Discussion: The REPUBLICAN Party [Archive] - Page 36

Matt

04-24-2009, 02:34 PM

:huh:

Let's not kid ourselves man. You've condemned him from the beginning...I dare question if you have ever really given him a chance.

I voted for him. Granted, it was mostly because his opponent was worse, and all the third party candidates on the PA ballot just sounded ****ing nuts...but voting for him is giving him a chance.

And if by "condemned him from the beginning," you mean disagree with the policy ideas he was throwing out, then yes.

It's not about 5 days to his 100th day...and he's already destroyed the country.

I'm sure some seriously believe this.

I...really want to see what the social and political climate is like in two years...because, we've only just begun with Obama. Dude's still got alot of time to go into his presidency.

Year One is even through yet.

I didn't say he destroyed it. There is really no way to deny that all of his czars and attempts to grab power for the federal government go against the checks and balances laid out in our Costitution.

And his foreign policy has made us look weak, especially in regards to NK and Iran.

Marx

04-24-2009, 02:37 PM

I voted for him. Granted, it was mostly because his opponent was worse, and all the third party candidates on the PA ballot just sounded ****ing nuts...but voting for him is giving him a chance.

And if by "condemned him from the beginning," you mean disagree with the policy ideas he was throwing out, then yes.

Voting for him on the basis that 'his opponent was worse' isn't really giving him a genuine chance...but that's just my view on the matter.

DACrowe

04-24-2009, 02:38 PM

But she isn't complaining about him shaking his hand. She is complaining about Obama sitting on stage as Chavez and Ortega trashed America for nearly 50 minutes. For our president to sit there and give silent consent to that is unacceptable. NOTHING is gained by him sitting there as these radicals insult our country and our citizens. Absolutely nothing other than sending an image of weakness.

And I think it is ridiculous to believe he gave "silent consent." Personally, I find those complaining that him "bowing" to the king of Saudi Arabia, shaking hands with Chavez or sitting at a meeting where yes, anti-American rhetoric is used, are reacting to the miniscule. Behind closed doors he is said to be very demanding and rough edged and managed to get a trillion dollar-stimulus out of resentful Europeans last month after weeks of public criticism from world leaders that he publicly ignored, including basic EU head Sarkozy telling the press multiple times he would walk out before agreeing to that. Actions speak louder than words. Posturing in a way that says "I'm above you," is arrogant. I prefer to speak softly and carry a big stick over cowboy diplomacy and that is where much of this criticism comes from. FDR and Truman sat in the same room civilly with Stalin, even though they knew he was responsible for the deaths of millions of his own people, because it helped them win the war and then Truman was able to scare the USSR from moving into southeast Asia when he displayed the unreported nuclear weapon which sent a strong message to the Soviets without Truman having to say "You're in the axis of evil too."

So yes, I find these criticisms invalid and I do believe they mostly come from people who already dislike Obama to the point of irrationality and are ready to criticize ANYTHING he does, whether it is a legitimate critique or not. And no offense Matt, I think that includes you when I see you complaining about the Obama kids naming their dog Bo.

So, I do :whatever: at weak and trivial arguments that seem to be complaining for the sake of it. Now better criticism would be retaining pre-9/11 FISA power to spy on Americans or his inability to stop the Democratic Congress from filling his bills with needless pork that only weighs down his agenda and costs him political capital. Or the fact that Iran has basically taken an American journalist hostage and we do nothing about it.

Those are fair criticisms. Him sitting at a meeting with people who dislike America is not.

SentinelMind

04-24-2009, 09:51 PM

The Major

04-24-2009, 09:59 PM

The Major

04-24-2009, 10:05 PM

Yeah...you're right.

Which probably means alot of Texans would get killed.

Which, I'm actually not too happy to see happen, sorry.
Agreed.

hippie_hunter

04-24-2009, 10:14 PM

America is never arrogant? Really?

The country is going to take decades to get any credibility back aboard after the last 8 years.

Just the last 8 years? When it comes to Latin America, more like the last 100 years :o

Schlosser85

04-24-2009, 10:17 PM

Texas is not going to secede from the Union. The federal government wouldn't let it, not enough Texans would support Perry even if he was 100% serious, and Chuck Norris doesn't have the balls to try it.

SentinelMind

04-24-2009, 10:22 PM

LOL, seriously, its amazing the leftwing really is naive to think our enemies are only mad about the last 8 years. When Obama tells the world that he thinks our own country is arrogant,..even HE is going back further than the last 8 years. The leftwing thinks are country think Obama's charisma is can override decades of animosity.

I'm not saying those countries aren't doing what its in their interest. Some of them have legitimate conflicts. But we need a US President who is going to stand up for our own interests 24/7. Not remain silent when a foriegn radical blasts our country.

SentinelMind

04-24-2009, 10:24 PM

America is never arrogant? Really?

That's not the point. The point is our leader is suppose to defend the interest and image of America abroad no matter what our enemies say about us. When our enemies are saying harsh things about us, we should be repeating that we're the beacon of freedom and democracy in the world.

Marx

04-24-2009, 10:26 PM

That's not the point. The point is our leader is suppose to defend the interest and image of America abroad no matter what our enemies say about us. When our enemies are saying harsh things about us, we should be repeating that we're the beacon of freedom and democracy in the world.

He has said that many times Sent.

The Major

04-24-2009, 10:34 PM

That's not the point. The point is our leader is suppose to defend the interest and image of America abroad no matter what our enemies say about us.

Obama is repairing America's image aboard. Why do you care what our enemies say about us?

Doomed_hero

04-24-2009, 10:36 PM

I belive it is arrogant on are part to keep running around the world and act like we are perfect and have no problems when we are suffering the same problems as other countries. I mean we are all part of the same world and we have no right to act like we own it. If others make mistakes we have a right to call them on it , like others have the right to call it on us. As far as sitting down with leader of othe opressive countries, the "walk softly and carry a big stick " appraoch is the best use. If we go around labeling the people we end up like a high school bully and get nothing done. Is Obama sitting down a sign that he wants thousands to suffer in other countries? thats so dumb, we have sat down many times in the past and the result has been better then cowby diplomacy.

The Major

04-24-2009, 10:36 PM

Just the last 8 years? When it comes to Latin America, more like the last 100 years :o
True. But what little credibility we did have there was destroyed in those 8 years.

The Major

04-24-2009, 10:38 PM

SentinelMind

04-24-2009, 10:47 PM

True. But what little credibility we did have there was destroyed in those 8 years.

Seriously, how were the last 8 years that much worse for Latin America than any other time period before that? Other than badmouthing the socialist leaders they elect, I think the last 8 years have been pretty tame for them in comparison.

Obama is repairing America's image aboard. Why do you care what our enemies say about us?

Sitting quietly while socialist radicals bash us is repairing our image abroad? Making a joke "don't bash me for what Kennedy did in Bay of Bigs" is helping our image abroad? Bashing us in front of indignant Europeans is helping our image?

If you are seen agreeing or conceeding with the views of our enemies, it weakens morale of our allies and team defending our nation and emboldens enemies who are hellbent to expand their socialist, radical doctrine across the Earth. Our values aren't free free. You always have to fight and defend it agaisnt those who want to undermine its strength.

The Major

04-24-2009, 11:05 PM

Seriously, how were the last 8 years that much worse for Latin America than any other time period before that?

The relationship with Venezuela was very rocky. Latin America might not have been hurt to much with Bush. Though I bet they were ticked off when they heard about America water boarding people. With America's awful history there it would put them on edge. It might have been them or be them in the future.

Other than badmouthing the socialist leaders they elect.

Not good to do with neighboring countries we'd have bad history with.

Sitting quietly while socialist radicals bash us is repairing our image abroad?

They bash us for doing bad things. America can make mistakes.

Making a joke "don't bash me for what Kennedy did in Bay of Bigs" is helping our image abroad?

Yes. It's being humble.

Bashing us in front of indignant Europeans is helping our image?

Because America's been Europe's greatest ally the last 8 years. :whatever:

If you are seen agreeing or conceeding with the views of our enemies, it weakens morale of our allies and team defending our nation and emboldens enemies who are hellbent to expand their socialist, radical doctrine across the Earth.
I see no reason to argue on things with enemies when they are right. Our allies morale had been broken long before this. America alienated them on its own. Bush's actions demoralized the team back home, as well. Bush actually gave our enemies legitimate reasons to be emboldened with torture. Arguing with our enemies over stuff we actually did doesn't stop them from expanding, it gives them more reason to expand since they don't want to be the next nation we invade for no reason.

Our values aren't free free. You always have to fight and defend it agaisnt those who want to undermine its strength.

True. Only America wasn't doing that until recently.

SentinelMind

04-24-2009, 11:15 PM

The relationship with Venezuela was very rocky. Latin America might not have been hurt to much with Bush. Though I bet they were ticked off when they heard about America water boarding people. With America's awful history there it would put them on edge. It might have been them or be them in the future.

Oh, please...the human rights violations, violence, and political imprisonment, and brutality in some of those Latin America countries would make our skin crawl. Don't compare us to them. We need a President who doesn't compare us to them.

Not good to do with neighboring countries we'd have bad history with.

We may have bad relations with those countries, but we still need to stand up against socialist and tyrannical governments at all times.

They bash us for doing bad things. America can make mistakes.

We need a President who reminds the world of the great things we've done for the world in face of our enemies when they condemn us for our mistakes. I'm not saying America is godsend land of perfect people. I'm saying our values and principles need defending, we shouldn't remain silent when socialist radicals with worse records than our condemn us. The problem is the left is so obsessed with trying to be popular with people who would want nothing but to undermine our quality of life and will chip chip chip away at it anytime they have the opportunity to.

[/quote]
Because America's been Europe's greatest ally the last 8 years. :whatever:
[/quote]

LOL...you could say it the other way around as well. I want America standing up for freedom, democracy, capitalism, and determination. If Europeans don't want to ally themselves them with that, then can stay irrelevant in foriegn affairs.

The Major

04-24-2009, 11:36 PM

Oh, please...the human rights violations, violence, and political imprisonment, and brutality in some of those Latin America countries would make our skin crawl.
America created some of those regimes in Latin America.

Don't compare us to them.

I will when America stops acting like them.

We need a President who doesn't compare us to them.

We need a president who shouldn't have to make excuses for his predecessors horrible actions. America hasn't come that far yet.

We may have bad relations with those countries, but we still need to stand up against socialist and tyrannical governments at all times.

I agree. Except America has a shady history with setting up and being close allies with regimes like that.

We need a President who reminds the world of the great things we've done for the world in face of our enemies when they condemn us for our mistakes.

Which would only mean something if America weren't hypocrites about it. We need humility now more then ever to redeem the country's image internationally.

I'm not saying America is godsend land of perfect people. I'm saying our values and principles need defending, we shouldn't remain silent when socialist radicals with worse records than our condemn us.
Then America needs to stop giving those radicals legitimate reasons to not take us seriously.

The problem is the left is so obsessed with trying to be popular with people who would want nothing but to undermine our quality of life and will chip chip chip away at it anytime they have the opportunity to.

The left don't believe cowboy diplomacy is the only rational course in foreign affairs. There is a time when to use the carrot and the stick.
Why do you think the left want to undermine the quality of life? The left chips away at stuff just as much as the right does.

LOL...you could say it the other way around as well.

America hasn't acted in good faith the last 8 years. We turned on them before they turned on us.

I want America standing up for freedom, democracy, capitalism, and determination.
Had America actually stood up more for those beliefs instead of throwing them under the bus when it gets convenient they'd still be close allies.

If Europeans don't want to ally themselves them with that, then can stay irrelevant in foriegn affairs.
They do want to ally themselves with that. It's just that America hasn't been offering that until recently.

hippie_hunter

04-24-2009, 11:43 PM

True. But what little credibility we did have there was destroyed in those 8 years.

What credibility? We had none there to begin with! The last 8 years was soooooo tame compared to the crap we used to do there. Like violate their sovereignty.

The Major

04-24-2009, 11:44 PM

What credibility? We had none there to begin with! The last 8 years was soooooo tame compared to the crap we used to do there. Like violate their sovereignty.
True.

VampElvis

04-25-2009, 08:26 AM

The last 8 years have been a boon for Latin America due to US policy, especially Central America. If we'd bothered to even think about enforcing immigration and border laws they'd all have economies in the toilet. You think only Mexico has benefited? Tell that to hundreds of Guatemalans and Hondurans working on stolen and shared SS#s in the nursery industry just around me.

<deleted>
Sorry, had to delete all that. I had gone on a 50 paragraph tirade attacking the lack of integrity, intelligence, wisdom, common sense, ample supply of pettiness, and wretched actions, and generally horribleness of that Nimrod Engels, Beatnik LCDR an amalgam poster around these parts. But, I didn’t want to start the path toward being banned. Why? Because if I do make these claims, no matter how justified they may be, there will be consequences to my actions. If I continue to behave in an unacceptable manner by stating these same things over and over again, I will be excluded from the community. When you allow the argument to progress to the ad hominem you’ve pretty much given up and lost. Because of this use of the tactic should policed.

Now, what this has to do with the future of the republican party I have no idea. The relationship seems about as imaginary as my 50 paragraph tirade. Can someone move us back toward the point of the thread?

VampElvis

04-25-2009, 08:28 AM

.....and Chuck Norris doesn't have the balls to try it.
Well, it was nice knowing you. Watch out for the roundhouse because I;m sure you know that unlike us mere mortals Chuck Norris doesn't sleep, he just waits.:cwink:

Kelly

04-25-2009, 08:44 AM

Sorry I missed that....

DACrowe

04-25-2009, 01:47 PM

Exactly. What is disturbing is Obama's willingness to embolden our critics both domestically and internationally. The Leftwing takes this for granted simply because we're currently a superpower but they don't understand how it seriously undermines our credibility and strength in the world when a sitting President remains silent or even accuesses America for being "arrogant" in front of American-bashing audience.

And then he accuses the European critics of being complacent, resentful and self-interested.

These attacks on his presidency I find to be cherry-picking. I believe him not having a strong response to Iran makes America look weak and I am worried about that. Being diplomatic, which is where most of this criticism comes from, does not. FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Nixon, George H.W. Bush and Clinton were all good diplomats and save maybe the last two mentioned, increased our stock in international relations and made the image of America stronger and either ended wars, prevented wars or opened great strides in free-trade with thoughtful diplomacy that would allow them to talk to our enemies without using ultimatums. I am sickened by the right throwing out Teddy Roosevelt's eloquent "speak softly and carry a big stick" in favor of the lousy cowboy "diplomacy" of Reagan and Dubya. The last eight years showed what a failure that road is and yet I see so many miniscule criticisms of Obama because he isn't saying "You're either with us or you're against us."

Honestly, most of this is coming from people who were never going to give Obama chance anyway, IMO.

Doomed_hero

04-25-2009, 02:12 PM

SheldonLevene

04-25-2009, 07:28 PM

Sentinel you're a great American my friend. I'd rather not get involved in this discussion, but it's refreshing to see someone display such common sense when it comes to politics.

Matt

04-25-2009, 07:49 PM

well tying this arguement into the threads point, this is the man problem of the GOP right now. They cherry pick issues and offer nothing really new, only half thought out criticsms. I am not saying Dems never did this, thats why they where down and looked dead 4 years ago since they werent really coming up with anything and only criticizing however while I will respect a good dissagreement, I also think ya should come with some hard facts and know some history as well as leave any vendettas at the door like some posters on here seem to have.

In all fairness, neither did the Democrats. The Democrats beat the Republicans in 2006 by doing the same thing Republicans are doing now...*****ing about the current administration. As for 2008, they didn't offer a real platform either. They simply got a photogenic candidate who threw around buzz words like "change," and "hope." Obama's vague platform has barely been used in his administration as...well...it was incredibly impractical and would've bankrupted our country. Meaning he essentially ran a campaign of unfulfilled promises and that's the nice way of putting it...a more pessemistic person might just say lies (and yes, it is early, I know...but he's not even really laying the groundwork that such ambitious goals would require from day one).

Which comes back to the media controlling elections. Curious that they are condemning the Republicans now for the same thing they let Democrats slide on in 2006. Furthermore had a Republican or a nonminority Democratic` candidate tried to have run the same campaign as Obama, they would've been called on it in a heart beat (hell, it happened with John Edwards in 2004). The media clung to Obama and still will not call his flaws because because the first black president is still a ratings draw.

Marx

04-25-2009, 07:52 PM

In all fairness, neither did the Democrats. The Democrats beat the Republicans in 2006 by doing the same thing Republicans are doing now...*****ing about the current administration. As for 2008, they didn't offer a real platform either. They simply got a photogenic candidate who threw around buzz words like "change," and "hope." Obama's vague platform has barely been used in his administration as...well...it was incredibly impractical and would've bankrupted our country. Meaning he essentially ran a campaign of unfulfilled promises and that's the nice way of putting it...a more pessemistic person might just say lies (and yes, it is early, I know...but he's not even really laying the groundwork that such ambitious goals would require from day one).

Which comes back to the media controlling elections. Curious that they are condemning the Republicans now for the same thing they let Democrats slide on in 2006. Furthermore had a Republican or a nonminority Democratic` candidate tried to have run the same campaign as Obama, they would've been called on it in a heart beat (hell, it happened with John Edwards in 2004). The media clung to Obama and still will not call his flaws because because the first black president is still a ratings draw.

You and I have been on the same side of that argument for quite a while now. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

Scarlet spidey

04-25-2009, 11:14 PM

I've glanced through this thread and I'm happy to see mention of Ron Paul, and Barry Goldwater in here.
I truly think that's the future of the Republican Party. Run on a platform of smaller government and then actually follow through with it.
No pulling a Ronald Reagan. :oldrazz:

Matt

04-26-2009, 12:42 AM

You and I have been on the same side of that argument for quite a while now. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

One of the few things we've had since the primaries :csad:

Superman

04-26-2009, 04:28 AM

LMAO!!! Keith got it so right, This song sums up the Republican Party of today perfectly In My Opinion.:hehe:

I present the RNC theme song.
DtMV44yoXZ0
:hehe:

Kelly

04-26-2009, 12:01 PM

LMAO.......*pops Supes upside the head*.....

souvlaki

04-26-2009, 12:59 PM

In all fairness, neither did the Democrats. The Democrats beat the Republicans in 2006 by doing the same thing Republicans are doing now...*****ing about the current administration. As for 2008, they didn't offer a real platform either. They simply got a photogenic candidate who threw around buzz words like "change," and "hope." Obama's vague platform has barely been used in his administration as...well...it was incredibly impractical and would've bankrupted our country. Meaning he essentially ran a campaign of unfulfilled promises and that's the nice way of putting it...a more pessemistic person might just say lies (and yes, it is early, I know...but he's not even really laying the groundwork that such ambitious goals would require from day one).

Which comes back to the media controlling elections. Curious that they are condemning the Republicans now for the same thing they let Democrats slide on in 2006. Furthermore had a Republican or a nonminority Democratic` candidate tried to have run the same campaign as Obama, they would've been called on it in a heart beat (hell, it happened with John Edwards in 2004). The media clung to Obama and still will not call his flaws because because the first black president is still a ratings draw.

There is a huge difference between *****ing about an administration six years in, and *****ing about an administration 3 months in.

Matt

04-26-2009, 01:06 PM

Never-the-less, in those six months the Democrats did not offer a single policy to improve on what the Republicans were doing. All they did was *****.

souvlaki

04-26-2009, 01:09 PM

btw, I'm not implying that Democrats were not complaining back in 2000, because they were. But they also weren't taken seriously until Bush got us involved in a war that proved to be less than popular. Same as how Republicans wont be taken seriously until we actually see the effects of the policies Obama has put in place. Right now Republicans are doing the same crap Democrats did eight years ago, throwing **** at a wall and seeing what sticks. It was dumb when Democrats did it, and it's dumb now.

souvlaki

04-26-2009, 01:13 PM

Never-the-less, in those six months the Democrats did not offer a single policy to improve on what the Republicans were doing. All they did was *****.

Yeah, I can agree with this. But it still took six years for them to be taken seriously, and a ton of screw ups on the part of Bush. And I'd argue that if they had continued down that path in 2008 Obama wouldn't have won. However, regardless of whether or not you agree with his policies I'd argue Obama and the Democrats were the ones with policy ideas in 2008. Republicans were simply reacting to the Democrats instead of offering any solutions.

Superman

04-26-2009, 01:46 PM

LMAO.......*pops Supes upside the head*.....http://smilies.vidahost.com/otn/angels/newangel.gif

Raiden

04-28-2009, 12:17 PM

Veteran GOP Sen. Specter switches parties (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30456741/)

WASHINGTON - Veteran Republican Sen. Arlen Specter announced Tuesday that he is switching parties, a move would give Democrats a filibuster-proof 60 seats if Al Franken is seated in the Minnesota race.

"I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary," the Pennsylvania senator said in a statement.

"I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans," Specter said, adding that the "change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans."

Specter has spent most of his career as a moderate Republican with strong backing from labor, a big force in Pennsylvania politics.

Previous denial
However, he was facing a strong challenge from conservative Republican Pat Toomey in the primary race, which triggered speculation about his loyalty to the party.

In March, Specter issued a statement saying there is no way he would switch parties. "To eliminate any doubt, I am a Republican, and I am running for reelection in 2010 as a Republican on the Republican ticket," he said at the time.

NBC's Savannah Guthrie reported that President Barack Obama was handed a note earlier in the day that said, "Specter is announcing he is changing parties."

At 10:30 a.m., officials said the president called Specter and told him "you have my full support" and that Obama and his fellow Democrats are "thrilled to have you."

dnno1

04-28-2009, 12:37 PM

It's in the Wahsington Post (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/specter-to-switch-parties.html) as well. I think that means that the Democrats will now have a filibuster proof senate with 60 seats.

Matt

04-28-2009, 12:43 PM

VampElvis

04-28-2009, 01:01 PM

:wow: I think it is because he knows he cannot survive another insurgency candidate in the primary.
:up:

Just another politician just watching out for his own keester.

metr0man

04-28-2009, 01:04 PM

republicans should be thrilled. This is what they wanted... "enough with the RINOs, the moderates, we lost because were the democrat-lite people, i'm ignoring all of the other stuff that we did and supported that is incredibly unpopular like iraq, jimmy crack corn and i dont care!"

With any luck, all of the middle of the road people will shift to the left, and the Republicans will become even more of a looney party! Torture! Bachman! Rush Limbaugh! Sarah Palin! Real americans who live in small towns and fear God every Sunday, none of those fake Americans elsewhere!!!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21802.html

Two leading Republican moderates say Sen. Arlen Specter's decision to become a Democrat highlights the hostility moderates feel from an increasingly conservative GOP.

“You haven't certainly heard warm encouraging words about how [the GOP] views moderates,” said Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, one of the few remaining moderate Republicans in the Senate.

Snowe said the party's message has been, “Either you're with us or you’re against us.”

Her frustration was shared by Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), who slammed right-wing interest groups for pushing moderates out of the party.

redfirebird2008

04-28-2009, 01:36 PM

:wow: I think it is because he knows he cannot survive another insurgency candidate in the primary.

Still, if an insurgent Democrat runs, I'm not sure he can even stand a chance there. He may have just forfeited his seat.

I think he should just retire anyway. He's old enough to make McCain look young...well, maybe not. :hehe:

dnno1

04-28-2009, 01:37 PM

Marx

04-28-2009, 02:29 PM

LIMBAUGH TO SPECTER: 'PLEASE TAKE MCCAIN WITH YOU'
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/28/limbaugh-to-specter-please-take-mccain-with-you/

Conservative host Rush Limbaugh said Tuesday he isn't sorry to see Arlen Specter leave the GOP — and that many Republicans wish the Pennsylvania senator would take a few others with him when he goes.

"A lot of people say, 'Well, Specter, take [Sen. John] McCain with you. And his daughter [Meghan]. Take McCain and his daughter with you if you're gonna…" he told listeners, dissolving in laughter.

"…..It's ultimately good. You're weeding out people who aren't really Republicans," he said.

Limbaugh did concede the downside of Specter's defection. "It makes the Senate essentially as big a slam dunk for Obama and the Democrats as the House of Representatives already is," he said.

Earlier this month, Specter said Limbaugh did have a tendency to make "provocative" statements, but told radio host Howard Stern he didn't have a problem with the conservative talker. "Do I like Limbaugh?… yeah, I like him," he said then.

Coming out to publicly condemn the more moderate members of your party is why you are going to further destroy your party!

StorminNorman

04-28-2009, 02:36 PM

Limbaugh needs to stop confusing the term Republican with Conservatives.

Matt

04-28-2009, 02:45 PM

He could have run as an Independant.

He likely would've lost.

Marx

04-28-2009, 02:48 PM

Limbaugh needs to stop confusing the term Republican with Conservatives.

He either doesn't care, or doesn't realize that he is only causing more damage to the party.

SuBe

04-28-2009, 02:55 PM

He either doesn't care, or doesn't realize that he is only causing more damage to the party.
I don't see how, he's been saying Spector needed to leave the Party for years. This statement from Limbaugh is nothing new.

hippie_hunter

04-28-2009, 03:52 PM

LIMBAUGH TO SPECTER: 'PLEASE TAKE MCCAIN WITH YOU'
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/28/limbaugh-to-specter-please-take-mccain-with-you/

Coming out to publicly condemn the more moderate members of your party is why you are going to further destroy your party!

Limbaugh represents the biggest problem with the Republican Party. In my opinion, the biggest reason why the Democrats made big gains in 2006 and 2008 was because of running moderate Democrats in the South and Midwest. While the Democratic leadership is filled with extreme leftists like Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, it does at least respect the moderates that put it into power and knows that they can't do anything without them.

The Republicans on the other hand, are condemning their moderates and are trying to cut them out of their party. They just don't get it that the United States is not a conservative or liberal nation. It's a moderate one. And the Republican leaderships' rejection of the moderates is going to bite them in the ass.

I honestly am starting to believe that there will be a major third party by 2012 that will end up consisting of the Main Street Republicans like Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Arnold Schwarzenegger, etc. because of this.

Kelly

04-28-2009, 03:58 PM

Hell, lots of Conservative Radio has said Specter needs to leave.....and in 2000 they were saying the same thing about McCain.

Marx

04-28-2009, 03:58 PM

hippie_hunter

04-28-2009, 03:59 PM

Well said, Souv.

:huh:

souvlaki

04-28-2009, 03:59 PM

Well said, Souv.

lol, you mean hippie_hunter?

souvlaki

04-28-2009, 04:01 PM

I mean, I agree with what hippie_hunter said but i dunno if I should take credit for the post.

Marx

04-28-2009, 04:03 PM

:huh:

lol, you mean hippie_hunter?

I mean, I agree with what hippie_hunter said but i dunno if I should take credit for the post.

I fixed it! Now get off my back! :cmad: :heart:

Kelly

04-28-2009, 04:03 PM

Limbaugh represents the biggest problem with the Republican Party. In my opinion, the biggest reason why the Democrats made big gains in 2006 and 2008 was because of running moderate Democrats in the South and Midwest. While the Democratic leadership is filled with extreme leftists like Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, it does at least respect the moderates that put it into power and knows that they can't do anything without them.

The Republicans on the other hand, are condemning their moderates and are trying to cut them out of their party. They just don't get it that the United States is not a conservative or liberal nation. It's a moderate one. And the Republican leaderships' rejection of the moderates is going to bite them in the ass.

I honestly am starting to believe that there will be a major third party by 2012 that will end up consisting of the Main Street Republicans like Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Arnold Schwarzenegger, etc. because of this.

It's going to bite both parties in the ass one of these days. IF, Independents could find a charismatic leader, not a Ross Perot, not a Ron Paul, but someone that had put together a strong platform, and could get the information out to the people........could really get the Independent movement going strong. The only problem is....it would take an ENORMOUS AMOUNT of money to fend off the $$$$$$ people from the other party. The other candidates aren't the problem, but their surrogate $$$$$$ mud machines are .....

hippie_hunter

04-28-2009, 04:03 PM

I mean, I agree with what hippie_hunter said but i dunno if I should take credit for the post.

Ah hell, you deserve it :yay:

hippie_hunter

04-28-2009, 04:05 PM

It's going to bite both parties in the ass one of these days. IF, Independents could find a charismatic leader, not a Ross Perot, not a Ron Paul, but someone that had put together a strong platform, and could get the information out to the people........could really get the Independent movement going strong. The only problem is....it would take an ENORMOUS AMOUNT of money to fend off the $$$$$$ people from the other party. The other candidates aren't the problem, but their surrogate $$$$$$ mud machines are .....

Right now I don't think it's going to hurt the Democrats because at least the Democratic leadership knows that they need their moderates and therefore show them some respect. For the time being there is no reason why moderate Democrats should defect. The only ones I can see doing so would be Joe Lieberman who has been screwed over by the Democrats and Arlen Specter when a moderate party rises from discontent moderate Republicans.

Kelly

04-28-2009, 04:07 PM

Right now I don't think it's going to hurt the Democrats because at least the Democratic leadership knows that they need their moderates and therefore show them some respect. For the time being there is no reason why moderate Democrats should defect. The only ones I can see doing so would be Joe Lieberman who has been screwed over by the Democrats and Arlen Specter when a moderate party rises from discontent moderate Republicans.

We will see how much respect they have for their moderates when the Health Care legislation comes through.

hippie_hunter

04-28-2009, 04:10 PM

We will see how much respect they have for their moderates when the Health Care legislation comes through.

They will show it because without the moderate Democrats they can't get anything done. The moderate Democrats know their clout and position and are definitely going use it in major legislation.

Kelly

04-28-2009, 04:13 PM

They will show it because without the moderate Democrats they can't get anything done. The moderate Democrats know their clout and position and are definitely going use it in major legislation.

I can agree with you on this as far as the Senate, but the House.....*shakes head*

I will wait and see, but I'm not going hold my breath.

hippie_hunter

04-28-2009, 04:20 PM

But the House can't get anything done without the Senate. And frankly, I bet that Obama is much more willing to side with Reid than with Pelosi out of sheer common sense.

Kelly

04-28-2009, 04:21 PM

Marx

04-28-2009, 04:22 PM

But the House can't get anything done without the Senate. And frankly, I bet that Obama is much more willing to side with Reid than with Pelosi out of sheer common sense.

I would hope so...

hippie_hunter

04-28-2009, 04:30 PM

Getting something done, and showing respect.......can sometimes be two different things.

Pelosi is a bully, and she could care less what legislation gets passed as long as she keeps her liberal elitist friends happy.....

But again, just because legislation passes in the House, doesn't mean that it will pass in the Senate and it needs to pass in both. Pelosi gets her way in the House, but not in the Senate and White House. And from the way some things have suggested it seems like Obama is not very fond of Pelosi either.

And I should take back about the Democrats as a whole respecting their moderates and focus it more on Obama and Reid. Pelosi on the other hand sees them like how Bush viewed the Congressional Republicans in expecting to vote for what he/she wants. And I think that her dictatorial attitude in the House is going to be her downfall when Obama and Reid get sick of her and want her replaced.

Kelly

04-28-2009, 04:33 PM

I hope that is soon....

Marx

04-28-2009, 04:34 PM

Me too Kel, me too...

redfirebird2008

04-28-2009, 04:38 PM

But again, just because legislation passes in the House, doesn't mean that it will pass in the Senate and it needs to pass in both. Pelosi gets her way in the House, but not in the Senate and White House. And from the way some things have suggested it seems like Obama is not very fond of Pelosi either.

And I should take back about the Democrats as a whole respecting their moderates and focus it more on Obama and Reid. Pelosi on the other hand sees them like how Bush viewed the Congressional Republicans in expecting to vote for what he/she wants. And I think that her dictatorial attitude in the House is going to be her downfall when Obama and Reid get sick of her and want her replaced.

It's amazing to me that she's even a member of Congress. Total dingbat.

SentinelMind

04-28-2009, 07:17 PM

America created some of those regimes in Latin America.

I will when America stops acting like them.

We need a president who shouldn't have to make excuses for his predecessors horrible actions. America hasn't come that far yet.

I agree. Except America has a shady history with setting up and being close allies with regimes like that.

Which would only mean something if America weren't hypocrites about it. We need humility now more then ever to redeem the country's image internationally.

Then America needs to stop giving those radicals legitimate reasons to not take us seriously.

The left don't believe cowboy diplomacy is the only rational course in foreign affairs. There is a time when to use the carrot and the stick.
Why do you think the left want to undermine the quality of life? The left chips away at stuff just as much as the right does.

America hasn't acted in good faith the last 8 years. We turned on them before they turned on us.

Had America actually stood up more for those beliefs instead of throwing them under the bus when it gets convenient they'd still be close allies.

They do want to ally themselves with that. It's just that America hasn't been offering that until recently.

I can't understand this obsesssion the Left has with wanting to be be popular with pacifists and oppressive regimes. They don't seem to understand that our enemies in many countries would want nothing than tear down your standard of living in this world and bring it down to their livel.

So you apologize on behalf of the Europeans, a continent which has produced some of the worst regimes and pacifists in human history, but can't find nothing positive about this country which you take for granted. Blaming the USA for the spread of socialist and communist regimes in South America shows ignorance of history, we are NOWHERE near the the level of the socialist dictators that run South American countries. You think every atrocity in the world is America's fault and all our enemies are just misunderstood victims. :whatever: This level of naivete is astounding and dangerous.

SentinelMind

04-28-2009, 07:24 PM

Limbaugh represents the biggest problem with the Republican Party. In my opinion, the biggest reason why the Democrats made big gains in 2006 and 2008 was because of running moderate Democrats in the South and Midwest. While the Democratic leadership is filled with extreme leftists like Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, it does at least respect the moderates that put it into power and knows that they can't do anything without them.

The Republicans on the other hand, are condemning their moderates and are trying to cut them out of their party. They just don't get it that the United States is not a conservative or liberal nation. It's a moderate one. And the Republican leaderships' rejection of the moderates is going to bite them in the ass.

I honestly am starting to believe that there will be a major third party by 2012 that will end up consisting of the Main Street Republicans like Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Arnold Schwarzenegger, etc. because of this.

Let's be real here, the Republican leadership tried everything to keep him as Republican. Arlen Specter......was looking out for Arlen Specter.
He looked at his primary polls, realized he couldn't win,...did a poll how he'd do as Independent, realized he couldn't win....and now has decided to run as a Democrat, strengthn the party's fillibuster proof ...in exchange for committe chairmanships.

This guy is as bad as Joe Lieberman. He was looking out for himself...he was denying leaving the GOP as recently as March...now he blames the Republican Party for ditching him as he rode the Ronald Reagan bandwagon in the past? Please.

I think it sucks that Dems will have a fillibuster proof Senate grip...but I think its time for the party to do some soul-searching instead of sitting around tries to appease Democratic-lites. The Republican Party needs a speaker who represents the party and can articulate it well the way OBama did for Democrats and Reagan did for Republicans. You're not going to find it by appeasing these Meghan McCains and Arlen Specters.

Kelly

04-28-2009, 07:29 PM

Let's be real here, the Republican leadership tried everything to keep him as Republican. Arlen Specter......was looking out for Arlen Specter.
He looked at his primary polls, realized he couldn't win,...did a poll how he'd do as Independent, realized he couldn't win....and now has decided to run as a Democrat, strengthn the party's fillibuster proof ...in exchange for committe chairmanships.

This guy is as bad as Joe Lieberman. He was looking out for himself...he was denying leaving the GOP as recently as March...now he blames the Republican Party for ditching him as he rode the Ronald Reagan bandwagon in the past? Please.

I think it sucks that Dems will have a fillibuster proof Senate grip...but I think its time for the party to do some soul-searching instead of sitting around tries to appease Democratic-lites. The Republican Party needs a speaker who represents the party and can articulate it well the way OBama did for Democrats and Reagan did for Republicans. You're not going to find it by appeasing these Meghan McCains and Arlen Specters.

Yeah, but Lieberman didn't try to put through rules that would keep senators from doing exactly what he is doing now.....

That right there makes him not just a crappy, power hungry Senator, but a Hypocritical, crappy, power hungry Senator. In other words, a bottom feeder......he has joined Pelosi on my **** list.

hippie_hunter

04-28-2009, 07:30 PM

There's no doubt that Arlen Specter is looking out for himself bu they did not try to keep him. If they did, they would have called him a traitor for voting for the stimulus.

Kelly

04-28-2009, 07:32 PM

I don't think he was a traitor for voting for the Spending Package......I think he was an idiot....*smiles*

And now he's a hypocritical idiot....woooooo hoooooooo.....

The Major

04-28-2009, 07:36 PM

Handsome Rob

04-28-2009, 08:16 PM

I think it sucks that Dems will have a fillibuster proof Senate grip...but I think its time for the party to do some soul-searching instead of sitting around tries to appease Democratic-lites. The Republican Party needs a speaker who represents the party and can articulate it well the way OBama did for Democrats and Reagan did for Republicans. You're not going to find it by
appeasing these Meghan McCains and Arlen Specters.

Exactly. If seeing this RINO go to the other side is what it takes to get Republicans back to the principles of true conservatism, limited government, and individual liberty, then I'm glad to see him go.

The Republicans will NEVER get back into power of any sort as long as they are trying to be more like Democrats. As long as they're doing that, then the people who would vote Republican will be less likely to vote for them (or vote at all), and the ones that would vote Democrat are going to vote Democrat, anyway.

redfirebird2008

04-28-2009, 08:19 PM

Exactly. If seeing this RINO go to the other side is what it takes to get Republicans back to the principles of true conservatism, limited government, and individual liberty, then I'm glad to see him go.

The Republicans will NEVER get back into power of any sort as long as they are trying to be more like Democrats. As long as they're doing that, then the people who would vote Republican will be less likely to vote for them (or vote at all), and the ones that would vote Democrat are going to vote Democrat, anyway.

Individual liberty? Hmmm...does that include gay marriage? Libertarians are far more consistent on individual liberties than most Republicans. So long as the religious right controls the Republican Party, there will never be a Republican Party platform that truly supports individual liberty for everyone...not so long as they are advocating government control over people's lives in the form of legislation against gay marriage.

Handsome Rob

04-28-2009, 08:39 PM

Individual liberty? Hmmm...does that include gay marriage? Libertarians are far more consistent on individual liberties than most Republicans. So long as the religious right controls the Republican Party, there will never be a Republican Party platform that truly supports individual liberty for everyone...not so long as they are advocating government control over people's lives in the form of legislation against gay marriage.

The Republicans on the federal level should only oppose Constitutional amendments or federal laws banning gay marriage or endorsing it--that should be their limit into that arena. Marriage is a state matter of contract law and should remain as such--the federal government should have no authority over it. I personally believe that this position would attract those on both sides of the issue who recognize the proper place of the federal government.

hippie_hunter

04-28-2009, 08:40 PM

Exactly. If seeing this RINO go to the other side is what it takes to get Republicans back to the principles of true conservatism, limited government, and individual liberty, then I'm glad to see him go.

The Republicans will NEVER get back into power of any sort as long as they are trying to be more like Democrats. As long as they're doing that, then the people who would vote Republican will be less likely to vote for them (or vote at all), and the ones that would vote Democrat are going to vote Democrat, anyway.

At this rate the Republicans will never go back to true conservatism. They're going to continue being the neo-conservative evangelical political party with strong roots to the South.

It's why I think a moderate party is going to gain ground because of this coming split within the Republican Party that stands for fiscal conservatism, individual liberty, and moderate limited government gain ground.

redfirebird2008

04-28-2009, 08:45 PM

The Republicans on the federal level should only oppose Constitutional amendments or federal laws banning gay marriage or endorsing it--that should be their limit into that arena. Marriage is a state matter of contract law and should remain as such--the federal government should have no authority over it. I personally believe that this position would attract those on both sides of the issue who recognize the proper place of the federal government.

Agree, it is definitely a states rights issue.

Marx

04-28-2009, 11:21 PM

BACHMANN LINKS SWINE FLU TO DEMOCRATS, GETS HISTORY WRONG
*clip included in link*
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/28/michele-bachmann-links-sw_n_192493.html

Minnesota Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann, following Rush Limbaigh's cue, suggested on Tuesday that President Obama was to blame for the swine flu crisis. She went even farther than the talk show host, implying that swine flu epidemics are a Democratic phenomenon that dates back to President Carter.

"I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out then under another Democrat president Jimmy Carter. And I'm not blaming this on President Obama, I just think it's an interesting coincidence."

Unfortunately, Bachmann's facts are a little off. As Glenn Thrush notes, Republican President Gerald Ford, not Carter, led the country during the last outbreak of the virus.

Franklin Richards

04-28-2009, 11:28 PM

I find it interesting that a woman was responsible for original sin. I'm not saying Michele Bachmann is a manipulating woman. I just find it an interesting coincidence.

:doom: :doom: :doom:

Franklin Richards

04-28-2009, 11:29 PM

Doubly so.

:doom: :doom: :doom:

bell110

04-28-2009, 11:39 PM

I can't understand this obsesssion the Left has with wanting to be be popular with pacifists and oppressive regimes. They don't seem to understand that our enemies in many countries would want nothing than tear down your standard of living in this world and bring it down to their livel.

So you apologize on behalf of the Europeans, a continent which has produced some of the worst regimes and pacifists in human history, but can't find nothing positive about this country which you take for granted. Blaming the USA for the spread of socialist and communist regimes in South America shows ignorance of history, we are NOWHERE near the the level of the socialist dictators that run South American countries. You think every atrocity in the world is America's fault and all our enemies are just misunderstood victims. :whatever: This level of naivete is astounding and dangerous.

I don't get the obsession the Right has with wanting everyone hate to us with their "if you not with us, you are against us" attitute, the belief that America can do no wrong, and why they think other countries actually WANT our "American" values.

Of course the left can find positive things to say about the country. I don't get why the right thinks that they can't. We can't fix the problems of our country by sticking our head in the sand and pretend we don't have any. Why is pointing out flaws a bad thing.

hippie_hunter

04-28-2009, 11:45 PM

Let's be real here, the Republican leadership tried everything to keep him as Republican. Arlen Specter......was looking out for Arlen Specter.
He looked at his primary polls, realized he couldn't win,...did a poll how he'd do as Independent, realized he couldn't win....and now has decided to run as a Democrat, strengthn the party's fillibuster proof ...in exchange for committe chairmanships.

This guy is as bad as Joe Lieberman. He was looking out for himself...he was denying leaving the GOP as recently as March...now he blames the Republican Party for ditching him as he rode the Ronald Reagan bandwagon in the past? Please.

I think it sucks that Dems will have a fillibuster proof Senate grip...but I think its time for the party to do some soul-searching instead of sitting around tries to appease Democratic-lites. The Republican Party needs a speaker who represents the party and can articulate it well the way OBama did for Democrats and Reagan did for Republicans. You're not going to find it by appeasing these Meghan McCains and Arlen Specters.

They don't have to be Democrats-Lite to regain power, they just need to be more inclusive to other people like homosexuals and stop acting like a bunch of jerkfaces.

bell110

04-28-2009, 11:45 PM

Exactly. If seeing this RINO go to the other side is what it takes to get Republicans back to the principles of true conservatism, limited government, and individual liberty, then I'm glad to see him go.

What exactly is your idea of a "real" Republican as opposed to a RINO? If it's what the majority of the party seems to be right now, I think THOSE are the real RINOs.

The Republicans will NEVER get back into power of any sort as long as they are trying to be more like Democrats. As long as they're doing that, then the people who would vote Republican will be less likely to vote for them (or vote at all), and the ones that would vote Democrat are going to vote Democrat, anyway.

I disagree. If the Republicans head more towards the extreme right, they are going to push more moderate Republicans to vote Democrat or third party than they will gain from the extreme religious right who didn't vote.

hippie_hunter

04-28-2009, 11:53 PM

What exactly is your idea of a "real" Republican as opposed to a RINO? If it's what the majority of the party seems to be right now, I think THOSE are the real RINOs.

I disagree. If the Republicans head more towards the extreme right, they are going to push more moderate Republicans to vote Democrat or third party than they will gain from the extreme religious right who didn't vote.

There aren't RINOs. The Republican Party is filled with people of broad ideological agendas, just like the Democrats. It's just that the people in charge are neo-conservatives who think that their ideology is the only one that matters within the Republican Party.

The Major

04-28-2009, 11:59 PM

I can't understand this obsesssion the Left has with wanting to be be popular with pacifists and oppressive regimes.

What's wrong with being popular with pacifist nations?

America has had good relationships with oppressive regimes for decades. It would be useless to alienate all of them, we'll get better results by trying to solve our differences with them and bringing them slowly into the 21st century. America has already had some success doing this with China and Russia.

The right has done this, too. Dubya was a great ally to Saudi Arabia, China and Dubai.

They don't seem to understand that our enemies in many countries would want nothing than tear down your standard of living in this world and bring it down to their livel.

I understand that. I just disagree that the only option America has to defeat those nations is purely by military force. The world is a safer place being friends then enemies. Take China, for instance. If they were our enemies right now our economy would have sunk last year since we wouldn't be able to borrow from them. I'm not saying America should let our guards down completely around these countries, just use different methods and only use military force as a last resort. In some cases it should be no resort, though.

So you apologize on behalf of the Europeans, a continent which has produced some of the worst regimes and pacifists in human history,

You're generalizing to an absurd degree. Many European countries have been America's allies for decades. Many have done amazing things to make the world that it is today like creating art, democracy, science, philosophy and inventions. Some do have a dark past but they have become better countries since they learned from their past mistakes. America should pay close attention with how they do this, the nation has spent to much time with its head in the sand.

What's with your problem with pacifist countries, any way? They're no threat to you.

but can't find nothing positive about this country which you take for granted.

Of course there are positive things about America. I'm just not in denial that the country isn't sunshine and rainbows some Republicans think it is. The country has done some serious bad **** to itself and the world all though its history.

Blaming the USA for the spread of socialist and communist regimes in South America shows ignorance of history, we are NOWHERE near the the level of the socialist dictators that run South American countries.

So? America still had its hand deeply in supporting fascist regimes there. Look what Reagan did to Nicaragua, Guatemala and Panama. It's very interesting to see the media and Republicans never celebrating those activities when they're reflecting on his presidency. Nixon installing Pinochet wasn't a bright spot in American history, either.

You think every atrocity in the world is America's fault

I never said that.

and all our enemies are just misunderstood victims. :whatever:

Understanding and sympathizing with enemies is just as useful in stopping them as using military force. This can allow America to get new allies, stop enemies from multiplying or slow down its recruitment by solving their problems (this varies depending on what enemies we're talking about some are beyond saving) and prevent future enemies from arising by solving situations that could escalate in the future.

This level of naivete is astounding and dangerous.

I disagree. You're being naive that all there is to our enemies is that they're cardboard cut-outs with no personalities. They have lives, they have interests, they have motives, they have families. That can be exploited to our advantage.

Sacrificing America's honor and turning its citizens into war criminals because it feels good to know our enemies are being destroyed gets the nation nowhere. Especially when there are other methods with better results that don't get their perpetrators in a dock at The Hague.

redfirebird2008

04-29-2009, 12:00 AM

There aren't RINOs. The Republican Party is filled with people of broad ideological agendas, just like the Democrats. It's just that the people in charge are neo-conservatives who think that their ideology is the only one that matters within the Republican Party.

I disagree. The neo-cons are out of power at this point. The neo-cons are the ones with the big spending philosophy. Most Republicans that I know are pissed off about the big spending that's been going on over the last 2 presidencies, in particular the bank bailouts. I think right now the party is controlled by fiscal conservatives and the religious conservatives. At the moment they are uniting against Obama's big spending policies, but over time they will likely have a civil war over which is more important: social issues or economic issues.

The Major

04-29-2009, 12:04 AM

I disagree. The neo-cons are out of power at this point. The neo-cons are the ones with the big spending philosophy. Most Republicans that I know are pissed off about the big spending that's been going on over the last 2 presidencies, in particular the bank bailouts. I think right now the party is controlled by fiscal conservatives and the religious conservatives. At the moment they are uniting against Obama's big spending policies, but over time they will likely have a civil war over which is more important: social issues or economic issues.
The civil war is going on now. The moderate wing is losing.

redfirebird2008

04-29-2009, 12:07 AM

The civil war is going on now. The moderate wing is losing.

The moderate wing has already lost. I'm talking about a civil war over the importance of fiscal conservatism vs. the importance of social conservatism. A lot more Americans are fiscally conservative than socially conservative, so I think the party would be smart to use a fiscally conservative message more than anything else. When they start focusing on things like gay marriage, it makes them look bad...really bad.

The Major

04-29-2009, 12:15 AM

The moderate wing has already lost.

Agreed.

I'm talking about a civil war over the importance of fiscal conservatism vs. the importance of social conservative. A lot more Americans are fiscally conservative than socially conservative, so I think the party would be smart to use a fiscally conservative message more than anything else. When they start focusing on things like gay marriage, it makes them look bad...really bad.

The fiscal conservatives will lose IMO.

MaskedManJRK

04-29-2009, 12:18 AM

BACHMANN LINKS SWINE FLU TO DEMOCRATS, GETS HISTORY WRONG
*clip included in link*
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/28/michele-bachmann-links-sw_n_192493.html

No words can possibly express my disdain. If only there was, say, a smiley here on this site that perfectly sums it up...

Wait. THERE IS.

:facepalm

Thank you, Picard, for helping me express my fustration.

redfirebird2008

04-29-2009, 12:20 AM

Agreed.

The fiscal conservatives will lose IMO.

More than likely, you are right. The religious right has a strong grip on the power structure of the party. They managed to hand pick Palin as McCain's running mate even though she wasn't anywhere near experienced enough to be on the national stage. At the moment, however, both the fiscal conservatives and religious conservatives are angry about Congressional spending.

The Major

04-29-2009, 12:25 AM

More than likely, you are right. The religious right has a strong grip on the power structure of the party. They managed to hand pick Palin as McCain's running mate even though she wasn't anywhere near experienced enough to be on the national stage. At the moment, however, both the fiscal conservatives and religious conservatives are angry about Congressional spending.

That's only a good alliance for the short term. In the long term the fiscal conservatives will agree with the Democrats on something and they'll be kicked out one by one.

redfirebird2008

04-29-2009, 12:25 AM

Alright, so why are we still giving this woman our attention? Yes, it's amusing to watch her make a fool of herself on a routine basis but we're giving her more attention than she deserves.

The Major

04-29-2009, 12:28 AM

Alright, so why are we still giving this woman our attention? Yes, it's amusing to watch her make a fool of herself on a routine basis but we're giving her more attention than she deserves.
It's entertaining? :word:

This lady needs a tv show more then Palin. She's comedy gold.

bell110

04-29-2009, 01:04 AM

I always thought that the Republican "base" has been a symbiotic relationship between "rich people" and "religious people".

chaseter

04-29-2009, 01:10 AM

It is, just like the Democrats base are largely the poor and the non religious. A party finds it niche and caters to the largest population in that niche.

SentinelMind

04-29-2009, 04:25 AM

I don't get the obsession the Right has with wanting everyone hate to us with their "if you not with us, you are against us" attitute, the belief that America can do no wrong, and why they think other countries actually WANT our "American" values.

Of course the left can find positive things to say about the country. I don't get why the right thinks that they can't. We can't fix the problems of our country by sticking our head in the sand and pretend we don't have any. Why is pointing out flaws a bad thing.

You don't need to support aggressive foriegn intervention policies to be a conservative. See Ron Paul. I'm criticizing overtures the White House has made to appease and apologize towards foriegn leaders who have a global agenda that is dangerous to ours. You can have a strong defense, and articulate America's greatness in face of our enemies without appearing weak. However, you have to keep in mind, our enemies are ALWAYS on the march, you have to know what they're up to before they have the opportunity to strike. Have you heard about several international reports that have warned and projected the US may lose its superpower status by 2020. I take that stuff seriously, I know lots of people here think there is some reality buffer and that America can never will face the hardships and threats other countries face, but if you go down this path of appeasement to leaders who want to have nuclear weapons and accumulating huge debt to foriegn nations, this country can face that in our lifetime.

SentinelMind

04-29-2009, 04:42 AM

They don't have to be Democrats-Lite to regain power, they just need to be more inclusive to other people like homosexuals and stop acting like a bunch of jerkfaces.

I really don't think supporting gay marriage is the solution for the GOP. That'll just alienate southern conservatives who'll bolt to a third party and in the end Dems would just follow suit of the GOP. Marriage should be a state issue decided by their legislative branch. Forcing a constitutional amendment or Supreme Court decision to legalize gay marriage everywhere. Regardless of views on homosexuality, having a federal rule for marriage everywhere isn't the solution for a party claiming conservative principles.

metr0man

04-29-2009, 07:45 AM

I really don't think supporting gay marriage is the solution for the GOP. That'll just alienate southern conservatives who'll bolt to a third party and in the end Dems would just follow suit of the GOP. Marriage should be a state issue decided by their legislative branch. Forcing a constitutional amendment or Supreme Court decision to legalize gay marriage everywhere. Regardless of views on homosexuality, having a federal rule for marriage everywhere isn't the solution for a party claiming conservative principles.

this is an example of the problem... it's not 'gay marriage' on an island as the problem.

It's the general mentality of exclusion, of which that's just an example.

Gay marriage. pro-choice people are murders. Barack's a secret muslim, as a criticism, basically saying muslims are bad. Not in a small town? Don't go to church every Sunday? not super God-fearing? You're not a real patriotic American. The subtext of that was there in pretty much in Palin speech. Support diplomacy? Weak pussy. Support Obama's policies? Socialist. They are sorta trapped by the black community as anything they say about black detractors basically ends up being about all blacks since something like 90% are against them to begin with. I guarantee you there are tons of non-Republican people now who maybe don't approve of gay marriage personally but find it sort of unsettling that a party is push so hard to ban it.

Republican party ID hit a new low of 21% by the way. Looks like Specter isn't the only person to sprint away from the GOP.

metr0man

04-29-2009, 09:02 AM

To laugh. And also to keep loonies like her front and center. The Republicans are shrinking, moderates are all but gone, their party ID is extremely low at the moment. Better to give people like her all the coverage possible. Like Palin, the beautiful thing is, the looney base is actually big fans, so they will help

Marx

04-29-2009, 10:46 AM

this is an example of the problem... it's not 'gay marriage' on an island as the problem.

It's the general mentality of exclusion, of which that's just an example.

Gay marriage. pro-choice people are murders. Barack's a secret muslim, as a criticism, basically saying muslims are bad. Not in a small town? Don't go to church every Sunday? not super God-fearing? You're not a real patriotic American. The subtext of that was there in pretty much in Palin speech. Support diplomacy? Weak pussy. Support Obama's policies? Socialist. They are sorta trapped by the black community as anything they say about black detractors basically ends up being about all blacks since something like 90% are against them to begin with. I guarantee you there are tons of non-Republican people now who maybe don't approve of gay marriage personally but find it sort of unsettling that a party is push so hard to ban it.

Republican party ID hit a new low of 21% by the way. Looks like Specter isn't the only person to sprint away from the GOP.

Exactly, Metro.

dnno1

04-29-2009, 11:37 AM

I'm sure that the Republicans thought that pigs would fly before the Democrats got a filibuster proof senate. Now that the Swine flu, i guess it is a reality.

Pink Ranger

04-29-2009, 11:51 AM

i'm sure that the republicans though that pigs would fly before the democrats go a filibuster proof senate. Now that the swine flu, i guess it is a reality.

lame!! :(

Humphrey Bogart

04-29-2009, 12:03 PM

Maybe I'm pretty far off base, but its seems that the Republican party would have done just fine if they had simply stuck to their conservative roots. Fiscal conservatism, and smaller government most prominently. During the Bush administration they went in exactly the opposite direction, with foolish spending and wrong-headed foreign policy. Mccain was essentially DOA as a presidential candidate because nobody who was paying attention could take him, or anyone else connected to the party, seriously when it came to their message contrasted with their actual performance while in power. And even with all of that baggage he still had a outside shot at winning until the Sarah Palin decision.

VampElvis

04-29-2009, 12:19 PM

Superman

04-29-2009, 03:47 PM

This woman gets on my nerves...:whatever:

OdjRFJQuoiI

First of all the last outbreak was at the end of Ford's time in office. Not Carter.

2nd If you didn't mean to blame it on Obama and the Dems then why bring it up at all?

This woman need to just shut the hell up and go away. :whatever:

Marx

04-29-2009, 04:43 PM

REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR TELLS GOP TO STOP SAYING 'NO'
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/29/republican-governor-tells-gop-to-stop-saying-no/

Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, a Republican rising star who has been frank in urging his party to adapt to the times or face extinction, is now telling GOP leaders in Washington to stop saying "no."

"You can't just say no," Huntsman told ABC News in an interview published Wednesday. "You can't just obstruct or obfuscate. Instead of just kind of grousing and complaining, it would do us all a whole lot of good if we actually started engaging directly in finding compromises and common ground and shared solutions."

Hunstman, often described as a moderate, has embraced parts of President Obama's economic agenda, including a cap-and-trade program and his $787 billion economic stimulus package. Though he opposes gay marriage, Huntsman has frustrated many conservatives by supporting civil unions for same-sex couples.

His maverick positions have some Republicans wondering if he might be the right man to lead the party against Obama in 2012, a perception that isn't hurt by his deep pockets and in-state approval ratings that reach into the 80s.

Huntsman acknowledged that the GOP leadership in Congress "deserves high marks for unified opposition, getting everybody in line, keeping everybody contained, in opposition to some of the initiatives of the Obama administration." But, he said, "that now needs to be supplemented by real ideas and solutions."

Echoing some of the Democratic National Committee's favorite talking points, Huntsman said that a Republican party that lacks ideas has no choice but to say "no."

"When you are devoid of the ideas, or the content that would allow you to articulate or paint a better future, you have no choice other than to fall back on 'no, we are not going support it, it cannot be done,'" Huntsman told ABC.

He said the only way Republicans will find themselves at the negotiating table is if they offer "concrete substantive solutions."

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

...I wonder how much longer it will be until Limbaugh accuses him of not being a 'real Republican'...

Marx

04-29-2009, 05:13 PM

PELOSI TELLS REPUBLICANS TO 'TAKE BACK YOUR PARTY'
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/29/pelosi-tells-republicans-to-take-back-their-party/

Speaker Nancy Pelosi marked President Obama's 100 days in office with some unsolicited advice to Republican voters: "take back your party."

The California Democrat offered her own analysis of the political environment for her political opponents, asserting Republicans across the country are more willing to work with Democrats than their leaders on Capitol Hill.

"Yes, there is, shall we say - a 'radical right-wing' element with whom they identify. But by and large, I say to Republicans in America: take back your party. The party of protecting the environment. The party of individual rights. The party of fairness. This is not the Grand Old Party."

Pelosi concluded her long riff about the GOP by saying, "our country needs a strong diverse Republican party." Without missing a beat, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid chimed in, saying "not too strong."

As Pelosi, Reid and other Democratic leaders ticked off a list of legislative accomplishments passed largely without GOP support, the Speaker insisted she's tried to reach out to Republicans in Congress, but said it hasn't been easy.

Republicans in the House of Representatives "are difficult to deal with, let's put it that way," Pelosi said.

Asked about Pelosi's dig, House Republican Leader John Boehner, Ohio, responded curtly that "she hasn't tried."

UPDATE: Congressional Republicans said thanks, but no thanks, to Pelosi's advice. "While we appreciate her concern, we probably wouldn't hire the most liberal Democratic Speaker of the House in history to be a strategist for the Republican Party," said Kevin Smith, spokesman for House Republican leader John Boehner. "House Republicans will continue to show the American people that we are the party of better solutions, for example by offering a fiscally-responsible budget that curbs spending, creates jobs, and controls debt, as opposed to the budget the Democrats passed today, which taxes too much, spends too much, and borrows too much from our kids and grandkids."

:facepalm

Why can't she just shut up?

Kelly

04-29-2009, 05:22 PM

lol... wow.

mclay18

04-29-2009, 07:27 PM

Pelosi puts her foot in her mouth... again. I still think Obama should've laid down the law with her when he took office, but instead he's bowing down to her.

At least some Republicans have the balls to take her on.

The Major

04-29-2009, 07:44 PM

Kel:

What did Pelosi say that was wrong? I'm sure I've read some comments from Republicans here say the same things while criticizing the party.

McClay:

This is a good cop, bad cop routine. Those Republicans should be more concerned about standing up to Limbaugh then Pelosi.

Kelly

04-29-2009, 07:46 PM

It's not necessarily "what" she said....its just that "she" said it.....

SuBe

04-29-2009, 07:47 PM

The Major:

It's THAN not THEN.

Those Republicans should be more concerned about standing up to Limbaugh THAN Pelosi

Sorry, it always have bugged me.

The Major

04-29-2009, 07:48 PM

SuBe:

Thanks.

souvlaki

04-29-2009, 07:48 PM

PELOSI TELLS REPUBLICANS TO 'TAKE BACK YOUR PARTY'
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/29/pelosi-tells-republicans-to-take-back-their-party/

:facepalm

Why can't she just shut up?

Am I missing something? I agree completely with what she said. I know some of you don't like Pelosi, but she's not completely incapable of saying something intelligent.

souvlaki

04-29-2009, 07:50 PM

It's not necessarily "what" she said....its just that "she" said it.....

I don't get this. She's right, and I don't see any reason to dismiss what she's saying just because it's Nancy Pelosi.

The Major

04-29-2009, 07:52 PM

Am I missing something? I agree completely with what she said. I know some of you don't like Pelosi, but she's not completely incapable of saying something intelligent.
I've been suspecting those here who don't like Pelosi strictly because of her politics, rather then her actions. I can understand that to an extent but to write her off completely when she does things which make sense is silly IMO.

voyzovrezon

04-29-2009, 07:53 PM

And the Bachmann hits keep coming!

Bachmann wants to bring back the roaring 20's economic policies:

fLmy6cjU2Vk

Check out these Bachmann watch sites:

http://dumpbachmann.blogspot.com/

http://www.dccc.org/page/content/bachmannwatch

SuBe

04-29-2009, 07:57 PM

I've been suspecting those here who don't like Pelosi strictly because of her politics, rather THAN her actions. I can understand that to an extent but to write her off completely when she does things which make sense is silly IMO.
fixed

And yes, I don't like here because of her politics.

souvlaki

04-29-2009, 07:58 PM

I've been suspecting those here who don't like Pelosi strictly because of her politics, rather then her actions. I can understand that to an extent but to write her off completely when she does things which make sense is silly IMO.

I thought she was rather gracious toward Republicans. She didn't say, "Hey, the Republican party is, was, and always will be completely worthless", she's saying, "Hey, you guys have good ideas, but you are ****ing up. Clean up your mess before it's too late.". And the fact of the matter is she's right.

The Major

04-29-2009, 07:59 PM

BlackestNight

04-29-2009, 08:35 PM

fixed

And yes, I don't like her because of her politics.

Fixed

SuBe

04-29-2009, 08:42 PM

Thanks.

Handsome Rob

04-29-2009, 09:02 PM

Fixed.

Fixed. :hehe:

I don't like Pelosi because of her far-left politics. And no, I wouldn't take Pelosi's advice on how to bring back the Republican Party. That'd be like Rocky taking Drago's wife's advice on how to beat him in a boxing match.

Kelly

04-29-2009, 09:05 PM

I don't get this. She's right, and I don't see any reason to dismiss what she's saying just because it's Nancy Pelosi.

She has no right to criticize in any way....ANYTHING....IMO...... It is just my opinion. I don't expect anyone to agree with it, nor do I need anyone to agree with it.....its just an opinion. And it will not change until she is out of office, and even then I will hold bad memories.:cwink:

redfirebird2008

04-29-2009, 09:38 PM

The Roaring Twenties was only one of the biggest houses of cards ever...and it crashed miserably. I wonder if she would have been re-elected if her constituents in Minnesota actually knew the kind of stuff she spouts off on a daily basis.

Marx

04-29-2009, 09:45 PM

It's not necessarily "what" she said....its just that "she" said it.....

Exactly. I would dare say it's also how she said it.

I've been suspecting those here who don't like Pelosi strictly because of her politics, rather then her actions. I can understand that to an extent but to write her off completely when she does things which make sense is silly IMO.

I am a moderate Democrat. I don't like Pelosi because she's a partisan troll.

The Major

04-29-2009, 09:49 PM

I am a moderate Democrat. I don't like Pelosi because she's a partisan troll.
Do you like Hilary Clinton?

Marx

04-29-2009, 09:56 PM

Do you like Hilary Clinton?

Yes. I love the Clintons...and the Kennedys.

StorminNorman

04-29-2009, 09:56 PM

Ouch, that hurts Marx

The Major

04-29-2009, 09:58 PM

Yes. I love the Clintons...and the Kennedys.
Why do you consider Pelosi a partisan troll but not Hilary?

I adore the Kennedy's, as well.

Marx

04-29-2009, 09:58 PM

Ouch, that hurts Marx

I'm sure you have Republicans that you really like, that I do not care for at all.

(I seem to remember you trumpeting Sarah Palin when the news first broke.)

Marx

04-29-2009, 09:59 PM

Why do you consider Pelosi a partisan troll but not Hilary?

We don't have that kind of time Major. :cwink: (Besides, this is a thread about the future of the Republican Party.)

The Major

04-29-2009, 10:01 PM

We don't have that kind of time Major. :cwink: (Besides, this is a thread about the future of the Republican Party.)
True. :word:

redfirebird2008

04-29-2009, 10:03 PM

I'm sure you have Republicans that you really like, that I do not care for at all.

(I seem to remember you trumpeting Sarah Palin when the news first broke.)

If I recall correctly, he still supports her.

Kelly

04-29-2009, 10:04 PM

Why do you consider Pelosi a partisan troll but not Hilary?

I adore the Kennedy's, as well.

I don't know that she wouldn't be bad at the SOTH position, she might would be enormously better....we won't ever know that.

As a Senator, I heard from both Republicans and Democrats that she was a damn hard worker...focused. I never heard her make speeches that sounded like a school yard bully.

I think a fairer comparison would be to compare Pelosie to former SOTHs...

souvlaki

04-29-2009, 10:07 PM

Exactly. I would dare say it's also how she said it.

I am a moderate Democrat. I don't like Pelosi because she's a partisan troll.

How she said it? I mean, I'm not the biggest fan of Pelosi either, but she said absolutely nothing wrong.

hippie_hunter

04-29-2009, 10:07 PM

I thought she was rather gracious toward Republicans. She didn't say, "Hey, the Republican party is, was, and always will be completely worthless", she's saying, "Hey, you guys have good ideas, but you are ****ing up. Clean up your mess before it's too late.". And the fact of the matter is she's right.

She is right, but she still manages to come off as a condescending *****.

She's a lot like Sally Floyd, someone you really can't stand to the point where you feel sorry for Henry Peter Gyrich, just because she's such a *****.

souvlaki

04-29-2009, 10:10 PM

How was what she said condescending? I've heard StorminNormin and SuBe say worse things about the Republican Party. Hell, Arlen Specter said worse things about the Republican Party yesterday.

mclay18

04-29-2009, 10:10 PM

McClay:

This is a good cop, bad cop routine. Those Republicans should be more concerned about standing up to Limbaugh then Pelosi.

They should stand up to both of them. I don't completely disagree with Pelosi's politics, it's just the way she handles things -- where she thinks she's running the show and has her own agenda rather than letting the President do his job. (And I'm pretty sure in her mind she's cackling evilly at this dilemma the GOP is in.)

But Limbaugh -- oooh, it's way past time for the moderate Republicans for them to put their foot down and stop giving him the attention he's living on. Coulter too.

The Major

04-29-2009, 10:12 PM

I don't know that she wouldn't be bad at the SOTH position, she might would be enormously better....we won't ever know that.

I'm not talking about their ranks, just the people.

As a Senator, I heard from both Republicans and Democrats that she was a damn hard worker...focused. I never heard her make speeches that sounded like a school yard bully.
Did you watch the primaries? She was brutal. That's her political style.

I think a fairer comparison would be to compare Pelosie to former SOTHs...

I disagree. Since the right doesn't have a reason to pick around Hilary anymore they've moved onto Pelosi. She's the party's toughest high profile female star right now, Obama's off limits since he's living telflon, and the conservatives and Repubicans love Harry Reid and they know Hilary has a closer agenda to their's as SoS.

hippie_hunter

04-29-2009, 10:21 PM

How was what she said condescending? I've heard StorminNormin and SuBe say worse things about the Republican Party. Hell, Arlen Specter said worse things about the Republican Party yesterday.

Someone in her position and reputation shouldn't be telling the other party what to do. It's up to the Republicans and only the Republicans to fix their mess and realize how big hole they dug themselves in is.

The Major

04-29-2009, 10:23 PM

Someone in her position and reputation shouldn't be telling the other party what to do. It's up to the Republicans and only the Republicans to fix their mess and realize how big hole they dug themselves in is.
So both parties can't comment on the other? Is this just for politicians? What about pundits or rank and file members? How about independents? They don't belong to either party.

hippie_hunter

04-29-2009, 10:27 PM

So both parties can't comment on the other? Is this just for politicians? What about pundits or rank and file members? How about independents? They don't belong to either party.

Of course they can comment on each other on their policies and whatnot. But someone who is an extreme liberal and has a reputation for being a partisan hack really isn't in the position to tell the other party to go fix themselves. It's counterproductive and will probably set back the Republicans from realizing that what they're doing is not working.

Marx

04-29-2009, 10:27 PM

So both parties can't comment on the other? Is this just for politicians? What about pundits or rank and file members? How about independents? They don't belong to either party.

If she had been honestly offering an opinion as advice, rather than telling an opinion as fact, and without all the snarkiness, it would have been better received.

souvlaki

04-29-2009, 10:28 PM

Someone in her position and reputation shouldn't be telling the other party what to do. It's up to the Republicans and only the Republicans to fix their mess and realize how big hole they dug themselves in is.

John Boener says bad things about Democrats on a daily basis and tries to tell Obama how to run his administration. What Pelosi said is relatively tame. She's said far worse things.

souvlaki

04-29-2009, 10:35 PM

If she had been honestly offering an opinion as advice, rather than telling an opinion as fact, and without all the snarkiness, it would have been better received.

Do you deny that Republicans have moved too far to the right? Or that they are alienating the middle by doing so? I don't even think Rush Limbaugh would deny Republicans have moved to the right since the election. All she said was that those in the middle should fight for a voice in the Republican Party because if the middle has no voice than that benefits neither party.

FACT: The Republican Party as a whole has move farther to the right since the general election.

FACT: There are fewer registered Republicans in this country now than at any other point in our history since we've polled party affiliations.

It's arguable that these two things are connected to each other, and all Pelosi did was point out the obvious.

The Major

04-29-2009, 10:38 PM

Of course they can comment on each other on their policies and whatnot.

Then what's the problem?

But someone who is an extreme liberal

Political affiliation's aren't good reasons to discriminate against someone's opinion. Especially when they are correct. Michelle Bachmann is insane but if she gives a correct critique of the Democratic party I'm going to take it seriously.

and has a reputation for being a partisan hack really isn't in the position to tell the other party to go fix themselves.

The only ones I see calling her a hack are those who who despise her political positions since its the opposite of their's. Pelosi could cure cancer tomorrow and people like that would find some way to make it a bad thing just because she's a liberal.

I can understand critiquing her tact. She's a straight shooter so that's going to upsetting people. But it's still not enough to say she shouldn't have an opinion on her rival's IMO.

It's counterproductive and will probably set back the Republicans from realizing that what they're doing is not working.

She shouldn't tell the truth because Republicans will do the opposite? :whatever:

Kelly

04-29-2009, 10:39 PM

I don't trust Pelosi's motive for ANYTHING, anymore.....so her saying what she did, taints its validity and her desire to really give them something to work with, or once again simply being a b***h...

Marx

04-29-2009, 10:39 PM

Do you deny that Republicans have moved too far to the right? Or that they are alienating the middle by doing so? I don't even think Rush Limbaugh would deny Republicans have moved to the right since the election. All she said was that those in the middle should fight for a voice in the Republican Party because if the middle has no voice than that benefits neither party.

FACT: The Republican Party as a whole has move farther to the right since the general election.

FACT: There are fewer registered Republicans in this country now than at any other point in our history since we've polled party affiliations.

It's arguable that these two things are connected to each other, and all Pelosi did was point out the obvious.

I do not deny any of that at all.

hippie_hunter

04-29-2009, 10:40 PM

John Boener says bad things about Democrats on a daily basis and tries to tell Obama how to run his administration. What Pelosi said is relatively tame. She's said far worse things.

And in case you haven't noticed, Boener is kind of an ass as well.

Marx

04-29-2009, 10:41 PM

And in case you haven't noticed, Boener is kind of an ass as well.

...you don't say. :oldrazz:

Kelly

04-29-2009, 10:41 PM

Anything Boener says holds no water with me either.....for the same reason as I stated above.

If you are a friend of mine, and have given me solid advice before, and I know that at the heart of your suggestions you mean the very best.....then let me have it, and actually you don't even have to be a friend, just someone that has respected me in the past, and I respect you....

If you are known for being a partisan *****, who takes every opportunity to point out the fact that they won and you lost, and has been nothing more than a b***h to me on the floor of the house....and gives me those suggestions.....then I don't take anything seriously that she has to say to me, fact or not.

The Major

04-29-2009, 10:42 PM

If she had been honestly offering an opinion as advice, rather than telling an opinion as fact, and without all the snarkiness, it would have been better received.
Agreed.

redfirebird2008

04-29-2009, 10:43 PM

Who gives a rat's butt about what Pelosi says? Perhaps if we ignore her, she'll finally get booted out of office by her constituents or voluntarily retire.

souvlaki

04-29-2009, 10:43 PM

I do not deny any of that at all.

Then why can't Pelosi point this out? She's the Speaker of the House, she has a right to state her opinion, because God knows John Boener, Michael Steele and the like say just as many horrible things about Democrats. I'd argue what Pelosi said was downright respectful compared to some things she's said in the past about Republicans. Don't get me wrong, I don't care for Pelosi (even if I tend to agree with her on a lot of issues), but I don't think that was really something to get annoyed about. I was actually surprised personally she handled that statement with such tact.

souvlaki

04-29-2009, 10:45 PM

And in case you haven't noticed, Boener is kind of an ass as well.

Oh, I don't deny that. Was it something about the way she said it? Because just reading the text I don't see how she said anything worse than what Arlen Specter said yesterday.

Kelly

04-29-2009, 10:46 PM

Oh, I don't deny that. Was it something about the way she said it? Because just reading the text I don't see how she said anything worse than what Arlen Specter said yesterday.

And him and his hypocritical self holds even less water than Pelosi...

hippie_hunter

04-29-2009, 10:49 PM

Arlen Spector is in the position to criticize because he was a Republican and they essentially rejected him.

souvlaki

04-29-2009, 10:52 PM

And him and his hypocritical self holds even less water than Pelosi...

You honestly don't think there is any truth to what Pelosi said? I mean, I know it's Pelosi but she has a point.

Kelly

04-29-2009, 10:53 PM

Jeeeessssuuuuuuusssss.....have you read my posts? arrrrgh...

redfirebird2008

04-29-2009, 10:54 PM

Arlen Spector is in the position to criticize because he was a Republican and they essentially rejected him.

Besides that point, he's never been a partisan towards either side. He's always been fair to both sides.

souvlaki

04-29-2009, 10:55 PM

Jeeeessssuuuuuuusssss.....have you read my posts? arrrrgh...

It was the way she said it, right? I still don't follow, because she didn't say anything wrong. She's the Speaker of the House, arguably the most powerful woman in the country, she's not going to sit silently and never have an opinion about something, nor should she. If this is all about you simply not liking her, fine, but I don't see what the problem is with what she said today.

Kelly

04-29-2009, 10:57 PM

It was the way she said it, right? I still don't follow, because she didn't say anything wrong. She's the Speaker of the House, arguably the most powerful woman in the country, she's not going to sit silently and never have an opinion about something, nor should she.

No......

If you are a friend of mine, and have given me solid advice before, and I know that at the heart of your suggestions you mean the very best.....then let me have it, and actually you don't even have to be a friend, just someone that has respected me in the past, and I respect you....

If you are known for being a partisan *****, who takes every opportunity to point out the fact that they won and you lost, and has been nothing more than a b***h to me on the floor of the house....and gives me those suggestions.....then I don't take anything seriously that she has to say to me, fact or not.

souvlaki

04-29-2009, 11:02 PM

No......

I missed that post apparently. It's an understandable criticism and I'm sure Pelosi would probably secretly love to see the demise of the Republican Party. But that doesn't really change the fact that she's right, and like I said, I'd argue the way she worded that was far more tactful than anything else she has said about Republicans in recent history. It just seems like you are criticizing her simply for opening her mouth.

Kelly

04-29-2009, 11:05 PM

I missed that post apparently. It's an understandable criticism and I'm sure Pelosi would probably secretly love to see the demise of the Republican Party. But that doesn't really change the fact that she's right, and like I said, I'd argue the way she worded that was far more tactful than anything else she has said about Republicans in recent history.

Fair analysis....but for me, she has gone far beyond my ability to take anything she says seriously, whether she's right or wrong.

I just can't do it anymore.....

souvlaki

04-29-2009, 11:05 PM

To be fair though, I do the same thing every time Palin opens her mouth.

hippie_hunter

04-29-2009, 11:09 PM

To be fair though, I do the same thing every time Palin opens her mouth.

But it's completely different. Pelosi is a cold hearted hypocritical condescending woman. Palin on the other hand has the I.Q. of Forrest Gump.

Kelly

04-29-2009, 11:13 PM

To be fair though, I do the same thing every time Palin opens her mouth.

I feel the same way.....BUT...

Palin is not the Speaker of the House....

souvlaki

04-29-2009, 11:13 PM

But it's completely different. Pelosi is a cold hearted hypocritical condescending woman. Palin on the other hand has the I.Q. of Forrest Gump.

Well, exactly. I'm conflicted in regards to Pelosi, because I think she is a partisan hack and would like nothing more than for another Democrat to run against her in a primary and win, but I don't think for a second she's an idiot. Quite the opposite actually. She's just a *****. It's a shame I agree with her as often as I do (politically, that is).

hippie_hunter

04-29-2009, 11:15 PM

souvlaki

04-29-2009, 11:17 PM

Palin is not the Speaker of the House....

I'm not talking about things Pelosi has said in the past though, I'm talking about what she said today. And in my opinion what she said was completely respectful to Republicans and is a far more valid criticism than anything I've heard from Republican leaders in the last three months.

souvlaki

04-29-2009, 11:21 PM

I think Pelosi just needs to step down from her position. She's great for representing her district, but with her position, she's representing the whole country and she's horrible at it. We need a moderate Democrat in the Speaker of the House position, not an extreme leftist partisan hack.

I agree completely. Her views are completely in line with the average San Francisco citizen, and she's the perfect representative for her district. She doesn't, however, in any way represent the Democratic Party as a whole though, and for that reason she's a horrible fit for Speaker of the House.

metr0man

04-29-2009, 11:51 PM

Nivek

04-30-2009, 05:52 AM

Didn't this woman with possible mental challenges (deep seeded paranoia) just get re-elected?

Handsome Rob

04-30-2009, 07:27 AM

Edit

Schlosser85

04-30-2009, 07:47 AM

^ Yes, somehow.

Nivek

04-30-2009, 09:37 AM

Staggering, given her comments during the election, and she still got elected. Those people must be proud to present the country with this example of ... mental health.

redfirebird2008

04-30-2009, 09:40 AM

Staggering, given her comments during the election, and she still got elected. Those people must be proud to present the country with this example of ... mental health.

If she had made the Roaring Twenties comment during the campaign, she likely wouldn't have been re-elected since the economy is what matters to people right now and everyone knows the Roaring Twenties led to the biggest crash ever (though the crash that is coming in the next few months will likely exceed it...don't be fooled by the bailout band-aids, a crash is coming).

Schlosser85

04-30-2009, 09:58 AM

Do her constituents actually keep up with the wacko crap she says? She's an endless source of some of the most flat-out loony comments I have ever heard from an elected (and reelected!) public representative.

Matt

04-30-2009, 10:01 AM

"I've said this to people like [Senate Minority Leader] Mitch McConnell. I said, 'Look, on health care reform, you may not agree with me that I've -- we should have a public plan. That may be philosophically just too much for you to swallow. On the other hand, there are some areas like reducing the cost of medical malpractice insurance where you do agree with me. If I'm taking some of your ideas and giving you credit for good ideas, the fact that you didn't get 100 percent can't be a reason every single time to oppose my position."
-President Obama.

Yes, Obama, it can. You clearly don't understand just how adolescent what remains of the opposition is!
How long until Obama just gives up trying to reason with them and just goes full-Pelosi and ramrods whatever he wants through the Democratic majority

Obama CAN'T do that. Almost all of Obama's plans are tremendously risky. If he were to go unilaterally and were to fail, the Republicans would regain control of everything by 2012. That is why Obama is getting so frustrated when he doesn't get Republican support. Because his presidency may very well depend on having a scape goat in 2012.

People can say what they want about Republicans being juvenile, but that is just Democrats underestimating them. This plan is actually brilliant. They make a good show of opposition, then finally sign off on it. If it fails, they are free of blame saying "We opposed it but they were going to push it through any way." If it succeeds, they get credit for it too and can say it would've failed if not for their strong opposition leading to reforming it.

Wiseman

04-30-2009, 10:29 AM

People can say what they want about Republicans being juvenile, but that is just Democrats underestimating them. This plan is actually brilliant. They make a good show of opposition, then finally sign off on it. If it fails, they are free of blame saying "We opposed it but they were going to push it through any way." If it succeeds, they get credit for it too and can say it would've failed if not for their strong opposition leading to reforming it.

I'm not going to be spending much time in the political forums like I used to because quite frankly I'm sick of both democrats and republicans. This country is very close to completely falling apart because of the egos and the corrupt politians on both sides. I will say that the republicans aren't doing anything the democrats in congress didn't do the last 2 years Bush was in office. And even though the democrat controlled congress had the lowest approval ratings any congress ever had, republicans still took the fall. So if this is some sort of plan by the republicans for 2012 it could backfire, and honestly I don't think America has 4 years left with how far this partisan way of thinking is getting. I feel very sad for this nation

Matt

04-30-2009, 10:33 AM

I'm not going to be spending much time in the political forums like I used to because quite frankly I'm sick of both democrats and republicans. This country is very close to completely falling apart because of the egos and the corrupt politians on both sides. I will say that the republicans aren't doing anything the democrats in congress didn't do the last 2 years Bush was in office. And even though the democrat controlled congress had the lowest approval ratings any congress ever had, republicans still took the fall. So if this is some sort of plan by the republicans for 2012 it could backfire, and honestly I don't think America has 4 years left with how far this partisan way of thinking is getting. I feel very sad for this nation

I agree...but lets face it, most of Obama's plans aren't exactly middle of the road stuff. The Republicans DO clash idealogically with this stuff and there is no reason they should be supporting it. Bipartisanship in the name of bipartisanship would be just as bad as this ****. I'm glad at least someone is standing up to Obama, even if its for the wrong reasons, because I feel his ideas are wrong.

I really wish Mark Warner were president right now. A moderate who has proven that he knows how to work across the aisle (and has actually shown it, not just said it), and has a record of fixing economies.

Wiseman

04-30-2009, 11:12 AM

I agree...but lets face it, most of Obama's plans aren't exactly middle of the road stuff. The Republicans DO clash idealogically with this stuff and there is no reason they should be supporting it. Bipartisanship in the name of bipartisanship would be just as bad as this ****. I'm glad at least someone is standing up to Obama, even if its for the wrong reasons, because I feel his ideas are wrong.

I really wish Mark Warner were president right now. A moderate who has proven that he knows how to work across the aisle (and has actually shown it, not just said it), and has a record of fixing economies.

I agree with you too but I'm afraid conservatives and liberals have become so bitter with eachother that the chances of setting aside egos and just doing what's right for the nation seems to be so far out of mind for everyone in power that I'm not sure what it will take if the crisis we're in now doesn't seem to be enough to come together.

Marx

04-30-2009, 11:27 AM

But it's completely different. Pelosi is a cold hearted hypocritical condescending woman. Palin on the other hand has the I.Q. of Forrest Gump.

:funny:

Pink Ranger

04-30-2009, 11:41 AM

But it's completely different. Pelosi is a cold hearted hypocritical condescending woman. Palin on the other hand has the I.Q. of Forrest Gump.

That's not fair. Everybody knows those tests are culturally biased. :lmao:

Marx

04-30-2009, 12:27 PM

STEELE: I AGREE WITH RUSH LIMBAUGH
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/30/steele-i-agree-with-rush-limbaugh/ (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/30/steele-i-agree-with-rush-limbaugh/)

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, who once found himself in a war of words with Rush Limbaugh, said in an interview Thursday he agreed with the conservative talk show radio host that former Republican turned Democratic Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter was a party dead weight.

When questioned on CBS' "Early Show" about which Republican reaction to the Specter exit he most identifies with: Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe's mourning of the loss or Rush Limbaugh's declaration of good riddance, the Republican National Committee Chairman replied, "Rush. I'm sorry I'm not weeping here. I'm sorry."

As to the future of the GOP, Steele wasn't overly optimistic, maintaining that the outlook of his party isn't great as of now.

"Well the future lies down the road a bit. I mean, look, I'm not going to sit here with, you know, pie-in-the-sky talking about, you know, how wonderful things are. They're not," he said.

But like his Republican colleague, Olympia Snowe, Steele insisted there is room for moderates in Republican Party, saying the notion that the party is exclusive "is just crazy."

Marx

04-30-2009, 12:32 PM

GOP SET TO LAUNCH 'REBRANDING EFFORT'
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/29/gop-set-to-launch-rebranding-effort/

Coming soon to a battleground state near you: a new effort to revive the image of the Republican Party and to counter President Obama's characterization of Republicans as "the party of 'no.'"

CNN has learned that the new initiative, called the National Council for a New America, will be announced Thursday.

It will involve an outreach by an interesting mix of GOP officials, ranging from 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain to Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor and the younger brother of the man many Republicans blame for the party's battered brand: former President George W. Bush.

In addition to Sen. McCain and Gov. Bush, GOP sources familiar with the plans tell CNN others involved in the new group's "National Panel Of Experts" will include:

*Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a former national GOP chairman
*Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal
*Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney

It will report to GOP congressional leaders, and among those signing the announcement that will be made public Thursday are:

*House GOP Leader John Boehner
*House GOP Whip Eric Cantor
*House GOP Conference Chairman Mike Pence
*Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell
*The No. 2 Senate Republican, Jon Kyl
*And the Senate GOP Conference Chairman, Lamar Alexander

"However, this is not a Republican-only forum," reads the letter announcing the new effort, a copy of which was obtained by CNN from Republican sources involved in the effort. "While we will be guided by our principles of freedom and security, we will seek to include more than just our ideas.

"This forum will include a wide open policy debate that every American can feel free to participate in," the announcement letter reads. "We do this not just to offer an alternative point of view or to be disagreeable.

Instead, we want to ask the American people what their hopes and dreams are. Since January, the President and the Democratic Majority in Congress have - rightfully so - put forward their plan for the future, now we must listen, learn and lead through an honest, open conversation with the American people that will result in building policy proposals that will yield the best results for our nation's long-term success."

The first meeting is planned this Saturday in Arlington, Virginia, just outside of the nation's capital. Northern Virginia is one of the suburban areas that has shifted decidedly in favor of the Democrats in recent years, helping President Obama carry the state for the Democrats for president for the first time since 1964.

Sources familiar with the effort say it was born of conversations between Cantor and the members of the experts panel. After Bush and Romney agreed to take part, the conversations expanded and the idea won the blessing of both the House and Senate GOP leadership. Additional town halls are planned in the weeks ahead, each likely dedicated to a specific issue, with health care, the economy, energy and national security leading the issues menu the group says it hopes to discuss heading into the 2010 midterm elections, and possibly beyond.

UPDATE: South Dakota Sen. John Thune will also participate in the group. The Republican congressional leadership is also slated to travel the country and attend town-hall meetings as part of the new effort.

StorminNorman

04-30-2009, 12:57 PM

Haley Barbour is a good man to be apart of this.

Matt

04-30-2009, 01:03 PM

I agree with you too but I'm afraid conservatives and liberals have become so bitter with eachother that the chances of setting aside egos and just doing what's right for the nation seems to be so far out of mind for everyone in power that I'm not sure what it will take if the crisis we're in now doesn't seem to be enough to come together.

Sad but true :csad:

Superman

04-30-2009, 01:43 PM

GOP SET TO LAUNCH 'REBRANDING EFFORT'
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/29/gop-set-to-launch-rebranding-effort/Why do I see another "Contract With America" coming? :whatever:

Matt

04-30-2009, 02:02 PM

"Contract with America," "Hope and change," They're all buzzwords that zealots on each side buy into blindly but in the end they both equate to the same thing...

Absolutely nothing

hippie_hunter

04-30-2009, 02:59 PM

Why do I see another "Contract With America" coming? :whatever:

The Republicans need another Contract with America in order to move on and survive. A new one to go back to their roots of smaller government, fiscal responsibility, etc. and not their current route of homophobic, evangelical, dickwads.

StorminNorman

04-30-2009, 04:45 PM

Why do I see another "Contract With America" coming? :whatever:

Because you are intelligent.

The Republicans need another Contract with America in order to move on and survive. A new one to go back to their roots of smaller government, fiscal responsibility, etc. and not their current route of homophobic, evangelical, dickwads.

Bingo. The Republican Party NEEDS a new contract with America.

SuBe

04-30-2009, 05:06 PM

And the FairTax has to be apart of that!

SuBe

04-30-2009, 05:10 PM

FACT: The Republican Party as a whole has move farther to the right since the general election.

FACT: There are fewer registered Republicans in this country now than at any other point in our history since we've polled party affiliations.

I don't believe that the Republicans have moved to the Right. I just think the Spotlight is on the Right more than before. I actually think the Party have moved away from Reaganism and Classical Liberalism.

The other point is spot on.

Marx

04-30-2009, 05:17 PM

I don't believe that the Republicans have moved to the Right. I just think the Spotlight is on the Right more than before. I actually think the Party have moved away from Reaganism and Classical Liberalism.

The other point is spot on.

How has the GOP not moved to the farther right, in your opinion?

Superman

04-30-2009, 05:24 PM

Because you are intelligent.

Bingo. The Republican Party NEEDS a new contract with America.:huh: Well...., Thank you. I feel the same about you.:yay:

redfirebird2008

04-30-2009, 06:50 PM

"Contract with America," "Hope and change," They're all buzzwords that zealots on each side buy into blindly but in the end they both equate to the same thing...

New boss, same as the old boss...aka the New World Order.

Spoiler fixed. :woot:

The Major

04-30-2009, 08:04 PM

GOP SET TO LAUNCH 'REBRANDING EFFORT'
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/29/gop-set-to-launch-rebranding-effort/
:facepalm

voyzovrezon

04-30-2009, 08:07 PM

Do her constituents actually keep up with the wacko crap she says?

I'm sure they do. That's why they reelected her. The agree with her! :wow:

Hobgoblin

04-30-2009, 08:25 PM

Some quotes from Ms Bachmann.

General.

“We’re in a state of crisis where our nation is literally ripping apart at the seams right now, and lawlessness is occurring from one ocean to the other. And we’re seeing the fulfillment of the Book of Judges here in our own time, where every man doing that which is right in his own eyes—in other words, anarchy.” – Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 6, 2004.

On her 2004 state capitol rally for a same-sex marriage ban amendment: “Listeners should rejoice right now, because there are believers all across your listening area that are praying now. And I would say that if you can’t attend the rally, you can pray. And God calls us to fall on our faces and our knees and cry out to Him and confess our sins. And I would just ask your listeners to do that now. Cry out to a Holy God. He wants to hear us, He will hear us if we will confess our sins and cry out to Him. Our children are worth it and obedience to God demands it.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 6, 2004.

“Spending comes just as natural to liberals in Minnesota and the Minnesota legislature as bashing decency comes to the editorial board of our major metropolitan newspapers.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, EdWatch conference, October 10-11, 2003

Bachmann on Same-Sex Marriage and Gay Americans.

On gay marriage: “This is probably the biggest issue that will impact our state and our nation in the last, at least, thirty years. I am not understating that.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.

On public education: “That’s my number one issue.” — Senator Michele Bachmann quoted in Stillwater Gazette, July 24, 2006. K. Janisch, “Rove stumps for Bachmann in Stillwater ”

On what will happen if her same-sex marriage ban amendment fails to pass in 2004: “It isn’t that some gay will get some rights. It’s that everyone else in our state will lose rights. For instance, parents will lose the right to protect and direct the upbringing of their children. Because our K-12 public school system, of which ninety per cent of all youth are in the public school system, they will be required to learn that homosexuality is normal, equal and perhaps you should try it. And that will occur immediately, that all schools will begin teaching homosexuality.” -- Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 6, 2004.

On the gay community and same-sex marriage: “This is a very serious matter, because it is our children who are the prize for this community, they are specifically targeting our children.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.

Marx

04-30-2009, 08:36 PM

On the gay community and same-sex marriage: “This is a very serious matter, because it is our children who are the prize for this community, they are specifically targeting our children.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.

Wow...just wow.

:facepalm

VampElvis

04-30-2009, 09:20 PM

But it's completely different. Pelosi is a cold hearted hypocritical condescending woman. Palin on the other hand has the I.Q. of Forrest Gump.

:funny:

That's not fair. Everybody knows those tests are culturally biased. :lmao:

As I recall from the source material Forrest Gump was a physics genius, a chess grand master, a virtuoso musician, and an astronaut...... perhaps not the best comparison:woot:

hippie_hunter

04-30-2009, 11:37 PM

hippie_hunter

04-30-2009, 11:39 PM

:facepalm

What's so :facepalm: worthy about that? The Republicans do need a rebranding because the brand they do have isn't working.

The Major

05-01-2009, 12:09 AM

What's so :facepalm: worthy about that? The Republicans do need a rebranding because the brand they do have isn't working.
The idea is fine. It's the people running it which is the problem. None of them come close to being creative or brave enough to rebrand the party into something relevant IMO.

hippie_hunter

05-01-2009, 12:54 AM

The idea is fine. It's the people running it which is the problem. None of them come close to being creative or brave enough to rebrand the party into something relevant IMO.

You never know. I mean who would have thought that Barack Obama was going to end up with the Democratic nomination when he went up against Hillary Clinton?

Superman

05-01-2009, 03:22 AM

You never know. I mean who would have thought that Barack Obama was going to end up with the Democratic nomination when he went up against Hillary Clinton?That's because Obama was new, No one knew who he was.

All of the people named in this "rebranding" thing are the same old republicans and/or Neo-cons with the same old ideals they've had far the past 8 years.

They can "rebrand" it all they want but untill they get some new blood with some fresh ideals in the party, Nothing will change.

Crap by any other name is still crap and the people are tired of the same old crap from the Republican Party nomatter what they call it.

Superman

05-01-2009, 03:39 AM

The Republicans need another Contract with America in order to move on and survive. A new one to go back to their roots of smaller government, fiscal responsibility, etc. and not their current route of homophobic, evangelical, dickwads.So you think the only way they can "Move on" is to go back and pull a stunt they pulled over 15 years ago? A stunt that started them on the route to the homophobic, evangelical, dickwads we have today?

OooKay, If you say so. :up: :hehe::lmao::hehe:
:cwink:

The Major

05-01-2009, 05:03 AM

That's because Obama was new, No one knew who he was.

All of the people named in this "rebranding" thing are the same old republicans and/or Neo-cons with the same old ideals they've had far the past 8 years.

They can "rebrand" it all they want but untill they get some new blood with some fresh ideals in the party, Nothing will change.

Crap by any other name is still crap and the people are tired of the same old crap from the Republican Party nomatter what they call it.
Exactly. The Democrats learned from their mistakes and got the proper visionaries in place to transform the party into something more then they used to be. The Republicans aren't there yet. Their previous revamp with Dubya may actually make it harder for a true revamp to occur since they boxed their die-hard's into one specific mindset that does not allow naturally growth.

Schlosser85

05-01-2009, 10:16 AM

So she also claims to be a Christian, apparently. haha....how amusing.

SuBe

05-01-2009, 10:24 AM

Whenever a Politician wants to sell idiotic legislation that empowers tyranny and limits Liberty, they use "the Children" as an excuse.

Schlosser85

05-01-2009, 10:25 AM

Or they pretend to be Christians. If it was politically advantageous to be Buddhist, 99% of people in Congress and the Senate would be Buddhists.

SuBe

05-01-2009, 10:36 AM

Welcome to the world of Democracy Schloss, "Democracy is nothing more than two wolves and one sheep discussing what is for dinner"~B. Franklin.

Democracy is just Tyranny by the Majority over the Minority, Mob Rule Legalised. The Founders, when wanting to insult someone, called them a democrat (small d). It was a term of offense. It meant nothing more than a Panderer.

StorminNorman

05-01-2009, 11:58 AM

The idea is fine. It's the people running it which is the problem. None of them come close to being creative or brave enough to rebrand the party into something relevant IMO.

Considering you have no idea who Hayley Barbour is, you are not really qualified to make this statement.

hippie_hunter

05-01-2009, 12:06 PM

That's because Obama was new, No one knew who he was.

All of the people named in this "rebranding" thing are the same old republicans and/or Neo-cons with the same old ideals they've had far the past 8 years.

They can "rebrand" it all they want but untill they get some new blood with some fresh ideals in the party, Nothing will change.

Crap by any other name is still crap and the people are tired of the same old crap from the Republican Party nomatter what they call it.

My point is that perhaps the current Republican leadership can defy all logic just like how Barack Obama did in defeating Hillary Clinton who should have been the nominee by usual standards.

Do I think it will happen? No. I think they need to get rid of a lot of people like Bobby Jindal, Mitch McConnell, and John Boener in order for it to happen. But stranger things have happened.

StorminNorman

05-01-2009, 12:09 PM

Bobby Jindal represents many Republicans, there is no need to oust people like Bobby Jindal. That does the Republican Party no good. The Bobby Jindal's, however, just need to be balanced with the Ron Paul's.

hippie_hunter

05-01-2009, 12:09 PM

So you think the only way they can "Move on" is to go back and pull a stunt they pulled over 15 years ago? A stunt that started them on the route to the homophobic, evangelical, dickwads we have today?

OooKay, If you say so. :up: :hehe::lmao::hehe:
:cwink:

The thing is that the stunt worked 15 years ago and the biggest reason why they've lost badly over the past couple of years is because they essentially broke that contract they started in the 1990's.

Look past your rather irrational and absurd hatred of Republicans and you'd see that the Contract with America was very successful with the Republicans electoral history. It was what gave them control of Congress during the Clinton Adminstration.

hippie_hunter

05-01-2009, 12:10 PM

Marx

05-01-2009, 12:54 PM

GINGRICH INSULT RANKLES RNC MEMBERS
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/01/gingrich-insult-rankles-rnc-members/

Several members of the Republican National Committee are miffed at Newt Gingrich for claiming that they’re a small bunch of egomaniacs who need to be coddled by the party chairman.

“Newt needs to take a breath,” New Jersey committeeman David Norcross told CNN.

Gingrich made the assertion on C-SPAN Thursday when asked about a new resolution put forth by some veteran members — including Norcross and RNC Treasurer Randy Pullen of Arizona — that would limit chairman Michael
Steele’s ability to control how the committee spends its money.

That resolution has sparked a fresh round of infighting between Steele loyalists on the committee and entrenched members who backed other candidates for the chairmanship and remain skeptical of his leadership.

Defending Steele’s tumultuous start, Gingrich said the chairman might be under fire from some in the committee because he “probably has not yet learned the art of massaging the egos of RNC members.”

“They all think they’re precious, and they all think they should be taken care of, and they all think the job of the chairman, first of all, is to make the RNC members happy,” Gingrich said of the committee’s 168 members.

StorminNorman

05-01-2009, 12:57 PM

Go get'em Newt.

Kelly

05-01-2009, 12:59 PM

Newt is right....

The Major

05-01-2009, 06:03 PM

Considering you have no idea who Hayley Barbour is, you are not really qualified to make this statement.
Barbour is an establishment type whose a lobbyist in a government official's position. He doesn't have a good relationship with minorities, either.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/04/us/04pardon.html?_r=1

Gov. Haley Barbour (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/haley_barbour/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of Mississippi (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/national/usstatesterritoriesandpossessions/mississippi/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) acknowledges that Clyde Kennard suffered a grievous wrong at the hands of state officials more than 45 years ago. But he says he will not grant a posthumous pardon to Mr. Kennard, a black man who was falsely imprisoned after trying to desegregate a Mississippi college.

He's not a visionary. He only knows how to connect with the dwindling purists.

The rest in this group are just as bad. The best is Steele, only he doesn't go far enough with his ideas, to beholden to the Republcian establishment to accomplish anything radical and is to incompetent to make the ideas that are good work.

VampElvis

05-01-2009, 06:40 PM

As I recall from the source material Forrest Gump was a physics genius, a chess grand master, a virtuoso musician, and an astronaut...... perhaps not the best comparison:woot:

Wait a minute! How the hell is a man with an I.Q. of 70 a physics genius, a chess grand master, a virtuoso musician, and an astronaut? :huh:

Key words here are source material. Read the book. Even thought it's really short there's a LOT more to Gump than what you saw in the movie.
AND there's a sequel.

StorminNorman

05-01-2009, 06:42 PM

Barbour is an establishment type whose a lobbyist in a government official's position. He doesn't have a good relationship with minorities, either.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/04/us/04pardon.html?_r=1

He's not a visionary. He only knows how to connect with the dwindling purists.

The rest in this group are just as bad. The best is Steele, only he doesn't go far enough with his ideas, to beholden to the Republcian establishment to accomplish anything radical and is to incompetent to make the ideas that are good work.

Again, you have no idea who Hayley Barbour is.

VampElvis

05-01-2009, 07:06 PM

Mr. Barbour distinguished himself in his handling of MS in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The press focused on New Orleans who, after 20 years of corrupt, ineffective, democrat controlled local government botched all efforts to clean the place up. Mostly ignored where the coastal counties of MS that were demolished. Over the weekend MS lost a significant percent of the state's tax revenue and 3 or 4 of the states top employers. But Mr Barbour has been lauded with praise, and rightly so, for helping lead the recovery.

The fella's a top notch leader.

StorminNorman

05-01-2009, 07:23 PM

Before that Barbour was one of the Republican Parties brightest minds. Under his leadership the GOP took the House, before joining the RNC he was one of the most sought after political consultants in the nation.

Barbour is as smart a man the GOP has. He has Newt like intelligence without his ego.

souvlaki

05-04-2009, 08:45 AM

GOP turns to Bush aides for advice

Republicans looking to recover from Bush-era defeats are turning to an unlikely source for advice: top aides to former President George W. Bush.

Former White House press secretary Dana Perino, former Bush counselor Ed Gillespie and former White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto are among those set to provide words of wisdom to House Republican press secretaries at their annual workshop this Friday.

GOP House Conference Communications Director Matt Lloyd said Perino, Gillespie and Fratto represented “the gold standard for Republican communications professionals” and were obvious choices to advise the party’s messengers.

But Democrats are deriding the move to bring in the Bush veterans, calling it proof that the GOP has failed to recognize that Bush’s policies are at least partly to blame for the party’s minority status.

“Reuniting the Bush operation is like making a sequel to a very bad movie. House Republicans are better off staying home, watching soaps and coming up with new ideas for their out-of-touch party,” said Doug Thornell, spokesman for Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.).

The Bush vets, for their part, couldn’t disagree more. In fact, they say their turbulent White House years make them uniquely suited to advise a House Republican Conference stuck in a nearly 80-seat minority.

“We are battle-tested,” said Perino, who was Bush’s last press secretary.

Fratto, who spent three years as Bush’s deputy press secretary, cited his experience “being in an actual duel with the slings and arrows from Congress.”

Fratto said he wanted to put the House press secretaries in a campaign-style mind-set and would encourage the staffers to do their jobs with an eye toward winning House seats in 2010.

Lloyd called the workshop — which also includes former Reagan speechwriter Tony Dolan and Mitt Romney presidential campaign strategist Mindy Finn — an integral part of the GOP’s renewed focus on communications.

“The press secretary workshop is one more tool in our belt that we are using to ensure press secretaries continue to get their members the most coverage possible, which in turn drives the Republican message across the country,” Lloyd said.

Policies of the Bush administration aside, it’s indisputable that [the workshop participants] are outstanding at their jobs, and their wisdom will serve Republican press secretaries well.”

With little power to stop the enlarged House Democratic majority procedurally, Republicans say their best strategy is to head for the microphones.

In November, after Republicans lost 21 seats, Conference Chairman Mike Pence went so far as to urge members to cut their legislative staff to make room for communications aides.

Today, House Republicans point to growth in their communications departments. House Minority Leader John Boehner has added Antonia Ferrier, a former staffer for Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), to respond to White House issues, while House Minority Whip Eric Cantor has brought on veteran press operatives John Murray, Matt Lira and Brad Dayspring and rapid-responder Joe Pounder. Pence has doubled the size of the Conference office’s communications team.

Even nonleadership offices have been expanding their ranks, with rank-and-file lawmakers such as Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) and freshman Rep. Chris Lee (R-N.Y.) adding several press aides.

Perino, who since departing the White House has joined the public relations firm Burson-Marsteller, said the intensified communications effort is paying off, and she offered particular praise for the conference’s repeated mantra during the spring that the White House budget “taxes too much, spends too much and borrows too much.”

“The only way to get your message out is through earned media, and Republicans have to work it,” she said.

“I think they’re improving, and they’re starting to get a sense of how to attack in the next 18 months ahead of 2010,” said Fratto.

But aides concede there’s still a long way to go — and they say they have that in mind heading into this week’s confab. In one notable failure this spring, House Republicans held a much-hyped news conference on their alternative budget before aides had finished one. The result was a slew of bad press — and aides were left pointing fingers over who was to blame.

Democratic jabs aside, former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen, who will be speaking at the workshop, said the Bush vets had something important: experience in the rough-and-tumble world of electoral politics.

“The people they are bringing in have a lot of experience on campaigns,” Thiessen told POLITICO. “There’s a lot of lessons to be learned for future campaigns.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22054_Page1.html

Kelly

05-04-2009, 11:16 AM

Hope it was the Bush Aides that left early on.....

StorminNorman

05-04-2009, 12:07 PM

I see no reason why talking to Bush campaign minds is a bad idea.

I mean...they took a man who is as good at saying something stupid as Biden is, but (you know) actually won two national campaigns.

SuBe

05-04-2009, 12:08 PM

He also received much more than 9000 votes out of 130 Million +.

Marx

05-04-2009, 02:55 PM

CANTOR SAYS NEW GOP GROUP WON'T AVOID SOCIAL ISSUES
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/04/cantor-says-new-gop-group-wont-avoid-social-issues/

A driving force behind the new effort to renew the GOP's image denied Monday that the group is looking to avoid addressing social issues that excite the conservative base but can be off-putting for moderate and independent voters.

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia was joined at the group's town hall style kick off event Saturday by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

"During your meeting over the weekend, you didn't talk at all about abortion, gay marriage or immigration," American Morning's John Roberts said to Cantor Monday. "Those are three big Republican social issues. . . . Why were those issues left off the table?"

"The National Council for a New America is meant to be a wide-open policy debate," the Virginia Republican responded. "There is no exclusion about what we'll talk about, who can be involved.

StorminNorman

05-04-2009, 02:59 PM

At first I was going to bash Cantor based on the headline...reading it, though, it sounds more like he was avoiding the question. To me, thats a good sign.

Superman

05-04-2009, 03:33 PM

The thing is that the stunt worked 15 years ago and the biggest reason why they've lost badly over the past couple of years is because they essentially broke that contract they started in the 1990's.

Look past your rather irrational and absurd hatred of Republicans and you'd see that the Contract with America was very successful with the Republicans electoral history. It was what gave them control of Congress during the Clinton Adminstration.My point was it didn't work. If it had we wouldn't have the, As you called them, homophobic, evangelical, dickwads we have today.

It might have looked good on paper but so did communism and we all know how well that worked out once people got involed. It's the same with the "Contract with America" and the republicans. The "Contract" just opend the door for the homophobic, evangelical, dickwads to do whatever they wanted once they got the power to put the "Contract" into action which in the end gave us Bush and the last 8 years.

It might have been "very successful" getting Republicans voted into office but the republicans that got into office were the same homophobic, evangelical, dickwads we have today.

We don't need more of the same crap we've had for the past 10+ years.

StorminNorman

05-04-2009, 03:46 PM

My point was it didn't work. If it had we wouldn't have the, As you called them, homophobic, evangelical, dickwads we have today.

Your point is wrong. The Republicans rode the "contract" to controlling congress. Just because Republicans broke that contract 10 years later means little. One of the biggest factors to the death of the GOP was not America changing - but the GOP changing. When the Republican Party continued to fail in addressing government spending and illegal immigration - conservatives lost faith in the party.

VampElvis

05-04-2009, 03:50 PM

Your point is wrong. The Republicans rode the "contract" to controlling congress. Just because Republicans broke that contract 10 years later means little. One of the biggest factors to the death of the GOP was not America changing - but the GOP changing. When the Republican Party continued to fail in addressing government spending and illegal immigration - conservatives lost faith in the party.
:up:
You got it right - the party left the ideals of their people.

Kelly

05-04-2009, 04:55 PM

The Republican Party has forgotten a very large population of this country. That is the urban population. Some may not like Jack Kemp's policy, but he got that.....he understood how important the urban populace is....he didn't forget African Americans, he didn't forget the youth of America, IMO, that is where the Republican Party as sorely lost, and some Bush Aides are not going to help them find that, they have to legitimately find it on their own, not something contrived and fake.

hippie_hunter

05-04-2009, 06:38 PM

My point was it didn't work. If it had we wouldn't have the, As you called them, homophobic, evangelical, dickwads we have today.

It might have looked good on paper but so did communism and we all know how well that worked out once people got involed. It's the same with the "Contract with America" and the republicans. The "Contract" just opend the door for the homophobic, evangelical, dickwads to do whatever they wanted once they got the power to put the "Contract" into action which in the end gave us Bush and the last 8 years.

It might have been "very successful" getting Republicans voted into office but the republicans that got into office were the same homophobic, evangelical, dickwads we have today.

We don't need more of the same crap we've had for the past 10+ years.

Your point is wrong. The Republicans rode the "contract" to controlling congress. Just because Republicans broke that contract 10 years later means little. One of the biggest factors to the death of the GOP was not America changing - but the GOP changing. When the Republican Party continued to fail in addressing government spending and illegal immigration - conservatives lost faith in the party.

Pretty much what Norman said. The Contract with America was very successful for the Republicans, regardless of what your hatred of the Republican Party tells you.