board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Future of Republicanism

Post Reply   Page 15 of 18  [ 345 posts ]
Jump to page « 113 14 15 16 17 18 »
Author Message
sauronsfinger
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Mon 22 Feb , 2010 4:01 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Location: The real world
 
And lets be straight and honest about this..... the weekend CPAC endorsement for Ron Paul should once and for all time erase any doubts about the relationship between libertarians and right wing conservatives. It was the last bit of cement which intertwines their many common interests and policy positions.

_________________

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
Profile Quote
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Wed 24 Feb , 2010 3:10 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Location: Planet Earth
 
And the reverberations of the poll continue to shake the mainstream anti-libertarian Republicans. Based on the hysterical reactions it's pretty obvious that the average conservative has nothing in common with libertarians.

Ron Paul’s Victory: How Sweet It Is! Paul victory causes panic on neocon Right, Obama-ite Left
Justin Raimondo wrote:
Ron Paul is to neocons what a silver bullet is to vampires, and, for me at least, a great deal of the joy accompanying Ron Paul’s CPAC victory has been anticipating the squeals of outrage, shock, and real pain coming from those circles. This may be my sadistic streak coming out, albeit not for the first time, but after years of hearing Paul and his supporters dismissed as "fringe" irrelevant sectarians with no real political prospects, you’ll forgive me if I indulge myself in a little gratuitous cruelty.

Fox News simply repeated the word "unscientific" whenever it mentioned the CPAC poll results, as its "news" reporters wondered aloud if indeed Paul’s runaway victory had any meaning at all. Most of the attendees were young activists, Fox anchors endlessly reminded their viewers – and oh those wacky kids!

...

The reliably neocon blog Powerline harrumphed that the Paul victory "is dismaying, to the extent one takes it seriously. Ron Paul is the crazy uncle in the Republican Party’s attic. He is not a principled libertarian like, say, Steve Forbes. Rather, as I noted in this post, where I likened him to Pee-Wee Herman, Paul has a rather sinister history as a hater and conspiracy theorist."

Paul, the genial 75-year old physician from rural Texas, who radiates a palpable benevolence – "sinister"? Aside from the melodramatics, however, what this means is that, according to Powerline, a significant portion of the conservative movement has been taken over by a "sinister" conspiracy of … conspiracy theorists! Oh, and Paul’s not really a libertarian – only plumb-line supporters of perpetual war, torture, and the suspension of the Constitution in the name of the "war on terrorism," such as the editors of Powerlust, are "real" libertarians. Uh huh. Sure they are. War, torture, and tyranny – sounds "libertarian" to me!

...

Hutchinson’s screed is remarkable for its tone of hysteria – Paul’s followers are invariably "fanatical," having fallen victim to "Paul mania," and they are also "scary." Although this fusillade comes from someone on the ostensible "left," it is indistinguishable from the jeremiads that poured forth from the likes of David Frum and the neoconservatives during the GOP presidential primaries: Hutchinson accuses Paul of being a racist, claiming that his CPAC speech was "sprinkled here and there with racial baits." Really? I challenge Hutchinson, or anyone else, to listen to Paul’s speech, go through it line by line, and come up with a single half-credible "racial bait." Where oh where are these "baits?" On this point Hutchinson is mum: he doesn’t think he needs to be more specific, because, you see, he’s the expert on racism, and we’ll just have to take his word for it.

...

All of these anti-Paul polemics seem to blend into a single panic-stricken shriek. Ex-Reason employee Weigel chimes in with his view – really a hope – that conservatives are essentially hostile to the antiwar Paulian message, and, what’s more:

“Conservatives don’t want their image to the American people to be septuagenarian politicians who bang on about the need to close down American bases and speak at meetings of the John Birch Society. … It was accidentally very revealing of how far right the party’s gotten.”

...

_________________

It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
Profile Quote
sauronsfinger
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Wed 24 Feb , 2010 4:30 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Location: The real world
 
You do not endorse somebody for President of the USA if you feel that you have nothing important in common with them. Obviously the right wing conservatives at CPAC felt that they and Ron Paul were fellow travelers with a great deal in common. That is why they endorsed him. It matters not who outside that gathering feels there is not any common ground because that is irrelevant to the question. Ron Paul went to CPAC knowing they were a bunch of conservative right wingers. Ron Paul then got the endorsement of president from CPAC.

Ron Paul and the CPAC right wingers - a marriage made in heaven......

or elsewhere. :cool:

_________________

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
Profile Quote
Lord_Morningstar
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Wed 24 Feb , 2010 6:04 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu 03 Mar , 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia
 
Paul may have won CPAC’s endorsement, but that doesn’t make up for a weak showing at the 2008 Republican Primaries. Plus he’ll be something like 77 when the 2012 election rolls around. I can't see this as being anything really significant.

_________________

[Space for Rent]


Top
Profile Quote
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Thu 25 Feb , 2010 12:06 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Location: Planet Earth
 
Well, there are those who do say CPAC has little significance. But on the other hand it could show that the libertarian wing is tired of being the object of contempt and is making a bold showing against the neoconservative wing. Paul may very well not seek the nomination, but he may be positioning himself to be kingmaker instead. This could signal a major shift in direction in the Republican Party.

This year's CPAC had other surprises. A group representing gay republicans was in attendance, and the religious right threatened to boycott. Unlike past years where the organizers would quickly shuttle anyone who offends the theocons (I think it was Focus on the Family), this time the organizers said "go ahead." Bluff called, the theocons folded and had their table directly across from the gay republicans.

The fight between these basically diametrically opposed factions is intensifying. This rather neatly parallels Palin trying to co-opt the Tea Party in Tennessee while in Nevada the Tea Party has become a third party.

_________________

It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
Profile Quote
yovargas
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Thu 25 Feb , 2010 12:22 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 14774
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
 
Quote:
A group representing gay republicans was in attendance, and the religious right threatened to boycott. Unlike past years where the organizers would quickly shuttle anyone who offends the theocons (I think it was Focus on the Family), this time the organizers said "go ahead." Bluff called, the theocons folded and had their table directly across from the gay republicans.
Sweet! :cheers:


Top
Profile Quote
jewelsong
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Thu 25 Feb , 2010 1:22 pm
Just keep singin'!
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1729
Joined: Sun 20 Feb , 2005 9:26 pm
Location: UK
 
Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:
A group representing gay republicans was in attendance, and the religious right threatened to boycott..
In my opinion, anything the Republican Party can do to distance itself from the religious right would be a good thing all around.


Top
Profile Quote
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Fri 26 Feb , 2010 2:53 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Location: Planet Earth
 
And once again, Daily Kos shows that it can report on Paul with more accuracy and objectivity than either FOX or CNN.

Fox 'News' vs. Ron Paul and the tea partiers
Quote:
Everybody who has paid any attention to politics over the last year knows that Fox has been trying to absorb the tea party movement into the Republican Party, but the real energy of the tea partiers comes from Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign, a campaign that challenged enough Republican orthodoxy that Fox banned Paul from the presidential debates.

Two years later, Fox still has a Ron Paul problem. On Saturday, Ron Paul won CPAC's 2012 straw poll, delivering a clear message that Ron Paul and the tea partiers who support him aren't interested in being absorbed -- instead, they are intent on remaking the G.O.P.

Not surprisingly, Fox's coverage of Paul's CPAC win was dismissive, repeatedly hammering home the message that Paul's victory wasn't significant and that he wasn't really a serious candidate. Fox even suggested that had Glenn Beck been on the straw poll ballot, he'd likely have beaten out Ron Paul.

Fox's dismissive coverage of Paul is just the latest evidence that Fox doesn't want to empower the tea partiers -- they want the tea partiers to empower them. FNC hacks like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck pretend to be tea partiers on TV, but at the end of the day, Fox, Palin, and Beck care more about what the tea party movement can do for them than what they can do for the tea party movement.
Perhaps Kos likes him just a little, in spite of the disagreements.

_________________

It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
Profile Quote
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Sun 14 Mar , 2010 5:22 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Location: Planet Earth
 
'Libertarian streak' in tea parties worries some evangelicals

Romney, Palin, and Julian Carroll (D-KY) have all insisted that Tea Partiers pick a side.

And at least one of the tea parties to actually achieve ballot status has tea party regulars in that state wondering who those guys are, considering that the political party Tea Party members have never been seen by the protester Tea Party members. It seems all sides are doing some astroturfing.

The Green Party is doing the soft sell though, simply inviting tea party protesters to check them out. Good for the Green Party, but as any libertarian can tell you the soft sell definitely has limits.

_________________

It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
Profile Quote
sauronsfinger
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Sun 14 Mar , 2010 3:36 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Location: The real world
 
The Republican Party could not go far without their offical house TV network - FOX News to vomit up the party line on every issue of the day. The Washington Post has a truly superb article today asking the long overdue question - just how long will honest journalists allow FOX to go unchallenged as a GOP organ of lies?
Quote:
Why don't honest journalists take on Roger Ailes and Fox News?

By Howell Raines
Sunday, March 14, 2010
One question has tugged at my professional conscience throughout the year-long congressional debate over health-care reform, and it has nothing to do with the public option, portability or medical malpractice. It is this: Why haven't America's old-school news organizations blown the whistle on Roger Ailes, chief of Fox News, for using the network to conduct a propaganda campaign against the Obama administration -- a campaign without precedent in our modern political history?


Fox News: unfair, unbalanced, unchecked
In America, Crazy Is a Preexisting Condition
Through clever use of the Fox News Channel and its cadre of raucous commentators, Ailes has overturned standards of fairness and objectivity that have guided American print and broadcast journalists since World War II. Yet, many members of my profession seem to stand by in silence as Ailes tears up the rulebook that served this country well as we covered the major stories of the past three generations, from the civil rights revolution to Watergate to the Wall Street scandals. This is not a liberal-versus-conservative issue. It is a matter of Fox turning reality on its head with, among other tactics, its endless repetition of its uber-lie: "The American people do not want health-care reform."

Fox repeats this as gospel. But as a matter of historical context, usually in short supply on Fox News, this assertion ranks somewhere between debatable and untrue.

The American people and many of our great modern presidents have been demanding major reforms to the health-care system since the administration of Teddy Roosevelt. The elections of 1948, 1960, 1964, 2000 and 2008 confirm the point, with majorities voting for candidates supporting such change. Yet congressional Republicans have managed effective campaigns against health-care changes favored variously by Presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Clinton. Now Fox News has given the party of Lincoln a free ride with its repetition of the unexamined claim that today's Republican leadership really does want to overhaul health care -- if only the effort could conform to Mitch McConnell's ideas on portability and tort reform.



It is true that, after 14 months of Fox's relentless pounding of President Obama's idea of sweeping reform, the latest Gallup poll shows opinion running 48 to 45 percent against the current legislation. Fox invariably stresses such recent dips in support for the legislation, disregarding the majorities in favor of various individual aspects of the reform effort. Along the way, the network has sold a falsified image of the professional standards that developed in American newsrooms and university journalism departments in the last half of the 20th century.

Whatever its shortcomings, journalism under those standards aspired to produce an honest account of social, economic and political events. It bore witness to a world of dynamic change, as opposed to the world of Foxian reality, whose actors are brought on camera to illustrate a preconceived universe as rigid as that of medieval morality. Now, it is precisely our long-held norms that cripple our ability to confront Fox's journalism of perpetual assault. I'm confident that many old-schoolers are too principled to appear on the network, choosing silence over being used; when Fox does trot out a house liberal as a punching bag, the result is a parody of reasoned news formats.

My great fear, however, is that some journalists of my generation who once prided themselves on blowing whistles and afflicting the comfortable have also been intimidated by Fox's financial power and expanding audience, as well as Ailes's proven willingness to dismantle the reputation of anyone who crosses him. (Remember his ridiculing of one early anchor, Paula Zahn, as inferior to a "dead raccoon" in ratings potential when she dared defect to CNN?) It's as if we have surrendered the sword of verifiable reportage and bought the idea that only "elites" are interested in information free of partisan poppycock.

Why has our profession, through its general silence -- or only spasmodic protest -- helped Fox legitimize a style of journalism that is dishonest in its intellectual process, untrustworthy in its conclusions and biased in its gestalt? The standard answer is economics, as represented by the collapse of print newspapers and of audience share at CBS, NBC and ABC. Some prominent print journalists are now cheering Rupert Murdoch, the head of News Corp. (which owns the Fox network) for his alleged commitment to print, as evidenced by his willingness to lose money on the New York Post and gamble the overall profitability of his company on the survival of the Wall Street Journal. This is like congratulating museums for preserving antique masterpieces while ignoring their predatory methods of collecting.

Why can't American journalists steeped in the traditional values of their profession be loud and candid about the fact that Murdoch does not belong to our team? His importation of the loose rules of British tabloid journalism, including blatant political alliances, started our slide to quasi-news. His British papers famously promoted Margaret Thatcher's political career, with the expectation that she would open the nation's airwaves to Murdoch's cable channels. Ed Koch once told me he could not have been elected mayor of New York without the boosterism of the New York Post.

As for Fox's campaign against the Obama administration, perhaps the only traditional network star to put Ailes on the spot, at least a little, has been his friend, the venerable Barbara Walters, who was hosting This Week, ABC's Sunday morning talk show. More accurately, she allowed another guest, Arianna Huffington, to belabor Ailes recently about his biased coverage of Obama. Ailes countered that he should be judged as a producer of ratings rather than a journalist -- audience is his only yardstick. While true as far as it goes, this hair-splitting defense purports to absolve Ailes of responsibility for creating a news department whose raison d'etre is to dictate the outcome of our nation's political discourse.

For the first time since the yellow journalism of a century ago, the United States has a major news organization devoted to the promotion of one political party. And let no one be misled by occasional spurts of criticism of the GOP on Fox. In a bygone era of fact-based commentary typified, left to right, by my late colleagues Scotty Reston and Bill Safire, these deceptions would have been given their proper label: disinformation.

Under the pretense of correcting a Democratic bias in news reporting, Fox has accomplished something that seemed impossible before Ailes imported to the news studio the tricks he learned in Richard Nixon's campaign think tank: He and his video ferrets have intimidated center-right and center-left journalists into suppressing conclusions -- whether on health-care reform or other issues -- they once would have stated as demonstrably proven by their reporting. I try not to believe that this kid-gloves handling amounts to self-censorship, but it's hard to ignore the evidence. News Corp., with 64,000 employees worldwide, receives the tender treatment accorded a future employer.

In defending Glenn Beck on ABC, Ailes described him as something like Fox's political id, rather than its whole personality. It is somehow fitting, then, that Sigmund Freud's great-grandson, Matthew Freud, might help put mainstream American journalism back in touch with its collective superego.

This year, Freud, a public relations executive in London and Murdoch's son-in-law, condemned Ailes in an interview with the New York Times, saying he was "ashamed and sickened by Roger Ailes's horrendous and sustained disregard" of proper journalistic standards. Meanwhile, Gabriel Sherman, writing in New York magazine, suggests that Freud and other Murdoch relatives think Ailes has outlived his usefulness -- despite the fact that Fox, with its $700 million annual profit, finances News Corp.'s ability to keep its troubled newspapers and their skeleton staffs on life support. I know some observers of journalistic economics who believe that such insider comments mean Rupert already has Roger on the skids.

It is true that any executive's tenure in the House of Murdoch is situational. But grieve not for Roger Ailes. His new contract signals that when the winds of televised demagoguery abate, he will waft down on a golden parachute. By News Corp. standards, he deserves it. After all, Ailes helped make Murdoch the most powerful media executive in the United States.

As for Fox News, lots of people who know better are keeping quiet about what to call it. Its news operation can, in fact, be called many things, but reporters of my generation, with memories and keyboards, dare not call it journalism.

Howell Raines is a former executive editor of the New York Times and the author of "The One That Got Away: A Memoir."

_________________

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
Profile Quote
Ara-anna
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Wed 24 Mar , 2010 4:15 am
Daydream Believer
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5780
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 11:15 pm
Location: Pac Northwest
 
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/ta ... ative.php/

The rest of the letter is in the link.

« Wisconsin's GOP primary: Is it all about the Benjamins? | AmericanDad's Blog An open letter to conservatives
March 22, 2010, 3:16PM

Quote:
Dear Conservative Americans,

The years have not been kind to you. I grew up in a profoundly Republican home, so I can remember when you wore a very different face than the one we see now. You've lost me and you've lost most of America. Because I believe having responsible choices is important to democracy, I'd like to give you some advice and an invitation.

First, the invitation: Come back to us.

Now the advice. You're going to have to come up with a platform that isn't built on a foundation of cowardice: fear of people with colors, religions, cultures and sex lives that differ from your own; fear of reform in banking, health care, energy; fantasy fears of America being transformed into an Islamic nation, into social/commun/fasc-ism, into a disarmed populace put in internment camps; and more. But you have work to do even before you take on that task.

Your party -- the GOP -- and the conservative end of the American political spectrum has become irresponsible and irrational. Worse, it's tolerating, promoting and celebrating prejudice and hatred. Let me provide some expamples -- by no means an exhaustive list -- of where the Right as gotten itself stuck in a swamp of hypocrisy, hyperbole, historical inaccuracy and hatred.

If you're going to regain your stature as a party of rational, responsible people, you'll have to start by draining this swamp:

Hypocrisy

You can't flip out -- and threaten impeachment - when Dems use a prlimentary procedure (deem and pass) that you used repeatedly (more than 35 times in just one session and more than 100 times in all!), that's centuries old and which the courts have supported. Especially when your leaders admit it all.

You can't vote and scream against the stimulus package and then take credit for the good it's done in your own district (happily handing out enormous checks representing money that you voted against, is especially ugly) -- 114 of you (at last count) did just that -- and it's even worse when you secretly beg for more.

You can't fight against your own ideas just because the Dem president endorses your proposal.

You can't call for a pay-as-you-go policy, and then vote against your own ideas.

Are they "unlawful enemy combatants" or are they "prisoners of war" at Gitmo? You can't have it both ways.

You can't carry on about the evils of government spending when your family has accepted more than a quarter-million dollars in government handouts.

You can't refuse to go to a scheduled meeting, to which you were invited, and then blame the Dems because they didn't meet with you.

You can't rail against using teleprompters while using teleprompters. Repeatedly.

You can't rail against the bank bailouts when you supported them as they were happening.

You can't be for immigration reform, then against it .

You can't enjoy socialized medicine while condemning it.

You can't flip out when the black president puts his feet on the presidential desk when you were silent about white presidents doing the same. Bush. Ford.

You can't complain that the president hasn't closed Gitmo yet when you've campaigned to keep Gitmo open.

You can't flip out when the black president bows to foreign dignitaries, as appropriate for their culture, when you were silent when the white presidents did the same. Bush. Nixon. Ike. You didn't even make a peep when Bush held hands and kissed (on the mouth) leaders of countries that are not on "kissing terms" with the US.

You can't complain that the undies bomber was read his Miranda rights under Obama when the shoe bomber was read his Miranda rights under Bush and you remained silent. (And, no, Newt -- the shoe bomber was not a US citizen either, so there is no difference.)

You can't attack the Dem president for not personally* publicly condemning a terrorist event for 72 hourswhen you said nothing about the Rep president waiting 6 days in an eerily similar incident (and, even then, he didn't issue any condemnation). *Obama administration did the day of the event.

You can't throw a hissy fit, sound alarms and cry that Obama freed Gitmo prisoners who later helped plan the Christmas Day undie bombing, when -- in fact -- only one former Gitmo detainee, released by Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, helped to plan the failed attack.

You can't condemn blaming the Republican president for an attempted terror attack on his watch, then blame the Dem president for an attemted terror attack on his.

_________________

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in

Five seconds away from the Tetons and Yellowstone


Top
Profile Quote
Ara-anna
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Wed 24 Mar , 2010 1:21 pm
Daydream Believer
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5780
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 11:15 pm
Location: Pac Northwest
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/2 ... 10939.html

OTTAWA — A protest by hundreds of students led organizers to cancel a Tuesday night speech by American conservative commentator Ann Coulter at the University of Ottawa.

A spokesman for the organizers said Coulter was advised against appearing after about 2,000 "threatening" students crowded the entrance to Marion Hall, posing a security threat.

"It would be physically dangerous for Ann Coulter to proceed with this event," said conservative political activist Ezra Levant inside the hall. "This is an embarrassing day for the University of Ottawa and their student body . . . who chose to silence her through threats and intimidation."

A protest organizer, international studies student Mike Fancie, said he was pleased they were able to stop Coulter from speaking.

"What Ann Coulter is practicing is not free speech, it's hate speech," he said. "She's targeted the Jews, she's targeted the Muslims, she's targeted Canadians, homosexuals, women, almost everybody you could imagine."

_________________

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in

Five seconds away from the Tetons and Yellowstone


Top
Profile Quote
sauronsfinger
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Wed 24 Mar , 2010 3:49 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Location: The real world
 
The TPM open letter to Conservatives is very timely. The parts that were linked to but not reproduced by Ara are also well worth reading. They fit right in with the Harris Poll that gives even more evidence that a sizable chunk of the current Republican party are just plain wacko.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/2010 ... newgoppoll
Quote:
57 percent of Republicans (32 percent overall) believe that Obama is a Muslim 45 percent of Republicans (25 percent overall) agree with the Birthers in their belief that Obama was "not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president" 38 percent of Republicans (20 percent overall) say that Obama is "doing many of the things that Hitler did" Scariest of all, 24 percent of Republicans (14 percent overall) say that Obama "may be the Antichrist." These numbers all come from a brand-new Harris poll
The absurd level of hate and vitriol that has been directed at President Obama by the new right wing coalition over the last year has contributed greatly to the spread of such patently ridiculous beliefs.

Its ironic to see somebody like Coulter - who is one of the meanest and most vitriolic of spewers of political hate speech in the business - now claiming to being unfairly crucified upon a cross which she herself helped craft. The old line about reaping what you sow comes to mind.

_________________

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
Profile Quote
Jude
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Wed 24 Mar , 2010 4:45 pm
Aspiring to heresy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 19650
Joined: Wed 23 Feb , 2005 6:54 pm
Location: Canada
 
Well, this was big news here in Ottawa, and I feel that the protesters missed the boat on this one. It would be far more appropriate, when faced with a buffoon like Coulter, to just ignore her. Giving her the dignity of a protest just validates her. And disrupting her appearance just gives her fuel to say that everyone that doesn't agree with her is badly-behaved and unreasonable (and apparently, that's what she has been saying).

How priceless would it be if no one bothered to show up at all for any of her appearances?

_________________

[ img ]

Melkor and Ungoliant in need of some relationship counselling.


Top
Profile Quote
vison
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Wed 24 Mar , 2010 5:26 pm
Best friends forever
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6546
Joined: Fri 04 Feb , 2005 4:49 am
 
Jude wrote:
Well, this was big news here in Ottawa, and I feel that the protesters missed the boat on this one. It would be far more appropriate, when faced with a buffoon like Coulter, to just ignore her. Giving her the dignity of a protest just validates her. And disrupting her appearance just gives her fuel to say that everyone that doesn't agree with her is badly-behaved and unreasonable (and apparently, that's what she has been saying).

How priceless would it be if no one bothered to show up at all for any of her appearances?
Very badly handled. About as stupid as is possible, actually. And she's just loving it. Making hay, big time.

_________________

Living on Earth is expensive,
but it does include a free trip
around the sun every year.


Top
Profile Quote
sauronsfinger
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Wed 24 Mar , 2010 7:53 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Location: The real world
 
This incident reminds me of many years ago when George Wallace of Alabama came to Dearborn, Michigan to spew his hatred and bigotry. A local group was able to get in line early with many members and they occupied several of the front rows in the hall with their members who simply sat emotionless during his entire speech reading books. It pissed off Wallace greatly.

Coulter probably loved every minute of this and could not buy this sort of publicity. As someone who lived during the Sixties, I see the bad old days of public vitriol and political anger coming back with ferocity. This phase of history repeating itself will not be fun.

_________________

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
Profile Quote
Ara-anna
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Fri 26 Mar , 2010 1:05 pm
Daydream Believer
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5780
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 11:15 pm
Location: Pac Northwest
 
Where do I sign up to be part of Rush's moving team? ;)

_________________

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in

Five seconds away from the Tetons and Yellowstone


Top
Profile Quote
Dave_LF
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Fri 26 Mar , 2010 1:58 pm
You are hearing me talk
Offline
 
Posts: 2950
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 8:14 am
Location: Great Lakes
 


Top
Profile Quote
sauronsfinger
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Fri 26 Mar , 2010 2:19 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Location: The real world
 
Thanks for that great site Dave. I can only hope that his promise is not yet another Limbaugh Lie but am 99% certain that it is.

_________________

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
Profile Quote
Jude
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Fri 26 Mar , 2010 3:23 pm
Aspiring to heresy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 19650
Joined: Wed 23 Feb , 2005 6:54 pm
Location: Canada
 
Coulter plans to file a human rights complaint

I gotta say, I'm really disappointed in my old university for playing right into her hands.

It takes real talent to mess with Coulter and come off looking like you're in the wrong.

_________________

[ img ]

Melkor and Ungoliant in need of some relationship counselling.


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 15 of 18  [ 345 posts ]
Return to “The Symposium” | Jump to page « 113 14 15 16 17 18 »
Jump to: