“I could make the argument that all is not lost for the Republican Party – that Nov. 4’s across-the-board defeat wasn’t an unmitigated disaster,” columnist Eugene Robinson wrote. “But it would be a pretty dumb argument, and I doubt many readers would take it seriously. The truth is that the Grand Old Party is on a bridge to nowhere and may have great difficulty changing course.
“The essential problem is that changing course will require turning around and marching, if not sprinting, in the opposite direction. At least initially, this doesn’t look like something enough Republicans are willing to do.”
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
- 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
- thomaswitt on ACORN stole election?
- Regular on Open thread 11/21
- Phantom on ACORN stole election?
- thomaswitt on ACORN stole election?
163 Comments
Another answer would be to establish a “middle of the road” political party that would accept and serve both moderate Democrats and Republicans. This would identify and marginalize the extreme left and right members of both parties.
Just thinking out loud … not sure I agree with it myself. There are pluses and minuses … the first one being the two party system is the norm in this country.
GOP VOTE DECLINES LESS THAN NYT PROFIT
by Ann Coulter
November 12, 2008
For the first time in 32 years, Democrats got more than 50 percent of the country to vote for their candidate in a national election, and now they want to lecture the Republican Party on how to win elections. Liberal Republicans have joined them, both groups hoping no one will notice that we just lost this election by running the candidate they chose for us.
For years, New York Times columnist David Brooks has been writing mash notes to John McCain. In November 2007, he quoted an allegedly “smart-alecky” political consultant who exclaimed, in private, “You know, there’s really only one great man running for president this year, and that’s McCain.”
“My friend’s remark,” Brooks somberly intoned, “had the added weight of truth.”
Brooks gushed, “I can tell you there is nobody in politics remotely like him,” and even threw down the gauntlet, saying: “You will never persuade me that he is not among the finest of men.”
That took guts at the Times, where McCain is constantly praised by the op-ed columnists and was endorsed by the paper in the Republican primary. Even Frank Rich has hailed McCain as the “most experienced and principled” of the Republicans and said no one in either party “has more experience in matters of war than the Arizona senator” — the biggest rave issued by Rich since “Rent” opened on Broadway.
They adored McCain at the Times! Does anyone here not see a cluster of bright red flags?
In January this year, Brooks boasted of McCain’s ability to attract “independents.”
And then Election Day arrived, and all the liberals who had spent years praising McCain all voted for Obama. Independents voted for Palin or voted against Obama. No one outside of McCain’s immediate family was specifically voting for McCain.
But now Brooks presumes to lecture Republicans about what to do next time. How about: “Don’t take David Brooks’ advice”?
According to Brooks, the reason McCain lost was — naturally — that he ran as a conservative. If only presidential candidates would spurn polls, modern political history, evidence from campaign rallies, facts on the ground and listen to the wishful thinking of Times columnists!
If McCain lost because he ran as a conservative, then how come I knew McCain was going to lose before Brooks did? About the same time Brooks was touting McCain’s uncanny ability to attract independents, I was writing, accurately: “John McCain is Bob Dole minus the charm, conservatism and youth.”
Using the latest euphemism for “liberal,” Brooks complains that “reformist” Republicans like John McCain are forced to run for president as smelly old conservatives: “National candidates who begin with reformist records — Giuliani, Romney or McCain — immediately tack right to be acceptable to the power base.” (Some “tack” so far to the right they almost adopt the positions in the GOP platform!)
In another sign of how popular liberalism is, liberals have to keep changing their name, like grifters moving from town to town. Liberal Republicans used to be known as “moderates,” then “mavericks” or “centrists.” I guess now they’re “reformists.” Why, liberals are so popular they have to disguise themselves for fear of being mobbed by an adoring public!
I gather by “reformist,” Brooks means liberal only on the social issues like gay marriage and abortion because — apart from abortion and gay marriage — Rudy Giuliani was a right-wing lunatic. He engaged in aggressive policing, cut taxes and government bureaucracies, abolished New York’s affirmative action office and was repeatedly denounced as a storm trooper by The New York Times.
The same thing goes for Romney, who also cut taxes and government regulations, but promised Massachusetts voters he would not tinker with their beloved abortion rights.
Ironically, McCain was a liberal on virtually every issue except abortion and gay marriage, but he bashed social conservatives to his friends in the press, so they excused his pro-life voting record as a cynical ploy to get votes in Arizona.
So “reformist” evidently means a Republican who is liberal on social issues. My term for that is “Joe Lieberman.” Whatever the merit of being liberal on social issues, both Joe Lieberman and the Republican Party’s history suggest that the winning formula is the exact opposite combination.
If liberals are going to use their first majority vote in a national election since Helen Thomas was spilling champagne on Liza at Studio 54 to lecture Republicans on how to win elections, I have a tip for them based on the exact same election: Constitutional amendments banning gay marriage passed in every state they were on the ballot — Florida, Arizona, even in liberal California.
I’ll accept the results of the presidential election, if you anti-Proposition 8 die-hards in California accept the results of that vote. Earth to protestors: Most Americans oppose gay marriage. On this, even blacks and Mormons are agreed! Why don’t you people go find something useful to do?
Let’s see, who was avidly pro-gay-marriage? Oh I remember: The guy who’s once again lecturing Republicans on how to win elections: David Brooks.
COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106
The GOP is the modern Know Nothing Party and will end up the same way if they continue their platform of fear and paranoia. I won’t shed a tear to see them go.
Sounds alot like the claim to a permanent Democrat majority.
Short of martial law, that is quite a claim.
Of course, martial law just might be the plan.
As in dictatorship of the prolatariot.
“Of course, martial law just might be the plan.”
Oh, is it 1992 again? Republicans whined about Clinton bringing in black helicopters and having the invisible army of the UN take over America. Ahh, four more years of Republican paranoia.
“GOP on a bridge to nowhere”
They’ll cross that bridge, now that they’ve blown it up.
The only good con is a marginalized one, squeaking about this or that nose trouble.
BlueJay sings…
Making all their nowhere plans, for nobody.
HLP drags out the anorexic and deeply disturbed Ann Coulter to defend his Republican Party.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hehehe
But it’s perfectly OK for Phillip to ‘drag out’ the Wapo token explain how the GOP act?
(I know who you are, mxyzptlk. You could stand to miss a meal or two!)
Seems I heard the same talk about the Dems four years ago. They survived reasonably well I would say. The GOP will too.. in four years is another election. If the Democrats do great and wonderful things while in total control of the government, then that is good for the people. If the Democrats screw it up badly, then that will be good for the Republicans next election.
Exactly, samkan,
When the republicans lose its because we’re stupid and out of touch. When the dems lose, it’s because the voters are stupid and out of touch.
Republicans need to go back to their base. Obama was campaigning on a middle class tax cut. He is against gay marriage. He ran to the right so fast that McCain got whiplash trying to keep up!
But we need to stay left to win elections? Yah, right!
The Republic Party should get rid of its winner-take-all primaries. It would have complicated things a bit — i.e., Kansas Republic Party voters went for Hucakabee and were effectively meaningless in the convention — and the primary season would have lasted longer, as with the Democrats’. But proportional distribution of delegates might have revealed just how bad a candidate John S (for Senile) McCain the Third (for Shrub’s 3rd term) really was.
“Republicans need to go back to their base”
I hope they do and stay there. Break off a few states even and form their own feudal society. I’ll be glad to move and let them have Kansas.
By the way? With the return of the Fairness doctrine, that “base” of theirs will be diminishing.
This is the second “death to the GOP” thread this paper has put out in the past couple days, and both are completely without merit. This election could have been predicted regardless of who got the Democratic nomination.
Look at every presidential election since Truman. In every single case, except 1, where the incumbent president was not running, the party in the White House changed. (the 1 exception was Reagan/Bush). And, two times when the incumbent ran for re-election, (Carter, Bush 41) the party in the White House changed.
This is a normal, predictable pendulum swing. Assuming obama gets a 2nd term, chances are very high than in 2016, the White House will again be Republican. It is a repeating pattern. Consider:
Truman (D) to Eisenhower (R)
Eisenhower to Kennedy (D)
Kennedy/Johnson to Nixon (R)
Nixon/Ford to Carter (D)
Carter loss to Reagan (R)
Reagan to Bush (R) the 1 exception
Bush loss to Clinton (D)
Clinton to Bush (R)
Bush to Obama (D)
See the pattern? It is consistent, predictable, and not surprising. This bash the GOP thread, like the other one, is not supported by historical precedents.
HLP
Posted November 17, 2008 at 6:52 am | Permalink
(I know who you are, mxyzptlk. You could stand to miss a meal or two!)
you know nutink! hah!
Democrats should believe this crap at their peril. Too many times in the last one hundred years, the repukes have put themselves on the ropes, on a bridge to nowhere, and democrats feel sorry for them, reach across the aisle and put together what they call a bipartisan cabinet.
Could democrats just PLEASE crush them now, while they are down? They are small enough to drag into the bathtub. It’s a good time to hold them underwater until they stop moving.
Oh but hell no. The democrats will be their usual arrogant and over confident selves, let them up, and let them live to fight another day.
And the nation will suffer. Country first indeed.
Heheheh. Of course, the democrats would be more willing to completely crush the repukes if they were not ALL owned by the same big business interests….
I can just hear Igor saying “yeth mathter. I’ll cover them with a warm blanket until they are stronger. Yeth mathter…”
ahhh yes…and kfg maintains the ‘all Democrats are holy, all Republicans are spawn of the devil’ theme.
Sure is easy to view the world as so black and white; good and evil; and absolutes with no room for human differences at all.
If Gene Robinson is the “token” at the NYT, then does that make values boy the token wingnut at the WE?
Ok. I’d support the NYT letting Gene go if the WE will stop their weekly sermons by the oh so pious values boy.
And btw, I gained less weight this year than the Dow lost points. WTF does that have to do with anything? As much as the notion that repukes are hurting for voters less than the NYT is hurting for profits.
Heheheh. The gop wingnut false equivalency on display. A PERFECT example.
And with that comment, raptor makes it clear he has NEVER read any of my other posts.
You think I support governor “leadership”? jan pauls? janis lee? nancy boyda?
gail finney?
Heheh. HAHAHAHAHAH.
Nope. Get rid of the hateful repukes and we can start picking off the democrat haters as well. The repukes are weaker now. The dems can be MADE to be weaker too. Then they can be whisked into the dustbin of history.
Just like the wingnut repukes.
“The essential problem is that changing course will require turning around and marching, if not sprinting, in the opposite direction.”
——————
Of course “marching in the opposite direction” would make the GOP pro-higher taxes, pro-abortion, pro-appeasement, socialist, etc… In other words, Democrats. We could all be Democrats. Republicans could be Democrat lite and thus permanently out of power because you can’t out-lib a Democrat.
Mr. Robinson, I wonder if you happen to be a Democrat?
Thanks for the “advice”, but no thanks.
Dear Repukes,
It’s true: the reason y’all got your clocks cleaned this time around wasn’t the total shambles of your “conservative” worldview, or the fact that the Money Boys have lost their ability to play the Fundos. No, the reason y’all lost HUGELY and GENERATIONALLY was. in fact, just as many of you, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) included, have been saying:
John McCain failed to hew to conservative principles.
“We have to be honest, and there’s a lot of blame to go around,” DeMint told a GOP gathering in Myrtle Beach. “But I have to mention George Bush, and I have to mention Ted Stevens, and I’m afraid I even have to mention John McCain.” DeMint then offered a list of McCain’s anti-conservative apostasies, including his support for campaign finance reform, immigration reform and legislation aimed at combating global warming.”
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1859549,00.html
So, Repukes, CF2K’s advice is simple: run harder and harder to the Right. And keep doing it, no matter what the RINO’s in your party try to tell you about winning Independents or non-white voters.
PALIN IN 2012! GO SARAH!
outlander,
If I’d only have hit “refresh,” I could have saved myself a post. But thanks for pre-emptively taking my “advice.”
Heh. I agree CF. I think they should just keep doing what they do, but do it harder and faster. Because ya know how well that always works for humans…
I just love it when they think the cure for koolaide poisoning is… wait for it…
Drinking even more koolaide!
ahhh yes…and kfg maintains the ‘all Democrats are holy, all Republicans are spawn of the devil’ theme.
Recovering okay from your frontal lobotomy, Raptor?
Keeping in mind the utterly screwed condition of the country, the attention-deficit disorder that afflicts most Americans, the spectacular ability of Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of cictory, I won’t make any predictions for the future.
But I agree with Outlander and CF2K. GO SARAH IN 2012! WOO HOO!
ksfarmgrrl,
Yeah. For all of their Randian claptrap about the connection of “freedom” with capitalism, being a “conservative” seems to entail perpetually being intellectually cornered.
“…both groups hoping no one will notice that we just lost this election by running the candidate they chose for us.” — Ann Coulter
———
Well, why did they allow their candidate to be chosen for them? Hmmm, could this be a contributing factor?
Rage,
Agreed as to Democrats’ ineluctable instinct for self-destruction. But though it may be my own mirror imagine version of outlander’s mania, I blame Democratic self-destruction not on a tendency to go too far left, but on an ingrained reflex of being co-opted by the “bipartisan” (definition: Republican) “middle”.
I was willing to read Annthrax Coulter until she started harping on “liberal Republicans.”
What “liberal Republicans”?
It was also quite amusing that the CON lie of the “MSM is out to get us” was contradicted by Miss Coulter who pointed out that McCain had to be bad because NYTimes columnists were praising him.
McCain lost because he ran to the right. He could have been really dangerous if he hadn’t tried to appeal to the wack-o base by nominating the wack-o Sarah Palin.
I still maintain that if he had nominated Lieberman as VP, he could have done some real damage.
KSFG – is there any legislators or congressmen you agree with?
Who do YOU agree with, Brenda?
Besides yourself that is . . .
I blame Democratic self-destruction not on a tendency to go too far left, but on an ingrained reflex of being co-opted by the “bipartisan” (definition: Republican) “middle”.
Yeah, we saw how well the Democratic Leadership Council’s “Let’s be Republicans!” BS worked.
I really don’t think it’s a mirror-image equivalance, though. When you consider the wild-eyed radicalism that gripped this country (starting with Reagan, thank you, not W.), the defined “center” (and there really is not such thing) has been played on the Progressive’s 10-yard-line for entirely too long.
Hence the hysterical cries of “SOCIALISM!,” from people who (1) have no mundane knowledge of how Socialist governments have actually worked, such as France’s long rule under Mitterand, and, (2)have no understand of the difference between socialism, and the moderate progressive government we’ll see under Obama.
Linda – I was thinking the same thing. If nobody in the Republican Party likes John McCain, then how did he get the nomination?
But when HLP has to quote Ann Coulter as a reliable source, enough said about the Republicans choice of reason.
I wonder what would have happened if John McCain had never picked Sarah Palin as his VP choice? I know the Religious Right would have not come out to vote but when he brought Sarah Palin on board, that was when his campaign went ultra nasty and negative. That is when some prominent Republicans began to publicly say they were concerned about the tone of the McCain’s campaign.
And in exit polls, one factor was that Sarah Palin actually drove independents and moderates away from McCain. Perhaps the voters this year were not really turning away from McCain but the Religious Right?
But, of course, Ann Coulter will never admit to her rabid form of politics is ever wrong.
Oh for crying out loud sunflower.
I LOVED David Adkins. A republican I might add. And Jan Scoggins Waite.
I LOVE Judy Loaganbill and Donald Betts, and Oletha and Raj… the list could go on. A really nice lady from KC, a charming African American state senator whose name escapes me right now. She and I had some great conversations.
I also loved Bob Docking. I was twelve when I met him the first time. The Docking campaign was the first one I ever volunteered to work on. I wasnt even a teenager yet.
And I even kinda liked Bob Bennet.
And to this day, I still LOVE John Carlin. The last REAL governor of Kansas.
I still have a letter he wrote me when I was in my mid twenties. He and I had many conversations, and he recognized me at public events many times. In front of numerous people. I loved how on one of our western Kansas economic development “missions” to Topeka, when I was about 25, no one believed me that the governor was my friend.
When we walked into the room as a group, mayors and county commissioners, etc. The first thing he did was say hello to me by name and walk over and shake my hand. Then he turned his attention to the others.
HAHAHAHA. HEHEHEHEHEHEH ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I got a lot more respect on the ride home than I did on the ride down!
It’s too bad democrats arent democrats anymore. Just bigot light.
Ask jan pauls and governor “leadership”.
When I hear comments about returning “to our base,” I always hope their goal is the recent base. That puts them at nowhere, end of that bridge, arrived. I know many Republicans who remember well what the Grand Old Party was and have been hoping this new base finally has been given enough rope.
PALIN 2012! GO Palin!!
“mom
Posted November 17, 2008 at 8:38 am | Permalink
Linda – I was thinking the same thing. If nobody in the Republican Party likes John McCain, then how did he get the nomination?”
Hee hee heeeeee. It’s pretty hard to find anyone who admits to voting for nixon too, even though he won by a landslide the second time.
Repukes love their own.
Until they dont.
A forecast from 1996
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_n3_v57/ai_19399188
snip
Fourteen percent of the American population, given the opportunity, would impose a Christian theocracy on the country. This figure comes from a survey conducted in 1996 by the Gallup International Institute for the American Jewish Committee, the latter having good historical reason to get the wind up when Christian nationalists are on the move.
Formerly separated, Catholics and Protestants are busy burying the hatchet and avoiding old doctrinal differences in the pursuit of a common political vision: one nation of clean cut, conformist subjects ruled by an omniscient, punitive male deity. The god they obviously have in mind is the one who dispatched “his only begotten son” into the world to get slaughtered so as to ransom the rest of us.
snip
There is something faintly comic about the picture of the 86 percent of us who do not want to join their revolution being berated by these hucksters for our self indulgence and hedonism. Handsomely rewarded by capitalist foundations (such as Scaife, Heritage, and Olin or the American Enterprise Institute), any tilt in the direction of Franciscan renunciation in their own ranks would be unthinkable.
fast forward to 2008 welcome to the backlash
ksfarmgrrl,
“Bigot light”–OUCH. But also YES.
It is to the eternal shame of we Democrats when we thing we need to try to win by being WORSE than the other guy. It’s not only wrong, it’s stupid.
Indeed, CF.
I hope all is well with you and yours. It’s always good to see you here!
KSfarmgrrl,
Likewise. And all is very well with me and mine, thanks.
“Formerly separated, Catholics and Protestants are busy burying the hatchet and avoiding old doctrinal differences in the pursuit of a common political vision”
No “siht”.
Catholics and mormons in bed together in california is a very strange deal. And it shows what lengths the twice born will go to in order to rule.
I wonder if the catholics like the sound of “president romney”? ‘Cause they sure are setting him up for acceptance.
Hee hee hee heeeeeee.
And the mormons think they will fare well under catholic rule? Um, yeah. Because history proves that to be so true…
HAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHHAHA!
That high screaching sound is the result of kfg’s tit caught in the philosophical wringer.
And the mormons think they will fare well under catholic rule? Um, yeah. Because history proves that to be so true…
Kinda like hyper-religious African-Americans who see no contradiction in persecuting people for being gay.
Or this:
“Any discussion of American religious history must include the Puritans, a group of Calvinist Protestants disenchanted with what they saw as the excessive emphasis on hierarchy and ritual in the Church of England. The Puritans are often remembered as coming to America in search of religious freedom, but this is a half-truth at best: the Puritans disagreed with the English government not because it was a theocracy, but because it was not their theocracy. The only freedom they sought was the freedom to write their own beliefs into law rather than those of the established Anglican church. They wanted tolerance for themselves, but had no intent or desire to extend that tolerance to any other sect.”
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/thewall.html
Funny how little things change.
Interesting….
The Democrats on this blog claim to believe that Democratic principles are the best for this country going forward. Yet they encourage the Republicans to run away from Democratic principles. Why???
If Democratic ideals are truly the best for the country and that is what the people want, then one of two results will occur:
Either
A: Republicans will run away from Democratic ideals, be voted out completely and leave all of government for the Democrats.
or
B: Republicans will become the same as Democrats, share power and have no differences whatsoever.
It seems to me that the true supporter of the ideals held by the Democratic party would be happy with either of these two alternatives.
However, democratic bloggers who are too naive to know what is best for this country could care less about principles, issues, policy ideals, they just want a “-D” after the name of their politicians.
How cluelessly partisan these lemmings are for the Democratic party.
If the Democrats on this blog were not exclusively simpleton fanatics of the Democratic party who could care less about what is best for their country, they would support the ideas and policies supported by Democratic candidates more then they support the candidates themselves. That would mean exactly encouraging all candidates regardless of party to embrace a particular political idealogy.
But as this thread reveals, they are nothing more then fans of a football team, cheering for their “home team” no matter who is playing and what they are playing for.
Hey Rage, missed your posts earlier.
“the defined “center” (and there really is not such thing) has been played on the Progressive’s 10-yard-line for entirely too long.”
Yep.
Reminds me of the saying that when someone offers to meet you in “the middle” they generally think they are already standing on the center line.
Heheheh. And yeah, all they know about socialism is that “generalissimo franco is still dead”.
And he wasnt even a socialist…
BJ. Please don’t wait to move. and move far, far away. and take the others with you.
” Yet they encourage the Republicans to run away from Democratic principles. Why???”]
Um, because they want to win? nitwit.
“Republicans will run away from Democratic ideals, be voted out completely”
I think we have a bingo.
“However, democratic bloggers who are too naive to know what is best for this country could care less about principles, issues, policy ideals, they just want a “-D” after the name of their politicians.”
O.M.F.G.
Now THAT’s rich in this state where ALL it takes to win is an R behind your name.
And rfl adds himself to the list of posters who never somehow see the criticisms libs level at the democrats.
Selective hearing. It’s not just for old coots anymore…
But as this thread reveals, they are nothing more then fans of a football team, cheering for their “home team” no matter who is playing and what they are playing for.
Ah, projecting again, I see.
Ya know, folks, I really think that is the ultimate key to understanding the rigid conservative mind. Anytime you get hit with some bewildering accusation as to what you believe or think, what you’re trying to do, or what your motives are, it’s simple. They’re not (always) lying, or dissembling. They just are imagining themselves in your position.
That’s how they’d be.
Try it, folks. It works amazingly well.
I agree with Collin Powell when he stated that it’s time for a new generation to take over. The old geezers in the GOP are seriously out of touch with the world today….you can’t keep comparing everything with Hitler and WW2 and expect to effect change with the same old tired policies. It’s time for a new direction, vision, and attitude, which is what the Democratic party brought to the table this time. That’s exactly why we won.
Well, the ‘publican party worked awfully hard to purge itself of RINO’s and anyone who wouldn’t quietly submit to the authority of the party cadres on the issues of the day. Somehow it never occurred to them that what they were purging themselves of was voters.
Okay, fine by me, they can go off somewhere and be just as pure as they wanna be. And all those less-than-pure conservatives they purged themselves of can go join the conservative democrats who are dissatisfied with the left wing of their party and form the Radical Centerist Party, and probably beat hell out of both the radical left and reactionary right!
Heheheh. And rfl thinks he is NOT naive and DOES know what’s best for the country.
Jesus. Could you be less self aware?
heheheheh.
Good thing the rest of the country didnt agree with you, as evidenced by the “thumping” the repukes got in 2006 and 2008.
Yep. Just keep doing what you all are doing, but I suggest you do it even harder and faster. Because… if you do….
““Republicans will run away from Democratic ideals, be voted out completely”
From your lips to god’s ears….
“The old geezers in the GOP”
HA! Mary!
It isnt just the old farts either. Condi’s specialty is the old soviet union and the cold war.
I guess that is why she was so inept in this brave new post cold war world.
The GOP has bastardized the word ‘Conservative’. This has many R voters pissed. The GOP needs to do some massive house cleaning to earn the respect of true conservatives.
I think Mary Caruso makes an interesting point. This election was really the first time a large number of young voters actually showed up to vote. What factor will this play in future elections?
This election has not been like any other election so all this analyzing of ‘past elections’ may just be a moot point.
And by their own admission last week at the Republican Governors Association, the GOP does not do well with young voters, minorities, women or people with modest incomes. Who does that leave in the future to carry them to any type of victory?
The rich guys who fund their campaigns.
Some thing never change.
My sister, who voluteers a lot for Catholic charities, told me that many of the nuns she works with voted for Obama…
Funny how when I was growing up, it seemed like most Catholics were Democrats and most protestents were Republican. I remember that my father was horrified that anyone would vote for Barry Goldwater.
There haven’t been any Goldwater conservatives since Goldwater.
And, there haven’t been any Reagan conservatives since Reagan.
Both descriptions are contrived, finite terms and irrelevant in describing political climates of a party across decades.
I am getting a kick reading Democrats telling what is wrong with the Republican party. Wasn’t it just 4 years ago that they had hit an all time low and didn’t have a frickin’ clue? Did they say, we must become Republican light? Or is that what both parties have become?
As Raptor noted, it is all cyclical. The small minority of Americans in the middle (the deciders) will get tired of Democrats and in due course Republicans will take over for a while. And little will have changed. If you read more that into things, it is your own wishful thinking.
I think we’re going to see a new style of leadership…we can’t afford for things to stay the same as they have been for the last 40 years. When you have this much of a divide between the rich and the poor and a shrinking middle class, revolution often follows. Americans are fed up with getting screwed and then being told to think it’s in their best interest.
Enough is enough.
Did they say, we must become Republican light?
Correct. Starting in 1985. And we see how well that worked.
But you’re missing the point, Outlander. Which is fine. I really don’t want you to get the point.
PALIN IN 2012! WHOO HOO!
A big part of what’s wrong with the Republican party is that it’s been kidnapped by the religious right.
I thought all the Dems and neo-libs were supposed to go “find God” and or leave the country 4 years ago — what ever happend to that anyway — dog-gone-it !!!
And, there haven’t been any Reagan conservatives since Reagan.
Actually, the reign of W. was nothing more than Reaganism taken to its logical extreme. Large tax cuts, huge military spending, huge deficits, attacks on domestic spending, scapegoating the poor, putting cronies in key positions, dyfunctional federal agencies, environmental destruction, contempt of Congress and democracy in general, and a commitment to radical monarchistic and dominionist legal theory and practice.
Alternately, you could look at Reagan as W. Lite.
Though I will say that, even without an actual opposition party, Reagan probably would have stopped short of where W. went.
#
Mary_Caruso
Posted November 17, 2008 at 9:31 am | Permalink
A big part of what’s wrong with the Republican party is that it’s been kidnapped by the religious right.
—————-
Yeah, that must be it, Mary Caruso says it is.
Repubs have to look no further than answer the question, what was America’s status at the start of 43’s first term, and what was the status of America at the end of 43’s second term.
I remember before the 2004 election, I told my brother a staunch repub. ‘If you liked bush’s first term, you’re going to love his second term.’
He still thinks poor geroge is much maligned.
“Good thing the rest of the country didnt agree with you, as evidenced by the “thumping” the repukes got in 2006 and 2008.”
good thing….good thing WHAT? What good thing as come of the “thumping” of 2006?
and furthermore,
What good thing has come of the “thumping” of 2008. It’s only been 2 weeks, you have no proof of what “good thing” will come or even if it ever will come.
So far, we have to wait for the “good thing” that is being predicted by the Democrats.
.
Many Americans HAVE moved to other countries in the last 4 years. I see a lot of them when I’m out of the country. All I meet are fine and doing well.
Repubs are even now busy building their bridge, we must all help them.
“Yeah, that must be it, Mary Caruso says it is.”
You got that right!
I think repubs are still in denial, it’ll take 2010 election for them to start to see the light.
I’ve often thought about retiring in another country, like Costa Rica.
#
Rage
Posted November 17, 2008 at 9:37 am | Permalink
And, there haven’t been any Reagan conservatives since Reagan.
Actually, the reign of W. was nothing more than Reaganism taken to its logical extreme. Large tax cuts, huge military spending, huge deficits, attacks on domestic spending, scapegoating the poor, putting cronies in key positions, dyfunctional federal agencies, environmental destruction, contempt of Congress and democracy in general, and a commitment to radical monarchistic and dominionist legal theory and practice.
Alternately, you could look at Reagan as W. Lite.
Though I will say that, even without an actual opposition party, Reagan probably would have stopped short of where W. went.
——————
BuzzzzzZZZ!
Wrong!
The demographics by them selves show that your wrong.
People voting in the 1980s were of a different generation, twenty plus years older that “W’s” voters.
Reagan was a solution for Carter. Carter was wrecking the country and its very existence. Carter was a disaster.
I remember those times, the military had no spare parts for any of its weapons systems because of Carter. We had to bring in our own pens and pencils because there wasn’t any budget money to buy them.
Carter was one big cluster f$ck.
It’s no mystery Reagan got elected; Carter was the worst of the worst and Reagan had a winning personality which helped him sweep into office.
“There haven’t been any Goldwater conservatives since Goldwater.” — Regular
———-
I checked. I’m still here! I didn’t leave my party, it left me.
#
lindainks55
Posted November 17, 2008 at 9:44 am | Permalink
“There haven’t been any Goldwater conservatives since Goldwater.” — Regular
———-
I checked. I’m still here! I didn’t leave my party, it left me.
————-
Goldwater was over rated. He never got very far and I remember he wasn’t at all that popular during those times.
Mary does have a valid point. When the Religious Right took over power in 1994 through 2006, they had pretty much everything locked up in Washington. And what did they do with this power? They considered ‘compromise’ a four-letter word and went through those years crushing their opponents.
During Bill Clinton’s terms, the Religious Right were more concerned about Clinton’s sex life than their country and spent millions on a stupid investigation and impeachment proceedings.
George W. Bush came into office from 2000 and the Republicans had total control of White House and Congress from 2000 to 2006. Again, what did they do with this power? They invaded Iraq and started an unnecessary war, spent money like it was growing on trees in the backyard, turned the majority of the world against the US for our foreign policies, promoted torture which did not help our global moral standing, and now we have one of the worst economic crisis (which most of the global leaders are blaming on America).
Is it any wonder the Republicans are thought of as on a bridge to nowhere – especially when they refuse to even admit their part in all this mess?
George W. Bush had the majority of the world’s goodwill when 9/11 happened and he could have done some great things for our country. Instead, he chose to go the way of the Neo-Con Religious Right and try to shove their view of the world down everyone’s throat. That is where the GOP has lost.
We should take a lesson from the repubs, crush the opponent. Get some good redistricting going on. But main thing is to leave the country better than we found it when we took over.
People voting in the 1980s were of a different generation, twenty plus years older that “W’s” voters.
Funny, I didn’t say anything about demographics. It’s wasn’t relevant. But, to paraphrase Molly Ivins, I kinda doubt people will be stupid enough to fall for this scam again in 2020.
Reagan was indeed a reaction to Carter. Reagan wanted to tax cuts, Democrats insisted on pumping money into the economy. To some extent, following the 10.2% unemployment of 1982, they corrected each other’s excesses. Unfortunately, Republicans had the upper hand, and every one of the maladies I mentioned ,as well as the nascent beginnings of a finance-based casino economy, emerged.
One might see that as an argument for divided government. I see it instead as argument for having intelligent, rational government in the first place, something we didn’t see with the kind of ideological fanatics Reagan hired.
They also promoted the “us” against “them” attitudes and anyone who disagreed with their agenda as the enemy…any thinking outside the box was considered a threat. And just like the religious right, Bush would only surrounded himself with those of like mind who would validate his ideology and actions. Anyone who disagreed was out of there after he was re-elected to his 2nd term.
Everything that Carter touched got screwed up immediately and if it was a long term process, it died a slow, cancerous death.
Carter was an abject failure on all fronts.
Mary_Caruso
Posted November 17, 2008 at 10:00 am | Permalink
They also promoted the “us” against “them” attitudes and anyone who disagreed with their agenda as the enemy
=======================
Mary you may want to consider BlueJay.
Carter rates higher thab 43 on all fronts.
“I’ve often thought about retiring in another country, like Costa Rica.”
You’ll be in good company, Mary. A couple of the locals here did just that. Bought a cheap motel down there and started a tourista fishing business.
They love it. Making money hand over fist.
And the AARP magazine had an article a while back on the financial benefits of retiring in Mexico.
And I could get married in South Africa, Canada, and SPAIN for cryin’ out loud.
In Canada, if you are a farmer or plan to farm, you go to the head of the line for immigration.
And there is a line…
Mary you may want to consider BlueJay.
Chuckle, hey, good point, “ANTI-JR”!
I remember those times, the military had no spare parts for any of its weapons systems because of Carter. We had to bring in our own pens and pencils because there wasn’t any budget money to buy them.
It’s no mystery Reagan got elected; Carter was the worst of the worst and Reagan had a winning personality which helped him sweep into office.
–
And our troops in Iraq had to go look in the garbage dumps for body armor! All the while, the Halliburton contract got paid millions that went accounted for – and you think Carter was a screw up?
As for Reagan – he was a gifted speaker but the heart of the man was something else than he tried to portray.
Or do you not remember who gave weapons to Iran? Isn’t history funny – Daddy Bush helped Reagan give weapons to Iran and then Junior Bush makes Iran our ’sworn enemy’.
Way to sell more arms. You stock them up, then declare them a threat, so you can destroy their stockpiles and use up some of your own, so both will have to be replenished.
I said back when we were selling arms to Iraq, and they were becoming a military power, someday we’d go in and start the process all over.
Hmmm…. Why would libs want to leave this country now that the Obama is in and democrats are in control?
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not trying to to talk you out of it.
Under Jimmy Carter, interest rates eventually went up, inflation was high, and we thought gas prices were high. There were actual shortages.
But there were also jobs, here in America. Plenty of them, and, even with the relatively high grocery prices, it was easier to survive–just survive–then than it is now.
I fared much better during carter yrs. than bush yrs.
Bought my first house, later sold it for a profit.
#
mom
Posted November 17, 2008 at 10:06 am | Permalink
I remember those times, the military had no spare parts for any of its weapons systems because of Carter. We had to bring in our own pens and pencils because there wasn’t any budget money to buy them.
It’s no mystery Reagan got elected; Carter was the worst of the worst and Reagan had a winning personality which helped him sweep into office.
–
And our troops in Iraq had to go look in the garbage dumps for body armor! All the while, the Halliburton contract got paid millions that went accounted for – and you think Carter was a screw up?
As for Reagan – he was a gifted speaker but the heart of the man was something else than he tried to portray.
Or do you not remember who gave weapons to Iran? Isn’t history funny – Daddy Bush helped Reagan give weapons to Iran and then Junior Bush makes Iran our ’sworn enemy’.
—————–
dumb ass,
You have no idea what Carter did to this country and the military – he practically killed it.
We had young family troops by the thousands on welfare rolls because they couldn’t afford to feed their families. It was beyond ludicrous, it was the point of a dangerous collapse.
Carter was a menace to society in more ways than one.
Hmmm…. Why would libs want to leave this country now that the Obama is in and democrats are in control?
Hey, good point. Obama is such a magician that, on January 20th, all he has to do is snap his fingers and it’ll be okay. /sarcasm OFF
“Why would libs want to leave this country now that the Obama is in and democrats are in control? ”
Oh gee, I dont know. Maybe because bushco and his congressional enablers have phcuked it up beyond any chance of recovery in my lifetime?
I’m not expecting great things from obama. He’s owned by the same people who have owened the government for decades.
And the size of the mess obama is taking on is breathtaking. No one can fix it easily or quickly.
Now. I thought YOU were leaving the blog. Not that I’m trying to talk you out of it or anything…
For all of his verbosity, RFL once again demonstrates that his level of reading comprehension doesn’t extend so far as to include irony.
“The Democrats on this blog claim to believe that Democratic principles are the best for this country going forward. Yet they encourage the Republicans to run away from Democratic principles. Why???”
Um, because the voters have shown that they HATE core Republican “principles,” and because encouraging Republicans to continue running on them is an easy way to ensure Democratic dominance.
SARAH IN 2012!
Regarding the topic of the thread, here’s a very interesting discussion from over at MYDD regarding the forms of self-reinvention that may be in store for the GOP.
“Republicans will certainly need new ideas to bring their party back into power, but the GOP tends to be a lot more institutional than the Democratic party, making quick change hard. Beginning in 2000 and culminating in 2008, Democrats were able to bring new activists into the party and bring truly new ideas to the table, culminating with the emergence and election of Barack Obama. It was breathtakingly quick change. Republicans tend to wait in line for their party’s nomination (Bob Dole lost to George H.W. Bush and was then nominated, John McCain lost to George W. Bush and was then nominated), so getting the old detritus out of the system will be harder and take longer.
Still, I would bet a good chunk of change that we’re going to see the flowering of right wing online organization – the conditions are perfect for it. Online communities like MyDD and Daily Kos – and the movement they helped inspire – grew up as an opposition wing in an opposition party. There are a lot of disaffected Republicans out there who are in the same position right now.”
http://mydd.com/
“dumb ass,
You have no idea what Carter did to this country and the military – he practically killed it.”
Typical…when some bloggers start losing the argument, they resort to name calling…how pathetic.
Phantom
Posted November 17, 2008 at 9:53 am | Permalink
We should take a lesson from the repubs, crush the opponent. Get some good redistricting going on. But main thing is to leave the country better than we found it when we took over
–
I do see the reasoning of the Democrats’ desire to crush the Republicans (God knows they deserve it), but in the interest of governing the country – I do think Obama is smart to include some Republicans.
I know alot of Republicans that are good, religious, hardworking people. These people are the ones that are so outraged at the Religious Right’s power in their party that they voted for Obama in the hopes this group would get a clue and go away.
I’m still hoping the Religious Right will have just enough arrogance (and they have plenty of that) to think they can break away and form their own party. My only wish would be that the party would be located on Mars.
But I agree the main thing is to leave the country better than we found it when we took over. And that is the difference between crushing your opponents and compromising. Governing is much different than winning elections.
Well CF, they always have freeperville. heheheh.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Another tactic would be to offer an olive branch to moderate republicans thus further isolating and marginalizing the RW.
#
Mary_Caruso
Posted November 17, 2008 at 10:17 am | Permalink
“dumb ass,
You have no idea what Carter did to this country and the military – he practically killed it.”
Typical…when some bloggers start losing the argument, they resort to name calling…how pathetic.
—————
No, it really ticks me off when people praise Carter and have no clue how he ran rough shod over the military and the young military with families.
I can’t tell you how many times I dipped into my pocket to keep the funds for the food warehouse open for our young troops who couldn’t afford to live under the slave wages Carter was forcing them to work under.
I think I did more fund raisers during that time than the entire totality of my life, just so our young troops and families could eat and feel like normal humans.
I think that McCain was the best choice the GOP could have made after 8 years of Bush. It was a miracle that he was as close as he was to Obama/Biden. Had McCain picked almost anyone besides Palin, he might have won.
What to do the Dems think of Obama’s selection of, or predicted selection of, so many Clinton folks. I understand those folks have been the government in exile, but is this administration going to be something really new? I have mixed feelings about it not being so. Any thoughts from the thinking ones out there?
Regular
Posted November 17, 2008 at 10:13 am | Permalink
.
dumb ass,
You have no idea what Carter did to this country and the military – he practically killed it.
We had young family troops by the thousands on welfare rolls because they couldn’t afford to feed their families. It was beyond ludicrous, it was the point of a dangerous collapse.
Carter was a menace to society in more ways than one.
—
And we don’t have young family troops by the thousands on welfare rolls now? The only difference between now and then is the fact Bush has used National Guard troops in his war for profit!
But I noticed you did not dispute the fact Halliburton got paid their millions of which much was unaccounted for. And what about our troops rummaging through the dumpsters for body armor? You never did address that issue – did you? I think body armor is more important than your precious pencils – don’t you?
As for calling me ‘dumb ass’ – thanks. That is just proof that your ass got nailed to the wall by what I had the audacity to say.
Regular – and where did I praise Carter? Regular, you sound like some self-righteous, blow-hard that makes it his mission to make everyone know just how much ‘you do’.
As for the military families today – again, aren’t they on welfare rolls and needing help? But isn’t it funny that Halliburton isn’t hurting for money – not even for those millions that are unaccounted for and no one is bothered to go ‘look for them’.
RONALD REGAN — a man worth remembering — http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/3405 — still my hero
#
mom
Posted November 17, 2008 at 10:27 am | Permalink
And we don’t have young family troops by the thousands on welfare rolls now? The only difference between now and then is the fact Bush has used National Guard troops in his war for profit!
But I noticed you did not dispute the fact Halliburton got paid their millions of which much was unaccounted for. And what about our troops rummaging through the dumpsters for body armor? You never did address that issue – did you? I think body armor is more important than your precious pencils – don’t you?
As for calling me ‘dumb ass’ – thanks. That is just proof that your ass got nailed to the wall by what I had the audacity to say.
——————–
No, we don’t have young troops on welfare rolls now because pay and related issues and family advocacy have been greatly improved since the 1970s.
No problem on calling you a dumb ass = anyone who defends Carter and his policies are dumb asses.
Carter was a night mare and needed to be stopped.
Amen, Mom!
Carter was a nightmare? Then Dubya was the nightmare that actually became reality.
“Another tactic would be to offer an olive branch to moderate republicans thus further isolating and marginalizing the RW.”
Of course, then they can take over the democratic party just like they’ve done in kansas with sebelius at the helm.
Thus ensuring we will forever be a one party state and the choices will remain “repub? Or repub light?”
Crush ‘em. Then salt the earth underneath them so nothing ever grows there again.
You CONs who argue that “things just go in cycles” are whistling past the graveyard.
It’s true that Worst.President.Ever. eked out a “victory” in 2000, but Al Gore earned more than half a million more votes than the WPE.
In 2004, a sitting President during wartime won by 4 million fewer votes than Obama did two weeks ago. Kerry also earned more votes than McCain did–and the electoral vote in 2000 hinged on the single state of Ohio, as opposed to Obama’s blowout.
This was not like the elections of 2000 and 2004 or even 1992, for that matter.
This was not a close election reflecting a divided nation–this was a repudiation of CONservatism and everything it stands for.
I don’t know how the CONs are going to “remake themselves” . . . they have been running as the party that says “gov’t doesn’t work,” and when elected, they prove it.
Not an easy position to change . . .
Any thoughts from the thinking ones out there?
The media buzz is that there will be a mix, old hands and new faces. I guess the last thing they want is to make the mistake Carter made with his “Georgia mafia.”
I pretty much have a wait-and-see attitude. It’s really too early to tell what will happen. Politics is the art of the possible (hence, I belatedly signed up at barackobama.com). But the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
“Carter was a nightmare? Then Dubya was the nightmare that actually became reality.”
Heheheh. An all DAYmare and nightmare twenty four seven.
StevenEDavis,
We’ll see how much Obama can accomplish. He faces formidable obstacles, not the least of which is that faced by every Democratic President: a military/intelligence apparatus that will do whatever it can to sandbag him and tie his hands.
Given that reality, the fact that he is bringing in so many familiar faces and trying to hang on to Gates seems pretty advisable from a realpolitik standpoint.
I also think, frankly, that Obama and his folks have been (if I may string together a number of cliches’) consistently ahead of the curve at reading the field. That is, they have correctly assessed the factors that are in play, and have either accomodated them or have avoided them entirely.
We’re in a different world, and even if some of the faces are the same, the game definitely is not. If what we’ve seen up to now is any indication, Obama will, I believe, be able to get those folks working from *his* playbook.
“But the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.”
Yeah. And it seems like me and mine wont even be getting a spoon, much less a taste.
SSDD
Dadman…if it wasn’t for all the Regan deregulation and his “trickle down” ideology, we might not have the financial crisis we have now.
When you take an unregulated free market system and add to it runaway greed..this is what you end up with.
Mary_Caruso
Posted November 17, 2008 at 10:33 am | Permalink
Carter was a nightmare? Then Dubya was the nightmare that actually became reality
—————
It’s really difficult for you to focus on one thing at a time isn’t it?
Should I bring up Lyndon Baines Johnson? How about George Wallace, another famous democrat.
Let me throw in some other arm flailing excuses for forum fillers so I can become a screaming ‘meemie’ just like yourself.
“Um, because the voters have shown that they HATE core Republican “principles,” and because encouraging Republicans to continue running on them is an easy way to ensure Democratic dominance.”
-CF2K
If the voters HATE core Republican principles then why not encourage Republicans to change their principles and be more like Democrats whose principles you claim are the best for the country?
Because as you mentioned clearly, the only thing you care about is Democratic dominance.
Thanks for proving my point, CF.
Carter was a night mare
I suppose he was “dark horse” candidate. :)
“If the voters HATE core Republican principles then why not encourage Republicans to change their principles and be more like Democrats whose principles you claim are the best for the country?”
Heheheh.
Irony really is lost on those most in need of it.
Real slow for ya rfl. If the repukes continue to do what they’ve been doing. They will get what they’ve got.
And THAT is good for the democrats.
I agree. PALIN IN 2012!
Frmgrl, I was disappointed too that Obama doesn’t support the right for gays to marry.
Mary_Caruso
Posted November 17, 2008 at 10:33 am | Permalink
Carter was a nightmare? Then Dubya was the nightmare that actually became reality.
*********
I’ve lived through other recessions, Reagan’s in the early 80’s for which he claimed “These problems were here before we started out watch” [I don't recall any president putting the blame for problems on a preceding president; another winning strategy to remember, Republicans]. But, I have never seen one that is deep as this one seems to be, or potentially so long in duration.
Was I just young and foolish in the in late 70’s and early 80’s, or is this one really “the mother of all recessions”?
He has some real issues with “the gay”. And they must be personal. His association with the evil donnie mcclurkin and kirbyjon caldwell were symptomatic.
He wont even wiggle his little pinky to help us.
“I’m not expecting great things from obama. He’s owned by the same people who have owened the government for decades.”
I couldn’t disagree more. I am expecting huge things from Obama.
If I don’t get any change during the next 8 years, I am going to vote Republican.
I want my Change! Whaa.
RFL,
What ksfarmgrrl said. Butf thanks for proving MY point regarding your irony-deficiency.
SARAH IN 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“How about George Wallace, another famous democrat.”
You know as well as I that George Wallace doesn’t represent the Democratic party of today. Talk about not staying on one subject!
I’m just responding to the other bloggers, Reg. I’m getting new carpet today, so I’ve got lots of time to talk while I stay out of the way.
Why don’t you try to discuss issues rather than wasting time with all the personal attacks? Feeling a little defensive these days?
43 oversaw the Reagan revolution taken to its logical ending.
Yeah. And it seems like me and mine wont even be getting a spoon, much less a taste.
It depends. Scary lower court decisions nothwithstanding, I see a bare 5-justice majority for marriage equality on the Supreme Court, right now (Kennedy, of course, being the shaky swing vote). Read Lawrence v. Texas. The majority opinion studiously avoided the issue, while O’Connor made an explicit point of distinguishing her agreement on the judgment from that noticeable omission. The dissent howled, reveling in laws against same-sex marriage.
As for what happens in the Obama administration? Well, even if he keeps his promises, not much. DADT will be replaced with sanity, though, remembering Clinton, probably not the first week. Any repeal of DOMA will have to go through Congress first.
And the rest? Dooe anyone see an equality bill even getting out of committee? I don’t.
Well Steven, for me, they are both true. I was young and foolish in the 70’s and 80’s. And this does seem to be the beginning of the mother of all recessions.
I read yesterday that the automaker supply chain businesses are in even bigger danger than the big three, and that housing starts are at a 50? or 60 year low.
This is the beginning of the economic pain, not the end. No one knows where the bottom will be.
And wheat is just barely five dollars a bushel. I think I called it months ago. Auctions again on the courthouse steps.
I think the repukes do this rat phcuking to make sure they are never out of power too long. Make a big mess, let a democrat hold the bag and try to clean it up, drag out the reagan corpse, prop it up and try again.
And with each successive repuke reign, we go further down the rat hole.
“He wont even wiggle his little pinky to help us.”
I guess no one’s perfect. Let’s just hope he jump starts the country in the right direction and the rest will follow.
#
Mary_Caruso
Posted November 17, 2008 at 10:44 am | Permalink
“How about George Wallace, another famous democrat.”
You know as well as I that George Wallace doesn’t represent the Democratic party of today. Talk about not staying on one subject!
I’m just responding to the other bloggers, Reg. I’m getting new carpet today, so I’ve got lots of time to talk while I stay out of the way.
Why don’t you try to discuss issues rather than wasting time with all the personal attacks? Feeling a little defensive these days?
——————
Oh, less personal attacks like your description of Republicans as religious bigots and anti-intellectuals.
…yeah…
Agreed Rage, as usual :)
The ONLY hope me and mine have is a sane SCOTUS. But given obama’s conservative beliefs, I’m left wondering if that will really happen. Maybe for those who will defend Roe v Wade, but not for those who defend Lawrence v Texas.
Yeah I know that sounds contradictory, but I think it will prove true. Not that they will overturn Lawrence v Texas, but that no further progress will be made.
And if DADT is changed? It will be in the SECOND obama term. Provided there is one. I think the mess is too big to clean up in one term, and given the short american attention span and the tenacity of the dead enders, I think obama will indeed be a one termer.
We’re at the back of the bus all over again. And obama isnt going to invite us to the front.
Regular – you really should just take a chill pill and do some real research (not Fox News or Rush Limbaugh).
You can say without hesitation that there are no military families on welfare at this moment? That’s funny, I know of several.
And as for the issue of our troops in Iraq having to rummage for body armor in the dumpsters. What is your answer to that – I’m still waiting.
As for taking care of the military families – what about the deplorable conditions at Walter Reed Hospital? I find it really hard to beleive that no one in authority knew that hospital was in that bad of shape until the media found out. Come on now – where was the administration of that place?
And what about that dad of a returning soldier that had to take his own videos of the deplorable conditions of the barracks his son was going to have to return to after serving in Iraq. This father was so horrified that he took his videos to the media – because no one else seemed to care.
What about the way our wounded Iraq troops are being treated when they get home? Are they getting the psychological help they need? Are they getting the rehabilitation help they need? Are they getting even a tenth of what Halliburton is getting in the way of those millions in war profits?
I find it very telling that you spout off about how terrible Carter was but yet you say nothing about the obvious lacking of caring for our military today.
May God bless you – only he knows your true heart.
“your description of Republicans as religious bigots and anti-intellectuals.”
If the hood fits…
“Was I just young and foolish in the in late 70’s and early 80’s, or is this one really “the mother of all recessions”?” — Steven
——-
I think it’s “the mother of all recessions.” At least in my lifetime. They’ve been cooking the books for over a year now! Instead of the usual quarterly adjustments, we’ve been seeing adjustments to the adjustments to the adjustments. Another of the failures brought to Americans by electing the good ole boy who pandered to the religious right and neocons.
Oh, and youthfully foolish still has its place! It’s the learning where the place is and where we need to be serious that age and maturity brings.
Part of the problem with GM failing is their suppliers that don’t go out of business will have to increase their prices to the reamaining auto manufacturers (including foreign), which will again pressure a recovery (probably contribute to more car companies going under).
“Real slow for ya rfl. If the repukes continue to do what they’ve been doing. They will get what they’ve got.
And THAT is good for the democrats.”
Real slow for ya farmie and CF,
If Republicans change and be like Democrats, then Democrats win as well.
Got it?
“At least in my lifetime. They’ve been cooking the books for over a year now!”
Hell, I think they stopped counting the M3 money supply three years ago!
They’ve been rat phcuking the numbers since reagan.
Does the good wittle poochie for the Democrat party CF2K even know what irony means?
Heheheh.
“Got it?”
Yeah. We got it a long time ago. Glad to see you finally “got it” too!
Mary_Caruso
Posted November 17, 2008 at 10:36 am | Permalink
Dadman…if it wasn’t for all the Regan deregulation and his “trickle down” ideology, we might not have the financial crisis we have now.
When you take an unregulated free market system and add to it runaway greed..this is what you end up with.
–
I agree Mary -
I will never understand the logic of Republicans who think it is better to have over-paid CEO’s than millions of workers still having their jobs to support their families, buy homes, buy food, buy goods and services and keep the economy going.
Trickle-down economics only work if the top layer are actually going to create jobs. But, as you said, deregulation and greed takes over.
“Oh, less personal attacks like your description of Republicans as religious bigots and anti-intellectuals.”
Anyone who mocks the president elect as a “magic negro” and makes fun of his intelligence fits the bill of a bigot and an anti intellectual..just pointing out the obvious. If you don’t want to be seen that way, maybe you need to think about what you post before you hit the button.
KFG,
I, too, think that Obama made an error on gay marriage. His hedging on that was no winner for him. People who would not vote for him on that stand would never have voted for him any way. I thought that he and his team were too smart not to realize that. Maybe not.
In your 10:45 a.m. post you hit upon my biggest fear for the Obama administration. Carter got killed by trying to pay previous Republican administrations’ debt, got hit with an economic tsunami, oil embargos, etc. and he was sunk with no chance in ‘80. Obama is saying that he is going to bail out the economy first and worry about the debt later – I’m not sure that is a wise or realistic plan.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081117/pl_nm/us_usa_obama_deficits_2
Anyone who mocks the president elect as a “magic negro” and makes fun of his intelligence fits the bill of a bigot and an anti intellectual..
==============
When should the LA times expect the Obama Youth to come knocking at their door?
#
mom
Posted November 17, 2008 at 10:50 am | Permalink
Regular – you really should just take a chill pill and do some real research (not Fox News or Rush Limbaugh).
You can say without hesitation that there are no military families on welfare at this moment? That’s funny, I know of several.
And as for the issue of our troops in Iraq having to rummage for body armor in the dumpsters. What is your answer to that – I’m still waiting.
As for taking care of the military families – what about the deplorable conditions at Walter Reed Hospital? I find it really hard to beleive that no one in authority knew that hospital was in that bad of shape until the media found out. Come on now – where was the administration of that place?
And what about that dad of a returning soldier that had to take his own videos of the deplorable conditions of the barracks his son was going to have to return to after serving in Iraq. This father was so horrified that he took his videos to the media – because no one else seemed to care.
What about the way our wounded Iraq troops are being treated when they get home? Are they getting the psychological help they need? Are they getting the rehabilitation help they need? Are they getting even a tenth of what Halliburton is getting in the way of those millions in war profits?
I find it very telling that you spout off about how terrible Carter was but yet you say nothing about the obvious lacking of caring for our military today.
May God bless you – only he knows your true heart.
———————-
Listen up rookie…
I lived through those times while serving in the military…I don’t need any news show telling me what it was actually like.
As far as Walter Reed is concerned, well let me just say that the U.S. Army has always a case of the dumb ass and pulls stunts like that. People should have been and were fired.
Damn, do females on this forum have a problem focusing on a subject? You vomited out anything from Haliburton to videos and you expect anyone to make sense of your chaotic mush you call a brain?
Learn how to discuss a subject in an intelligent manner without throwing in the typical Liberal ‘kitchen sink’ of excuse making and pathetic ‘I’m a victim’ diatribes.
#
Mary_Caruso
Posted November 17, 2008 at 10:56 am | Permalink
“Oh, less personal attacks like your description of Republicans as religious bigots and anti-intellectuals.”
Anyone who mocks the president elect as a “magic negro” and makes fun of his intelligence fits the bill of a bigot and an anti intellectual..just pointing out the obvious. If you don’t want to be seen that way, maybe you need to think about what you post before you hit the button.
———————
Barack is a ‘magic negro’ because he won an election without any deeds to bolster his credibility.
So far, Obama is just a word smith, not a leader.
“People who would not vote for him on that stand would never have voted for him any way. I thought that he and his team were too smart not to realize that. Maybe not.”
That’s what make me think the issue is personal bigotry for him. Even his wife doesnt agree with him on that issue. He’s too smooth to come right out and say it, but the dog whistling is clear.
And I was, as they say in Texas, just “fixin’” to post that same yahoo article!
Oh and I disagree with you that his bigoted stance is a non winner. It solidified his support among black and white churches alike.
He knew he could take the sheeple queers for granted. I mean, who were we gonna vote for? Dennis? Cynthia?
IIRC, they are the only ones who held a non bigoted stance.
The vichy queers who support folks like him and gail finney are only looking out for their own pocketbooks.
“I lived through those times while serving in the military…I don’t need any news show telling me what it was actually like.”
Funny, so did I…I don’t remember it being so bad. We had 3 kids and a mortgage and did fine on my husband’s military pay. I miss shopping at the commisary…saved a lot on food and it was nice to have free health care.
Regular – you STILL have not answered the issue of Iraq troops rummaging for body armor. Why not?
The original issue was the fact that you said Carter was the worst by destroying the military.
I am only bringing up what the military has done currently to our troops – of which Bush is the Commander in Chief.
Where is your answer to all this current military mistreatment of our troops.
If Carter was so bad for not providing pencils for you in the 70’s then why is it okay for Bush to not provide body armor for our soldiers in Iraq?
And can I help it if you can’t think about more than one thing at a time? If you can’t think outside the box – perhaps that is a personal problem you need to work on?
I’m not a rookie and I did live through the nightmare of Vietnam War and the 70’s and alot of my friends and family did not make it home to even miss their damn pencils!
somehow politics and profit were more important than lives – sounds familiar to the Iraq war doesn’t it?
“Damn, do females on this forum have a problem focusing on a subject?”
LOL! haven’t you ever noticed how much better we are at multi-tasking? It’s an important aspect of our species’ evolution.
Barack is a ‘magic negro’ because he won an election without any deeds to bolster his credibility.
So far, Obama is just a word smith, not a leader.
*****
Sorry you’re in such a foul mood today, James. I still don’t think that Obama’s win was so much magic as McCain choice to lose. If he had selected Romney as a V.P. choice, he’d be preparing his inauguration speech today. Romney would have been a good choice for the base – think “outlander”, “HLP”, “Nathan”, “OKO”, etc. and I think he would have appealed to swing voters.
It could be that McCain avoided picking Romney because he did not want to be outshined by his second on the ticket. Ole John S. did not have that problem with his V.P. pick.
Republicans as religious bigots and anti-intellectuals.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEzh10_xoqw
mom
Posted November 17, 2008 at 11:14 am | Permalink
Regular – you STILL have not answered the issue of Iraq troops rummaging for body armor. Why not?
——————–
Because I don’t discuss issues with airheads who keep changing the subject at a drop of the hat.
Stick with one topic and discuss it.
Flopping around the issues like a chicken with its head cut off serves no one.
For being a word smith – the same could be said about Reagan. He certainly did have the gift of the silver tongue. Too bad it was also a forked tongue.
Regular – this issue WAS in my first posting in response to yours about Carter destroying the military.
I have raised this same issue several times and you still keep ignoring it – why?
Can you not just answer this one simple question? Why do you not think it is terrible for Bush to not supply our troops in Iraq with body armor but yet Carter was terrible for not providing pencils for you in the 70’s?
BTW – you never did answer the other question – can you say without any hesitation that there are no military families on welfare currently? I’ve told you that I know of several – why can you not answer this question also?
Remember this, my friend, when you try to label Carter has having nearly destroyed the military – there will always be examples of other presidents that did not or have not treated the military well.
You accused me of praising Carter and I never did anything of the kind. I simply pointed out many examples of what the current Bush administration has not done for our military and that makes me angry – as it should you.
“Because I don’t discuss issues with airheads who keep changing the subject at a drop of the hat.”
In other words, he doesn’t have a good response!
Regular – God bless you my friend but I really do need to get something constructive done today. The weather is too nice to be cooped in all day.
Go outside, breathe in the fresh air, enjoy the sunshine and try to remember to thank God for what you have and stop reliving those ‘pencil-less’ days. Okay?
Being that ReguLIAR said it, I thought I better check up on his contention that Carter cut military spending to the bone.
Actually, it fell right after Vietnam under Nixon-Ford, but it went up during Carter’s tenure.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy07/pdf/hist.pdf
Spending on the military went from 4.7 percent to 5.2 percent of GDP.
So, once again, James McLIAR is wrong, wrong, wrong.
ksfarmgrrl: In case anybody still thinks Americans are disliked worldwide, I would refer to an earlier post of yours to-day. Do you have any idea just how big and genuine the welcome mat is for Americans in Australia, New Zealand and Canada? It’s amazing! Family tells me that there are over 700,000 Americans immigrants in Canada and as a % of population the numbers in the other two places are even greater. The doors are never closed for Yanks and they do not give up their birthright, dual citizenship is quite common.
Regular whining…
We had young family troops by the thousands on welfare rolls because they couldn’t afford to feed their families.
Sounds eerily familiar to what many military families are going through now. History continues to repeat itself. Funny that the first was under a Democrat, and this one under a Republican.
And, btw, Reg, the # of military families on welfare rolls began rising in Bush’s first term.
No, we don’t have young troops on welfare rolls now because pay and related issues and family advocacy have been greatly improved since the 1970s.
Oh, you are so WRONG.
It wasn’t but a couple of yrs ago people were having food drives for the troops families, as I recall. Guess now they’re just doing without.
“…I think it is possible to have a reasonable conversation with James (if you concentrate hard enough),…”
Note: this thread did not hear back from one James McCluer. Hmmmm…
Even Trolls Have Feelings
New bumper sticker inspired by the WE Blog.
James doesn’t discuss issues.
He plays games.
Getting caught in a lie is just as much fun for him as passing a lie undetected.
He uses the normal desire for people to exchange information and perverts it for his deviant needs.
sursum – doesn’t New Zealand have a strict immigration policy in only a certain number of people in certain occupations get the right to move there? And when applying, you have to list your occupation and if that happens to be something they need at the moment, then you get to go to the head of the list? That is the way it used to be a few years when my husband and I checked it out.