board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Future of Republicanism

Post Reply   Page 14 of 18  [ 345 posts ]
Jump to page « 112 13 14 15 1618 »
Author Message
nienna
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Tue 29 Dec , 2009 3:10 pm
The best things in life are not things
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1959
Joined: Thu 02 Jul , 2009 3:32 pm
Location: west of West
 
Aw, shucks! [ img ]

:flowerthrow:

Last edited by nienna on Tue 29 Dec , 2009 11:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

_________________

There is magic in long-distance friendships. They let you relate to other human beings in a way that goes beyond being physically together and is often more profound.
~Diana Cortes


Top
Profile Quote
sauronsfinger
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Tue 29 Dec , 2009 4:14 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Location: The real world
 
This is very good. It was written by Mitchell Bard of the Huffington Post for 12/29/09.
Quote:
The Republicans' Disdain for the American People Should Be the Story of 2009

Looking back on 2009, much of the discussion on TV news shows is whether President Obama and the Democrats in Congress correctly handled the problems facing the country. Somehow, a narrative seems to have emerged that the Democrats failed and would pay the price in the 2010 midterm elections.

But where is the discussion of how the Republicans have behaved in the last year?

It has been less than one year since President Obama was sworn in. When he sat behind the big desk in the Oval Office for the first time, he found himself responsible for a free-falling economy (and mounting staggering job losses), a massive deficit, the manpower and financial burden of hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq, a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, and a militant Islamic movement looking to inflict damage on America and American interests, all of which came as a direct result of the failed policies of his predecessor. Obama also had a host of other problems to address, from global warming to energy dependence to a corrupt and dangerous Iranian government struggling to hold onto power and capable of real danger, just to name a few.

The president didn't create any of these problems. Not one of them. And it is completely unrealistic to think that any person or party could solve these issues in less than a year.

Now, there has been much debate over whether Obama's handling of these issues was up to snuff. From listening to the ridiculous rhetoric from the right, you would think that the president was trying to turn the country into some bizarre combination of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. And many progressives are unsatisfied with Obama's handling of the re-regulation of the financial industry, as well as his approach to health care, LGBT issues and other points of contention.

But another way to put it is that the criticism form the right is not only unfounded, but the Republicans have offered no real alternatives to address the issues, aside from advocating for the failed Bush policies of the last decade. And progressives seem to forget that the arcane rules in the Senate limit what can be done with only a majority, while Republicans in Congress are single-minded and united to do anything they can to politically damage the president, without any concern for actually governing for the American people. We saw that in play in the health care debate, as the 40 Republican senators remained rock solid in support of the insurance companies and the status quo (the current system is a disaster, as health care costs chew up more and more of the country's GDP while leaving Americans with more and more health care expenses and less and less coverage).

What have the Republicans offered aside from "no"?

To me, that should be the real story of the first year of the Obama administration. The discussion should be about the utter disdain the Republicans have shown for the American people, as the party has put political games and protecting its corporate interests in the first position on every issue. That, and the out-and-out lies that have become the go-to strategy of the party (death panels anyone?).

Consider that in the last two weeks alone, we have been treated to:

- GOP senators blocking confirmation of Obama appointees as a way of securing petty political victories. (What kind of system allows a single senator to hold up confirmation of an appointee? How is it that a party can control 60 seats in the Senate and still not have the ability to confirm the president's appointments? Does this seem like a good idea to anyone interested in maintaining a functioning government?)

- Republican senators holding up funding for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan as a tactic to slow down health care reform. (When Democrats in Congress during the Bush years balked at writing a blank check for a failed war in Iraq, Republicans questioned their patriotism. But now, to Republicans, it's okay to block funding the troops as a way of slowing down health care reform? How is this not a story? Why is this not provoking voter outrage?)

- Republicans opposing health care reform on fiscal grounds, even though the bill will lower the deficit, and despite the fact that the same Republicans had no trouble ballooning the deficit in the Bush years by approving massive tax cuts for the rich, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Medicare prescription drug program without paying for any of them.

- Sen. James Inhofe traveling to Copenhagen to undermine President Obama at the Copenhagen climate change summit. (Can you imagine the charges Republicans would have thrown at a Democrat who traveled to a conference Bush was attending to undermine his position? I promise you the words "patriotism" -- as in lack of -- and "treason" would have come up.)

- GOP senators calling for the watering down of financial reform legislation, just a year after the misconduct of the banks caused the economy to go into a death spiral. (If there is a lot of anti-bank feeling in the country now, why isn't the biggest defender of the finance industry, the Republican party, getting hit with the blame? And how can any legislator oppose reform in the face of developments like a credit card legally charging 79.9 percent interest?)

- Sen. John Thune lying on the floor of the Senate as to when benefits take effect in health care reform legislation. (Thanks to Al Franken for not being intimidated and pointing out a lie when he saw one.)

- Republican superstar Sarah Palin reiterating the lie that health care legislation called for death panels, and changing the basis for the accusation when her original charge was proven untrue. (This kind of dishonest fear-mongering is more contrary to American ideals of democracy than anything in the health care legislation itself could ever possibly be.)

- Sen. Tom Coburn demanding a reading of an amendment to the health care reform bill calling for a single-payer program (which would have taken 12 hours, but which only went several hours before Sen. Bernie Sanders withdrew the amendment) as a way to slow down health care reform. (If the Democrats had tried something like that during the Bush years, they would have been pilloried by Republicans for not respecting the American people's wishes as expressed by the election results.)

Again, these events are only from the last two weeks. And the list is hardly complete.

So if the Republicans are supposed to be guaranteed to win seats in 2010, on what will these victories be won? What have the Republicans done to help the American people with the grave problems they face? (Sen. Mitch McConnell seems to think that the health care reform bill will be enough. Will Americans really support the Republicans on this one?)

To be clear, I am not arguing that the president and the Democrats in Congress have been beyond reproach in 2009. I think there is a lot of fair criticism to be levied, and a fair debate can be had as to whether the Democrats handled health care reform and other issues as well as they could have. But any deficiency in the Democratic approach pales when compared to the shameful conduct of Republicans during this time. The Democrats were making an effort to clean up Bush's messes. The Republican motives in the last year have not in any way involved actually trying to fix problems (or, even worse, they don't even acknowledge that many of the problems exist in the first place).

The story for 2010 should be the Republican party's complete disregard for the needs of the American people. The party's decision to prioritize scoring political victories over the president, protecting corporate interests, and relying on lies to do it over solving problems and governing should be clear to anyone paying attention. Let's hope that when voters go to the polls in 2010, they remember who was trying to solve problems and who wasn't. Time will tell if we will ever fully recover from what Bush did to the country. The last thing we need is more Republican rule, offering more of the same failed policies.
Let us hope that the leaders of the Democratic party and the 2010 election effort read this piece and file it away for use later this year.

_________________

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
Lidless
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Tue 29 Dec , 2009 7:42 pm
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
Offline
 
Posts: 8261
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Location: London
 
At the same time we have had Democrat 'leadership' which encourages such things due to their lust for bipartisanship. It's like Dad calling a family meeting to discuss Son's errant behaviour instead of just laying down the law.

(Sexist I know - translate as appropriate)

Of course, this could be a long game. 'Look, I wanted to talk. Look what these fuckheads came up with when I extended the olive - the fourth branch of government. Death panels and tea parties! You know what? From now on, fuck'em.'

If *that's* the case, fuck you Obama on what could have been the defining bill of your government. Giving up proper reform and aligning the US to the rest of the civilised world re health care, for a long game exposing how bewilderingly dumb and utterly selfish Republicans really are.

Oh for John Forbes maths that showed that the sum of individual priorities was less than the sum of society's. A beautiful mind indeed - the antithesis of Republicanism.

Last edited by Lidless on Wed 30 Dec , 2009 7:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
TheEllipticalDisillusion
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Tue 29 Dec , 2009 10:13 pm
Insolent Pup
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5381
Joined: Wed 09 Mar , 2005 8:31 pm
Location: Many Places
 
I think Obama's desire for bipartisanship is genuine... misled, but genuine. By year two if he isn't laying down the law with these Republicans, it's going to define his presidency as weak like Carter's.

_________________

The 11/3 Project


Top
Profile Quote
sauronsfinger
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Wed 30 Dec , 2009 1:43 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Location: The real world
 
I join in the hope that Obama starts kicking some GOP ass and rather soon.

Regarding the Christmas Day Near Destruction of the USA by Godless Terrorists:

Here is a very good article from POLITICO

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/31049.html

They document that the criticism that has been directed by Republicans towards the current President of the USA was NOT in evidence in previous terror attacks during administrations headed up by Republican Presidents. Of course, this is not the slightest surprise given the NO NO NO NO NO approach of the GOP since the minute Obama was announced as the winner in November of 2008.

You have to wonder if the American people are going to punish the GOP for being the party of NO even during a terrorist attack?

some excerpts from the POLITICO article

Quote:
Eight years ago, a terrorist bomber’s attempt to blow up a transatlantic airliner was thwarted by a group of passengers, an incident that revealed some gaping holes in airline security just a few months after the attacks of Sept. 11. But it was six days before President George W. Bush, then on vacation, made any public remarks about the so-called “shoe bomber,” Richard Reid, and there were virtually no complaints from the press or any opposition Democrats that his response was sluggish or inadequate.

That stands in sharp contrast to the withering criticism President Barack Obama has received from Republicans and some in the press for his reaction to Friday’s incident on a Northwest Airlines flight heading for Detroit.

Democrats have seized on the disparity and are making it a centerpiece of their efforts to counter GOP attacks on the White House. “This hypocrisy demonstrates Republicans are playing politics with issues of national security and terrorism,” DNC spokesman Hari Sevugan said. “That they would use this incident as an opportunity to fan partisan flames…tells you all you need to know about how far the Republican party has fallen and how out of step with the American people they have become.”

The Democrats’ counterattack is aimed largely at two Republican congressmen who have been particularly critical of Obama, Reps. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) and Peter King (R-N.Y.). But neither GOP lawmaker will concede applying a double standard to Obama.

Yet, the similarities between last Friday’s incident and the attempted shoe bombing in 2001 are striking.

This year’s came attack came on Christmas. The attempt eight years ago took place on December 22. Obama was on vacation in Hawaii when the suspect, Omar Abdulmutallab, allegedly used plastic explosives in his try to blow up the Amsterdam-to-Detroit flight. Bush was at Camp David when Reid used similar plastic explosives to try to blow up his Paris-to-Miami flight, which diverted to Boston after the incident.

Like the Obama White House, the Bush White House told reporters the president had been briefed on the incident and was following it closely. While the Obama White House issued a background statement through a senior administration official calling the incident an “attempted terrorist attack” on the same day it took place, the early official statements from Bush aides did not make the same explicit statement.

Bush did not address reporters about the Reid episode until December 28, after he had traveled from Camp David to his ranch in Texas.

Democrats do not appear to have criticized Bush over the delay. Many were wary of publicly clashing with the commander-in-chief, who was getting lofty approval ratings after what appeared to be a successful military campaign in Afghanistan. The media also seemed to have little interest in pressing Bush about the bombing, or the fact that the incident had revealed a previously unknown vulnerability in airplane security – that shoes could be used to hide chemicals or explosive devices.

An Agence France Presse story was one of the few to call attention to the silence from Bush and other top officials.
It is well and good that President Obama has made public remarks citing the failures of the intelligence and security community in this incident. I applaud that and hope the system is improved. But how long will it be before some republicans use his remarks to accuse Obama of attacking the people trying to keep America safe? I suspect that Limbaugh, Beck, O'Rielly and their ilk are already preparing that script.

It looks like the GOP and their supporters are badly in danger of overplaying their hand on this one.

another POLITICO article shows the evidence of the GOP tactic
Quote:
Former Vice President Dick Cheney accused President Barack Obama on Tuesday of “trying to pretend we are not at war” with terrorists, pointing to the White House response to the attempted sky bombing as reflecting a pattern that includes banishing the term “war on terror” and attempting to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center.

“[W]e are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe,” Cheney said in a statement to POLITICO. “Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn’t fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency – social transformation—the restructuring of American society.”

Cheney was joining a chorus of Republicans who have criticized Obama following the Christmas Day attack, in which a Nigerian suspect is accused of trying to blow up a loaded airliner with a bomb stitched into his underwear.

A senior Democrat said in response: “It’s telling that in attacking the president and the administration, that Vice President Cheney did not condemn the attack against our nation on Christmas Day.”

Foreshadowing the party’s strategy for next year’s midterm congressional elections, GOP officeholders have eschewed the customary partisan restraint following a terrorist incident, and have baldly portrayed Democrats as weak on security.

Rep. Peter King of New York, ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee and a member of the Intelligence committee, said Tuesday on NBC’s “Today” show: “I think that the administration has made a mistake by treating this terrorist as a common criminal, by putting him into the criminal-justice system. I wish they had put him into a military tribunal so we could get as much intelligence and information out of him as we could.”



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/12 ... z0bBCkC5ai
__________________

_________________

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
sauronsfinger
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Tue 05 Jan , 2010 1:08 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Location: The real world
 
Allen Quist is running for the Republican nomination in a US House district in Minnesota. He tells citizens that it is NOT foreign terrorists that are the great enemy of America...... its liberals in Washington.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DlyTO6d ... r_embedded#

Expect more of this throughout the year. Folks like this would have loved Joseph McCarthy back in the Fifties.

_________________

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
sauronsfinger
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Wed 06 Jan , 2010 8:38 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Location: The real world
 
You had to know if you just waited long enough that the Republicans would actually come up with concrete ideas to put before the American public:
Quote:
New York Rep. Peter King, a leading Republican critic of the White House on terror policy, offered a piece of advice on Good Morning America today: Obama should speak the word "terrorism" more.

"You are saying someone should be held accountable. Name one other specific recommendation the president could implement right now to fix this," host George Stephanopolous said to King.

"I think one main thing would be to -- just himself to use the word terrorism more often," said King, the ranking Republican on the Homeland Security Committee.
Such a simple idea..... from such a simple man.

_________________

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
sauronsfinger
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Mon 01 Feb , 2010 4:14 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Location: The real world
 
I loved the fact that the President of the United States took on the Republicans at their retreat, kicked ass, took names and bested them in front of a national TV audience. It reminded me of Jimmy Stewart in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON getting all righteous and lecturing them on their duties and responsibilities to the American people. I doubt this gets to happen on a regular basis and you have to expect the Republicans will not change one thing about their tactics, but for a day, it was great.

_________________

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
sauronsfinger
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Tue 02 Feb , 2010 5:28 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Location: The real world
 
A pretty detailed survey has been done offering what self proclaimed Republicans do and do not believe in.

http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2010/1/31/US/437

_________________

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
Dave_LF
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Tue 02 Feb , 2010 10:59 pm
You are hearing me talk
Offline
 
Posts: 2950
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 8:14 am
Location: Great Lakes
 
That is just unbelievable. 77% think public schools should teach creation as described in Genesis? 36% believe Obama was not born in the US and 22% aren't sure? 31% believe all contraceptives should be outlawed and only 48% are willing to say the pill isn't abortion? Where do these people come from? What are we supposed to do about it?


Top
Profile Quote
Lord_Morningstar
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Fri 05 Feb , 2010 3:32 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu 03 Mar , 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia
 
House minority leader John Boehner claimed during a radio appearence that there are "no major differences" between the beliefs of the tea party crowd and the GOP.

_________________

[Space for Rent]


Top
Profile Quote
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Sun 07 Feb , 2010 6:42 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Location: Planet Earth
 
He's lying of course.

Ever since the Tea Parties started, the Republicans have been trying to co opt the movement. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes the fail.

_________________

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 07 Feb , 2010 1:23 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Location: The real world
 
Lord Morningstar
Quote:
House minority leader John Boehner claimed during a radio appearence that there are "no major differences" between the beliefs of the tea party crowd and the GOP.
There has been lots of coverage of the Tea Party convention at Opryland this weekend. The speech delivered by Sarah Palin was broadcasted live in its entirety complete with post game analysis on several networks. I would guess that the Sunday morning news talk shows will feature an additional healthy dose of more Tea time.

Is Boehner right? Notice during the Q&A last night that when Palin was asked about the GOP, whe said the party would be wise to include the tea partiers and they cheered. “The Republican Party would be very smart to absorb as much of the Tea Party movement as possible.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/80 ... y-movement

What we are seeing is NOT the foundation of a new third party independent of the other two. What we are seeing is NOT a third party which will seriously challenge for races around then nation from the ground up. What we are seeing is NOT the beginnings of a 2012 third party running its own candidate in the presidential election. Now that could change with time and unforseen developments, but right now something very different is going on.

Its like some weird alien mating ritual where these two very similar creatures think they can seduce the other, mate with it and then consume the other and use it for food to sustain itself and make itself stronger. There is a belief that the traditional establishment GOP was on the ropes and maybe down for the count before the whole Tea Party thing came along last year to energize them and give them some focus. The GOP seems this as an opportunity to redefine their brand, to rebuild their ranks, and to provide millions of new voters which will translate into ballot box victories just like the one in Massachusetts.

The Tea party folks see this as the chance to take over an existing structure with offices and ballot access in all 50 states without having to go through the terribly complicated work of building a true new party and conning voters into believing that this third party - unlike any in past century and a half - can win.

Of course Boehner is right and there are tremendous swaths of territory where their beliefs cross paths and intersect. You could make a quick list of things that are fairly obvious. Consider that both the Tea Party people and the establishment GOP both
- have a deep hatred for Barack Obama
- have an even deeper hatred for what they call Big Government
- are devoted to this vague concept of smaller government without clarifying it
- have opposed the health care reforms before Congress
- are anti-tax so strongly that it approaches as a nearly religious belief
- they have open loathing for labor unions and the union movement
- are opposed to measures favored by the Civil Rights communities sometimes to the point of open racism
- are anti-immigration and anti-immigrant sometimes to the point of xenophobia
- generally are what is termed "pro-life" which is more accurately anti-abortion

Are there differences? Sure. There are with any two different groups. Support for Wall Street is the obvious one. But there is enough common ground to unite them. In the end there is one realization that will unite them together in that mating dance. Their hatred of President Obama and his Big Government will overcome any differences they may have.

This from Mark Skoda, Chairman of the Memphis Tea Party convention on how his Teapartiers will decide to support candidates from now on
Quote:
The group's leaders plan to support candidates who stand for a set of "First Principles."

Those principles are: fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, less government, states' rights and national security. Prospective political candidates will be expected to support the Republican National Committee platform. If a particular candidate meets the proposed criteria he or she would be eligible for fundraising and grassroots support.
So unless one is intentionally wearing a pair of thick blinders so they do not see reality, it should be obvious that while the Tea party group and the GOP may not be exactly twins, they are siblings in the same family. Yeah, they may fight and squabble and disagree from time to time but they still are closely related and have far more in common than the differences which may divide them from time to time.

You can find more from the article the above quote was taken from here

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/ ... -case.html

_________________

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: Tue 09 Feb , 2010 8:49 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Location: Planet Earth
 
It seems that Tea Partiers aren't very fond of Republican attempts to co-opt the movement.

Bottum Up Resistance to the GOP's Attempted Top Down Take Over of the Tea Party Movement

_________________

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 10 Feb , 2010 1:21 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Location: The real world
 
more evidence that many of the Tea party folks are simply going to fall in line behind the GOP elephant

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... ml?showall
Quote:
Andy Barr reports that the South Carolina Republican Party has established a formal relationship, of sorts, with local tea party groups:

The agreement, as announced by South Carolina Republicans, is designed to serve four goals: increase precinct involvement, improve communication between the state party and grass-roots groups, create liaisons between the state party and the various tea party organizations, and work “closely to make the Republican Party more conservative.”

State Republican Party Chairman Karen Floyd told POLITICO that the arrangement came at the suggestion of a local activist who works with both the state party and local tea party groups.

“This is not something the state party by edict pushed down,” Floyd said. “This is something the grass-roots pushed up with an understanding that we are stronger together than apart.”
The local AP says this is something short of the "Tea Party Republican" group contemplated, which tea party organizers say they viewed as "a threat." And it quotes a skeptical local Republican operative:

While Republican consultant Chip Felkel of Greenville admires the movement, he says it's a mistake for GOP leadership to give tea party activists this much credibility.

"We need to get our own act together and not spend our time trying to co-opt someone else's enthusiasm," Felkel said.

Leaders should "focus on growing the Republican Party and not trying to get on the tea party train as it's leaving the station," Felkel said.

The tea party's destination is unknown, and that's the real danger, Felkel said. "I don't think that train's headed in a direction that has the long-term interest of the Republican Party at heart."
Of course, walking behind the elephant presents its own unique risks and problems.

And there is no shortage of conservative rightwingers who profess their libertarian ideas and their independence but when push comes to shove, wear the colors of the Grand Old Party. Peter Schiff in Connecticut and Rand Paul in Kentucky are just two examples. Now it looks like Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party losing candidate in NY 23 just a short while ago is gearing up to run as ..... you guessed it ... a Republican.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32704.html
Quote:
Three months after a rift between GOP party leaders and grass-roots conservatives led to the special election loss of a historically Republican-held seat in upstate New York, another campaign melodrama is taking shape in the same district.

Doug Hoffman, last November’s Conservative Party nominee in New York’s 23rd District who is vying again for the seat, is refusing to rule out running as a third-party candidate this year if he fails to win the Republican primary.

And his leading backer, Conservative Party Chairman Mike Long, told POLITICO that he refuses to endorse any candidate other than Hoffman — raising the prospect of another contest in which a fracture on the right enables Democratic Rep. Bill Owens to skate to victory.

Long said he was confident that Hoffman would be the Republican nominee but added that Hoffman already had the endorsement of the Conservative Party. Long repeatedly refused to say whether Hoffman would endorse the eventual Republican nominee in the event he loses the GOP primary.

“Of all the potential candidates who are running, Doug Hoffman has the right to run on the Conservative Party platform. There is not even a consideration of anyone else,” Long said. “Doug Hoffman is going to be the Conservative Party candidate.”

Hoffman campaign spokesman Rob Ryan declined to say whether Hoffman would run as a third-party candidate if he failed to win the GOP nomination.

Already preparing for a rematch with Owens, Hoffman commissioned a poll last month showing him with an early, commanding lead in the primary. The poll, conducted by GOP pollster John McLaughlin, shows him leading state Assemblyman William Barclay 56 percent to 24 percent in a head-to-head matchup. The poll shows Hoffman with a strong 63 percent favorability rating among Republicans, with just 19 percent viewing him unfavorably.

“Doug Hoffman has broad-based support in the Republican Party. He plans to earn the nomination, not inherit it,” Ryan said. “Doug Hoffman will be the nominee of the Republican and Conservative parties, and with their unified support, he will defeat Bill Owens in November.”

That confidence hasn’t dissuaded several prospective primary opponents who began making preparations to run after Hoffman fell short in the 2009 special election. After Hoffman’s defeat, candidates began exploring campaigns — with Barclay and businessman Matt Doheny emerging as his top potential opponents.

Unlike in the 2009 special election campaign, in which 11 Republican county leaders in the district selected the party nominee — the much-maligned liberal state Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, who eventually withdrew from the race — the 2010 GOP nominee will be elected in the Sept. 14 primary.

Last summer, Doheny was passed over by county leaders for the nomination, while Barclay opted not to run and instead backed Scozzafava.

After Scozzafava withdrew and endorsed Owens in the race’s final weekend, Hoffman became the de facto Republican nominee but fell short by about 3,600 votes, making Owens the first Democrat to represent the North Country district in more than a century.
It looks like Hoffman learned his lesson. You simply cannot get elected running as a Conservative or Libertarian or on any other extremist party. And where do the whacko rightists go when they need to win the election? The warm embrace of the GOP. Of course, the libertarian pin up boy Ron Paul has known this for a long time now.

_________________

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
elfshadow
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Sun 21 Feb , 2010 2:28 am
Kill the headlights and put it in neutral
Offline
 
Posts: 5407
Joined: Tue 09 Aug , 2005 2:27 am
 
I thought CG in particular would find this interesting. http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/20/ ... tml?hpt=T1


Top
Profile Quote
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Post subject: Re: Future of Republicanism
Posted: Sun 21 Feb , 2010 2:32 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Location: Planet Earth
 
That is a surprise. I never imagined that particular group would go for him.

_________________

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 21 Feb , 2010 6:07 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Location: The real world
 
Thank for that breaking news Elfshadow. This is a match made in heaven as there is a wide area of agreement between many of those rabid right wing extremists and Ron Paul on many key domestic and economic issues. This combo goes together like ketchup and french fries.

_________________

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: Mon 22 Feb , 2010 5:45 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Location: Planet Earth
 
The GOP's "small government" tea party fraud
Glenn Greenwald of Salon wrote:
There's a major political fraud underway: the GOP is once again donning their libertarian, limited-government masks in order to re-invent itself and, more important, to co-opt the energy and passion of the Ron-Paul-faction that spawned and sustains the "tea party" movement. The Party that spat contempt at Paul during the Bush years and was diametrically opposed to most of his platform now pretends to share his views. Standard-issue Republicans and Ron Paul libertarians are as incompatible as two factions can be -- recall that the most celebrated right-wing moment of the 2008 presidential campaign was when Rudy Giuliani all but accused Paul of being an America-hating Terrorist-lover for daring to suggest that America's conduct might contribute to Islamic radicalism -- yet the Republicans, aided by the media, are pretending that this is one unified, harmonious, "small government" political movement.

The Right is petrified that this fraud will be exposed and is thus bending over backwards to sustain the myth.
I should add, at this point, that there are plenty of Democrats who are also petrified that this fraud will be exposed and are also bending over backwards to sustain the myth.
Glenn Greenwald of Salon wrote:
Paul was not only invited to be a featured speaker at the Conservative Political Action Conference but also won its presidential straw poll. Sarah Palin endorsed Ron Paul's son in the Kentucky Senate race. National Review is lavishly praising Paul, while Ann Coulter "felt compelled [in her CPAC speech] to give a shout out to Paul-mania, saying she agreed with everything he stands for outside of foreign policy -- a statement met with cheers." Glenn Beck -- who literally cheered for the Wall Street bailout and Bush's endlessly expanding surveillance state -- now parades around as though he shares the libertarians' contempt for them. Red State's Erick Erickson, defending the new so-called conservative "manifesto," touts the need for Congress to be confined to the express powers of Article I, Section 8, all while lauding a GOP Congress that supported countless intrusive laws -- from federalized restrictions on assisted suicide, marriage, gambling, abortion and drugs to intervention in Terri Schiavo's end-of-life state court proceeding -- nowhere to be found in that Constitutional clause. With the GOP out of power, Fox News suddenly started featuring anti-government libertarians such as John Stossel and Reason Magazine commentators, whereas, when Bush was in power, there was no government power too expanded or limitless for Fox propagandists to praise.

What makes this deceit particularly urgent for them now is that their only hope for re-branding and re-empowerment lies in a movement -- the tea partiers -- that has been (largely though not exclusively) dominated by libertarians, Paul followers, and other assorted idiosyncratic factions who are hostile to the GOP's actual approach to governing. This is a huge wedge waiting to be exposed -- to explode -- as the modern GOP establishment and the actual "small-government" libertarians that fuel the tea party are fundamentally incompatible. Right-wing mavens like Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin and National Review are suddenly feigning great respect for Ron Paul and like-minded activists because they're eager that the sham will be maintained: the blatant sham that the modern GOP and its movement conservatives are a coherent vehicle for those who believe in small government principles. The only evidence of a passionate movement urging GOP resurgence is from people whose views are antithetical to that Party. That's the dirty secret which right-wing polemicists are desperately trying to keep suppressed. Credit to Mike Huckabee for acknowledging this core incompatibility by saying he would not attend CPAC because of its "increasing libertarianism."

These fault lines began to emerge when Sarah Palin earlier this month delivered the keynote speech to the national tea party conference in Nashville, and stood there spitting out one platitude after the next which Paul-led libertarians despise: from neoconservative war-loving dogma and veneration of Israel to glorification of "War on Terror" domestic powers and the need of the state to enforce Palin's own religious and cultural values. Neocons (who still overwhelmingly dominate the GOP) and Paul-led libertarians are arch enemies, and the social conservatives on whom the GOP depends are barely viewed with greater affection. Sarah Palin and Ron Paul are about as far apart on most issues as one can get; the "tea party movement" can't possibly be about supporting each of their worldviews. Moreover, the GOP leadership is currently promising Wall Street even more loyal subservience than Democrats have given in exchange for support, thus bolstering the government/corporate axis which libertarians find so repugnant. And Coulter's manipulative claim that she "agrees with everything [Paul] stands for outside of foreign policy" is laughable; aside from the fact that "foreign policy" is a rather large issue in our political debates (Iraq, Israel, Afghanistan, Iran, Russia), they were on exactly the opposite sides of the most intense domestic controversies of the Bush era: torture, military commissions, habeas corpus, Guantanamo, CIA secrecy, telecom immunity, and warrantless eavesdropping.
There's quite a bit of ground on domestic and economic issues which divide libertarians and the GOP listed there.
Glenn Greenwald of Salon wrote:
But that GOP limited government rhetoric is simply never matched by that Party's conduct, especially when they wield power. The very idea that a political party dominated by neocons, warmongers, surveillance fetishists, and privacy-hating social conservatives will be a party of "limited government" is absurd on its face. There literally is no myth more transparent than the Republican Party's claim to believe in restrained government power. For that reason, it's only a matter of time before the fundamental incompatibility of the "tea party movement" and the political party cynically exploiting it is exposed.
It takes a wilfull blindness to pretend the two are the same even.

_________________

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: Mon 22 Feb , 2010 2:24 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Location: The real world
 
Well lets see here about common ground between libertarian conservatives like Ron Paul and right wing tea party conservatives. CPAC seemed to be made up of the inbred children resulting from the union of both.

They both hate, despise and loathe labor unions and the people who fight for labor.

They both are against the current card check reform before Congress.

They were both against the Obama stimulus plan.

They both hate using the power of government to help the common working person.

They both despise government regulation and advocate measure to weaken it or even eliminate it in wide areas of American life.

They both are opposed to the current health care reforms before Congress.

They both are opposed to the current cap and trade reforms before Congress.

They both preach about the virtues of the sainted free market system (whatever that means to them) and advocate for programs to push this belief.

They both stand opposed to almost any program advocated by racial minorities designed to help them overcome historic racism and economic disparity.

They both are against raising taxes on the richest income earners.

They both advocate for decreasing the size, scope and reach of the federal government.

Many of them on both sides would privatize or eliminate Social Security.

Many of them on both sides would eliminate Medicare.

It would take a willful act of ideological blindness not to admit this. Beyond that, you can be fairly sure when you hear the words "Tenth Amendment", they are coming out of the mouth of a Tea Partier, libertarian or GOP conservative. They seem to believe that the Constitution is divided up into two equal parts - the Tenth Amendment and everything else. These are people who are strangers in a strange land in modern 21st century America. They would be more at home in a tricornered hat in the Philadelphia of the late 1700's then they are living here and now. They are people who are uncomfortable with concepts like racial and ethnic diversity and cringe at the demographic projections for America over the next fifty years. They see themselves living in a changing nation and feel impotent to really do anything about it. Thus we get their anger, their surliness, their hostility and their attempts to stand in the way of everyone else who does not share their outdated viewpoints.

_________________

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
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 14 of 18  [ 345 posts ]
Return to “The Symposium” | Jump to page « 112 13 14 15 1618 »
Jump to: