 |
| Moderated by: Wingie, VT-R, Terry, S., nNeo, mb, Lynne, kC, Heel, Freaks1932, dcbl, D |
|
|
| Author | Post |
|---|
Philly Rabbit
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | Middle Class, USA |
| Posts: | 4124 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 12:39 pm |
|
tom_in_sac wrote: dwsstlouis wrote: The far right would and does take exception to many of my stands.
I've seen that, and I don't regard you as any purist.
In all honesty, the reason my posts on the subject of Palin and ideological purity have the bite they do is that this phenomenon of outsiders insinuating themselves into each and every district to purge the moderates is so destructive and so threatening. The last thing we need right now is a bunch of rampaging Bible-thumping ideologues ripping up the party and the perception of conservatism from within. If anything, the GOP should partner with the Libertarians and the Blue Dogs for the sake of maintaining our nation as a sovereign (i.e., not internationalist) free market economy.
You progressive type liberal Republicans can't win without conservatives ... it's impossible.
... and I include all the goodie two shoes turn the other cheek Christians .. whom you describe as Bible thumpers.
What you and your associates should all do is head straight for the Democratic party and put up stakes there and stay there.
.......... or keep supporting loser third party candidates.
Conservative America .. represented and led like that great patriot himself, Philly Rabbit (As I point to his portrait hanging on the wall ... him dressed in his blue Continental Army general's uniform complete with powered wig.) and only Conservative America can give the American people a clear choice between collectivism and progressive liberalism, the Democratic party or fiscal responsibility .. principle .. and smaller, limited government .. the Republican party.
The Republican party will be a conservative party .. and to hell with the wishy washy moderates and the lefty liberals or America will feature only a one party system under their influence and no real clear choice for the American people.
Last edited on Fri Nov 6th, 2009 12:41 pm by Philly Rabbit
|
Thoughtless
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 03:02 pm |
|
Philly Rabbit wrote: You progressive type liberal Republicans can't win without conservatives ... it's impossible.
It's impossible to win without at least half the votes.
The only chance that the GOP will have in 2012, would be with a candidate that can both unite the party, and attract independents.
Do you think Sarah Palin's going to do that?
|
dwsstlouis
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 700 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 03:25 pm |
|
Thoughtless wrote: tom_in_sac wrote: dwsstlouis wrote: The far right would and does take exception to many of my stands.
I've seen that, and I don't regard you as any purist.
In all honesty, the reason my posts on the subject of Palin and ideological purity have the bite they do is that this phenomenon of outsiders insinuating themselves into each and every district to purge the moderates is so destructive and so threatening. The last thing we need right now is a bunch of rampaging Bible-thumping ideologues ripping up the party and the perception of conservatism from within. If anything, the GOP should partner with the Libertarians and the Blue Dogs for the sake of maintaining our nation as a sovereign (i.e., not internationalist) free market economy.
That's the way I feel about all of this. To me, conservatism is about empowering the individual, then the local level, then state, then federal.
I don't like this idea of the party being run at the national level by a bunch of unelected D-Jays and publicity hounds.
Nor do I, and I'm well on the record as such. But I never really got that Palin was a rampaging Bible thumper. When social issues were broached she gave the safe, pat moderate answer: let the states decide - the very response that has long been accepted among establishment republicans. Now I would rather she have stated outright that the government at any level has no business in certain matters, but how many "acceptable" or moderate republicans say that? None - they are mindful of the religious among their party and so is Palin.
I get the distinct impression that she was attacked for merely living her faith (in not aborting a known special needs kid and being frank about her particular flavor of spiritualism), not promoting it or social con issues. And then they jumped her for what her teenage daughter did and somehow made her responsible. I've had two teenagers - I'm not repsonsible for anything they did. Why should she be?
The instances in which she got involved recently as an "unelected D-Jay" or publicity hound helped delay or damage a health care bill we should all hate and prevent a pro cap and trade republican from getting into office. Dirty tricks? Calculated language? Manipulation...fear tactics? Maybe. But also simply politics - it's dirty most of the time on either side. This piece is what the thread is really about, isn't it? She aided (or tried to) in preventing a liberal republican from getting into office. One who voted for cap and trade. This does not bother me as I'm not a fan of anyone who would vote for such a bill.
Is this what troubles you or is more the theocratic threat?
Absolutely partner with like minds on any side - but I never meant to exclude one who is of the same mind just because she has personal convictions in her own life - not yours or mine.
I guess I must have missed something, but I thought I was paying close attention. Is there something out there that would reasonably lead one to believe Palin truly has theocratic leanings?
|
Thoughtless
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 09:06 pm |
|
dwsstlouis wrote: Thoughtless wrote: tom_in_sac wrote: dwsstlouis wrote: The far right would and does take exception to many of my stands.
I've seen that, and I don't regard you as any purist.
In all honesty, the reason my posts on the subject of Palin and ideological purity have the bite they do is that this phenomenon of outsiders insinuating themselves into each and every district to purge the moderates is so destructive and so threatening. The last thing we need right now is a bunch of rampaging Bible-thumping ideologues ripping up the party and the perception of conservatism from within. If anything, the GOP should partner with the Libertarians and the Blue Dogs for the sake of maintaining our nation as a sovereign (i.e., not internationalist) free market economy.
That's the way I feel about all of this. To me, conservatism is about empowering the individual, then the local level, then state, then federal.
I don't like this idea of the party being run at the national level by a bunch of unelected D-Jays and publicity hounds.
Nor do I, and I'm well on the record as such. But I never really got that Palin was a rampaging Bible thumper. When social issues were broached she gave the safe, pat moderate answer: let the states decide - the very response that has long been accepted among establishment republicans. Now I would rather she have stated outright that the government at any level has no business in certain matters, but how many "acceptable" or moderate republicans say that? None - they are mindful of the religious among their party and so is Palin.
I get the distinct impression that she was attacked for merely living her faith (in not aborting a known special needs kid and being frank about her particular flavor of spiritualism), not promoting it or social con issues. And then they jumped her for what her teenage daughter did and somehow made her responsible. I've had two teenagers - I'm not repsonsible for anything they did. Why should she be?
The instances in which she got involved recently as an "unelected D-Jay" or publicity hound helped delay or damage a health care bill we should all hate and prevent a pro cap and trade republican from getting into office. Dirty tricks? Calculated language? Manipulation...fear tactics? Maybe. But also simply politics - it's dirty most of the time on either side. This piece is what the thread is really about, isn't it? She aided (or tried to) in preventing a liberal republican from getting into office. One who voted for cap and trade. This does not bother me as I'm not a fan of anyone who would vote for such a bill.
Is this what troubles you or is more the theocratic threat?
Absolutely partner with like minds on any side - but I never meant to exclude one who is of the same mind just because she has personal convictions in her own life - not yours or mine.
I guess I must have missed something, but I thought I was paying close attention. Is there something out there that would reasonably lead one to believe Palin truly has theocratic leanings?
I don't understand why just about every Palin supporter, considers her support, or lack of it, as a referendum on her religious faith, and the moral path of America.
Heck, there's all kinds of political candidates I don't like, and I've got no idea what religion most of them practice, and could care less.
Palin just doesn't push my buttons. I thought the speech she made at the convention was pretty good, and she did better then expected, in the VP debate. But good grief, we get to choose the best person for the job, and I think we could do better - a lot better.
It doesn't matter how many times you say she has "extensive executive experience" because everybody knows she's a greenhorn. It doesn't matter how many times you say she has "red-blooded American values", if you can't articulate how that's going to fix the economy, end the wars, and balance the budget.
She just doesn't seem very bright to me. She's probably much smarter then I give her credit for, but I've got that same uneasy feeling about her intelligence, that I had about George Bush a few years ago. That didn't work out so well, and I'm pretty cautious about putting another dumbass into office.
|
tom_in_sac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | Sacramento, CA |
| Posts: | 2027 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 8th, 2009 01:32 am |
|
A couple of points to clarify:
1) The "rampaging Bible-thumping ideologues" riff was just a container for labels like religious conservative, conservative social activist and general far-right purist. It wasn't to imply, though, that each is a member of every label. So that's what I get for labeling.
2) Palin doesn't need to be any of those things to be ill-suited for office, she just is ill-suited for office. I say again, the focus on her as anything like a realistic candidate is bad for conservatives, bad for the GOP and bad for the US. That focus is just what the left-biased media wants, because it's a source of controversy (good for their business) and a way of making conservatives look bad.
And Philly, I don't know if you need to stop with the meds or up the dosage, but the independents plus the liberals are sufficient to keep Obama in office in 2012, and they're sufficient to keep Congress in the hands of the Dems. Or, if the independents side with conservatives and moderate conservatives, then we can get back Congress and the White House. It really is that simple, we've seen it now election after election, we see it in the distribution of registered Dems versus registered Republicans. That anyone manages to not get that implies some kind of damage, as far as I'm concerned.
|
Tsalagi1
Member
|
Posted: Sun Nov 8th, 2009 10:09 am |
|
| It's simple numbers people...they have more...the Dems and Reps atypically control at least 33% of the voting electorate..with a middle portion of "Swing Voters", these people control of elections has been a mainstay of American politics for decades.
|
Thoughtless
Member
|
Posted: Sun Nov 8th, 2009 04:21 pm |
|
tom_in_sac wrote:
And Philly, I don't know if you need to stop with the meds or up the dosage, but the independents plus the liberals are sufficient to keep Obama in office in 2012, and they're sufficient to keep Congress in the hands of the Dems.
That's even a bit of an understatement, tom. Democrats outnumber us to the point that they can maintain control, even with a little less than half the independent vote.
|
tom_in_sac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | Sacramento, CA |
| Posts: | 2027 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 8th, 2009 07:43 pm |
|
Thoughtless wrote: That's even a bit of an understatement, tom. Democrats outnumber us to the point that they can maintain control, even with a little less than half the independent vote.
I believe you're right. I think the national electorate splits about the same way as it does in California, ~45% Dem, ~35% GOP and ~20% independent. Those numbers would lead to the conclusion than if the Dems could get all the independents, they'd have a super-majority. However, I suspect that among the independents there are more people who normally vote GOP than there are that normally vote Democrat, which might be all that saves us from a 65% Dem Congress.
If all that is correct, then it isn't fiscal conservatives that need the social activist/conservatives, it's the social conservatives that need us, which makes some of the textual incontinence from the hard right all the more galling.
Last edited on Sun Nov 8th, 2009 07:44 pm by tom_in_sac
|
Thoughtless
Member
|
Posted: Sun Nov 8th, 2009 09:26 pm |
|
tom_in_sac wrote: Thoughtless wrote: That's even a bit of an understatement, tom. Democrats outnumber us to the point that they can maintain control, even with a little less than half the independent vote.
I believe you're right. I think the national electorate splits about the same way as it does in California, ~45% Dem, ~35% GOP and ~20% independent. Those numbers would lead to the conclusion than if the Dems could get all the independents, they'd have a super-majority. However, I suspect that among the independents there are more people who normally vote GOP than there are that normally vote Democrat, which might be all that saves us from a 65% Dem Congress.
If all that is correct, then it isn't fiscal conservatives that need the social activist/conservatives, it's the social conservatives that need us, which makes some of the textual incontinence from the hard right all the more galling.
Well, the McCain campaign knew they had to get around 60% of the independent vote to win. They didn't, and, well, they didn't.
But this thing with the right wingers is just nuts. How in the world, that 20% of the voters, think they can win, by telling the other 80% to go the hell, is beyond me.
|
Tsalagi1
Member
|
Posted: Sun Nov 8th, 2009 09:29 pm |
|
Thoughtless wrote: tom_in_sac wrote: Thoughtless wrote: That's even a bit of an understatement, tom. Democrats outnumber us to the point that they can maintain control, even with a little less than half the independent vote.
I believe you're right. I think the national electorate splits about the same way as it does in California, ~45% Dem, ~35% GOP and ~20% independent. Those numbers would lead to the conclusion than if the Dems could get all the independents, they'd have a super-majority. However, I suspect that among the independents there are more people who normally vote GOP than there are that normally vote Democrat, which might be all that saves us from a 65% Dem Congress.
If all that is correct, then it isn't fiscal conservatives that need the social activist/conservatives, it's the social conservatives that need us, which makes some of the textual incontinence from the hard right all the more galling.
Well, the McCain campaign knew they had to get around 60% of the independent vote to win. They didn't, and, well, they didn't.
But this thing with the right wingers is just nuts. How in the world, that 20% of the voters, think they can win, by telling the other 80% to go the hell, is beyond me.
They think they can do it because they believe they are the 80% and we are the 20%.
|
tom_in_sac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | Sacramento, CA |
| Posts: | 2027 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 01:50 am |
|
Tsalagi1 wrote: They think they can do it because they believe they are the 80% and we are the 20%.
Right, and they're all going to Heaven and they'll all have a pony there.
|
Super Cat
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jul 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | Basilissa Gata, USA |
| Posts: | 27830 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 02:16 am |
|
I think the national electorate splits about the same way as it does in California, ~45% Dem, ~35% GOP and ~20% independent
Nah, you're just in a far-left state and projecting that enviroment on the rest of the nation. I'd probably feel the same if I was in Cali.
|
tom_in_sac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | Sacramento, CA |
| Posts: | 2027 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 02:27 am |
|
An honest person would supply a citation. So, between the two of us, I guess it's up to me to find that cite.
[Edit to add: found it, if I may use Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_political_party#Democratic_Party]
Last edited on Mon Nov 9th, 2009 02:30 am by tom_in_sac
|
Super Cat
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jul 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | Basilissa Gata, USA |
| Posts: | 27830 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 02:56 am |
|
tom_in_sac wrote: An honest person would supply a citation. So, between the two of us, I guess it's up to me to find that cite.
[Edit to add: found it, if I may use Wikipedia ]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_political_party#Democratic_Party]
Wiki isn't a citation itself, it's a summary of a particular subject that catalogues citations (often times using ghastly sources with the credibility of a used-car salesman, hence why most academic institutions won't allow students to use it in reports.) Realizing this, I went to the actual source for your contention:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/neuharth/2004-01-22-neuharth_x.htm
2004. Even with the aforementioned numbers, Bush won. Really, your article simply reinforces what I've always suspected: Party allegiance means nothing if the base isn't motivated to go out and vote, something this week's elections exhibited wonderfully.
|
tom_in_sac
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | Sacramento, CA |
| Posts: | 2027 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 03:15 am |
|
Super Cat wrote: 2004.
If you've accepted the numbers, then my original point stands, any nit-picking on Wikipedia notwithstanding. An honest person would admit when someone else is as close to correct as I was and am.
Even with the aforementioned numbers, Bush won.
Two words: so what? That doesn't in any way excuse, let alone support, let alone motivate, the insanity of purging of moderate conservatives or Libertarians from the ranks of the GOP. And yet, we hear that, explicitly, from certain blunderheads here, who also, by the way, use the pejoritive "liberal" to describe GOP moderates. An honest person might admit that, especially after calling for moderator intervention on the basis of name-calling.
Really, your article simply reinforces what I've always suspected: Party allegiance means nothing if the base isn't motivated to go out and vote,
Nonsense. If that base is small enough, it's meaningless. People of the political bent you appear to defend (or be) constitute a very narrow (ahem!) portion of the electorate, and it's getting narrower, just like the "thinking" behind this purge business. The trend, in case you missed it, is against social/evangelical conservatism and it has been for decades. An honest observer will see that.
something this week's elections exhibited wonderfully
Possibly. We'll know better, on a more national basis, next year. With any luck, the purging teabaggers won't wreck our chances of preventing the Dems and their own radical agenda-pushers from getting that super-majority they covet.
Last edited on Mon Nov 9th, 2009 03:17 am by tom_in_sac
|
Super Cat
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jul 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | Basilissa Gata, USA |
| Posts: | 27830 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 05:19 am |
|
If you've accepted the numbers, then my original point stands, any nit-picking on Wikipedia notwithstanding. An honest person would admit when someone else is as close to correct as I was and am.
Well, firstly, I haven't accepted your numbers as they're 5 years outdated. Secondly, my chastising you for using wiki has more to do with your horrid research methods than wiki itself, which are magnificently ironic in light of your comments regarding honesty. I've no problem with your casual approach to sourcing, as erroneous and quasi-deceptive claims are a commodity in the world of political exchange. You should try a bit harder to pull one over on me, though, next time.
Two words: so what?
So there.
That doesn't in any way excuse, let alone support, let alone motivate, the insanity of purging of moderate conservatives or Libertarians from the ranks of the GOP
Why would the goldsmith need an excuse for purifying ore?
certain blunderheads here (...) name-calling.
Nonsense. If that base is small enough, it's meaningless.
Mhmm, it was certainly meaningless in Jersey and Virginia.
The trend, in case you missed it, is against social/evangelical conservatism and it has been for decades. An honest observer will see that.
Carter ---> Reagan. Clinton ---> Bush. Obama ---> Tuesday.
Just some honest observations, sir.
With any luck, the purging teabaggers won't wreck our chances of preventing the Dems and their own radical agenda-pushers from getting that super-majority they covet.
We've already done a splendid job of that by nominating moderate McCain. Moving the party to the left has proven repeatedly to be a failed strategy. That we should continue doing so to appease those left-of-center Republicans who view their community as a microcosm of the greater nation doesn't seem reasonable, especially when they live in areas that have a history of voting Democrat anyway. Far better to consolidate the more dependable base and provide a solid platform that will attract and motivate voters, no? We could always try being acerbic douchebags who find it difficult to make it through one post without referencing rectums and delight in the prospect of assailing those on their side of the political spectrum for maintaining values that might run afoul of current cultural trends...but that seems like it would be a miserable existence 
Anyways, got some current numbers, circa 2009, dear?
|
Philly Rabbit
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | Middle Class, USA |
| Posts: | 4124 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 11:32 am |
|
tom_in_sac wrote: Tsalagi1 wrote: They think they can do it because they believe they are the 80% and we are the 20%.
Right, and they're all going to Heaven and they'll all have a pony there.
Why do you and thoughtless immediately think that the independents are all liberal minded and secular like the two of you? There's no proof of this despite all your stats. The independents will vote for the Republicans if the Republicans give them better ideas and better solutions to the country's problems than the Democrats do.
The independents aren't hung up on the country's white Christian element and they're not all sitting around out here complaining about the middle class ruining the country.
The independents will welcome a conservative alternative to the Democrats which would be a conservative Republican party that offers them conservative principles and alternative ideas and solutions not a party that mimics the Democrats that adopts Democratic social engineering measures aka - social liberalism and a softer, lighter version of economic liberalism and cooperate globalism.
The Republicans have tried it your way with this big tent strategy and it's been a big failure. The tent is empty .. Colin Powell is gone .. Lieberman wont join .. Arlen Specter is gone .. it's been a flop.
The American people aren't going to buy a Chevy .. which is what the Republicans have been offering them in the form of liberalism if they can have a Cadillac for the same price.
|
Thoughtless
Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 02:09 pm |
|
Philly Rabbit wrote: tom_in_sac wrote: Tsalagi1 wrote: They think they can do it because they believe they are the 80% and we are the 20%.
Right, and they're all going to Heaven and they'll all have a pony there.
Why do you and thoughtless immediately think that the independents are all liberal minded and secular like the two of you? There's no proof of this despite all your stats. The independents will vote for the Republicans if the Republicans give them better ideas and better solutions to the country's problems than the Democrats do.
The independents aren't hung up on the country's white Christian element and they're not all sitting around out here complaining about the middle class ruining the country.
The independents will welcome a conservative alternative to the Democrats which would be a conservative Republican party that offers them conservative principles and alternative ideas and solutions not a party that mimics the Democrats that adopts Democratic social engineering measures aka - social liberalism and a softer, lighter version of economic liberalism and cooperate globalism.
The Republicans have tried it your way with this big tent strategy and it's been a big failure. The tent is empty .. Colin Powell is gone .. Lieberman wont join .. Arlen Specter is gone .. it's been a flop.
The American people aren't going to buy a Chevy .. which is what the Republicans have been offering them in the form of liberalism if they can have a Cadillac for the same price.
Actually Philly, you're a little bit correct on this one (take that as a compliment).
Independents have become more conservative in recent years, as we have purged educated professionals, business people and all of New England from the GOP (that would include your college boy fraternity types).
Independents are younger now as well, as young people coming of age find they have little in common, with either political party. The Democrats offer them a lifetime of debt, but since young people today are lazy spoiled brats, and we wouldn't want them voting for our guys either.
So the current strategy is to concentrate on making the core happy, and pretend the core knows what the hell they're doing, like the Democrats did with George McGovern.
|
nNeo
Moderator/DJ
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 02:10 pm |
|
Philly Rabbit wrote: The independents will vote for the Republicans if the Republicans give them better ideas and better solutions to the country's problems than the Democrats do.
We have a winner.
Everyone please print that out & tack it to your wall.
|
dwsstlouis
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 700 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 02:22 pm |
|
tom_in_sac wrote: Tsalagi1 wrote: They think they can do it because they believe they are the 80% and we are the 20%.
Right, and they're all going to Heaven and they'll all have a pony there.
While "they" might be a matter of some legitimate debate, I believe there is considerable confusion concerning who "they" really are.
If you refer to Dobsonian, Falwellian, Schlafliest theocrats; 20% is probably a fair number. However if you refer to all the folks who are itching to veer right, I have to believe the numbers are far greater. These are the folks who do not have a particular religious zeal or desire to control the behavior of others, but kind of have this Good Orderly Direction kinda thing happening. A historical, comforting, common, right and wrong set of sensibilities that is regularly assaulted and offended by the left. It is more concerned with issues like crime and punishment, defense, fiscal discipline, the economy etc. Not the typical social con issues of gays and abortion. They are to the right of moderate and left of far right. And they play well with independents.
That said, where is this purge talk coming from? NY23? If so, didn't they (the Fox Far Right) simply oust a liberal republican who voted for cap and trade? Might as well put a democrat in and send a message if the republican would have voted similarly....right?
I still understand and share the concern of letting far right social cons run wild - but is it really necessary to continually offend the garden variety, moderate people of faith? 'Cause that's a lot of people.
Balance, baby, balance. And since this sarted as a refendum on Palin; do you have a problem with her helping to thwart the health care measures which we all oppose? Or working to shut down a cap and trade liberal despite party affiliation?
|
Current time is 08:31 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6   |
|
|
|
|
