Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker was already in hot water with the GOP base for criticizing Sarah Palin. Now she may be excommunicated for declaring that the GOP has a God problem. “The evangelical, right-wing branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn’t soon cometh,” she wrote. “Simply put: Armband religion is killing the Republican Party. The choir has become absurdly off-key, and many Republicans know it.” Parker argued that “it isn’t necessary to evict the Creator from the public square, surrender Judeo-Christian values or diminish the value of faith in America. But like it or not, we are a diverse nation, no longer predominantly white and Christian. The change Barack Obama promised already has occurred, which is why he won.” Her conclusion: “The future of the GOP looks dim and dimmer if it stays the present course. Either the Republican Party needs a new base – or the nation may need a new party.”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- RightAngle on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on ACORN stole election?
- thomaswitt on ACORN stole election?
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on ACORN stole election?
- Phantom on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
88 Comments
I have often called the Republican party and evangelical Christianity a perfect marriage.
Now? It is a perfect and unbreakable death embrace.
The cons can’t win WITH the church and they can’t win without it.
“Either the Republican Party needs a new base – or the nation may need a new party.”
Interesting mornic statement. How do you kick the base out of a political party in a democratic society?
Who determines that the evangelical wing of the Republican party is the Republican Party’s base?
Answer: The voters who call themselves Republican and vote in every election.
If the Republican party wants to change its base, doesn’t the base have to change first?
Perhaps, Kathleen should lead the way and establish a new party with a new base if she is so unhappy with the base that supports her current one.
The “family” feud that could unfold here MAY be most interesting!
In THIS corner, caring about nothing but ruining government and getting rich in the process, the NEOCONS!
And in THIS corner, ordained by God to tell everyone how to live, the FUNDIES!
And outside the ring, wanting NO government at all the FREEPERS!
This isn’t that new. It’s been talked about since the Clinton years.
Kansas is a perfect example.
The mixing of small-government rhetoric, big-government authoritarianism, leveraged profiteering, and old-time fanatical dogma, was destined to eventually explode.
The real mystery is why it worked so long. I guess there were a lot of confused people, but I think it was mostly folks obsessively focused on their own piece of the pie.
The only unifying theme was “me, mine, and my agenda, and screw you!”
. . .all wrapped in an American flag, of course!
Just another in a sea of ignorant opinions. Four years ago, the Democrats were lost in the wilderness
with no hope in sight.
One opinion I would like to hear though, is an informed, competent plan for fixing what is really on American’s mind now. Namely fixing what ails the world economy.
Can I get an Amen??!!!!!!
;)
The people who come out and vote ever election day, year after year, determine the base of the Repbublican party. Not a hoity-toity monday morning quarterback with a column in a newspaper.
Parker needs a scapegoat for her teams recent thumping. The fact that she doesn’t trumpet issues, she blames her own voters by seeking to marginalize evangelicals reveals how lost she is in her own failed effort to elucidate conservative principles.
Issues and rhetoric about sound government policy for the public good should be in the forefront of discussion for a columnist serious about influence an electorate for the better, Not marginalizing groups of people just for spite.
Like it or not, good morals make good communities make good government. No offense to anybody who disagrees to me, but that is one voter’s opinion among many.
If Barack Obama’s election represents the change that has already occured in America, then what is stopping Parker from changing herself?
Oh yeah, she is trying to “save” the Republican party.
Oddly enough I was just watching a panel on CSPAN discussing the future of the party and what should be done to remold it. One of the panel members started out good talking about how the GOP had written off minorities and particular blacks. They would not vote for us anyway so why waste time paying any attention to them. But now we have the first black president and it shows that the minority is a force to be courted with. He was sounding like he was facing the realities.
Then he went off in to left field and returned to the same old problem that has cost the party the public’s support. He pointed out that Obama is sending his children to a private school because the D.C. Public schools were in such bad shape he would not send his kids there. And the party should confront him over it.
“ We could instill faith once again in the party by correcting problems… nah let just go on the attack again!”
He than omitted he himself would not send his kids to D.C. public schools either!
I will say this much: the not-Bush coalition is not necessarily more stable than what preceded it.
But the ideas of the predecessors have been soundly rejected, and will remains so for at least a few years, if not more.
It will take more than a crystal ball to determine what happens next but, oddly, Parker actually has a clue. We are a more diverse country, and dealing with that diversity will mandatory to any leaders in the future.
And there’s no way in hell we’ll be going back to supply-side economics. Bank on that, if your bank hasn’t failed yet.
admitted sorry not omitted
Absurd.
Even while Obama won the election, we still have people in California supporting Prop 8 and it passing.
The simple fact is that this country still values the same traditional values that us Christians in the Republican party do.
This election was not a vote for some liberal like Obama as much as it was punishment for the Republicans abandoning their fiscal conservative ways.
The problem is not Evangelicals in the party. The problem is that the Republicans can’t out spend and can’t out buy votes like the Democrats and when we try we lose.
We win elections by being Conservative, by being true to our smaller Government and less spending ideals.
If the Republican party wants to change its base, doesn’t the base have to change first?
No. It can stop pandering to the base . . . stop making abortion and gay marriage the be-all and end-all of political campaigns and run on issues that really matter to Americans.
We win elections by being Conservative, by being true to our smaller Government and less spending ideals.
Well, that’d be a helluva good start, Nathan.
But as far as I can tell, you have to go back to Hoover to find a CON that actually practiced that ideal.
St. Ronnie of Reagan for instance doubled the national debt (as a percentage of GDP). George WPE Bush doubled the national debt again in nominal terms . . . from 5 TRILLION under Clinton and going down to over 10 TRILLION under the WPE and going up.
It is a sad fact that many Obama supporters were also homophobic bigots. They were willing to overlook an underplayed difference of opinion.
I hope he understands his debt to the supporters of equal rights who voted for him anyway.
BTW, Reich-wing God Squads like Oral Roberts University and Focus on the Family are cutting staff and costs massively these days.
The Mao-ral Majority types seem to be withering on the vine . . .
“outlander” claims –
“Four years ago, the Democrats were lost in the wilderness with no hope in sight.”
Guess it looks like we Democrats found a little hope in the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic convention, didn’t we?
And most Democrats realized we’ve garnered a plurality of popular votes in 4 out of the last 5 presidential elections.
This may have been a tactical victory for the Democrats, but in the presidency of Barack Obama it has a terrific chance to be a strategic sea-change in how the United States of America establishes itself on the planet.
You CONs aren’t gonna win that battle with stem cells and same-gender people marrying the one they love.
You CONs aren’t gonna win that battle by equating Two Dirty Coal Power Plants’ exhaust with opening a bottle of Pepsi in your back yard.
You CONs aren’t gonna win that battle shooting a physician who risks his life by helping a 10-year-old deal with the consequences of intra-family rape.
You CONs aren’t gonna win an election if your hopes are based on the Moose-Dresser who stood in front of a machine that crushed turkey head by blithely saying, “This was a day for fun.” And, yeah, I know my steak was once a steer and my lamb chop used to be wooly fluffy. Screw ‘em. They taste good.
I’ve been on some kill floors. I’ve been at a slaughterhouse and eaten the resulting meals. Still, it was never “…a day for fun!”
That’s your Republic Party base.
Nathan whines, The problem is that the Republicans can’t out spend . . .
Damn you millions of ordinary Americans for supporting your party with your small donations.
How are we Republican fat-cats supposed to compete with the fired-up majority who hate our guts?
“If the Republican party wants to change its base, doesn’t the base have to change first?”
“No. It can stop pandering to the base . . .”
By definition, pandering means that you are appealing to people outside of your base. It is impossible to pander to your base. Therefore it is impossible to stop pandering to the base. The base drives the party Democrat and Republican.
The base can not be ignored because it IS the party!
Doesn’t negate the fact that crossovers and independents are necessary to pick up for a national election win.
chuckle… Monkeyhawk’s straw monkeys.
You CONs aren’t gonna win that battle by equating Two Dirty Coal Power Plants’ exhaust with opening a bottle of Pepsi in your back yard.
You CONs aren’t gonna win that battle shooting a physician who risks his life by helping a 10-year-old deal with the consequences of intra-family rape.
You CONs aren’t gonna win an election if your hopes are based on the Moose-Dresser who stood in front of a machine that crushed turkey head by blithely saying, “This was a day for fun.” And, yeah, I know my steak was once a steer and my lamb chop used to be wooly fluffy. Screw ‘em. They taste good.
————
Monkeys fun to debate. He just makes up his own issues.
“We win elections by being Conservative, by being true to our smaller Government and less spending ideals.”
Dontcha love when the cons think the lose because they didn’t show just HOW bad bad can be?
Dems have found a leader to take them out of the desert and into the promised land, all repubs have is a burnt bush.
Dontcha love when the cons think the lose because they didn’t show just HOW bad bad can be?
——————
BlueJay,
The GOP lost because they ran a ‘lesser democrat’.
“BTW, Reich-wing God Squads like Oral Roberts University and Focus on the Family are cutting staff and costs massively these days.”
Did you mean to say the New York Times and the Wichita Eagle?
ANTI
The GOP lost because Sarah Palin was on the ticket.
You won’t see that.
This makes me glad!
I know you like Palin BlueJay.
I’m sure you get a chubby every time you mention her.
BlueJay,
The GOP lost because they ran a ‘lesser democrat’.
Keep believing that. Please.
Good afternoon outlander!
___________________________________________
“Monkeys fun to debate. He just makes up his own issues.”
___________________________________________
Monkeyman is so programed with his responses that anyone can take his place in the debate.
Not being able to ever have an original thought he can always fall back on his offer to ‘piss in your cornflakes’!
“The GOP lost because Sarah Palin was on the ticket.”
Palin was not a drag on the ticket until the Couric interview. Her conservative ideology did not drive people away but her inability to handle interviews with poise did.
Conservative idealogy wins against Nebulous Change every time when the issues are on stage. If the spokesperson for conservative idealogy can’t get the message cleraly due to flubs and distractions, then any stuffed suit preaching nebulous change will compete and in this case win.
The next 4-8 years will determine if Obama’s promise of nebulous change has any substance. My feeling and history confirms it is that conservative idealogy will win big again.
I don’t favor Palin to do that job, but I do support her ideology. It (not her) will be back in 2012 and with force.
As Thomas Frank points out, the conservatives think they fail only because they have not been conservative enough.
Keep at it, boys and remember the conservative government has never been tried.
If I was inclined to post hehe’s, I put in a long string of them here.
Capn,
Actually fleettwood makes a valid point. Everything, including nonprofits are in the toilet right now. Fleety, however, fails to point out that it has been a great 8 years of neoconservatism that brought about this very fine economic mess.
substituted another word with “toilet” in hopes my post will not be put on the “awaiting moderation” shelf
Steven
“it has been a great 8 years of neoconservatism that brought about this very fine economic mess.”
This very fine economic mess has been brought to us by overspending, government intervention in the mortgage industry, and reckless deregulation in the financial industry. Blame that on whomever you wish too, as long as you understand what caused it and take steps to change it. But I don’t see it happening with Barry and the Democrats firmly in charge.
Kathleen in your own words your future as a respected columnist “looks dim and dimmer if it stays the present course”.
Lately you have been terrible to read. In fact I usually skip your column completely, or at best just skim over.
You didn’t see it happening under Clinton and the Democrats either, Heckler.
But it happened nonetheless.
“Fiscal responsibility” is now a Democratic virtue.
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
BUSH SETS 50 YEAR RECORD FOR NATIONAL DEBT
The unbelievable DOUBLE WHAMMY:
*50-Year Record High Debt set on Sept. 22.
*$10 Trillion set on Sept. 30, 2008.
The gross national debt compared to GDP (how rich we are) reached its lowest level in the modern era under CARTER as Reagan took office in 1981.
It skyrocketed for 12 years through Bush I. Clinton reversed it at a peak of 67%.
Bush II crossed that line on Sept. 22 and hit 69% on Sept 30. That’s the highest it’s been since 1955 (53 years ago).
Bush did three things to skyrocket the debt from $5.7 trillion to $10 trillion:
1. He lowered taxes on the rich (by far the biggest item).
2. He invaded Iraq instead of winning in Afghan-Pakistan (another $600 B).
3. He loosened controls on Wall Street.
******
Without question, WORST. PRESIDENT. EVER.
WORST. PRESIDENT. POSSIBLE.
Not only that . . . but check this out.
The US was the world’s largest CREDITOR nation until St. Ronald of Reagan, when it abruptly became the world’s largest DEBTOR nation.
Nice going, CONs.
A man of action, vision and belief. Not perfect, but one of our greatest presidents. I would be honored to share in his legacy as CapnAmerica suggests.
Of course, I had nothing to do with it.
The Reagan Economic Legacy
Author:
Roger M. Kubarych, Henry Kaufman Adjunct Senior Fellow for International Economics and Finance
June 9, 2004
Council on Foreign Relations
A journalist asked me to sum up Ronald Reagan’s economic legacy. Here is a summary of how I responded:
Reagan, throughout his political career and his presidency, promoted a powerful economic philosophy, but implemented it pragmatically (or inconsistently, depending on one’s point of view).
He spoke of free markets but erected strict trade barriers, including the notorious “voluntary export restraints”, really quotas, on Japanese cars.
He spoke of limited government, but greatly expanded government spending.
He cut taxes, indifferent to the budgetary consequences, but then raised a number of taxes to undo part of the damage later on.
He supported an independent Fed monetary policy designed to break the back of debilitating inflation, but did not see the need for helping out with a more disciplined fiscal policy. The result was higher interest rates and a deeper recession than might otherwise have been necessary.
One act was unequivocal: He broke the air traffic controllers strike, a major blow to union power. Symbolically, it laid the foundation for a more flexible US labor market, launching the US job creation machine that is the envy of every other industrial country even today.
One undeniable plus, with an ironic twist: the highly constructive role he played personally in the midst of the market turmoil set off by the stock market break of October 1987. He and his top advisor, Howard Baker, immediately recognized the case for action and pitched in to encourage the coordinated corporate decisions to buy back shares that helped bring the rout to an early end. So government was a major player in restoring stability to the private markets when they struggled to do so on their own.
Another undeniable plus: he understood the inherent weakness of the Soviet economic system far better than life-long scholars who repeatedly misjudged the situation.
But a lot of questionable developments were permitted or tolerated. In particular were the financial excesses associated with junk bonds, highly leveraged companies, a doomed commercial real estate binge, the savings and loan debacle, and the Millken felonies. Timely regulatory involvement that might have stopped or mitigated extremes of behavior was blocked. In the end US taxpayers had to pay hundreds of billions to clean up the mess.
Another negative was permitting huge volatility in foreign exchange rates, which injured scores of manufacturing companies, their workers, and their communities as the dollar soared in his first term, but then greatly worsened financial vulnerabilities when the dollar subsequently fell back sharply.
But details apart, Reagan was a passionate spokesman for American-style economic liberty, a firm advocate of the entrepreneur, and someone who did not view the word “profits” as a dirty word. He was an effective enemy of redistributive economic policies. For that he was and is detested by those who saw and see the redistribution of income as the primary goal of partisan politics. They will never forgive him for convincing the public that in America anybody can make it— and that those who make it ought to keep most of what they have earned. And he was convincing because he truly believed that.
Reagan…the man who set up the terrorists and supplied them with weapons.
The man who helped finance Osama bin Laden.
St. Reagan the traitor to his country.
Karma kicking the Republicans in the butt!
Outlander – Reagan was a Hollywood Actor – he knew how to make things sound believable…..
Nice rebuttal on the Reagan worship, mxyzp,etc.
“This very fine economic mess has been brought to us by overspending, government intervention in the mortgage industry, and reckless deregulation in the financial industry. Blame that on whomever you wish too[sic], as long as you understand what caused it and take steps to change it. But I don’t see it happening with Barry and the Democrats firmly in charge.”
On the first part of the graph, Heckler, you’re correct. But on this part “…as long as you understand what caused it and take steps to change it. But I don’t see it happening with Barry and the Democrats firmly in charge.” You are wrong. I think that there is why the conservatives are in such a panic: They know Obama will clean up their mess. Hell, Obama even likes to think. It will be such a refreshing change…
mxyzptlk – you left out hosting them in the White House and calling them Freedom Fighters.
“But a lot of questionable developments were permitted or tolerated. In particular were the financial excesses associated with junk bonds, highly leveraged companies, a doomed commercial real estate binge, the savings and loan debacle, and the Millken felonies. Timely regulatory involvement that might have stopped or mitigated extremes of behavior was blocked. In the end US taxpayers had to pay hundreds of billions to clean up the mess.”
Sounds like Bush followed in Reagan’s footsteps.
The moderates won’t be able to take back the republican party, and without the moderates, the republican party cannot lead.
I’m fine with that.
Palin is currently the face of the Republican brand.
I hope she stays there…the Dems will be in power for a LOOOOONNNNGGG time!
I like that there is no consensus of what went wrong, what needs to be changed.
Palin 2012! Go Palin!
If not Palin, somebody equally “committed.”
America is getting younger and more diverse. We baby boomers will die out and we’re leaving much more informed, better educated generations in our stead. If the Republican Party can’t even determine what the problems are, they aren’t going to find solutions!
Linda,
Indeed: SARAH IN 2012!
In case anyone HASN’T seen it in its full glory, here’s the video of Governor Palin, bloviating about nothing as is her wont, while a couple of turkeys are slaughtered and then bled out in the background.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-kjM1asH-8
The symbolic relevance of this spectacle to the topic of the GOP’s several “problems” actually exceeds CF2K’s powers of description. If this is any indication, it’s going to be a long, long way back for the GOP.
Oh, and CF2K also is happy to see “conservative ideology,” which equals some version of Randian “let the big guy crap all over the little guy,” being held blameless by the Wingnuts on the board. Enjoy your ideological delusion, folks: your denial does nothing but help us Democrats.
CF2K makes an excellent point. our resident wingnuts are to be commended for helping put us Dems in power. Their inability to reason and their stubborn clinging to fairy tales and BS has handed Dems power for a great while.
Thank you Reguliar, HeLP, Nathaniel, Bawksalot, ksgrm, Max, etc.
You have done more to destroy your own party than Dems could ever have done.
Republicans have choosen rethoric over substance. During the campaign, they couldn’t even effectively address the real issues that effect all of our lives. It’s was all BS….and meant to keep things just as they are.
Outlander,
“He was an effective enemy of redistributive economic policies.”
Yeah. Just as much as he was an effective advocate of the concentration of wealth in the uppermost strata and the impoverishment of the middle and lower classes.
The current economic meltdown means one thing and one thing only: the collapse of trickle-down “economics.” Bush #1 had it right: “voodoo economics.” Reagan’s “if it feels good, do it!” economic hedonism outlived him; lucky Ronnie. And as one saw, again and again in the Twentieth Century, Democrats have to clean up Republican ideological disasters.
Just so you Repukes know: any invocations of St. Ronnie and efforts to dish off the collapse of the World economy will be met, as they should be, by putting the blame squarely where it belongs: on the “trickle-down” economics and deregulatory mania of the last thirty-something years.
Your economic ideology is a total failure and a delusion. You’re going to own it as much as you own the two-term Presidency of George Bush.
In 1981 when Reagan took office, Cessna had 20,000 employees.
By 1986 Cessna employed about 4,000.
St. Ronnie Reagan was a disaster for working Americans.
mxyzptlk,
Indeed. His hatred for unions spoke volumes about his cynical contempt for working Americans.
And here’s a nice summary of the REAL legacy of Reaganomics, and the disaster it was and has been for Americans.
“None of this speaks to the lopsided distribution of the benefits of Reagan era economic growth. Investors made out during the 1980s, while workers lost out. After seeing their investments lose value during the 1970s, shareholders enjoyed real returns (i.e., adjusted for inflation) in the 1980s that rivaled those of the next decade’s stock market bubble and far outdistanced the returns of the 1960s. Real weekly wages for nonsupervisory workers, on the other hand, took a beating, declining even more quickly than they had during the 1970s. Today, the average real earnings of nonsupervisory workers remain far below those of 30 years ago, despite healthy wage gains in the second half of the 1990s expansion, when unemployment rates dropped toward 4%.
Nor did Reagan era growth do much to alleviate poverty. The poverty rate in 1989 at the end of Reagan’s two terms was still 12.8%. That was just one percentage point lower than at beginning of his administration. In contrast, the 1990s boom knocked three percentage points off the nation’s poverty rate, while the 1960s boom nearly cut it in half.
Reagan administration economic policies did not result in a 1960s-style prosperity, when workers’ real wages went up in tandem with the value of stock holdings-just the opposite. Since 1980, the gains from U.S. economic growth have gone overwhelmingly to the well-to-do, and economic inequality has steadily worsened. By 2000, the ratio of the family income of the top 5% to that of the bottom 20% stood at 19.1, a dramatic rise over the 1979 ratio of 11.4. Reagan’s economic policies ushered in the return of levels of inequality unseen since the eve of the Great Depression.”
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ronald_Reagan/Ronald_Reagan_Legacy.html
I expect the WeBlog Wingnuts to run from these facts like roaches run from the light.
“Even while Obama won the election, we still have people in California supporting Prop 8 and it passing.”
Ah the warm glow of a small fire of hatred…
in face of such cold, bitter, defeat.
Yes it is true, cons managed to further discriminate against a small minority of people who are doing them no harm.
Let the joy be unconfined!
Shoot the fireworks and zippity do dah!
But disgusting as that is and as much as it must some day be addressed and overturned?
This has an element of good news.
The cons used the hate amendment in several states in 2004 to gin up turnout. THIS is likely responsible for the narrow reelection of george bush.
And yeah, they got to discriminate against gay people in a few more states this time.
Thing is though? THAT despicable card was one of the last desperate few they had to play and they’ve pretty much played it out. It won’t be helping them in anymore national elections.
ENJOY that small and dark measure of victory cons. Little good may it do you in the long run.
Talk about hatred…Spirit One finally took the hateful lie about Obama off their sign. I guess they got tired of all the complaints. Thanks to all of you who spoke out. I know their phones were out of commision for about 3 days.
Gay people will get their rights, maybe not now…but it will happen. “The times, they are a changin’”.
Let the reality of that sink in cons…
Ya shot your wad at the bad gay people in 2004.
Your prize? Four more years of george bush.
I hope you’ve enjoyed it. You don’t get to use that issue to elect anyone else, ever again.
“Yes it is true, cons managed to further discriminate against a small minority of people who are doing them no harm.”
I don’t think you can lay this at the cons door.
It’s more likely that there are a lot of people of all political stripes who are not going for the gay marriage thing.
Once again, the Libs over-reach. When one is out of the mainstream, one tends to make excuses.
I posted a pretty balanced account of the Reagan legacy, avoiding those accounts that just praise him. Of course CF runs right for the leftist view, the most negative possible portrayal.
No thanks CF. I, as well as most reasonable folks will agree that Reagan was “a man of action, vision and belief. Not perfect, but one of our greatest presidents.”
#
mxyzptlk
Posted November 21, 2008 at 7:37 pm | Permalink
In 1981 when Reagan took office, Cessna had 20,000 employees.
By 1986 Cessna employed about 4,000.
St. Ronnie Reagan was a disaster for working Americans.
—————
What a dumb meaningless statement.
“It’s more likely that there are a lot of people of all political stripes who are not going for the gay marriage thing.”
Like who besides the conservatives?
Mary_Caruso
Posted November 21, 2008 at 8:18 pm | Permalink
Talk about hatred…Spirit One finally took the hateful lie about Obama off their sign. I guess they got tired of all the complaints. Thanks to all of you who spoke out. I know their phones were out of commision for about 3 days.
————–
Glad they took down the erroneous post. But hateful? Doesn’t that imply that there is something wrong with being a Muslim?
Outlander?
The sign said,
“America we have a Muslim President. This is sin against the Lord!”
Now, unless I missed it?
I don’t think that george bush converted to Islam.
So, the sign was a lie.
No, the hatefulness is the fact that they tried to make people fear him as a president. Face it, too many stupid people think being a Muslim is the same as being the anti Christ. Ignorance still abounds in this country, and that’s what “pastors” like Mark Hollick count on to spread hatred and fear in an attempt to destroy people.
Somehow BlueJay, I don’t think Mary was defending President Bush.
“Like who besides the conservatives?”
Come on now. The same states that went for Obama also voted down the “gay “”marriage”" amendment??
Don’t blame the cons. We (obviously) didn’t have that many votes. Methinks some of you people slipped over on that one.
“too many stupid people think being a Muslim is the same as being the anti Christ”
If enough bombs kill enough people detonated by the Religion of Peace(tm), maybe the leaders of the Muslims (the religion of Peace(tm) will step up and help stop it.
So far, so bad.
Ah but you don’t get to use it again fleetie.
What card can the cons play now to gin up turnout in a national election? They’re spent.
“What card can the cons play now to gin up turnout in a national election? They’re spent.”
But that’s beauty of playing against you people.
You will (already are) finding a way to blow it. Between going with a retread Clinton team (Change?) and delaying “don’t ask, don’t tell”, and the “tax cuts” that will find a way not to happen, the Lib charade will be destroyed by people like Junior. From the inside out. Your own will sabatoge this deal. Obama will try to compromise once and the BJ’s of the party will eat him. Libs equals mis-interpret the election results.
I’m not worried BlueJay. The Dems will give us all sorts of reasons.
“Obama will try to compromise once and the BJ’s of the party will eat him.”
You got that right. SO, he won’t compromise.
Your party is broken, probably for the rest of your life. You ideas are dying. The people who HAVE your ideas are dying.
This is what convicted gay basher Mark Holick had to say about the sign’s removal:
“I would like to make one penitence. While I personally believe that the evidence on Obama’s Muslim upbringing, training, and associations are substantial, I do acquiesce that it is mostly circumstantial. Therefore if I had the opportunity to do it over, I would word the sign differently. My apologies.” – Pastor Mark
The apology came after Holick got schooled on the Constitution on national TV.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2008/11/20/nr.sanchez.preacher.sign.cnn
Dumb ol’ Holick thinks he knows more about the Constitution than the people who were involved in creating it. Or maybe because the church’s phone number got spread throughout the nation.
“You got that right. SO, he won’t compromise.”
Are you kidding”?? He’s already waffeling on the gays in the military deal. He’s already lowering the expectations he ran on. You are the one who will cut him off at the knees. You won’t need my help.
In Kansas, the Republican brand certainly seems as strong as ever. Tiahrt won easily. McCain and Palin beat Obama and Biden by sixteen points.
The developing 2010 election narrative suggests that existing stalwarts of the Kansas delegation may reshuffle their positions somewhat, but we can all go to bed at night knowing that Brownback, Tiahrt and Moran–not unlike the poor–will always be with us. The story up on Kansas.com is that Tiahrt, after mentioning earlier in the week that he can’t even think about another campaign right now, must have had his spinach at some point during the week, because to hear him talk about 2010 all of a sudden, he appears to have undergone a rapid mid-November recovery to rival the famous cartoon character himself.
So it will be Moran vs. Tiahrt, most likely, in a battle pitting one conservative against another perhaps more “committed” conservative. You also have Republican officials such as Shallenburger getting nervous about a Republican primary fight.
The hope, apparently, is that one of the two contestants will read the tea leaves at some point before the game gets ugly and turn over his million dollar war chest to some worthy cause…though it’s not exactly clear what the cause might be.
It’s hard to imagine that the mighty Kansas G.O.P. wouldn’t be able to withstand a primary bout between a couple of heavyweight congressional contestants. Surely the framework is not nearly so fragile as the planners are dreaming it up to be. Right?
At any rate, as I mentioned the other night, my hope is that the Tiahrt team invites Governor Palin down for a round of tough campaigning.
What you have to remember is that Brownback got elected in Kansas, Huckabee won the Republican primary in the spring, and Palin appears to have been something of a hit among the faithful.
I predict the papers will try to imply that Moran has the edge, but if Tiahrt loads up on his Popeye food early on and connects with the wheat state’s conservative collective unconscious, all bets are off. Republicans might very well have a “God problem” nationally, but I’ve seen none of it here.
outlander
Posted November 21, 2008 at 8:28 pm | Permalink
#
mxyzptlk
Posted November 21, 2008 at 7:37 pm | Permalink
In 1981 when Reagan took office, Cessna had 20,000 employees.
By 1986 Cessna employed about 4,000.
St. Ronnie Reagan was a disaster for working Americans.
—————
What a dumb meaningless statement.
__________________________________
Stay ignorant of the truth outlander. It’s really workiong well for you Republicans.
Refuse to face the facts of your party and promote Palin your Goddess to be the Republican standardbearer.
You are sitting on the ashheap of your own destruction and slobbering it up like a pig playing in waller.
Thank you outlander for giving us Dems the power to change the world for the better after your kind made such an utter and complete mess of it.
Thank you for your blind loyalty to fiefdom and ignorance.
Yes we can! Yes we will!
“If enough bombs kill enough people detonated by the Religion of Peace(tm), maybe the leaders of the Muslims (the religion of Peace(tm) will step up and help stop it.
So far, so bad.”
So how many have we killed with our bombs? At least they’re under the delusion that they’re trying to defend their homeland..what’s our excuse?
“What you have to remember is that Brownback got elected in Kansas, Huckabee won the Republican primary in the spring, and Palin appears to have been something of a hit among the faithful.
“I predict the papers will try to imply that Moran has the edge, but if Tiahrt loads up on his Popeye food early on and connects with the wheat state’s conservative collective unconscious, all bets are off. Republicans might very well have a ‘God problem’ nationally, but I’ve seen none of it here.”
Incredible. Royall, with all due respect, if you haven’t seen evidence of the “God Problem” in Kansas, then you have NOT been paying attention. Kansas has been the laboratory experiment for the “God Problem”, and it was Republican operatives who spotted the signs of it in this very state!!!
Phill Kline, various Kansas State Board of Education members, Jim Ryun, and most recently Dan Hedke right here in Sedgwick County were all sacrificed at the alter of the GOP’s God problem (all it took was the suggestion that Hedke was a stealth conservative looking to return the question of “intelligent design” to the State Board to sink him in essentially the same area of the state that returned Tiahrt to office). Believe me, if Huckabee, the chosen candidate of the Christian Rightists had been teh GOP candidate, Kansas would have been competitive.
Tiarht is deluded indeed if he thinks he can beat Moran in a statewide primary for the Senate, particularly because Tiarht’s record as a Christian Right conservative will work against him. Yes, Kansas Republicans have an overwhelming advantage. Christian Rightists, when the chips are down, will still go to the polls in the general election because they fear “liberal” Democrats almost as much if not more than they support their own. Republican lite is better to them than a “liberal”. Meanwhile, non-Christian Right Republicans are not as activist as their CR counterparts, but they view the CR with as much if not more disdain than they do Democrats. In general, they will vote for the person with the R after his or her name, but they are foul weather voters, and if they are convinced that the Democrat is moderate and the Republican is a CR activist, they will and do vote Democratic. The Kansas Democratic party shows little sign of figuring this out (otherwise, they would have thrown their support behind Betts rather than Slattery, the Kansas Democrats apparently being deluded enough to think that Roberts would be vulnerable because he had been Bush’s water boy on the Senate Intelligence Committee, but Roberts, although conservative, has never, ever come across as a knee jerk ideologue-and was therefore never unacceptable to the non-CR Republicans). As it is, no Democratic candidate for Tiahrt’s seat has had the resources to, or the ability to, identify Tiahrt with the Christian Right activitism that sank Ryun or Kline, or to identify themselves as an intelligent, relatively moderate, alternative (and Tiahrt has learned, sometimes the hard way, to cool it before going too far). However, Tiarht, particularly when running against a Moran, would not be able to escape scrutiny in a state wide election. He would not make it past Moran in the primary.
No evidence of a “God Problem” in Kansas???
Remarkable. You can NOT have been paying attention here!!!!!!
The ‘jawless fish’ enjoys peeing on Bibles and small children in his spare time.
“The ‘jawless fish’ enjoys peeing on Bibles and small children in his spare time.”
Re: Regular
DNFTT
There, you got what you wanted so…..
“piss off!”
Heh! Now, no more soup for you!
I have never heard that the Christians are trying to use how we have based our government on the bible. In that the legislative branch, the judicial branch, and the executive branch are from a bible verse. Wow, now if he ever had any evidence of that, he might be onto something. Obviously he created this link in his own mind. If that were so true, wouldn’t the founders had just called it what the bible did? Holick’s flock must be a really deluded bunch of peeps.
Agnatha
Posted November 22, 2008 at 10:59 am | Permalink
Tiarht is deluded indeed if he thinks he can beat Moran in a statewide primary for the Senate, particularly because Tiarht’s record as a Christian Right conservative will work against him.
—
I’m not so sure about this. Jerry Moran is a good guy, one who definitely wears a white hat in Kansas politics, but I’m not so sure he’s well known in Eastern Kansas.
Up front and personally, I like both men. If Tiahrt worked as hard as Moran, he’d be a rock star because the guy can charm. [purely by chance, I once managed to share the dreaded Monday morning 6:30am flight out of ICT to DFW with Tiahrt as my seat mate. And as it turned out we flew out of DFW to Reagan together, too, so I got the chance to talk about things large and small with him. The guy's impressive. The conversation did not go the way I expected it would when he sat down next to me. I was with a bunch of Wichita aviation people, and in idle conversation later I learned that the women were fairly swooning over Tiahrt. Especially the young women. FWIW...] Tiahrt could get a big headstart in E Kansas solely on the basis of his ability to ruffle skirts.
I think that if Moran were to beat Tiahrt, it would be chalked up to pure-D hard work, where due to the size of the 1st and Moran’s constant travel of it, I do believe Jerry holds the advantage.
Moran may be the wallflower in that duo, but you’d be a fool to underestimate him or his work ethic. Not so sure that any Xian bona-fides would trump good old hard work — or sex appeal — in the primary, frankly.
Well, Agnatha, it’s an interesting case that you’re making. Leaving aside Ryun for a minute, who was so off the charts that you’d almost have to be a 14th century member of the inquisition to vote for him, I can’t help remembering, for example, that Brother Brownback, who has made no attempt to “cool it” with his ardent religiosity, nevertheless won against Jill Docking in the late 90’s. Docking might well have been a Democrat with quite a bit of support and who checked a few of those moderate boxes as well. Where were the ballyhooed moderates that you speak of in that election? Can we expect them to come out against Brownback in 2010? I suppose that in really extreme cases, as with Ryun in the Boyda defeat, you can scrape together enough voters to sneak by a Republican, but all you have to do is look at the successful ultra conservative politicians in Kansas–such as Brownback and Tiahrt specifically–to make a determination that Republicans have quite a bit of room to operate, clear over on the right hand side, without having all that much to fear from some sort of moderate retaliation. What’s Tiahrt win by every cycle in the 4th? I’m thinking he averages about a twenty-five point margin. The “moderates” aren’t showing many signs of being overly disenchanted with the man.
Moran voted with Bush some 95 or so percent of the time. Just remember that.
Pendant:
My wife met Tiarht before he entered politics, and remembers him as having charm. I have to admit the two times I met him he did not impress me, coming across as a definite lightweight. Be that as it may, and I would be the first to admit that I have underestimated him, in a statewide race he is at a definite disadvantage against Moran. The population growth in the state is definitely along the I-70 corridor, and while they are not necessarily liberal or Democratic, they are certainly not coalition conservative Christian Rightists either. And they do know both who Moran and Tiahrt are.
Royall:
Brownback beat Frahm and Docking in 1996, before the Christian Right overreached. Although there were establishment Republicans who were disgusted with the CR, they had not generated a backlash among the general population then. Keep in mind that Brownback has only run for the Senate once as an incumbant, and the Kansas Democrats, with their usual cluelessness, did not field a credible candidate. Believe me, if it was Brownback’s seat that Slattery was running for, the race would have been much more competitive.
As for Brownback’s gubanatorial hopes, we will see. If there is a credible moderate candidate in the primary, he might be in trouble (the problem is, I am not sure I see one on the horizon right now). As for the Democrats, well, as Ksfarmgrrl has observed (and I disagree with her on much of her analysis of Kansas politics, but not here), Sebelius has no coattails.
Political Mama:
“Moran voted with Bush some 95 or so percent of the time. Just remember that.”
That is completely irrelevant, and to be harsh but frank, this is exactly the kind of cluelessness that had made the Kansas Democrats a third party in their state. No one cares that Moran voted with Bush in Kansas. The point is, the contrast between Christian Right coalition conservative candidates and more “moderate” traditional Republican candidates is as much if not more style than substance. Both Moran and Roberts do not come across as ideologues, they treat dissenting voices with respect, and they both publically opposed Bush at his most ideologically clueless moments. Moderate Republicans are still Republicans, particularly on most fiscal policy issues. They get irritated at the Christian Right coalition conservatives whose primary agenda seems to be to create theocratic witchhunts on abortion providers and teaching children “intelligent design” and “traditional morality”. I once had a frustrating conversation with a prominient Democratic activist here who didn’t understand why the moderate Republicans did not become Democrats, and also confidently pronounced that they wouldn’t need “moderate” Republicans when the people of Kansas saw the light. In her eyes, a Republican is a Republican. Riiiiiight. Most of these people have been Republicans for generations. When they vote for a Democrat, they are first and foremost voting against the Republican candidate because they see the Republican as an obsessive compulsive nutcase. They don’t care how often a guy votes with Bush, but they might care if he is a “soul brother” to someone like Phill Kline or one of the more extreme State Board of Education members. The Kansas Democratic party, so far as I can tell, doesn’t even remotely get this. So, they throw their support behind a Jim Slattery because they think Pat Roberts is vulnerable for being Bush’s water boy on the Intelligence Committee, and that a Todd Tiarht is essentially unbeatable. Boyda fails to realize that she got elected because of votes against Jim Ryun, and that when Ryun lost in the primary to Jenkins, she started behind because Jenkins was an acceptable candidate to many of the people who voted for her in the last election.
The way for Kansas Democrats to win is to pick their battles, and to realize that when they win they are winning by votes against their opponents, particularly in state wide elections. I really haven’t seen them do this much. In fact, I have never really seen much coherent strategy from Kansas Democrats at all.
I have to admit the two times I met him he did not impress me, coming across as a definite lightweight.
The one time I met him, he came across as an absolute moron, but maybe it was just the stresses of conducting his first Congressional campaign or something:
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/03/tiahrt-lobbied-against-house-ethics-panel/#comment-312955
I’m not surprised Rage.
What I remember from Tiarht’s first term of Congress is when he decided he would join an effort by other clueless ideologically extreme freshmen Republicans to gut environmental regulations. The companies that would supposedly benefit from their efforts responded with horror, pointing out that having regulations gave them standards that legally protected them from liability. No regulations, open season and no protection from liability.
Agnatha, I don’t disagree with what you wrote. Here’s what I will say, though: if I were a young Democrat who’s interested in running for office (I’m not!), I’d take one look at the needle you have to thread in this state and promptly skedaddle. This, of course, might explain why the Dems don’t conjure coherent strategy around here: the savvy ones already scrammed.
MP,
Holick in his sign accuses Obama of being Muslim. Then he cites Exodus 20:3 “You shall have no other gods before me.” as proof that having a Muslim President is a sin. Now Obama has stated time and again that he is christian-something no Muslim would ever do- but even if it were so, it still isn’t a sin.
Now as hard as this may be for Holick, Muslims worship the same god christians do; the difference being that instead of recognizing Jesus as the Messiah, they treat him as a major prophet, an equal of Mohammed.