Larry Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 This may be true but only up until they win. If they manage to retake the Senate by a slim margin, the TeaKlan will immediately assume it's a mandate from the whole country for their far right agenda and start spewing their nonsense again. Besides, they have to control themselves all the way through the next election. My money says that as the primary season ramps up they'll be in full "I'm the real conservative in this race because I support [insert racist/sexist/conspiracy theory/generally stupid comment here]" and toes will again be shot off. It's inevitable from the party of Barney Fife so all the Dems have to do is wait until cousin Andy gives Barney his bullet back. I would argue exactly the opposite. The GOP may have no problem at all, unanimously voting for a budget that eliminates taxes, cuts federal spending by 35%, eliminates the EPA, but don't worry, were going to cut social security checks by 8% a year, every year, and we'll break even in 35-50 years, when they know darned well that it won't pass. If they actually gain control of both houses? Yeah, they'll repeal Obamacare in a heartbeat. But things like those Ryan magical budgets they've been unanimously voting in favor of? IMO, suddenly those will become a whole lot more rational. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Yikes..... Maybe make sure people like Mary Helen Sears don't win a spot on Michigan's Republican National Committee. Michigan RNC Candidate: GOP Should Consider “Purging” Gays from Party Mary Helen Sears of Houghton County (located near the very northern tip of the U.P.) is clearly in the Religious Right mold and, as recently as last March, she called for the purging of all gays and lesbians from the Republican Party. Agema thinks that gays live a “filthy” lifestyle; Sears thinks they are the work of the devil. Apparently some Republican insiders are so shaken by the prospect of having Agema and Sears as Michigan’s two representatives on the RNC that they’re growing concerned about two mainstream Republicans in the three-person field splitting their votes, thereby allowing Sears to claim victory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Yikes..... Maybe make sure people like Mary Helen Sears don't win a spot on Michigan's Republican National Committee.In first with the "that's just an isolated individual and not the whole party" response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveFromYellowstone Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 The sad part is that a sizable portion of the GOP agrees with her. In a normal first world country she would most likely be forced to step down immediately but in America she's just "fighting for christian beliefs". What do you do about that though? I don't see any answer besides education and to hope we become a secular nation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 You know, it's amazing to me that a person who can't even get subject verb agreement right even has a shot at a spot on the RNC, or the DNC for that matter. Totally OT but I wonder if she's a beard like Bachman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 anyone see the trend for Hispanics in Texas since the Obama election from Gallup? Must be doing something right....or they are just racist http://www.woai.com/articles/woai-local-news-119078/gallup-poll-crushes-democratic-dreams-of-12046711/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Or maybe they've been watching too much Koch Bros. TV, 'er Faux News. Be advised that the dumbening effect wears off after a while so y'all better make sure they keep thoose sets on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goskins10 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 not to mention, how long mus the GOP wait before the Dems majorly step on their own crank, and draw attention away from the latest GOP gaffs?? Never underestimate the democratic talent to fumble advantages and to steal defeat from the jaws of victory. It seems, based on the presidential election at least, the republicans have taken that moniker. By all accounts President Obama was quite vulnerable in terms of re-election. Yet the republicans systematically self destructed leaving a very weak and completely out of touch Mitt Romney as the only candidate without some huge skeleton in the closet - therefore snatching defeat from the jaws of victory! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rictus58 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-ehrlich-0209-20140208,0,2417777.column Nine ideas to revive the Republican Party: Bob Ehrlich I've been running around the country hawking my new book, listening to what people are saying, and scribbling notes about what a new Republican platform should contain — at least what one should contain if we ever want to win again. Herewith, my top nine planks, offered for your consideration at a time of continuing economic angst and rapid cultural change: •Reduce spending by half a percent. Seventeen and a half trillion dollars of debt and counting (not to mention the hundreds of billions spent on interest each year). Both parties are responsible, but the Obama era has been spectacularly expensive with over $7 trillion in new debt added over the past five years alone. This fiscal approach is unsustainable — and immoral. And while there is no silver bullet to cure our self-imposed spending dilemma, some slowing of our spending pace is in order. I propose half of 1 percent. Such a cut equates to a savings of $18.9 billion next fiscal year. I realize that even this minimalist proposal will excite those who rely on federal largesse. In a word, they will go "nuts." Apocalyptic predictions will dominate media coverage. But this would not be the end of the universe as we know it. The federal government would still spend nearly $4 trillion dollars. The market would respond in spectacular fashion. And for the first time in a long time, America's creditors (especially the Chinese) would see that we might be serious about a fiscal policy that sustains our super power status. much more at link.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Certainly makes some bold suggestions. (Including some that I've proposed). And some of the usual absolute disasters wrapped in sound bites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 "the Obama era has been spectacularly expensive with over $7 trillion in new debt added over the past five years alone." It's so irritating to read things like this. The implication from the article is that Obama has gone crazy with spending more money, like the out of control tax and spend Democrat he is. That is what all the die hard Republicans firmly believe. That is what their news sources tell them, every day. The reality that the additional debt comes from the fact that revenues have tanked due to the 2008 economic crash and the Bush era tax cuts rates is never mentioned. It doesn't exist. I understand that the GOP wants to cut taxes and reduce government, and that their policy solutions are always going to come from that angle. That is fine. But please be at least a little bit honest when you discuss the issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Yeah, I noticed that. The deficit is caused 100% by spending, and must be fixed 100% by spending cuts. But I wanted to read his suggestions, and not get sidetracked by the cheerleading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 This may be true but only up until they win. If they manage to retake the Senate by a slim margin, the TeaKlan will immediately assume it's a mandate from the whole country for their far right agenda and start spewing their nonsense again. Besides, they have to control themselves all the way through the next election. My money says that as the primary season ramps up they'll be in full "I'm the real conservative in this race because I support [insert racist/sexist/conspiracy theory/generally stupid comment here]" and toes will again be shot off. It's inevitable from the party of Barney Fife so all the Dems have to do is wait until cousin Andy gives Barney his bullet back. I think it is a broader question. Conservatives have ALWAYS been .... conservative. Whatever the latest demographic/social/economic trend... if you are "small-c-conservative", you resist it. And you keep on resisiting it until the battle is completely lost, and the world moves on to the next question. Sometimes the battle takes decades, and sometimes the battle is never "lost". But somehow the eventual "loss" of some of these individual battles never leads to an overall disappearance of Conservatives in America. Look back in time at any one specific issue. The conservative (small c) view point was that women should never get the vote, and if they did then the country would be led by irrational hormones bla bla bla... horrific armedegon .... end of society as we know it.... poof!! Demographically, that was a losing position. 50% of voters are women, and Conservatives would never be able to win another election without some slice of the women vote.... and yet, Conservatives survived the 1920s/30s and continued to be a force in american politics (and until recently captured ALMOST as big a share of women's votes as men's votes). That battle was "lost", and conservatives moved on to fighting the NEXT big rear-guard against the onslaught of progressives.... and survived. Conservatives are currently on the wrong side of the demographics on the immigration issue. and are now on the wrong side of the voting conscience on gay marriage. Chances are that these issues will come to some new equilibrium that is way into the territory that current conservatives hate (and currently will fight aggressively against). But eventually that new equilibrium will become the new norm, and some new issue will become the battle ground to preserve the morality of America. (and eventually gays and latinos will forget the battles of the past, and some of THEM will be (small c) conservative on the next issue, and will vote with the (big c) Conservatives. and Conservatives will survive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I think it is a broader question. Conservatives have ALWAYS been .... conservative. Whatever the latest demographic/social/economic trend... if you are "small-c-conservative", you resist it. And you keep on resisiting it until the battle is completely lost, and the world moves on to the next question. Sometimes the battle takes decades, and sometimes the battle is never "lost". I agree. The folks who want the government to discriminate never give up. They just fall back to the next barricade, and defend that one to the bitter end. (And then try to claim that the fact that they gave up the previous barricade, (after they lost the fight), somehow means that this barricade isn't discrimination.) Heck, they'll probably still be on the wrong side of morality, 200 years from now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I agree. The folks who want the government to discriminate never give up. They just fall back to the next barricade, and defend that one to the bitter end. (And then try to claim that the fact that they gave up the previous barricade, (after they lost the fight), somehow means that this barricade isn't discrimination.) Heck, they'll probably still be on the wrong side of morality, 200 years from now. And sometimes they will be on the correct side too. Not all liberalization/change is change for the better, and the conservative impulse is very important and valuable to society. Right now, American conservatives are (in my opinion) wrong about almost everything, especially on social issues. However, one could argue, for example, that the natural conservative impuse to oppose communist revolutions was absolutely correct. I think alcohol prohibition in the 1early 20th century as considered a "progressive" idea as well, to promote the nation's health and well-being and reduce crime - and it was a total failure, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 However, one could argue, for example, that the natural conservative impuse to oppose communist revolutions was absolutely correct. Granted, we're getting into secondary arguments, here. But my gut feeling is that a whole lot of our international relations problems are due to our decades-long policy of "we will prop up Satan himself, if the people who oppose him are getting their guns from the commies". And, domestically, should I point at the sterling period in our history concerning our own domestic "fighting commies"? (That said, though, I also think there have been cases, internationally, where communists have attempted to expand militarily. And yeah, I think that opposing them was the right thing to do.) I think alcohol prohibition in the 1early 20th century as considered a "progressive" idea as well, to promote the nation's health and well-being and reduce crime - and it was a total failure, of course. And speaking of political parties who run from one Bad Idea, fall back a little, and then attempt to defend the same Bad Idea, just a little bit further back . . . (But, yeah, if your point was that "not all liberal ideas are good ideas", then I'm certainly with you.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 (But, yeah, if your point was that "not all liberal ideas are good ideas", then I'm certainly with you.) Yeah, that was my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 10, 2014 Author Share Posted February 10, 2014 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/10/us/politics/chastened-gop-tries-to-foil-insurgents-at-primary-level.html Chastened G.O.P. Tries to Foil Insurgents at Primary Level By JEREMY W. PETERS FEB. 9, 2014 Seems like some people are finally listening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Chastened G.O.P. Tries to Foil Insurgents at Primary Level By JEREMY W. PETERS FEB. 9, 2014 Seems like some people are finally listening. That means nothing. It's what the primary or caucus voters decide. If they decide to vote for the tea party guy or gal and that person wins; it won't matter how much money the GOP establishment and their allied spend to try to foil the tea party voters. The Republican Civil War will be the political story of this year; even more so than the actual November elections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 10, 2014 Author Share Posted February 10, 2014 That means nothing. It's what the primary or caucus voters decide. If they decide to vote for the tea party guy or gal and that person wins; it won't matter how much money the GOP establishment and their allied spend to try to foil the tea party voters. The Republican Civil War will be the political story of this year; even more so than the actual November elections. Sure. Because people spend gazillions of dollars on campaign ads because the dont work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 That means nothing. It's what the primary or caucus voters decide. If they decide to vote for the tea party guy or gal and that person wins; it won't matter how much money the GOP establishment and their allied spend to try to foil the tea party voters. The Republican Civil War will be the political story of this year; even more so than the actual November elections. silly rabbit. I bet you also think the GOP pushed for the citizens united decision because they care about free speech! American voters vote whichever way the money tells them to via half-true attack ads. If the Dems had more money they could run more of their own half-true attack ads to counteract the GOP but so far, they're coming up a bit short. However make no mistake about it, money matters. A lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 That means nothing. on the contrary, it means the establishment will start paying attention to the little things....like running candidates may the best man/woman win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/02/erika-harold-republicans-illinois-103357.html?hp=pm_1#.UvmhILT-nWh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/02/erika-harold-republicans-illinois-103357.html?hp=pm_1#.UvmhILT-nWh No mention of why she's supposedly being opposed. I do observe that she seems to push all the SoCon buttons, although opposing the death penalty sure seems counter to that. Maybe it's just a case of wanting to avoid rocking the boat, in a district that votes 49-49, already? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 11, 2014 Author Share Posted February 11, 2014 The simple and obvious reason is that it's easier to win a seat with an incumbent than it is with a newcomer. Although I'm not surprised that Politico ran the story with the veiled implication of racism. I'll expect MSNBC to start running stories before the end of the week Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.