification is as worse as it has ever been
That means absolutely nothing. Don't you get it? The country is moving to the RIGHT meaning they definitely won't accept the left who has gone from liberalism to outright socialism/marxism under their poster boy Obama. Obama is doing more for Conservativism than Rush/Beck/Hannity or any other Conservative could do.
I like intelligent women. When you go out, it shouldn't be a staring contest.
JpetekYXMD80 From United States, joined Jul 2003, 3466 posts, RR: 38 Reply 74, posted (1 month 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 394 times:
Quoting EA772LR (Reply 73): The country is moving to the RIGHT meaning they definitely won't accept the left who has gone from liberalism to outright socialism/marxism under their poster boy Obama.
All of those are ridiculous notions.
And in ideological self-ID, conservatives typically hold an advantage over liberal, with a huge contingent in the middle. Nothing new about this, and it hasn't meant much the last 3 years, has it?
Quoting EA772LR (Reply 70): 40% of the country identifies themselves as conservative, while only 20% liberal...in just a year.
Look at those numbers from that same source throughout this decade, and you'll realize the change that you're suggesting doesn't make any sense.
EA772LR From United States, joined Mar 2007, 1847 posts, RR: 7 Reply 75, posted (1 month 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 392 times:
Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 74): Look at those numbers from that same source throughout this decade, and you'll realize the change that you're suggesting doesn't make any sense.
Well if the elections in New York/New Jersey/Virginia (Republicans won all but 1 race) are anything to go by for elections in 2010, then the Democrats will have successfully convinced Americans that going socialized is not something Americans are comfortable with.
I like intelligent women. When you go out, it shouldn't be a staring contest.
Yellowstone From United States, joined Aug 2006, 2329 posts, RR: 11 Reply 76, posted (1 month 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 392 times:
Quoting EA772LR (Reply 73): The country is moving to the RIGHT meaning they definitely won't accept the left who has gone from liberalism to outright socialism/marxism under their poster boy Obama.
Ignoring the fact that Obama isn't anywhere near a socialist, the data point you cite as evidence of a move to the right - the 40/40/20 split among self-identified conservatives/moderates/liberals - is nothing new. That's been the case for many years now, probably in part due to successful efforts by past GOP leaders to cast "liberal" as a negative term. What is moving is the party registration numbers, where the Republicans have been slipping. Currently, 35% of Americans self-identify as Democrats, compared to just 22% who identify as Republicans.
JpetekYXMD80 From United States, joined Jul 2003, 3466 posts, RR: 38 Reply 77, posted (1 month 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 387 times:
Quoting EA772LR (Reply 75):
Well if the elections in New York/New Jersey/Virginia (Republicans won all but 1 race) are anything to go by for elections in 2010, then the Democrats will have successfully convinced Americans that going socialized is not something Americans are comfortable with.
You're trying to make a big point and trying to present a shocking change based on some phantom ideological ID numbers. Guess what? It's nothing very different from the trend. Go back and look at the history of those same numbers and add some perspective.
By calling her a Republican? When she herself calls herself a Republican?
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 60): don't you think that you should at least agree with at least some of your party's positions? Can you tell me any key issues on which she agreed with the Republican party
Enough to get the endorsement of the NRA!
Question: do you live in NY23? What do you know about what people who live in NY23 actually want? Again, just because Scozzafava did not appeal to YOUR desires is meaningless. As Michael Steele says, if you don't vote in that district, your opinion matters quite little.
Quoting Seb146 (Reply 61): But, when a Republican thinks for themselves, they need to be drummed out of the party and called names? Nice.
CHECK. MATE.
Quoting EA772LR (Reply 62): Kinda like the way the DNC treated Joe Lieberman??? Yeah, something like that...
You really should read the context. That's exactly what Seb146 was talking about.
Rumor also has it that she supported Stimulus, but I can't find it anywhere, so we'll leave that out.
So on the 6 issues above, she gets 50%. Hardly Conservative, barely Republkican, Barely Democratic. Independent? Then run as an Independent.
Based on the cherry-picked issues that YOU picked because they are important to YOU, in SDF. SDF is not in NY23 is it?
Scozzafava was not running to represent you, Fr8Mech. By the standards set by the Republican Party of NY23, she was a Republican. If you can't get over that, I doubt she cares.
Quoting EA772LR (Reply 70): Where do you come up with this stuff? I hate to break it to you D L X, but Rush is merely 'a' voice in the Republican Party.
BS. Rush is the biggest mouthpiece in the Republican party, and that's not something you are unaware of. That's why every time a Republican says something that Rush doesn't like, that Republican immediately genuflects to the great El Rushbo. I don't even know why you deny this.
Quoting EA772LR (Reply 70): I think it's hilarious how much the left let's a guy with a radio show get under their skin.
First, I'm not the left. I just strongly disagree with the Republican party, now that you've kicked out all the smart people. And two, even if I were the left, you think this is under my skin? WHy would you think that? If I were the left, I'd be giddy because Rush inserting his big pompous mouth into the race cost the Republican the election! Under my skin? Hardly. I want him to keep talking!
Dreadnought From United States, joined Feb 2008, 2551 posts, RR: 5 Reply 80, posted (1 month 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 363 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 78):
Character assassination was EA's phrase, not mine, in response to your sophomoric name-calling.
I shortened somebody's name. It was not meant to be insulting. Don't be such a whiner.
Quoting D L X (Reply 78):
I fail to see how that somehow trumps the fact that the voters voted him out.
Correction - the Democrats voted him out. The general electorate voted him back in. That flies right in your face, doesn't it?
Quoting D L X (Reply 78):
But it isn't now! In many places, it is against the law to run from a place in which you do not vote.
It's not illegal in NY (as Hillary Clinton found out as well). So, irrelevant.
Quoting D L X (Reply 78): By calling her a Republican? When she herself calls herself a Republican?
No, by you (and other leftists) constantly trying to claim that Republicans are mindless drones. If that were the case, Republicans would not be split, would they? Checkmate yourself.
Quoting D L X (Reply 78): Enough to get the endorsement of the NRA!
Quoting D L X (Reply 78):
You really should read the context. That's exactly what Seb146 was talking about.
So why do you ignore context here?
Quoting D L X (Reply 78): BS. Rush is the biggest mouthpiece in the Republican party, and that's not something you are unaware of. That's why every time a Republican says something that Rush doesn't like, that Republican immediately genuflects to the great El Rushbo. I don't even know why you deny this.
Rush is a commentator outside the party structure. I think he's right - you are obsessed.
Quoting D L X (Reply 78): DO you know what Marxism is? Do you know what socialism is?
Because when you throw around those words, it suggests that you do not. It suggests that you are just parroting Rush.
As an economist who has spent years if former communist and socialist countries, I can say yes, I know what they are, and that the current Democratic leadership is very much enamored with those philosophies.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. - Winston Churchill
N1120A From United States, joined Dec 2003, 23671 posts, RR: 89 Reply 81, posted (1 month 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 363 times:
Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 65): Pro-Abortion
Pro-Gay Marriage
Pro-Organized Labor
The first two of those, being pro-choice and pro-equal marriage, are very conservative positions. Pro-labor is relative. Does it mean she respects the idea of freedom of contract? If so, that is also a very conservative position.
Quoting D L X (Reply 78):
DO you know what Marxism is? Do you know what socialism is?
Because when you throw around those words, it suggests that you do not. It suggests that you are just parroting Rush.
Yup, most people parroting socialism have no clue what real socialism is. It's like the boy who cried wolf.
Absolutely. The world has seen nothing like the Paris Commune since...well...the Paris Commune. Those who scream and yell about Obama being a "socialist" either have no clue about political economy, or ignore the realities to make it a talking point.
They also have no idea that true Capitalism and true Socialism have the same outcome, but that neither is possible simply because of human nature and our long held beliefs about certain things (like saving money for a rainy day) being good ideas.
And for the last time, people like Hoffman, Palin and Beck are NOT conservative. George W. Bush is NOT a conservative. Rush Limbaugh is NOT a conservative. If you believe these people are conservative, you have no clue what you are talking about.
I would vote for a lot of true conservatives in a heart beat. Richard Riordan? Absolutely. Lincoln Chafee? Sure. George H.W. Bush pre-Reagan? Probably, but only if he ditched the Neo-Con big brother, rule by force garbage. Bill Clinton. If only he could run again.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
D L X From United States, joined May 1999, 7825 posts, RR: 55 Reply 82, posted (1 month 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 355 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 80): I shortened somebody's name. It was not meant to be insulting.
It didn't look that way to me. Time will show if you're good on your word.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 80): Correction - the Democrats voted him out. The general electorate voted him back in. That flies right in your face, doesn't it?
Dude, this is EXACTLY what I said, as early as Reply 57.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 80): constantly trying to claim that Republicans are mindless drones.
I love it! This is your response to my pointing out that I am not exaggerating as you accused? Please cite where I have said Republicans are mindless drones.
Right. You were crying about Lieberman being "drummed out" of the Democrat party over "one little thing", while you're endorsing drumming out long term Republicans in an area in which you do not live because of not meeting YOUR definition of what a Republican is.
So yeah... nice response.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 80): Quoting D L X (Reply 78):
BS. Rush is the biggest mouthpiece in the Republican party, and that's not something you are unaware of. That's why every time a Republican says something that Rush doesn't like, that Republican immediately genuflects to the great El Rushbo. I don't even know why you deny this.
Rush is a commentator outside the party structure. I think he's right - you are obsessed.
Naw, if I were obsessed with Rush, I'd be a Republican, clearly.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 80): As an economist who has spent years if former communist and socialist countries, I can say yes, I know what they are, and that the current Democratic leadership is very much enamored with those philosophies.
Then I wonder about your bona fides! "Socialism" and "Marxism" are nothing more than scare words that you guys toss around to scare those that don't know what those words mean, just that they must be bad. Nothing Obama has done is any more "socialist" than Reagan.
Dreadnought From United States, joined Feb 2008, 2551 posts, RR: 5 Reply 83, posted (1 month 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 340 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 82): I love it! This is your response to my pointing out that I am not exaggerating as you accused? Please cite where I have said Republicans are mindless drones.
You accused republicans of wanting to drum out anyone who did not agree with everything Rush says in reply 57.
Is this the supposed post-partisan spirit he was supposed to bring in? Read this mailer from the DNC, which in its official capacity as the Democratic Party, calls those who do not agree with Obama "tea party wing nuts", "lunatics", "nutcases".
So just cut it out. The Republican party is just as varied as any other, but is (or should be) unified on the concepts that made America a great country - self reliance, exceptionalism, and limited government under the Constitution.
Quoting D L X (Reply 82): Right. You were crying about Lieberman being "drummed out" of the Democrat party over "one little thing", while you're endorsing drumming out long term Republicans in an area in which you do not live because of not meeting YOUR definition of what a Republican is.
Quoting D L X (Reply 82): Naw, if I were obsessed with Rush, I'd be a Republican, clearly.
You talk about him more than any Republican I know, ergo...
Quoting D L X (Reply 82): "Socialism" and "Marxism" are nothing more than scare words that you guys toss around
No they are not. Marxism is a very well defined political and economic philosophy. Socialism is less well-defined, but can be considered a watered-down version of Communism (which is what Marx thought of socialism, by the way). You might do some reading on the subject if you think they are simply scare words.
Quoting D L X (Reply 82): Nothing Obama has done is any more "socialist" than Reagan.
Wow.
Quoting D L X (Reply 82): Same here, buddy. Same here.
Name a prominent Republican you have voted for.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. - Winston Churchill
D L X From United States, joined May 1999, 7825 posts, RR: 55 Reply 84, posted (1 month 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 329 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 83): Quoting D L X (Reply 82):
Same here, buddy. Same here.
Name a prominent Republican you have voted for.
Tom Davis.
Now, I answered your question even though you completely mischaracterized the point. N1120A said he wants to see a true CONSERVATIVE run. But as I have argued against Fr8Mech before, Conservative <> Republican.
Fr8Mech From United States, joined Sep 2005, 1567 posts, RR: 1 Reply 85, posted (1 month 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 324 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 78): Based on the cherry-picked issues that YOU picked because they are important to YOU, in SDF. SDF is not in NY23 is it?
Actually, no. I picked the positions that were presented in the Wikipedia entry referenced in a previous post. Her 'vote for me' website is gone, so I couldn't get the full scope of her positions. But from what I've seen...she is no Conservative or Republican. An Independent at best.
Quoting N1120A (Reply 81): The first two of those, being pro-choice and pro-equal marriage, are very conservative positions. Pro-labor is relative. Does it mean she respects the idea of freedom of contract? If so, that is also a very conservative position.
What world do you live in? Pro-choice (or abortion) a conservative value? Pro-equal marriage (exactly what is that?) or gay-marriage is conservative? Do you rationalize much? I didn't say anything about pro-labor, I said pro-organized labor. She supported card-check. Enough said.
Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 79): Yup, most people parroting socialism have no clue what real socialism is. It's like the boy who cried wolf.
I know what Socialism is, I grew up in Greece...and I know we're not there...yet. I also know that if we keep moving in the direction Obama and gang are taking us, we still won't be European Socialists. But, in the frame of minds of Americans, Obama is almost the most Socialist president we've ever had. F.D.R. is number one because he managed to move the country much further to the left than Obama has yet. See me in a year and maybe they will have changed positions.
Never heard of him. Had to look him up. You don't mean you cast a vote for him when he twice ran unopposed, do you?
Quoting D L X (Reply 84): Now, I answered your question even though you completely mischaracterized the point. N1120A said he wants to see a true CONSERVATIVE run. But as I have argued against Fr8Mech before, Conservative <> Republican.
I would agree that I want some true conservatives to run, specifically classical liberals, who are conservative in terms of fiscal policy and the size and scope of government, and who put less weight on social conservatism. Republicans have strayed far from this, but even you have to admit they are a lot closer to the ideal than Democrats.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. - Winston Churchill
Ken777 From United States, joined Mar 2004, 2926 posts, RR: 12 Reply 87, posted (1 month 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 317 times:
Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 85): F.D.R. is number one because he managed to move the country much further to the left than Obama has yet.
Well, FDR did get Social Security going, but LBJ did his share with the Great Society.
Of course, Truman was pretty much a radical, integrating the military, but he made the decision to use nuclear weapons so conservatives probably balance him out as a moderate.
We'll see where Obama is a year from now. If health reform fails we'll also see how much health insurance premiums increase over the next 12 months.
Falcon84 From United States, joined Sep 2004, 15067 posts, RR: 82 Reply 89, posted (1 month 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 304 times:
A conservatives-only party would not get very far. A truly national party has to have pull and clout beyond their constituencies, and if there is a true "Conservative Party", it would be a minor third party, I believe, of mostly right-wing extremists, who don't want to compromise anything, anytime, anywhere. That's not how you win elections, nor how you govern in a free society.
The GOP needs to come to terms iwth the far-right of it's party, and figure out what it wants to be in the long run. It has some nice wins on Tuesday, but that only masks the huge divisions remaining in the party between fiscally conservative/socially moderate Republicans, and conservatives within the party. Until the GOP comes to terms with that, they'll still have some problerms in national elections, despite yesterday's nice wins for them.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3): I have been saying all along the repubs currently in office are just as bad as the dems in office. We need to get rid of all of them.
On that, I agree 100%, and you and I never agree. Every incumbent in the House and Senate needs to be replaced, and term limits instituted. It's the only way to bring back sanity into the Legislative branch of government.
Cws818 From United States, joined Aug 2008, 431 posts, RR: 0 Reply 90, posted (1 month 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 284 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 44): Scozzafava intentionally handed the Democrats that seat, to the detriment of the party that nominated her.
No, she endorsed the Democratic candidate when she suspended her campaign. So, the voters of the 23rd District "intentionally handed the Democrats that seat," by voting.
Falcon84 From United States, joined Sep 2004, 15067 posts, RR: 82 Reply 91, posted (1 month 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 285 times:
Quoting Cws818 (Reply 90): Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 44):
Scozzafava intentionally handed the Democrats that seat, to the detriment of the party that nominated her.
No, she endorsed the Democratic candidate when she suspended her campaign. So, the voters of the 23rd District "intentionally handed the Democrats that seat," by voting.
Exactly. Had Scozzafava endores the Conservative, would you be that upset about it, Charles? The voters decide. Case close.
N1120A From United States, joined Dec 2003, 23671 posts, RR: 89 Reply 92, posted (1 month 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 266 times:
Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 85):
What world do you live in? Pro-choice (or abortion) a conservative value? Pro-equal marriage (exactly what is that?) or gay-marriage is conservative? Do you rationalize much?
Not rationalizing anything. The conservative position would be to leave people alone.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
Dreadnought From United States, joined Feb 2008, 2551 posts, RR: 5 Reply 93, posted (1 month 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 244 times:
Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 91):
Exactly. Had Scozzafava endores the Conservative, would you be that upset about it, Charles? The voters decide. Case close.
She should have either endorsed the Conservative Party, which have always been allied to the Republicans (they might rethink that), or just kept quiet and not endorsed anyone. If just a quarter of her supporters voted Democrat because of her endorsement, that was enough to give Owens the win.
Quoting N1120A (Reply 92): Not rationalizing anything. The conservative position would be to leave people alone.
I agree. The social conservatism needs to be toned down.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. - Winston Churchill
Yellowstone From United States, joined Aug 2006, 2329 posts, RR: 11 Reply 94, posted (1 month 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 245 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 93): She should have either endorsed the Conservative Party, which have always been allied to the Republicans (they might rethink that), or just kept quiet and not endorsed anyone.
Why? Owens was a conservative Democrat who had a better grasp of local issues than Hoffman. It's quite reasonable to think that Scozzafava felt that Owens would represent NY-23 better than Hoffman, in which case her endorsement was entirely appropriate.
The concept of hell as a place of eternal fiery damnation is thermodynamically unsound.
D L X From United States, joined May 1999, 7825 posts, RR: 55 Reply 95, posted (1 month 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 236 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 93): She should have either endorsed the Conservative Party, which have always been allied to the Republicans
If the conservative party (which basically only exists in NY to harrass the Republican party) were ALLIED with the Republican party, it wouldn't be a separate party, now would it?
Besides that, Hoffman's whole slate of issues (according to his own website) was how he was different from Scozzafava. Why would she endorse him then?
Your premise is flawed.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 93): If just a quarter of her supporters voted Democrat because of her endorsement, that was enough to give Owens the win.
Owens, actually being a resident of NY23 is likely more in touch with what the residents of NY23 want. Face it, Hoffman was a carpetbagger, backed by carpetbagger money. Many people would be offended by outsiders trying to tell them what to do. You just don't like him because he has a D after his name.
I'll ask you again, since you dodged it earlier. Do you live in NY23? Do you know what they want up in NY23? What's your source of expertise?
You Republican fan boys crack me up sometimes. It's not about doing what the locals want to you, it's all about rooting for your team.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 83): Quoting D L X (Reply 82):
"Socialism" and "Marxism" are nothing more than scare words that you guys toss around
No they are not. Marxism is a very well defined political and economic philosophy. Socialism is less well-defined, but can be considered a watered-down version of Communism (which is what Marx thought of socialism, by the way). You might do some reading on the subject if you think they are simply scare words.
Is England socialist? Is Japan? Germany? Canada? Hong Kong? Are any of these countries like the Soviet Union or Cuba? Or even Venezuela?
It's a scare tactic, and you as a well-versed economist should know that very well.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 83): Quoting D L X (Reply 82):
I love it! This is your response to my pointing out that I am not exaggerating as you accused? Please cite where I have said Republicans are mindless drones.
You accused republicans of wanting to drum out anyone who did not agree with everything Rush says in reply 57.
And here is Obama on the subject:
Charles, I asked you to cite where *I* have said Republicans are mindless drones. I didn't ask you to tell me what anyone else said. You are diverting.
Seb146 From United States, joined Nov 1999, 6522 posts, RR: 24 Reply 97, posted (1 month 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 218 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 80): Quoting D L X (Reply 78):
BS. Rush is the biggest mouthpiece in the Republican party, and that's not something you are unaware of. That's why every time a Republican says something that Rush doesn't like, that Republican immediately genuflects to the great El Rushbo. I don't even know why you deny this.
Rush is a commentator outside the party structure. I think he's right - you are obsessed.
Rush was not happy that the GOP picked McCain to run for president. Rush was ga-ga over Palin and is to this day. I think the biggest reason Rush did not want McCain to be nominated is because McCain is a free thinker. McCain, you recall, at one point, threatened to leave the GOP for the Democrats. Rush sees free thinking as a threat to GOP power.
Also, for eight years, we heard Rush praise Bush and slam anyone who spoke out against him. Now, we are hearing Rush speak out against Obama and slam anyone who speaks out in favor of any faction of the Democratic party. Every single voice that speaks out against any hand-picked (by Rush) "Republican" is called a marxist, communist, socialist, liberal and Democrat with absolutly no regard for the definition of any of those words.
If anyone is obsessed, it is Rush who is, and has been, trying to get the United States down to his vision of what he wants this country to be: "Republicans" with no opposition who spend, spend, spend and borrow, borrow, borrow with no regard for how it will all be paid for, and the United States military in every last nation for I don't know what purpose.
Fr8Mech From United States, joined Sep 2005, 1567 posts, RR: 1 Reply 98, posted (1 month 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 212 times:
Quoting N1120A (Reply 92): The conservative position would be to leave people alone.
That would be more Libertarian than Conservative. I have a strong Libertarian streak, but I also understand that we need some structure. That structure comes from family, government and for some, religion.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 96): Political purity doesn't win elections.
And that is the basis of my arguments, thank you.
We are actually seeing that right now withthe current healthcare debate. The political purists on the left are running into those moderate Democrats that aren't quite sure about the party line. There's stuff in those 2000 pages that they know has nothing to do with health care and everything to do with control. Those 'blue dogs' may be Democrats, but they aren't toeing the line. Let's see how the 'party of tolerance' tolerates their transgressions if this latest iteration doesn't pass.
Fr8Mech From United States, joined Sep 2005, 1567 posts, RR: 1 Reply 99, posted (1 month 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 211 times:
Quoting Seb146 (Reply 97): Rush sees free thinking as a threat to GOP power
I disagree. I've listened to Rush off and on for years. The reason that Rush did not want to see McCain nominated was:
Quoting Seb146 (Reply 97): McCain, you recall, at one point, threatened to leave the GOP for the Democrats.
Why would you want someone to represent your party who threatens to leave it?
Quoting Seb146 (Reply 97): If anyone is obsessed, it is Rush who is,
Lest we forget, Rush is an entertainer. He knows what sells. Bashing the Left sells. It sells with the Right. It sells with the Left and it sells in the Middle. Personally, I prefer Medved, more balance.
Quoting Seb146 (Reply 97): Every single voice that speaks out against any hand-picked (by Rush) "Republican" is called a marxist, communist, socialist, liberal and Democrat with absolutly no regard for the definition of any of those words.
But does the classic definition of these terms hold? Marxist and communist are interchangeable. Socialist, liberal and democrat are similiarly interchangeable. I'm guessing you can't find 10 people on the street that can differentiate between the terms. To the politically ignorant, these terms describe political leanings in the same spectrum with the same attributes.
Those who can differentiate automatically do so when they hear the terms in context. Rush will use them freely because those terms SELL.
Dreadnought From United States, joined Feb 2008, 2551 posts, RR: 5 Reply 100, posted (1 month 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 205 times:
Quoting Seb146 (Reply 97): I think the biggest reason Rush did not want McCain to be nominated is because McCain is a free thinker.
Rush doesn't like McCain because McCain is pro-cap-and-tax and is generally quite progressive (i.e. likes big government). It has nothing to do with being a free thinker - in fact I believe the free thinkers are the ones who resist the mainstream tendency to want to use government to help everyone and everything on the planet.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. - Winston Churchill
Aaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 4593 posts, RR: 22 Reply 101, posted (1 month 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 204 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 83): Is this the supposed post-partisan spirit he was supposed to bring in? Read this mailer from the DNC, which in its official capacity as the Democratic Party, calls those who do not agree with Obama "tea party wing nuts", "lunatics", "nutcases".
I think it has been clear for some time that Obama is not capable of delivering on most of things he claims to be for. This should come as no surprise.
Quoting N1120A (Reply 92): The conservative position would be to leave people alone.
Amen to that. Until the FRC nutjobs are gone and chickenhawk foreign policy talk abates, I don't see much reason to be excited.
"Sentimentality plays with sweet intentions in place of good sense." - Jane Jacobs
FuturePilot16 From United States, joined Mar 2007, 842 posts, RR: 0 Reply 102, posted (1 month 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 196 times:
Conservatives are confused. They call people who are gay or choose to live a lifestyle not of family values as degenerates. They preach family values and then they get caught with their pants down and a prostitute in the car. I believe every right winger out there who prays conservatism has a dirty side, but the judge other people for doing the same thing. There is only one word for that, "hypocrite".
Ken777 From United States, joined Mar 2004, 2926 posts, RR: 12 Reply 104, posted (1 month 2 weeks ago) and read 183 times:
Quoting Seb146 (Reply 97): If anyone is obsessed, it is Rush who is, and has been, trying to get the United States down to his vision of what he wants this country to be: "Republicans" with no opposition who spend, spend, spend and borrow, borrow, borrow with no regard for how it will all be paid for, and the United States military in every last nation for I don't know what purpose.
Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 99): Lest we forget, Rush is an entertainer.
Bingo! Rush is a master of BS that "The Faithful" will listen to, build his ratings and increase his income. No matter that a lot of what he says is pap or full of hate (or ridicule) - if it gets ears he gets the money. Last contract was, what, $400,000,000.00?
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 100): in fact I believe the free thinkers are the ones who resist the mainstream tendency to want to use government to help everyone and everything on the planet.
Or resist the conservative tendency to want government to do as little as possible and minimize their individual taxes.
Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 101): I think it has been clear for some time that Obama is not capable of delivering on most of things he claims to be for.
After a full 9 months in office? Maybe that's why we let a President have a 4 year term.
This election clearly shows that the American public has reached a high point in demanding instant gratification.
Personally I think the Great Recession is going to take longer than a few months to fix up. At least the initial signs are starting to show.
Dreadnought From United States, joined Feb 2008, 2551 posts, RR: 5 Reply 105, posted (1 month 2 weeks ago) and read 181 times:
Quoting N1120A (Reply 103):
"Progressive" doesn't really mean pro-big government. It means getting out of the dark ages.
No, although I'm sure you'd like to think so. Progressivism is based on the idea that government, rather than being a necessary evil that we need to perform certain services we need and cannot have otherwise (like defence, security, justice, protection of rights etc), but should actually be used as a force for good, via active intervention. Universal Health care is a good example - nobody is dying in the streets because we don't have it, so it's not strictly necessary, but progressives want to go in and improve things.
I would not consider progressives evil or anything like that, rather naive and arrogant to think that they can manipulate markets without having unintended consequences worse than the ill you are trying to mend. Conservatives are no different than progressives and liberals in that we would love to see an end to poverty, injustice, war and so forth. It's just that you guys are much more trusting and willing to accept the premise that government can take over and perform these tasks without destroying something vital to our existence. We feel that government is by nature incompetent - hence the need for limitations on its powers, which is why we wrote the Constitution, with enumerated and limited powers. Progressives see such Constitutions as obstacles, as they see no reason why government should be limited as long as its intentions are good.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. - Winston Churchill
N1120A From United States, joined Dec 2003, 23671 posts, RR: 89 Reply 107, posted (1 month 2 weeks ago) and read 174 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 105): nobody is dying in the streets because we don't have it
No, just in their homes when they can't get their carrier to cover something.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 105): Progressivism is based on the idea that government, rather than being a necessary evil that we need to perform certain services we need and cannot have otherwise
The whole idea of government stems from the human nature to form communities. Hardly evil.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
Dreadnought From United States, joined Feb 2008, 2551 posts, RR: 5 Reply 108, posted (1 month 2 weeks ago) and read 172 times:
Quoting N1120A (Reply 107): The whole idea of government stems from the human nature to form communities. Hardly evil.
The need is not - but establishing a government means giving up certain freedoms (i.e. you must agree to obey laws). To a certain extent, this is perfectly acceptable in return for the security such laws provide. But at some point, government can become tyrannical or destructive. That is why we have a Constitution, because the Founders said, "we need a government, but only up to a certain limit."
Quoting N1120A (Reply 107): No, just in their homes when they can't get their carrier to cover something.
You think that handing it over to the government will improve things? Medicare and Medicaid have among the highest claim rejection rates of the large insurers.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. - Winston Churchill
Ken777 From United States, joined Mar 2004, 2926 posts, RR: 12 Reply 109, posted (1 month 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 158 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 105): nobody is dying in the streets because we don't have it, so it's not strictly necessary, but progressives want to go in and improve things.
Actually certain, lower income groups are dying at a higher rate than meddle class & up whites. Breast cancer for women of color is a good example. Catch it late because of the cost of care today and death rates are higher than those who can afford to get routine care.
It's not necessary if you don't care about those less fortunate than you, but it is necessary if you're concerned about the implications of delayed or denied care.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 105): We feel that government is by nature incompetent - hence the need for limitations on its powers, which is why we wrote the Constitution, with enumerated and limited powers. Progressives see such Constitutions as obstacles, as they see no reason why government should be limited as long as its intentions are good.
I see the Constitution as a core foundation that was built when community attitudes were set at the Revolutionary Era. Things have changed. Slavery is gone, women can vote. Both, I guess, can be attributed to those radical progressives that believe the Constitution should be a living document that can adjust to changing worlds.
Now you may consider government incompetent because it allowed slavery and kept women from voting. Or because of some other failure over the life of this country. My preference is to understand that those working in government positions are human and just as likely to make errors as you are. I can live with that, especially since I believe that private sector organizations have just as many problems and failures.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 106): I don't think any Republican or their supporters talked like this Tuesday night!
That gal was talking about hope. Not unexpected from a black person who has seen this country through the eyes of a person of color - and sees another person of color elected to the Presidency. Why wouldn't their level of hope increase.
As far as the Republican's delivering on the hope they were elected on - they get judged after 9 months in office, just like Obama has been. Probably be easier in VA than NJ, but they still get their 9 months for instant gratification.
Seb146 From United States, joined Nov 1999, 6522 posts, RR: 24 Reply 110, posted (1 month 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 157 times:
Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 99): Socialist, liberal and democrat are similiarly interchangeable
Well, actually, no, they are not. Here's why: Democrats are the party currently in power of the White House and House of Representatives. There are *factions* within the Democratic party that look to be "liberal" by the standards of people like Rush. To further that notion, those same factions are being labled as "socialist" and "communist" and "marxist." Since "communists" are evil, in the eyes of the likes of Rush (because of McCarthy and the fear McCarthy held the country under), all of those terms are interchangeable in the view of right-wing talking heads. There are a few that understand that Olympia Snowe is not a "liberal" simply because she voted in committee with the Democrats one time (that she didn't need to), and that Bauchas is not a "liberal" simply because he is a Democrat but, as has been said, it makes more money to call everyone "evil" and "socialist" and "liberal" and so forth.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Mar 2004, 2926 posts, 
From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 4593 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
