|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:53 am
 |
|
|
 |
Lord Bitememan Palin does not have her finger on the pulse of this nation, just the pulse of conservatives. Case in point, the NY 23 race. She backed a 3rd party candidate, Hoffman, over the Republican in the race, Dede Scozzafava. She killed the Republican's campaign. The result? The district now has a Democratic rep. This woman is too far outside the mainstream, and would be a disaster for the GOP.
Scozzafava was a RINO. After her speech about dropping out and doing what's right for the Republican party she then endorsed the Democrat she was running against. Third party isn't ideal, I dread it in fact since it dilutes votes, but considering this was New York and the Scozzafava would have backed everything Obama, Reid and Pelosi wanted, I don't see this particular race lost because of a third party candidate. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:32 am
|
|
|
|
Latopazora Well, even if Obama were to win the 2012 election, would it mattered if he were surrounded by a Republican congress? If the democrats lost the house, Obama is a lame duck. All he can do is veto, but even then, vetoes can be overridden.
And my point is this self-destructive ideological purge the party is undergoing will guarantee that you won't have a Republican congress anytime soon. After Dede dropped out Michele Malkin actually put out a list of moderates for groups like Club for Growth to go purge. How do you think that's going to pan out given that the last tea-bag backed purge led to a Democrat winning the seat. Political parties are broad coalitions because they exist to do one thing above all else; win elections. This stupid purge that Club for Growth and it's newfound tea-bag allies have been engaged in hasn't done this. Just take a look at Club for Growth's track record since 2006. They kicked out Joe Schwartz in MI. That led to an eventual Democratic takeover of that seat. They kicked out Wayne Gilchirst in MD. That led to a Democratic takeover of that seat. Now you have the takeover of NY 23. This strategy is LOSING! And you don't retake Congress by losing elections.
Latopazora Lord Bitememan Palin does not have her finger on the pulse of this nation, just the pulse of conservatives. Case in point, the NY 23 race. She backed a 3rd party candidate, Hoffman, over the Republican in the race, Dede Scozzafava. She killed the Republican's campaign. The result? The district now has a Democratic rep. This woman is too far outside the mainstream, and would be a disaster for the GOP. edit: I heard the results, Bill Owens won. But to be fair, he probably would've won anyway.
That's not so. Owens was basically picked as a sacrificial lamb because the district was written off as a Republican given. Actually, nobody really wanted this district because the state legislature is slated to carve it up and parcel it out during redistricting. Dede was chosen in part because of years of service to the local party, in part because she had good name recognition, and in part because she agreed to take the job after several others had passed it over. The local party determined that Hoffman wasn't a good fit for the district, and before this race got huge national attention Scozzafava was actually leading in the polls. Siena, the agency that did the most consistent polling of the district, showed Scozzafava with the lead as late as the end of Sept. When Palin and crowd decided it was purge time and shifted the balance in October that was when momentum shifted Owens way. Siena, though, was not alone is showing this. Two other polling agencies as far back as late August also showed Scozzafava with the lead. This was a Republican district that was thrown away by the purity police and their foolish crusade to kick out people that don't agree with them.
Mythspeak Lord Bitememan Palin does not have her finger on the pulse of this nation, just the pulse of conservatives. Case in point, the NY 23 race. She backed a 3rd party candidate, Hoffman, over the Republican in the race, Dede Scozzafava. She killed the Republican's campaign. The result? The district now has a Democratic rep. This woman is too far outside the mainstream, and would be a disaster for the GOP. Scozzafava was a RINO. After her speech about dropping out and doing what's right for the Republican party she then endorsed the Democrat she was running against. Third party isn't ideal, I dread it in fact since it dilutes votes, but considering this was New York and the Scozzafava would have backed everything Obama, Reid and Pelosi wanted, I don't see this particular race lost because of a third party candidate.
Dede Scozzafava had the endorsement of the NRA and would have caucused with the Republican party, she was far from a liberal rubber stamp. But guess what you ended up with because you couldn't tolerate a "RINO," you ended up with a Democrat who IS going to caucus with the Democrats and rubber stamp Obama's agenda. But do you want to know who the real "RINOs" in the race were? They were the ones who backed Hoffman over the Republican in the race. If these RINOs hadn't done this the Republican would have won. Instead they opted for a small tent party of like minded people that lost in the end.
You need to let this sink in. Only 40% of the population identiifies themselves as conservatives. The other largest body of the population is the 35% who consider themselves moderates. You cannot build a national majority out of only 40% of the population while excluding every other part of the 60% who don't see eye to eye with you. You have to include some portion of moderates, and to do that you are going to have to offer them some sort of role in the party. If the only role you can offer them is "do as we say, don't ever disagree, or if you do don't ever act on those disagreements" then you can expect a generation of Democratic dominance in government. You don't like when the Republican in the race is too left-leaning? You think you can go to a conservative 3rd party in response? Good. Do it. Because moderates can go somewhere else; to the Democrats. And I want this to sink in well for you. I have been with the GOP since 1996, before I could even vote. I took a sabbatical from university to work for Bush's 2000 campaign. I have worked for congressional and gubernatorial campaigns in this state plenty of times. When Dede Scozzafava was forced from the race in favor of a narrow-minded and exclusive tea-party oriented GOP, I officially changed my party affiliation to the Democrats. It will remain there through 2010. I hope this approach you want to adopt garners you at least 3 voters you didn't have before, because the formula for offsetting a defection to turn it into an advantage is two times the loss plus one. And I know I'm not the only ex-GOPer to defect over this. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:42 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:46 am
|
|
|
|
Lord Bitememan Dede Scozzafava had the endorsement of the NRA and would have caucused with the Republican party, she was far from a liberal rubber stamp. But guess what you ended up with because you couldn't tolerate a "RINO," you ended up with a Democrat who IS going to caucus with the Democrats and rubber stamp Obama's agenda. But do you want to know who the real "RINOs" in the race were? They were the ones who backed Hoffman over the Republican in the race. If these RINOs hadn't done this the Republican would have won. Instead they opted for a small tent party of like minded people that lost in the end. You need to let this sink in. Only 40% of the population identiifies themselves as conservatives. The other largest body of the population is the 35% who consider themselves moderates. You cannot build a national majority out of only 40% of the population while excluding every other part of the 60% who don't see eye to eye with you. You have to include some portion of moderates, and to do that you are going to have to offer them some sort of role in the party. If the only role you can offer them is "do as we say, don't ever disagree, or if you do don't ever act on those disagreements" then you can expect a generation of Democratic dominance in government. You don't like when the Republican in the race is too left-leaning? You think you can go to a conservative 3rd party in response? Good. Do it. Because moderates can go somewhere else; to the Democrats. And I want this to sink in well for you. I have been with the GOP since 1996, before I could even vote. I took a sabbatical from university to work for Bush's 2000 campaign. I have worked for congressional and gubernatorial campaigns in this state plenty of times. When Dede Scozzafava was forced from the race in favor of a narrow-minded and exclusive tea-party oriented GOP, I officially changed my party affiliation to the Democrats. It will remain there through 2010. I hope this approach you want to adopt garners you at least 3 voters you didn't have before, because the formula for offsetting a defection to turn it into an advantage is two times the loss plus one. And I know I'm not the only ex-GOPer to defect over this.
I disagree. Dede would have been a rubber stamp for Obama's agenda. Although the Second Amendment is important, her stance on it hardly makes up for all her other stances. There's little point in electing a Republican to Congress if that Republican backs 99% of everything Democrats try to pass.
As to your straw-man argument about being more inclusive: Inclusiveness is fine, and in actuality the Republican party IS inclusive, far more so than the Democratic party. You can be a leader in the Republican party and not be religious, nor be pro-life, or even be for larger government. On the Democratic side it's far less likely to be pro-choice, or very religious or be for smaller government and still be in a leadership position.
The mistake you, and many others make, is believing the AP and other media who labels any Republican. or Republicans in general, as extremists, partisan or being non-inclusive when they simply stand for conservative values. The problem with the Republican party, aside from listening to media, is failing on the PR front. Republicans always start with a negative in the public arena due to many factors - one being modern education teaching from day one that all Democrats are good and all Republicans are greedy power-mongers who want to hurt children and anyone who isn't white.
I've been into politics for a long time, and I used to think the same as you about being m ore inclusive, but years of watching bias in the media and the way Democrats in general operate changed my mind. Take McCain for an example - very few Republicans are as far Left as he, or if they are they hide it better. In fact you can't be much farther Left than McCain without ending up being Lieberman. McCain bent over backwards to work with Dems and had a long history of doing so. By your logic he should have been the ideal candidate for the Republican party. He wasn't though. A majority of Republicans didn't vote for McCain, they instead voted against Obama. A small minority of Democrats voted for McCain. By your logic Independents should have flocked to McCain and a significant minority of Democrats should have liked him too. His only negative to the Left was a pro-war strong defense stance.
The reality is the Left in general want America to change, think America is unfair and racist, and wants equality economically - so much so that most border on Socialism when it comes to money. The Republicans should not embrace anti-American ideals to attract more from the Left, and as we've all seen Independents will vote for strong Republican values when the candidate is likable. Independents are easily swayed by appearance and media opinion.
The answer for Republicans isn't to abandon the values that party has held dear for so long, the answer is to start seeing the media and schools as the battlegrounds they already are. For too long Republicans have ignored the garbage being taught to students and for too long Republicans haven't been actively trying to get people into the media or even using the media to their full potential. Until Republicans actually try fighting for their values on all fronts, especially academically, they will continue to start off with a negative for 60% of the population and be the boogieman used to scare children and senior citizens.
PS Maybe only 40% of the population consider themselves Conservative, but only 20% consider themselves Liberal. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:01 am
|
|
|
|
Latopazora So we have two dysfunctional parties, the republicans who exclude and the democrats who pay lip service, then?
What do you want? We have a two party catch-all system. If you want a small party coalition system move to Canada or Europe. They're really big on small ideologically pure parties. In the US we have an SMP district system and the only way to win is to create coalitions of voters, not coalitions of parties. This is a diverse nation of 300 million people. What works as mainstream in Alabama doesn't work in Minnesota. Parties that succeed need to be able to compete in both and accommodate the disparate interests. The GOP isn't doing that right now and it's LOSING! Don't let the results of the gubernatorial races last night cloud you from this fact, the net effect of the elections last night was to increase the congressional majority of the Democrats.
Mythspeak Lord Bitememan I disagree. Dede would have been a rubber stamp for Obama's agenda. Although the Second Amendment is important, her stance on it hardly makes up for all her other stances. There's little point in electing a Republican to Congress if that Republican backs 99% of everything Democrats try to pass. Now where in the hell are you getting that number from? The principle disagreements she had were on abortion, gay marriage, and the stimulus. That's it. Beyond that she had the endorsement of the NRA and the local party, some of whom must have felt she was Republican enough for them. It wasn't until that nitwit Palin got involved that everyone concluded she was all that liberal. Quote: As to your straw-man argument about being more inclusive: You need to research logical fallacies before you try to avail yourself of them. A strawman is when you attack an argument that wasn't made. I did not do that. When you try to pull that out when you weren't truly hit with a strawman you make your own arguments look far weaker. Quote: Inclusiveness is fine, and in actuality the Republican party IS inclusive, far more so than the Democratic party. You can be a leader in the Republican party and not be religious, nor be pro-life, or even be for larger government. What a load of crap. Everything you described is precisely what everyone pissed and cried about with Scozzafava. If what you were saying was true there wouldn't have been a problem with running her in the district. Quote: On the Democratic side it's far less likely to be pro-choice, or very religious or be for smaller government and still be in a leadership position. Hoyer, the majority leader, is a foreign policy hawk, as is Rahm Emmanuel. Howard Dean was a balanced budget advocate and was endorsed numerous times by the NRA. Harry Reid takes a more middling position on abortion, believing it should be legal only in certain instances, and opposes same-sex marriage (he voted for DOMA). It looks to me like it's not that the Democrats are less inclusive, just that your reading into them is far less thorough. Quote: The mistake you, and many others make, is believing the AP and other media who labels any Republican. or Republicans in general, as extremists, partisan or being non-inclusive when they simply stand for conservative values. It's you who makes the mistake of not differentiating between having principles and going to extraneous measures to stamp out disagreement. The track record of Club for Growth speaks for itself. It drives moderates out in their districts, runs these "pure conservative" candidates, those candidates lose, and Club for Growth still does it. Standing up for your principles is one thing, thrusting them on people, even if it means you lose, is another. That is what club for growth is doing and yes, it's extreme. Quote: The problem with the Republican party, aside from listening to media, is failing on the PR front. Republicans always start with a negative in the public arena due to many factors - one being modern education teaching from day one that all Democrats are good and all Republicans are greedy power-mongers who want to hurt children and anyone who isn't white. Prove it! Quote: I've been into politics for a long time, and I used to think the same as you about being m ore inclusive, but years of watching bias in the media and the way Democrats in general operate changed my mind. No, what happened was that Fox News came on air, and you started getting your biased news from the right rather than the left. Then, after 2008, they started spoonfeeding you idiots like Glenn Beck, and you swallowed happily. I know, because I watch Fox too. But, unlike most of the people here, I take what I hear with a grain of salt. Quote: Take McCain for an example - very few Republicans are as far Left as he, You have either done negligently little research on the voting record of John McCain, or you are a bald-faced liar. I'm going to go with option 1 and give you the benefit of the doubt. ACU gives McCain an 81 lifetime rating. That's to the right of even Richard Shelby of Alabama. What you're doing is parroting a lie that was spread by a couple POed special interests who were angry that McCain backed campaign finance reform. That's it. He votes largely with right to life, he was supported by the NRA, he's a defense hawk. Quote: or if they are they hide it better. In fact you can't be much farther Left than McCain without ending up being Lieberman. McCain bent over backwards to work with Dems and had a long history of doing so. So what? Isn't the GOP's biggest complaint now about how they wish the Democrats would work with them more on the health care bill? Representative governance is about working with other people, not just huddling together is a little exclusive smoke lodge and governing from there. Quote: By your logic he should have been the ideal candidate for the Republican party. He wasn't though. A majority of Republicans didn't vote for McCain, What the. . . how the hell do you even come to make an idiotic statement like that? John McCain got 59 million votes in 2008. It's about 3 million less than Bush got in 2004, but 9 million more than he got in 2000. If anything it represents a 95% retention rate of the Republican vote over the last performance, far from the "majority of Republicans" not voting for him. Quote: they instead voted against Obama. Again, so what? Any electoral coalition these days is a mish-mash of people voting for one guy or against the other. You don't honestly believe all of Bush's votes in 2000 were for Bush and not simply against Gore do you? Quote: A small minority of Democrats voted for McCain. By your logic Independents should have flocked to McCain and a significant minority of Democrats should have liked him too. His only negative to the Left was a pro-war strong defense stance. By your logic, Hoffman should have won NY 23. He lost. Would you like a genuine debate on the outcome of the 2008 election or would you like to exchange asinine platitudes for the next couple days? Quote: The reality is the Left in general want America to change, think America is unfair and racist, and wants equality economically - so much so that most border on Socialism when it comes to money. You have attitude surveys to back this up? Quote: The Republicans should not embrace anti-American ideals to attract more from the Left, So wait, it's anti-American to believe that people should be allowed to make reproductive choices, people's right to be in relationships with partners of their choosing should be personal and not roadblocked by government, and in an economic crisis government spending may have a role to help us get into prosperity? These are the issues that conservatives blew their wad over with Scozzafava, they have NOTHING to do with anti-Americanism. Quote: and as we've all seen Independents will vote for strong Republican values when the candidate is likable. Independents are easily swayed by appearance and media opinion. Independents will vote for ideological die-hards if those die-hards do their utmost to obscure the extremities of their politics. That's why figures like Obama and Bob McDonnell both won in Virginia. They kept the focus off their real beliefs and focused on issues much more close to a middle ground. Once they're open about those beliefs independents generally move away from them. That's why Obama's poll numbers tanked, McDonnell's will once he has to start governing, and Hoffman lost in NY 23 to a moderate Democrat. But the issue here isn't "independents." It's moderates. Moderates have principles and generally have to compromise on them because our political system only produces one extreme or the other. Conservatives have this myopic view that anyone not like them is a liberal. It's a stupid black and white view of the world that is responsible for chewing the GOP into the husk that it is today. Quote: The answer for Republicans isn't to abandon the values that party has held dear for so long, the answer is to start seeing the media and schools as the battlegrounds they already are. For too long Republicans have ignored the garbage being taught to students and for too long Republicans haven't been actively trying to get people into the media or even using the media to their full potential. Until Republicans actually try fighting for their values on all fronts, especially academically, they will continue to start off with a negative for 60% of the population and be the boogieman used to scare children and senior citizens. Been there, done that. The right has Fox News. This "liberal media" boogieman has been a dead rotting corpse for years. What you need to ask yourself, and you still haven't addressed, is what the role of people who aren't conservatives is to be in this party you envision. You really don't have an answer to that, and that's why the GOP is yesterday's news. Quote: PS Maybe only 40% of the population consider themselves Conservative, but only 20% consider themselves Liberal. And 35% of the country is moderate. You don't seem to get that. Not everyone who is not a conservative is a liberal or lacks convictions. The Dems realized this, and, guess what, 20% plus 35% is 55%, and it's a majority. If you can't include moderates, you will never erode that number. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:05 pm
|
|
|
|
Quote: I've been into politics for a long time, and I used to think the same as you about being m ore inclusive, but years of watching bias in the media and the way Democrats in general operate changed my mind.
Quote: No, what happened was that Fox News came on air, and you started getting your biased news from the right rather than the left. Then, after 2008, they started spoonfeeding you idiots like Glenn Beck, and you swallowed happily. I know, because I watch Fox too. But, unlike most of the people here, I take what I hear with a grain of salt.
Actually unlike you and your beliefs we do not have to take it with a grain of salt because Fox News is telling the truth and not hiding facts like the liberal media. Now are you talking about Fox News or the Commontators like Glenn Beck if so they also have Allen Combs and other Democrates, but were not going after them. This name calling people are doing against Republicans is an example on how the Democrates are, you do not see us doing this much do you?
Quote: Take McCain for an example - very few Republicans are as far Left as he,
Quote: You have either done negligently little research on the voting record of John McCain, or you are a bald-faced liar. I'm going to go with option 1 and give you the benefit of the doubt. ACU gives McCain an 81 lifetime rating. That's to the right of even Richard Shelby of Alabama. What you're doing is parroting a lie that was spread by a couple POed special interests who were angry that McCain backed campaign finance reform. That's it. He votes largely with right to life, he was supported by the NRA, he's a defense hawk.
Actually John McCain for the most part did lean too far left.
Quote: By your logic he should have been the ideal candidate for the Republican party. He wasn't though. A majority of Republicans didn't vote for McCain,
Quote: What the. . . how the hell do you even come to make an idiotic statement like that? John McCain got 59 million votes in 2008. It's about 3 million less than Bush got in 2004, but 9 million more than he got in 2000. If anything it represents a 95% retention rate of the Republican vote over the last performance, far from the "majority of Republicans" not voting for him.
We voted for the best of the two. We wanted a better conservative republican, but we did not have that. So yes we voted against Obama also. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:06 pm
|
|
|
|
Pumona Actually unlike you and your beliefs we do not have to take it with a grain of salt because Fox News is telling the truth and not hiding facts like the liberal media. Now are you talking about Fox News or the Commontators like Glenn Beck if so they also have Allen Combs and other Democrates, but were not going after them. This name calling people are doing against Republicans is an example on how the Democrates are, you do not see us doing this much do you?
Yes, you do. Take, for example, Rush Limbaugh's "beastiality" comment about Scozzafava. And it's the tea bag movement screaming "socialist" at the top of their lungs, despite having no clear demonstrable grasp of the concept. So, yeah, the right is name calling too.
Quote: Actually John McCain for the most part did lean too far left.
No, he didn't. I provided a detailed explanation of how he didn't. Using the qualifier "actually" without a single corroborating detail doesn't make what you said in the slightest factual.
Quote: We voted for the best of the two. We wanted a better conservative republican, but we did not have that. So yes we voted against Obama also.
And why the hell couldn't you come up with one? It's not like the Republican primaries are replete with open contests. Most of them are closed contests for registered Republicans, which supposedly means "true conservatives." Sorry, your boys all flubbed. Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter couldn't get enough money out of all those "true conservatives" out there to make it to a single primary. When Fred Thompson did make it to a few hardly any of you "true conservatives" bothered to vote for him. Romney got people voting for him. Huckabee got people voting for him. McCain got people voting for him. If you were all so gung-ho about the "true conservatives" in the race how come you all couldn't be bothered to flood the polls and vote them into the nomination? Oh yeah, it's because these mythical great conservatives you've all been waiting for DON'T EXIST! They never have. Government is about compromise and working with people you don't agree with. Punditry is about ideological purity. You all dream of this mythological Reagan that never existed, and scrub the inconvenient parts of history about a man who raised taxes twice while in office, deficit spent into oblivion, and cut and ran from Lebanon. Then you look up and see candidates who had to make it in the real world, and you can't understand why they don't live up to your legends. You see Romney, a mormon who created a government run health system. What did you expect from a someone in charge of Massachusetts? Then there was Huckabee, who raised taxes to cover education funding disparities. It was because the FEDERAL courts ordered the state to. And then there was McCain. Oh, that horrible guy who backed campaign finance reform, BECAUSE HE GOT DRAGGED INTO THE KEATING FIVE INVESTIGATION OVER A CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION! Oh yeah, he backed comprehensive immigration reform too. . . and Reagan SIGNED AN AMNESTY! You want to know why parties don't nominate conservatives that you like? Because you can't win races with 40% of the vote. It doesn't work! It didn't work in NY 23, it didn't work in MD 1, it didn't work in MI 7, and it isn't going to work nationally.
But if you all want to have the GOP and burn it to the ground, have fun. As I said previously, I'm not on that team with you anymore. My vote from now on goes to the Dems. It will not be the last if you continue with this tactic. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:33 pm
|
|
|
|
Lord Bitememan (Paraphrased smile [insult] [insult] ...prove your argument. [insult] ...Reid, Pelosi, et all on the Democratic side really don't lean left and really are more inclusive than Republicans. As proof I give the one vote in a series of hundreds where they voted in a way a Republican would.
I admit that wasn't exactly nice of me to do, and not at all proper for a debate. Insults and half truths aren't great for a debate either.
As to me saying most Republicans didn't vote for McCain: you got me, I typed that out in a way that was confusing and didn't convey what i was trying to say. I meant that most Republicans, when they voted for McCain, did so because they didn't want Obama winning, they didn't do so because they thought McCain was a great candidate.
Your use of insults, your almost bullying approach to debating, and your twisting of easily checked facts in an attempt to show Reid, Pelosi, etc... as not really being Left but being close to moderate while trying to say Republicans need to abandon core values to be more inclusive shows me and hopefully others where your heart lies.
Oh, and I never said abortion was anti-American, you read that out of nowhere. Enjoy browbeating others here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 5:51 am
|
|
|
|
Mythspeak Lord Bitememan (Paraphrased smile [insult] [insult] ...prove your argument. [insult] ...Reid, Pelosi, et all on the Democratic side really don't lean left and really are more inclusive than Republicans. As proof I give the one vote in a series of hundreds where they voted in a way a Republican would. I admit that wasn't exactly nice of me to do, and not at all proper for a debate. Insults and half truths aren't great for a debate either.
Half truths? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black there. But that's par for the course for the conservative movement these days. Throw a bunch of half truths around like it's Gospel truth, then cry and complain when you get facts thrown back at you. And if you're too thin-skinned to handle vigorous political debate, find another field of interest.
Quote: Your use of insults, your almost bullying approach to debating, and your twisting of easily checked facts in an attempt to show Reid, Pelosi, etc... as not really being Left but being close to moderate while trying to say Republicans need to abandon core values to be more inclusive shows me and hopefully others where your heart lies.
Twisting? These are FACTS! If you want to advance an argument about how one side isn't inclusive by saying that you don't find differences of opinion in leadership, it isn't twisting of facts to contradict you by showing established positions these politicians have. You're simply advancing opinions while shutting your mind down to contradictory evidence. And boo hoo if you can't take a little chin music in a debate. Politics is a full contact sport buddy.
Quote: Oh, and I never said abortion was anti-American, you read that out of nowhere. Enjoy browbeating others here.
You said Republicans shouldn't embrace "anti-American" ideals to attract "more of the left." In the context of Scozzafava, the main breach people had with her was that she was pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. So, yeah, if you're going to say that abortion isn't anti-American, than we're left with the fact that the Republican party WASN'T embracing anti-American ideals with Scozzafava. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 8:52 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 7:14 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:00 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 2:46 pm
|
|
|
|
Lord Bitememan DanskiWolf vfmacfan I, personally, would be quite pleased to see Palin run for president in 2012. McCain was a Republican In Name Only; And attitudes like that will ensure the GOP becomes a fringe group for extermists. By your standards I'm sure Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt would have been communists. Quote: Palin, on the other hand, is a true conservative. A completely meaningless phrase. Exactly why I created a thread about Barry Goldwater, Danski. Barry Goldwater wouldn't pass the "true conservative" test today, and would be labeled a RINO, even though he was the FOUNDER of modern conservatism. Barry Goldwater reviled the involvement of religion in politics. He routinely defended gay rights and was an ardent proponent of abortion access. If Goldwater ran in the Republican primary today he would lose the midwest for his pro-abortion and pro-gay rights views, he would lose the south due to his non-Christian heritage and views on separation of church and state, and would probably only carry the northeast and rural west on account of his comparatively moderate views and firm libertarian stance. That really says something about modern "true conservatives," that the founder of the movement would be too liberal for their tastes today. It's an oft spoken refrain from the far right that the modern GOP's ills stem from the party getting "too moderate." But anyone who has even a mildly objective eye can see that the party has lurched SO FAR to the right that it's not even in step with what qualified as conservatism 30 years ago. It's such a joke that people hold Reagan up as a paragon of conservatism given the standards held to today's politicians. Reagan 3 very specific conservative goals that he pursued, and beyond that either gave lip-service to what is called conservatism, or did the exact opposite. Reagan never made firm overtures to overturn Roe v. Wade. Reagan ran a deficit every year he was president, and for the time, huge ones. Reagan signed an amnesty for illegal immigrants into law. Reagan increased funding for the NEA (the same group that held the Mapplethorpe exhibitions). The only reason that Reagan is touted as a "conservative" is that he gave tons of lip service to issues near and dear to all conservative factions, did remarkably little for some of those factions, and walked away popular doing it. So, you're right on Danski. Anyone even mildly within the mainstream today would be called a RINO. Actually, most of the conservatives who brought conservatism to prominence in the US would have been labeled RINOs by today's standards, and the "true conservatives" of the world either don't really exist or are so far outside the mainstream that they could never hope to muster a national majority.
Quote: he would lose the south due to his non-Christian heritage and views on separation of church and state, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 6:22 pm
|
|
|
|
Ruyashie Lord Bitememan DanskiWolf vfmacfan I, personally, would be quite pleased to see Palin run for president in 2012. McCain was a Republican In Name Only; And attitudes like that will ensure the GOP becomes a fringe group for extermists. By your standards I'm sure Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt would have been communists. Quote: Palin, on the other hand, is a true conservative. A completely meaningless phrase. Exactly why I created a thread about Barry Goldwater, Danski. Barry Goldwater wouldn't pass the "true conservative" test today, and would be labeled a RINO, even though he was the FOUNDER of modern conservatism. Barry Goldwater reviled the involvement of religion in politics. He routinely defended gay rights and was an ardent proponent of abortion access. If Goldwater ran in the Republican primary today he would lose the midwest for his pro-abortion and pro-gay rights views, he would lose the south due to his non-Christian heritage and views on separation of church and state, and would probably only carry the northeast and rural west on account of his comparatively moderate views and firm libertarian stance. That really says something about modern "true conservatives," that the founder of the movement would be too liberal for their tastes today. It's an oft spoken refrain from the far right that the modern GOP's ills stem from the party getting "too moderate." But anyone who has even a mildly objective eye can see that the party has lurched SO FAR to the right that it's not even in step with what qualified as conservatism 30 years ago. It's such a joke that people hold Reagan up as a paragon of conservatism given the standards held to today's politicians. Reagan 3 very specific conservative goals that he pursued, and beyond that either gave lip-service to what is called conservatism, or did the exact opposite. Reagan never made firm overtures to overturn Roe v. Wade. Reagan ran a deficit every year he was president, and for the time, huge ones. Reagan signed an amnesty for illegal immigrants into law. Reagan increased funding for the NEA (the same group that held the Mapplethorpe exhibitions). The only reason that Reagan is touted as a "conservative" is that he gave tons of lip service to issues near and dear to all conservative factions, did remarkably little for some of those factions, and walked away popular doing it. So, you're right on Danski. Anyone even mildly within the mainstream today would be called a RINO. Actually, most of the conservatives who brought conservatism to prominence in the US would have been labeled RINOs by today's standards, and the "true conservatives" of the world either don't really exist or are so far outside the mainstream that they could never hope to muster a national majority. Quote: he would lose the south due to his non-Christian heritage and views on separation of church and state, He'd probaly lose us(south) on the gay rights since the majority of christians are against homosexuality.
And where did Mitt Romney fail to win primaries? Oh right, the Mormon didn't win them in the religiously intolerant south. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 8:05 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
