Comments do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.
And the Democrat version is "What can we do to screw the taxpayer today?"
Initially, I thought "You beat me to it!"
Then I started thinking about it, and the reality is that both Parties spend more time trying to screw each other than they do following the Founder's directions. Then again, maybe being obstructionist to each other's wackier ideas was what the Founder's had in mind...
Then I started thinking about it, and the reality is that both Parties spend more time trying to screw each other than they do following the Founder's directions. Then again, maybe being obstructionist to each other's wackier ideas was what the Founder's had in mind...
i know I'm a big fan of divided government...no matter who sits in the big chair...the more time they spend fighting each other, the less time they have for picking my pocket!
i know I'm a big fan of divided government...no matter who sits in the big chair...the more time they spend fighting each other, the less time they have for picking my pocket!
That's true until one side or the other is in charge of both Houses and the Big House...
Bruce Bartlett, ex-Reaganite (?), violates the eleventh commandment ("thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican). Sure, there's too much bad craziness out there, but Bartlett's criticism is not constructive.
Give us a worthwhile candidate to back, and I think most of this noise goes away. As I say in so many situations - you can't beat something with nothing.
Then I started thinking about it, and the reality is that both Parties spend more time trying to screw each other than they do following the Founder's directions. Then again, maybe being obstructionist to each other's wackier ideas was what the Founder's had in mind...
This is exactly why I prefer a split congress and president, so it is harder to pass anything. Unfortunately, that's not what we have now, and the people in power want to do dangerous things.
I think the Republican Party is in the same boat the Democrats were in in the early eighties — dominated by extremists unable to see how badly their party was alienating moderates and independents. The party’s adults formed the Democratic Leadership Council to push the party back to the center and it was very successful. But there is no group like that for Republicans. That has left lunatics like Glenn Beck as the party’s de facto leaders. As long as that remains the case, I want nothing to do with the GOP.
I will know that the party is on the path to recovery when someone in a position of influence reaches out to former Republicans like me. We are the most likely group among independents to vote Republican. But I see no effort to do so. All I see is pandering to the party’s crazies like the birthers . In the short run that may be enough to pick up a few congressional seats next year, but I see no way a Republican can retake the White House for the foreseeable future.
I'm with Bartlett- until they start pandering to the rational people on the right, they've lost me. This is not how to get back into power, it is how to guarantee minority status.
Good article, even some of the comments are very interesting, including one by this guy,
sinz54 // Aug 30, 2009 at 10:09 am
Bartlett sez: “The party’s adults formed the Democratic Leadership Council to push the party back to the center and it was very successful”
Yes, they did. One year after Mondale’s 49 state shellacking by Reagan, proving that after four years of Reagan, the public really did prefer Reagan to the Dems’ doctrinaire liberalism.
It was that kind of a wipeout that enabled the Democratic Leadership Council to say “We have to make MAJOR changes if we don’t want another shellacking like that again.” If Reagan had just eked out a less impressive win, the DLC would have probably failed to make their case to the rest of the Dems.
In other words, sometimes a spectacular failure is required to knock some sense into people's heads.
He has an interesting suggestion (controversial to some, but I'll post it here),
A comparable scenario would have Sarah Palin (the favorite of the GOP base) clinch the GOP nomination in 2012, and then go on to lose 49 states to Obama. Unless that kind of shock occurs, the GOP base will go on believing that the reason McCain lost was that he wasn’t conservative enough.
So I say: Let the GOP base have it their way for a change. Let them get their favorite candidate nominated (who in all probability is Palin). And let them lose overwhelmingly. Only then will they be so discredited that the GOP leadership can safely give some other folks a chance.
Maybe he's right. Maybe they need to fall to the absolute rock bottom for the to understand that a real change is required. Maybe a complete abject failure is what will finally discredit the religious right and get things back on track.
Bruce Bartlett, ex-Reaganite (?), violates the eleventh commandment ("thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican). Sure, there's too much bad craziness out there, but Bartlett's criticism is not constructive.
Give us a worthwhile candidate to back, and I think most of this noise goes away. As I say in so many situations - you can't beat something with nothing.
I have to disagree. I think he has a point: the Republicans today simply aren't holding the line on big government. The op-ed written by Steele that he mentions focuses on the Republican version of the health care plan, rather than stopping government intervention into healthcare altogether. As I understand it, Reagan would never have supported such a takeover.
at the risk of sounding horribly jaded, I ask, "and this is new how?" The GOP has long been a minority party in Congress and that is how it viewed its role. Once it became a majority party, it did not know how to lead.
Checking the polls here lately, seems like it's actually starting to catch on.
Nah. No matter how unpopular Clinton was, it took more than Dole saying "I'm not Clinton!" to win in 1996. No matter how unpopular Bush was, it took more than Kerry saying "I'm not Bush!" to win in 2004.
I expect the Dems to lose seats in Congress in 2010 (though the apportionment following ACORN's rigged census, and any number of other dirty tricks, will be employed to fight that); but the Republicans need an actual plan and an actual Republican candidate (fuck you, McCain) if they're to have any hope for change in 2012.
Sure, there's too much bad craziness out there, but Bartlett's criticism is not constructive.
I disagree- it is constructive. The party has to quit pandering to crazies- period. Or they will continue to lose people like Mr Bartlett and me and many others.
Bruce Bartlett, ex-Reaganite (?), violates the eleventh commandment ("thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican). Sure, there's too much bad craziness out there, but Bartlett's criticism is not constructive.
Give us a worthwhile candidate to back, and I think most of this noise goes away. As I say in so many situations - you can't beat something with nothing.
Still too early for anyone even thinking of running to actually start the process. Any that do will be a lightening rod for the Democrats. The GOP is going through the standard "wandering in the wilderness". Someone'll start getting more and more press with various ideas. Eventually we'll see several try to take the lead. No matter what, whoever comes out as the frontrunner, I'll still think they're not conservative enough.
I disagree- it is constructive. The party has to quit pandering to crazies- period. Or they will continue to lose people like Mr Bartlett and me and many others.
I don't doubt most lizards would be on that list. None of us should want to be lumped in with the crackpots and Paulians and such like.
I'm with Bartlett- until they start pandering to the rational people on the right, they've lost me. This is not how to get back into power, it is how to guarantee minority status.
Sorry Sharmuta. I can't agree with you. I think Reagan was good for the country as a whole.
Could there be any more evidence for the validity of Bartlett's concern than the "Republican Medicare Bill of Rights for Seniors" ad running on LGF right now? If the RNC is more focused on demonizing Democrats for cutting friggin' Medicare than it is pushing the numerous good ideas that conservatives have for health reform remind me again what the hell small government conservatives need the RNC for?
I don't doubt most lizards would be on that list. None of us should want to be lumped in with the crackpots and Paulians and such like.
No, most lizards would not want to be associated with the crackpots and the Paulians and the LaRouchians and the Neo-Birchers, etc, etc. But, unless these nuts are rejected for what they are, they risk losing people like most lizards.
I disagree- it is constructive. The party has to quit pandering to crazies- period. Or they will continue to lose people like Mr Bartlett and me and many others.
Might be nice to have a visible leadership with a definite plan as well. The 'Beck by default' leadership isn't helping at all.
But we do have one thing right, and former-VP Dick Cheney laid that out in spades over the weekend.
I'm very sure that GWB, or his dad, or Ronald Reagan would NOT have endorsed claw-back prosecutions of American security officers who not only were following orders during a time of unprecedented national peril, but did so with great success -- and honor.
The pending prosecutions of CIA security professionals is a national disgrace -- and there's only one party who can claim that as their legacy.
I think both parties have always adhered to this principle, and that's fine with me, it's politics afterall. It seems to me though that the GOP has made this principle their actual platform rather than having this principle merely complement their substantive platform.
No, most lizards would not want to be associated with the crackpots and the Paulians and the LaRouchians and the Neo-Birchers, etc, etc. But, unless these nuts are rejected for what they are, they risk losing people like most lizards.
Exactly what I'm saying. They're losing us because they're pandering to the idiotarians upon which we feast. We don't want their Kool-aid, thank you very much.
As a practical matter that is exactly what the GOP has to do since the Dems control the White House and both Houses of Congress. It is either that or roll over.
The GOP needs the adults to step in and provide leadership. Right now, it appears that the inmates are running the asylum - a situation little different than the Democrats for that matter, who are generally acting like 2-year olds who want more and want you to pay for it.
The GOP has the potential to have a strong message on defense and fiscal responsibility. They frittered away the latter, and the former isn't nearly as much of a concern because people think the economy is more important and pressing as an issue.
The key to 2010 and beyond is to focus on the economy and the devastating effects that passing massive new entitlements will have on the national deficit, and that Obama keeps increasing spending without caring about the long term effects. Tax and spend is not a way to fiscal responsibility. It is the antithesis of fiscal responsibility.
Bruce Bartlett, ex-Reaganite (?), violates the eleventh commandment ("thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican). Sure, there's too much bad craziness out there, but Bartlett's criticism is not constructive.
Give us a worthwhile candidate to back, and I think most of this noise goes away. As I say in so many situations - you can't beat something with nothing.
It's fair to criticize the people who drove him out, and who are also getting on my every last nerve to the point I"m considering leaving. Reagan's saying was originally tossed out the window by Pat Toomey and the Norquist and the oxymoronically named "club for growth" crowd way back in 2005, shortly after Bush was re elected. That's when "RINO" hunting season opened, and we've had it ever since. The Socons don't like it when they get tit for tat, but they started this musical chairs dance. I won't be sorry if they can't find a seat when the music stops.
The proposed cuts in Medicare are very real. Not only has Obama discussed the elimination of Medicare Advantage (and I am not sure why, as this is a premium based service), but the CBO estmates that the current House Bill cuts between $100B -$160B from the over all Medicare budget. Medicare is a legitimate debate point.
I was hoping it would happen after this past election turned out to be a pretty overwhelming victory for Obama.
Guess not.
I doubt it. As long as those who think we're not conservative enough (without fully understanding that conservative /= religious right) are in control and steer the ship, we'll be sunk by them. Maybe if we let them go and have their Mondale, we can retake the ship and its rudder.
I know it sounds bad to think this way, but how else can one discredit this crappola unless it fails spectacularly?
Might be nice to have a visible leadership with a definite plan as well. The 'Beck by default' leadership isn't helping at all.
I agree. The problem is, the head of the RNC is supposed to deal with fund raising, not deal with leadership issues. I think what the RNC needs right now is both, and until we get someone to form a plan on how to improve leadership- we'll continue to have this problem. Hard to raise money for a leaderless ship.
There are centrist Democrats? The soon-to-be-neutered blue dogs? Who? All I see on TV interviews are the known leftists from the good old days ... the exact same faces I saw opposing Bush for the sole reason that he was Bush.
I agree. The problem is, the head of the RNC is supposed to deal with fund raising, not deal with leadership issues. I think what the RNC needs right now is both, and until we get someone to form a plan on how to improve leadership- we'll continue to have this problem. Hard to raise money for a leaderless ship.
It doesn't help that every potential leader in the Republican Party has been turning up The Stupid (tm) lately. Seems like every time a new political star rises on the Right, they wind up with their foot in their mouth.
As long as the GOP goes hat in hand to the religious right (and allows them more of a voice than they ought to have), they will remain fractured, disorganized as less attractive to moderate voters.
Sorry, I thought I saw something about the '80's and that the extreme wing was in power at the time. Skimming messages while trying to keep up just isn't working for my slow speed brain pan.
Where the hell were all of Michael's friends and family when he really needed help? Like when he first started letting little kids sleep in his bed with him? Where were all his friends and family when he was abusing prescription drugs? Or mangling his face?
re: #36 cronus
With all due respect " If the RNC is more focused on demonizing Democrats for cutting friggin' Medicare than it is pushing the numerous good ideas that conservatives have for health reform remind me again what the hell small government conservatives need the RNC for?"
Is disingenuous at best. There are numerous - indeed perhaps the majority of seniors these days what with the failure of 401's, the tanking of the stock market and loss of time honored status of bond holders, who are entirely dependent on both Social Security and Social Security Disability and Medicare. So the Dems think it's ok to NOT give a cola to SS recipients but it is ok to increase the cost of Medicare for seniors. This is exactly what the GOP should be attacking.And I don't understand why, with the DEMOCRATS OWNING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, we are so focused on how bad the GOP is; the GOP is in no position to stop the Democrat controlled government.
This doesn't mean the GOP shouldn't continue to try to come up with workable alternatives to Obamacare
but the two are not incompatible.
Reminds me of another quote I saw on politicalwire.com:
"I don't have to read it, or know what's in it. I'm going to oppose it anyways."
-- Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), quoted by the Express-Star, on the health care reform bill.
At some point you have to start coming up with a coherent opposition that is based on more than simply knee-jerk opposition. I could care less if the Demoncrats did it in the past or not. We're not in Kinder care anymore and it may be a pipe dream, but I'm hoping we have real conversation and real efforts to reform some of the issues that are pressing: Health Care, Immigration reform and enforcement, etc etc.
The worst part for the Republicans, They're still making zero effort to reach out to minorities and that's going to sink them (food for thought, in 80, Carter won the same percentage of white and minority vote that Obama did. Carter lost by a landslide, Obama won comfortably, Article on 538) because these trends aren't going to reverse themselves. and unless the Republican party starts expressing an interest in issues that are pressing for people other than white people over 40, they'll continue their death spiral.
Yes a lot of them are worried about their seats too, which is why Obamacare is on the ropes right now. Otherwise it would have been a done deal already and we would have the Pelosi Public Plan already signed.
I disagree- it is constructive. The party has to quit pandering to crazies- period. Or they will continue to lose people like Mr Bartlett and me and many others.
The proposed cuts in Medicare are very real. Not only has Obama discussed the elimination of Medicare Advantage (and I am not sure why, as this is a premium based service), but the CBO estmates that the current House Bill cuts between $100B -$160B from the over all Medicare budget. Medicare is a legitimate debate point.
Some would say that conjecture on your part sounds "fishy".
This is exactly why I prefer a split congress and president, so it is harder to pass anything. Unfortunately, that's not what we have now, and the people in power want to do dangerous things.
...with his civic virtues. But that's just a prelude to the odyssey if the GOP ever gets a decent pilot program up and over its ideological ridgeline.///
The sleazy stalker blogs are trying to push out a new smear about me today -- that I banned someone just for posting an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence.
See, that's how evil I really am.
Of course, the context for that comment was that it was advocating a violent revolution in the US, but there's no need to mention that little detail.
Yes a lot of them are worried about their seats too, which is why Obamacare is on the ropes right now. Otherwise it would have been a done deal already and we would have the Pelosi Public Plan already signed.
So they're being pushed to the center now.
I read the article as being of the opinion that they were pushed to the center for the election.
The sleazy stalker blogs are trying to push out a new smear about me today -- that I banned someone just for posting an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence.
See, that's how evil I really am.
Of course, the context for that comment was that it was advocating a violent revolution in the US, but there's no need to mention that little detail.
Of course, among the things that was disappointing about that incident was the number of people who didn't recognize that it was a excerpt from the Declaration of Independence...
The sleazy stalker blogs are trying to push out a new smear about me today -- that I banned someone just for posting an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence.
See, that's how evil I really am.
Of course, the context for that comment was that it was advocating a violent revolution in the US, but there's no need to mention that little detail.
Still too early for anyone even thinking of running to actually start the process. Any that do will be a lightening rod for the Democrats. The GOP is going through the standard "wandering in the wilderness". Someone'll start getting more and more press with various ideas. Eventually we'll see several try to take the lead. No matter what, whoever comes out as the frontrunner, I'll still think they're not conservative enough.
(grumble, grumble)
Screw this wandering, bring on the dune buggies and satnav systems.
With all due respect " If the RNC is more focused on demonizing Democrats for cutting friggin' Medicare than it is pushing the numerous good ideas that conservatives have for health reform remind me again what the hell small government conservatives need the RNC for?"
Is disingenuous at best. There are numerous - indeed perhaps the majority of seniors these days what with the failure of 401's, the tanking of the stock market and loss of time honored status of bond holders, who are entirely dependent on both Social Security and Social Security Disability and Medicare. So the Dems think it's ok to NOT give a cola to SS recipients but it is ok to increase the cost of Medicare for seniors. This is exactly what the GOP should be attacking.And I don't understand why, with the DEMOCRATS OWNING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, we are so focused on how bad the GOP is; the GOP is in no position to stop the Democrat controlled government.This doesn't mean the GOP shouldn't continue to try to come up with workable alternatives to Obamacare
but the two are not incompatible.
I'd have to disagree on that point - they can align with the conservative Dems. As things stand now, aren't the odds against the health care bill passing, for example?
I read the New Majority often, and I find it, like LGF, an outpost (for the most part) of more independent thinking, and a relief from the crazy on both sides. My feelings are pretty well summed up by this comment from the blog: oldgal // Aug 30, 2009 at 10:49 am
This country has serious problems. When I evaluate a candidate today, I look at the expertise of the people around them, their managerial abilities, and their ability to come up with practical solutions to real problems. I have no expectation to agree with all of their ideas, but will go with the candidate who I believe has the best probability of resolving the big issues, whether the resolution be to my liking or not. Currently the Republican Party seems bent on destruction in the most juvenile manner. I find this blog one of the more constructive ones, as it at least shows the courage to occasionally stray from what has become an ideology and tends not to pander to people’s fears. However, if one counts the number of posts that speak to solutions versus the number of posts that speak to “what’s horrible about what the other side is doing”, it still falls woefully short. The Democratic Party is showing full potential to hand things over to the ideologues of the extreme left which would be equally disastrous. It is time for the parties to start fighting for the best solutions rather than against the other guys solution. This country needs at least 2 viable parties and at the current rate will soon have none. Both parties need to start putting the country ahead of the party.
The sleazy stalker blogs are trying to push out a new smear about me today -- that I banned someone just for posting an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence.
See, that's how evil I really am.
Of course, the context for that comment was that it was advocating a violent revolution in the US, but there's no need to mention that little detail.
Reality always always paint a bulls eye for the whack jobs.
I read Bartlett's Wiki entry and found this at the end...
In Bartlett's latest book, The New American Economy:The Failure of Reaganomics and a New Way Forward (ISBN 978-0-230-61587-8), he goes back to the economic roots of Impostor and abandons the conservative dogma in favor of a policy strongly based on what’s worked in the past. Bartlett explains what went wrong with Reaganomics and what the Obama Administration is doing to fix it.
What's the difference between a Republican saying it and a Democrat saying it? Simple. The Republican barks it without any bite. The Democratic acts on it without wasting time saying it.
Extremism is a paranoid right v. socialistic Utopian left.
Lower taxes and cut spending, is that too much to ask of Congress?
What's the difference between a Republican saying it and a Democrat saying it? Simple. The Republican barks it without any bite. The Democratic acts on it without wasting time saying it.
Extremism is a paranoid right v. socialistic Utopian left.
Lower taxes and cut spending, is that too much to ask of Congress?
Both are true. Jim Web ran as a "Leftcon" if there is such a thing. In the midwest you've seen quite a few people swapping R party affiliation to Dems, it's the sort of thing that happens when Pols look at their chances in a region where the party is under Iron control by Brownback types. If you go into office you want to be effective, not at the beck and call of loons and their loyalty tests. The dems have the most power right now which leads to effectiveness for individual representatives, while the R's are visibly controlled by a small minority of loons at present in those same regions.
Do they mean that ubiquitous and irritating Jefferson quote?
If someone quoted from the Declaration in support of revolution, why didn't one of the lizards quote the bit about "governments long instituted among men should not be lightly changed"?
The sleazy stalker blogs are trying to push out a new smear about me today -- that I banned someone just for posting an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence.
See, that's how evil I really am.
Of course, the context for that comment was that it was advocating a violent revolution in the US, but there's no need to mention that little detail.
Much like today's slash & burn political climate where opponents (from all sides) slime by omission of fact and utilization of the out of context...
re: #99 Flyers1974
Well to be honest with you I have NO IDEA where the hell the ObamaCare bill stands now.
But the fact that it MAY be in trouble is a good sign; maybe it'll make the Dems realize that by giving Republicans SOME input to proposed legistlation before they write it and a review of the draft, then they might get some Republicans on board (along with the Blue Dog Dems) if for no other reason than to cover their asses.
Trust me on this, PLEASE: Raising the cost of Medicare to Seniors and the disabled who are living on fixed incomes - which will NOT be going up - is in fact going to hurt, SERIOUSLY HURT an awful lot of Americans.
A great number of whom voted for Obama in '08 and most assuredly won't be voting for Obama in 2012 - or Dem congressional candidates in 2010
and assuredly in 2012.
I'm very sure that GWB, or his dad, or Ronald Reagan would NOT have endorsed claw-back prosecutions of American security officers who not only were following orders during a time of unprecedented national peril, but did so with great success -- and honor.
The pending prosecutions of CIA security professionals is a national disgrace -- and there's only one party who can claim that as their legacy.
I've been sending GOP fund-raising mail to the circular file for several months now. The flyers' talking points are all about (shriek/scream)what the Obama Administration is (gasp) doing. There's not even a mouse-fart of a plan for getting back to the Contract With America, or something like it.
I think you are missing the forest for the trees here .Of all the foundational health care reform principals the RNC (the supposed party of less government) could be championing with paid advertising (i.e. moving from an employer to individual-based tax credit for health insurance for starters) it puts money behind an effort to defend a fiscally insolvent government insurance program to scare some seniors back into the Republican column for 2010.
This is exactly what is wrong with the Republican Party on fiscal issues. Remember all those Medicare offsets that were put in place to cover the cost when the Republican Congress and President Bush enacted Medicare Part D (the drug benefit)? No you don't, because they never happened. Medicare just got bigger.
I still don't understand the underlying logic of: "The Republicans aren't doing everything perfectly my way, so let the other guys win who are doing absolutely everything opposite of my way." Not a single person voicing anti-Republican sentiment from the right these days points to any instance of siding with the Democrats, yet if "their side" can't do everything exactly the way they want then they're doomed, broken, a horrible failure, etc.
Our biggest problem is and has been that the Republicans in Washington seem to be bad at the revised game of modern politics. They let the Dems constantly frame the arguments and so play right into their hands.
Take Health Care, for instance... instead of the proper response of "What crisis are you TALKING about?" they argue about the exact type of pseudo-free-market fixes that will be foisted off on the country. If the rising costs are the "crisis" maybe a proposal to undo tax and regulatory goads towards managed health care instead of allowing actual insurance would be a good plan. It's as if no one realizes in D.C. that paying a doctor for a checkup has GOT to be cheaper than paying an insurance company to pay a doctor for a checkup. Yet, they once again agree with everything the Dems say, right up to the point of actual legislation... then they argue methods.
{What's funny to me is that all the arguments for goverment-mangled health care can be made about food, too. I mean, food is necessary to life. It's arguably just as much a "right" as a doctor's care ("just as much" meaning "not at all" as far as I can tell). Plus the cost of food is rising even more rapidly than health care, especially since our cheap corn base has been diverted into making really low-grade fuels. Is anyone going to argue that we need universal managed Food Care? That insurance companies and employers should be paying for everyones' food? You can live without a lot of medical care... but can't live at all without food... seems more crisis-y to me.}
No, my problem is NOT that the Republicans are opposing the Democrats, it's that they don't do it soon enough, hard enough, and loudly enough.
He was obvious in his intent. First with the stand alone quote, then with his followup replies. It happened quickly and there was no doubt about what he was doing. Looks like he has taken his whining defense to the stalkers now. They can have him.
re: #110 badger1970
"Lower taxes and cut spending, is that too much to ask of Congress?"
While it's controlled by the likes of Pelosi and Reid, yes it is asking too much.
As silly as it is to "spend your way to recovery" it's even sillier to spend your way to recovery with borrowed money.
Ask China how they feel about our Congress' (with Obama giving them direction) feel about our borrowing from THEM to spend our way out of a recession.
Mornin' RW!! Hope you're feeling great today. Re your note that many who voted in 08 changing their minds as we approach the next election cycle, you might find this Rasmussen kinda interesting:
Well to be honest with you I have NO IDEA where the hell the ObamaCare bill stands now.
But the fact that it MAY be in trouble is a good sign; maybe it'll make the Dems realize that by giving Republicans SOME input to proposed legistlation before they write it and a review of the draft, then they might get some Republicans on board (along with the Blue Dog Dems) if for no other reason than to cover their asses.
Trust me on this, PLEASE: Raising the cost of Medicare to Seniors and the disabled who are living on fixed incomes - which will NOT be going up - is in fact going to hurt, SERIOUSLY HURT an awful lot of Americans.
A great number of whom voted for Obama in '08 and most assuredly won't be voting for Obama in 2012 - or Dem congressional candidates in 2010
and assuredly in 2012.
Assuming the only candidates the GOP runs aren't all tarred as loony creationist nirthers.
I've been sending GOP fund-raising mail to the circular file for several months now. The flyers' talking points are all about (shriek/scream)what the Obama Administration is (gasp) doing. There's not even a mouse-fart of a plan for getting back to the Contract With America, or something like it.
I presume CtE meant that in a sardonic sort of ironic kind of sarcastic way, if that helps. Supposed to pass for humor. OK, he left off the sarc slash, but we all know he's too good for that.
Assuming the only candidates the GOP runs aren't all tarred as loony creationist nirthers.
Well first of all, while I do appreciate Charles showing us all the loony creationists and just plain loons in the GOP, please don't let that obscure your view of all the fucking loons in the Democratic Party. Ya know, the Charlie Rangels and Christopher Dodds and all.
Again, I have great faith in the Democratic Party's ability to elect GOP candidates.
Well to be honest with you I have NO IDEA where the hell the ObamaCare bill stands now.
But the fact that it MAY be in trouble is a good sign; maybe it'll make the Dems realize that by giving Republicans SOME input to proposed legistlation before they write it and a review of the draft, then they might get some Republicans on board (along with the Blue Dog Dems) if for no other reason than to cover their asses.
Trust me on this, PLEASE: Raising the cost of Medicare to Seniors and the disabled who are living on fixed incomes - which will NOT be going up - is in fact going to hurt, SERIOUSLY HURT an awful lot of Americans.
A great number of whom voted for Obama in '08 and most assuredly won't be voting for Obama in 2012 - or Dem congressional candidates in 2010
and assuredly in 2012.
The ever-growing deficit numbers released by the White House last week may have turned health care legislation into road kill for the foreseeable future. It's impossible to pitch a vast expansion of government when government is currently running deficits that fall squarely in the unbelievable part of the spectrum. No one can reasonably support such a thing, at least not now.
I'm looking for the Dems to start managing expectation, reduce their bill to something like minimal insurance reform, declare victory at it's passage and blame the Republicans for the failure to pass anything else. Even the Dems are having trouble stomaching this - especially with elections looming. They wanted to get something passed before now so they could have it over and done with before election season moves into full swing, but that will start in earnest in just a month, and by the time anything comes up for a vote campaign season will be in full swing.
Too early to be certain, but my tea leaves are arranging themselves into a death pattern.
In my opinion, these tea parties had little, if anything, to do with current or projected tax levels. They were just partisan pep rallies designed to make out-of-power conservatives and Republicans feel better. Secondarily, they were about building audiences for Fox News and right-wing talk radio hosts.
Well first of all, while I do appreciate Charles showing us all the loony creationists and just plain loons in the GOP, please don't let that obscure your view of all the fucking loons in the Democratic Party. Ya know, the Charlie Rangels and Christopher Dodds and all.
Again, I have great faith in the Democratic Party's ability to elect GOP candidates.
The problem is, the MSM will treat all Republicans as loonies, and the people who don't go to the Web for their news will believe them.
For Republicans, it's always been fiscal issues. Reagan won running with conservative (meaning GOLDWATER) fiscal principles, and so did Newt and the 1994 House.
Crazy kookspiracies and panic mongering are not attractive to the electorate. It's not a positive message, even if you agree with it.
Returning to Goldwater styled economic principles, and making them front and center might work.
The Democrats try to screw the Republicans, and the Republicans try to screw the Democrats.
Between them they have had a monopoly on governing for many decades.
They have a shared responsibility for keeping the country on an even keel, which is the function of governing.
The country is not at all on an even keel.
Both parties together merit an EPIC FAIL and this needs to be written across their consciousness at every election, and it is time for a new, centrist third party.
You know... there are intelligent Republican responses. And if you watch CSPAN-2 at 4am on a Thursday you can see them prominently displayed. Of course, at any other time, all you'll see is Joe Blow the Nirther Extraordinaire, for some reason.
Any stupidity on the right gets front page treatment, I fear. Any measured, intelligent proposal gets no treatment whatsoever.
Not exactly. There never had been a law passed by the Reichstag allowing any of it. There never was to have been any evidence of the crimes-- all of it was to have been erased-- no paper trail, no proof. It was a group of functionaries who came up with the whole scheme at Wansee in late 41 early 42.
As for the CIA, yes, they accountable. Look at the restrictions placed on it in the mid and late 70. But-- this has to wait for another time.
Again we're seeing the same depressing reaction when reputable conservatives criticize the GOP -- people call them RINOs and tell them to get out, who needs you anyway.
And on a totally unrelated note, Marvel was just purchased by Disney...
Spiderman Versus Cruela will soon follow. *sigh* another piece of my childhood dies. (though seriously it may not be too bad if Disney keeps their collective hands off of Marvel)
I'm glad to see you have this guy's number. That whole post is a treacly paean to Bruce Bartlett. By Bruce Bartlett.
I think a lot of these pseudo-self-flaggelating pieces by "Republicans" are the product of the fact that some "politically involved" citizens see politics mainly as a spectator sport, and the Repubs just got schooled at the polls. People don't want to be seen as a "fan" of the losing team.
Nobody wears a Detroit Lions jacket these days.
Mark my words... Obama will be a 2 term President. Ugh.
I think people forget that Obama has only been in office for 8 months. Between now and 2012, his job approval may have gone up and down ten times. I don't think things are any different than in the past - if the economy is doing well or percieved to be doing well, he'll win. Otherwise, he won't.
re: #121 Thanos
Hey Thanos - Jim Webb was always a "LeftCon" (and yes, they do exist, even in the GOP!). And he took his shot as a Dem, notwithstanding that he was Secretary of the Navy during Reagan's administration.
And no, I'm not suggesting political expediency here: I know Jimmy Webb and he is a principled, honorable man who like many of us are conflicted by the choices we seem to have to make.
Again we're seeing the same depressing reaction when reputable conservatives criticize the GOP -- people call them RINOs and tell them to get out, who needs you anyway.
And on and on it will go, as the Republican party slowly silences or pushes out all who would criticize The Party Line (tm) in favor of the crazies who are saying whatever they think will score cheap political points. It's not about substance anymore, it's about air time and who can get the most sensationalism.
I think a lot of these pseudo-self-flaggelating pieces by "Republicans" are the product of the fact that some "politically involved" citizens see politics mainly as a spectator sport, and the Repubs just got schooled at the polls. People don't want to be seen as a "fan" of the losing team.
Right, because nobody could honestly see anything wrong with the perfect, flawless Republican Party.
I think BHO put all his eggs in the wrong basket. If he had waited on this and focused on long-term energy reforms and development, there would have been more people on both sides of the aisle who would have supported it. No one learned from history what happened in 1992-3 with "Hillarycare".
Again we're seeing the same depressing reaction when reputable conservatives criticize the GOP -- people call them RINOs and tell them to get out, who needs you anyway.
It's not a good reaction, but looking at the other side, we've had nothing but self-criticism for a while now. There might be excellent proposals, plans, leaders even on the right side, but they're completely lost in all the noise.
And it certainly doesn't help that the opposition press, you know ABC, CNN etc, will prominently feature the critical and the extreme, while completely ignoring anything sensible from the right whatsoever.
re: #122 Dianna
Uh, Dianna - what irritating quote of Jefferson's? Please don't forget that the Declaration was unanimously approved as written.
And NO, I'M NOT DEFENDING THE STALKER BLOGGERS. And I'm most surely not calling for a violent overthrow of the US Government.
So McCain was too left wing so the Republicans voted for Obama and the Democrats, and now the the Republicans are too right wing so Republicans are going to vote for Obama and Democrats?
Morning Charles!! Just a quick technical question. When I open LGF, I'm logged off, and must log in. No prob. What I noticed though, is if I open LGF to the front page, log in, and then open a topic, all buttons are available.
But, if I open a topic (let's say one that already has 50 comments) and then log in, the existing 50 comments are still grayed out, but any comments that appear after I log in are hot. Is that by design - or, sigh, is it once again my silly little system doin' it?
For Republicans, it's always been fiscal issues. Reagan won running with conservative (meaning GOLDWATER) fiscal principles, and so did Newt and the 1994 House.
Crazy kookspiracies and panic mongering are not attractive to the electorate. It's not a positive message, even if you agree with it.
Returning to Goldwater styled economic principles, and making them front and center might work.
Maybe... If anyone is listening.
A platform based on fiscal responsibility would resonate strongly with American voters right now, who on the whole are exercising their very own fiscal restraint on a daily basis. Although the GOP has dropped that ball in recent years, they can still pick it up again - while the Democrats certainly cannot with annual trillion-dollar deficits staring them in the face for the next decade under even the most optimistic circumstances.
Every GOP member of Congress ought to have an updated version of this graph printed on T-shirts that they wear everywhere, including the halls of Congress. It's gotten even more alarming in recent months, with projected deficits at least 25% higher than what's shown.
It stuns everyone I show it to, Liberal or Conservative, into immediate silence.
And our soldiers and Marines who've died in Iraq and Afghanistan were "only following orders" too. Likewise with the firefighters in the World Trade Center.
oops! I forgot. They're not germane to the current intellectualizing.
And on a totally unrelated note, Marvel was just purchased by Disney...
Spiderman Versus Cruela will soon follow. *sigh* another piece of my childhood dies. (though seriously it may not be too bad if Disney keeps their collective hands off of Marvel)
Or maybe it will go the other way, and Disney characters will turn into superheros.
Imagine the seven dwarfs -
Grumpy - makes anyone around him miserable.
Happy - makes anyone roll on the floor laughing, incapacitating them
Sneezy - makes them sneeze, same
In this vein, I'll skip Sleepy
Dopey - turns people into Democrats or Nirthers
Bashful - never shows up, so we don't know what he does
Doc - he can cure all the things the others do
You know... there are intelligent Republican responses. And if you watch CSPAN-2 at 4am on a Thursday you can see them prominently displayed. Of course, at any other time, all you'll see is Joe Blow the Nirther Extraordinaire, for some reason.
Any stupidity on the right gets front page treatment, I fear. Any measured, intelligent proposal gets no treatment whatsoever.
Yes, I've heard snippets of sense from several. Someone needs to grab the bit in his teeth and run with it.
Yes, that means the Republicans need to use the government to structure private enterprise, and yes, almost certainly spend signficant new government money on a new entitlement. Nixon was ready for something like this. Bob Dole under Clinto was ready for something like this. We are way past the time. But Obama is this right - we are already spending most of the money, under false headings, much of a new plan can be reclaiming money that is currently paid under bogus headings and used to pay for those without policies.
Basically, health care accounts, including a tax credit for low income people, AND THAT'S THE WHOLE DEAL. Leave all existing policies alone. Government pays a subsidy for commercial insurance companies to sign up people with preexisting conditions, and to prevent insurance companies from jacking rates in case of illness. $$$. But that's where we're going, so get in front of the parade and lead it already.
..all the while the MSM ignoring their bias issues and the loony left when inconvenient.
Life, like baseball ain't fair.
Unfortunately, if baseball is unfair, the price we all pay is negligable. The price for the media being unfair is much steeper and could mean our freedom.
Not exactly. There never had been a law passed by the Reichstag allowing any of it. There never was to have been any evidence of the crimes-- all of it was to have been erased-- no paper trail, no proof. It was a group of functionaries who came up with the whole scheme at Wansee in late 41 early 42.
As for the CIA, yes, they accountable. Look at the restrictions placed on it in the mid and late 70. But-- this has to wait for another time.
Salt mines are calling.
Myth.
I helped translate an entire 1,088 pp. detailing the Nazi legal system only as it pertained to the non-Germans ("Fremdvölkische") under the Third Reich. Everything was documented, every administrative decision, every implementing regulation, every law. The "no smoking gun" story is a lie.
I think BHO put all his eggs in the wrong basket. If he had waited on this and focused on long-term energy reforms and development, there would have been more people on both sides of the aisle who would have supported it. No one learned from history what happened in 1992-3 with "Hillarycare".
That's because Obama is convinced everyone will follow him; he's so charismatic that he can do anything just by showing off his halo.
NO! How on earth did you get that cat back?! Did it just wander in and ask what's for supper or did someone find it?!
I got a call from the county animal shelter. They scanned him and found his microchip and called my business in Kentucky, which is the number I had when I had the thing installed in him. My manager called and said, "They found your cat. Here's the number." So I called and went to the shelter and there he was!
He was scheduled for euthanization the day I got the call.
I think BHO put all his eggs in the wrong basket. If he had waited on this and focused on long-term energy reforms and development, there would have been more people on both sides of the aisle who would have supported it. No one learned from history what happened in 1992-3 with "Hillarycare".
I think you are correct. Unless he believes that the health care system as it is now, is a permanent weight around the economy. Health care sure isn't my area of knowledge, but I find it hard to believe he'd stake so much on account of the 15% or what ever it is who are uninsured.
re: #160 subsailor68
Yeah, I get the same Rasmussen poll e-mails you get.
As Mark Twain once said (and boy is it ever true of THIS Congress) "It can probably be shown with statistics that there is no such thing as a native American criminal class...except of course for Congress."
Morning Charles!! Just a quick technical question. When I open LGF, I'm logged off, and must log in. No prob. What I noticed though, is if I open LGF to the front page, log in, and then open a topic, all buttons are available.
But, if I open a topic (let's say one that already has 50 comments) and then log in, the existing 50 comments are still grayed out, but any comments that appear after I log in are hot. Is that by design - or, sigh, is it once again my silly little system doin' it?
That's how it's supposed to work. The Javascript code code to go through a page and enable all those features on a long page full of comments takes way too long to run in Internet Explorer.
That's why, when you log in, you see a message that says "some features may not be active until you reload."
I think BHO put all his eggs in the wrong basket. If he had waited on this and focused on long-term energy reforms and development, there would have been more people on both sides of the aisle who would have supported it. No one learned from history what happened in 1992-3 with "Hillarycare".
Hey, at least "Hillarycare" was a coherent program!
I see a great deal wrong with the Republican Party.
Question:
Who here would vote for a Republican in 2010 (as of right now), without some kind of coherent plan for spending control?
I wouldn't. There's no point to voting for either "Democrat-lite", or voting for "My only platform is: I hate Democrats". There's no plan, no ideas, and no vision to those.
I see a great deal wrong with the Republican Party.
Question:
Who here would vote for a Republican in 2010 (as of right now), without some kind of coherent plan for spending control?
Me... because the current Democrat administration has shown what they want to do, and even without a "coherent plan for spending control?" I daresay choosing a president by random lottery would probably result in someone who would abuse the economy less.
It was the line about throwing off an oppressive government. People focus on that one but ignore the next phrase about not doing it for trivial reasons.
The other "irritating" line that's been trotted out a lot recently is one used out of context and one, I think, Jefferson probably wished he had never written-- the one about irrigating the tree of Liberty.
A platform based on fiscal responsibility would resonate strongly with American voters right now, who on the whole are exercising their very own fiscal restraint on a daily basis. Although the GOP has dropped that ball in recent years, they can still pick it up again - while the Democrats certainly cannot with annual trillion-dollar deficits staring them in the face for the next decade under even the most optimistic circumstances.
Every GOP member of Congress ought to have an updated version of this graph printed on T-shirts that they wear everywhere, including the halls of Congress. It's gotten even more alarming in recent months, with projected deficits at least 25% higher than what's shown.
It stuns everyone I show it to, Liberal or Conservative, into immediate silence.
Why would we want to do that when we can run around spreading lies and distortions instead? ///
I agree completely with you- there is still time for the fiscal wing of the GOP to stand up and say "ENOUGH!" But they're not doing it. Perhaps part of it is calculated in that they're waiting for a bit closer to the election season, but in the meantime, this is very depressing and discouraging for a fiscal republican like me. I just want them to get back to 1994 issues- they never followed through on them, and I think if there is a moral imperative in this country today- it's the economy and government spending.
I never called the Party perfect.
But the Republican Party is hardly spending their days "trying to screw the Democrats". Is any and all opposition to the Dem agenda to be considered "screwing the Democrats"? How/where are they being screwed by the GOP?
Certainly not in the press or in Congress where it would actually matter.
The one about "the tree of liberty must be periodically refreshed blah, blah, blah."
I happen to detest Jefferson, and that quote in particular.
I've always been kind of a fan of Jefferson (there's a copy of the Declaration of Independence hanging on my 4 yr. olds wall)...but that particular quote is over-used and misused too much to take seriously anymore
I see a great deal wrong with the Republican Party.
Question:
Who here would vote for a Republican in 2010 (as of right now), without some kind of coherent plan for spending control?
That is the money question. Stop pitching me only tax cuts and tell me about fiscal restraint. Cutting my income taxes does me know good if the growth of entitlements necessitates a huge future increase in payroll taxes.
Including murder? Why then did Himmler have to keep giving the members of the einsatzgruppen so many pep talks about how what they were doing was necessary but how they would never be able to talk of it?
You're completely ignoring the fact that people like Bartlett are not just leaving -- they're being driven out, quite deliberately.
And when the top leaders of the party have signed on to the craziness -- both Steele and Gingrich backed up Sarah Palin's ludicrous "death panel" claim -- how can any sensible person justify continuing to be part of it?
I see a great deal wrong with the Republican Party.
Question:
Who here would vote for a Republican in 2010 (as of right now), without some kind of coherent plan for spending control?
I won't. This is my line in the sand. I'm a Goldwater conservative, and if I don't see some fiscal issues dealt with in either a party agenda or individual candidates, I won't support it.
re: #239 Dianna
Well since you detest Jefferson and I think he stood heads and shoulders above all the other Founding Fathers (except for Adams, Franklin and Washington) there is no point to my disagreeing with you, except to point out that the Tree of Liberty has indeed been fed with the blood of Patriots in all of the Wars the U.S. has been involved in.
Eichmann's orders were lawful under the regime he served.
But of course, the sacred CIA must never be held to account for anything, no matter what.
While I don't really approve of the investigation into the CIA, I'm not one of those that think it's the end of the spying world either.
I know this is not a popular stance, but I think the CIA needs massive restructuring.
They are not accountable, have consistently not fulfilled their mission with anything like distinction and seem to spend more time infighting with Foggy Bottom and the beltway check writers.
I am not saying there are not many comsumate professionals in the CIA, but to cast them as heroic, driven-snow defenders of the safety of the nation overstates the case.
We have dozens of clandestine departments and agencies doing great work, unsung and without the diva-like attitude.
I honestly think we could do better merging them under another agency.
Including murder? Why then did Himmler have to keep giving the members of the einsatzgruppen so many pep talks about how what they were doing was necessary but how they would never be able to talk of it?
They fully expected to be able to talk about it when the Nazi Order was firmly established in Europe. They planned to hide it otherwise.
The documentation is there. If you're looking for an Erlass from the Reichstag or a signed note from Hitler, true, that's not extant. Everything else but what they could destroy on retreat has survived.
And the Democrat version is "What can we do to screw the taxpayer today?"
As said ... "it's always darkest before the dawn".
I'm hoping we have finally hit bottom - what was it someone posted Fri or Sat? According to a recent poll - 57% are wanting to replace everyone in congress.
I do not believe that the final version of the Declaration, as signed, was the same as the original version submitted to the Congress by Jefferson.
The Declaration was modified quite a bit by Congress. Several passages were removed, including this one:
He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidels powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. He has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce determining to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.
Certain members of Congress threatened to walk out and sink the entire Declaration due to this passage. Due to that, it was removed.
I kinda of liked the Carter years with the the long gas lines/// ...I could care less who is in charge as long as they do what's best for our country. The last time I can remember an administration doing something really positive was the Reagan admin.
The democrats are now calling healthcare a "moral imperative". They are framing the argument.
What the GOP should be doing right now is stealing the rhetoric. They should come out today and say, "There is a moral imperative in this country- the budget, the deficit, and the national debt are out of control, and it is imperative we fix this."
So McCain was too left wing so the Republicans voted for Obama and the Democrats, and now the the Republicans are too right wing so Republicans are going to vote for Obama and Democrats?
McCain didn't lose becasue he was too left wing, he lost becasue he was too sleepy. And because he was running after two GOP presidential terms during bad economic times following an unpopular war. Sarah Palin made up for McCain being too left as far as the base is concerned, in my opinion. I don't think Republicans will ever ever vote for Obama. But Independents and conservative Democrats may if the GOP is too kooky.
re: #266 Charles
With respect Charles, that's not how I read buzz's comment; indeed if the "good people" of the Republican party DON'T STAND THEIR GROUND and fight against the crazies, then they have committed a true abomination: they have left the field of battle to less worthy but people with more fortitude.
You're completely ignoring the fact that people like Bartlett are not just leaving -- they're being driven out, quite deliberately.
And when the top leaders of the party have signed on to the craziness -- both Steele and Gingrich backed up Sarah Palin's ludicrous "death panel" claim -- how can any sensible person justify continuing to be part of it?
I'm sorry but I just don't see any 'driving out'. Disagreement yes, driving out, no. I have seen driving out on the Democratic side. I remember Gov Casey not being allowed to speak at the Democratic Convention because he was pro-life. I remember Joe Lieberman being driven out of his party.
On the Republican side I see self banishment, at the most.
It's "driving out" in a different sense; more like ostracism. Rather than literally being prevented from attending Party functions or the like, rather, the conservative voice is being cast out of the party by turning up the amplifier on the crazy. Unfortunately, it does seem as if this one is going to go to 11.
How can these people be "driven out" if they are members, and if they hold Party positions? Who is "driving them out" and how? Are they having their swords broken while the other party functionaries are drawn up in hollow square?
Maybe you think it has no effect when people like Bartlett -- and me for that matter -- are cursed and vilified and called RINOs and shunned by overwhelming numbers of partisan Republicans?
Yes, the extreme wing of the GOP is very determinedly driving out anyone who smells like a moderate.
Eichmann was following deeply unethical orders from ONE MAN. The CIA was following orders from their bosses, the attorney general's office, and tacit approval from the president himself.
As much as I dislike the extreme measures used for interrogating uncooperative high ranking prisoners, this order appears to have been entirely constitutional --which is what every such person in positions like this swears to protect.
I think President Obama made the right choice the first time. I'm outraged that he went back on his word.
I kinda of liked the Carter years with the the long gas lines/// ...I could care less who is in charge as long as they do what's best for our country. The last time I can remember an administration doing something really positive was the Reagan admin.
Not an Admin, but how bout Newt's Contract W/America?
Well y'all it's been...interesting to say the least. I am pleased that today, so far, folks have disagreed without being disagreeable about it - that's the LGF I know and love.
Anyway, I hope y'all have a great day and that I get the chance to see you down the road.
To quote the late Robert Heinlein..."politics, from the Latin. Poli, meaning many and tics, meaning bloodsucking creatures"
"It is the duty of the Elector to maintain equilibrium. That's from two ancient words, 'equi' meaning equal parts, and 'librium', which is the name of a tranquilizer. So you can see I was in over my head."
I know there was never a signed order from Hitler. But, the protocols agreed on by the service heads at Wansee and which were acted on, clearly established the Nazi policy. But, in a sense, it was not a lawful order. As you said, if they meant to claim it later, but hide it otherwise, then the plan was not legal--but would have been given the stamp of legality after the fact. if they failed, there was to have been, in modern parlance, "plausible deniability".
The whole enterprise was breathtaking in scope and callousness. The excuse for mid-level functionaries like Eichman (he never advanced beyond the SS rank of either Major or Lt. Colonel) of following orders is just not enough to explain their actions.
Eichmann was following deeply unethical orders from ONE MAN. The CIA was following orders from their bosses, the attorney general's office, and tacit approval from the president himself.
As much as I dislike the extreme measures used for interrogating uncooperative high ranking prisoners, this order appears to have been entirely constitutional --which is what every such person in positions like this swears to protect.
I think President Obama made the right choice the first time. I'm outraged that he went back on his word.
AG Holder works independent of the President. Whatever that's worth...
So in opposing the most leftist agenda that the nation has ever seen it's because we want to "screw the President"? Screw you, it's all about principle. I didn't read the link, are we racists too?
I'm sorry but I just don't see any 'driving out'. Disagreement yes, driving out, no. I have seen driving out on the Democratic side. I remember Gov Casey not being allowed to speak at the Democratic Convention because he was pro-life. I remember Joe Lieberman being driven out of his party.
On the Republican side I see self banishment, at the most.
Exactly - and the Democrats learned from this - Casey's son, anti-abortion by the way, the establishment's choice, is now a senator from PA. And the Joe Lieberman issue had a whole lot to do with his personality.
Eichmann was following deeply unethical orders from ONE MAN. The CIA was following orders from their bosses, the attorney general's office, and tacit approval from the president himself.
As much as I dislike the extreme measures used for interrogating uncooperative high ranking prisoners, this order appears to have been entirely constitutional --which is what every such person in positions like this swears to protect.
I think President Obama made the right choice the first time. I'm outraged that he went back on his word.
The decisions from the AG's office were tailor-made to lend legal color to the desires of ONE MAN - Dick Cheney.
Cheney should find his ass in the dock eventually. I'm saving a bottle of Dom Pérignon for that day.
And, under the constitution in place at the time, orders from that ONE MAN in Berlin were all that was needed.
The point about the Nazis is that everything they did was legal under the system in place.
This comment will most likely do wonders for my newbie-lurker influenced karma, but considering that this is supposedly a moderate conservative blog, I'm disappointed by the denial evidenced by some of the comments made here. Well, it ain't just a river in Egypt, I suppose.
I do not consider myself a moderate in the least. I always fall on the side of less government and more personal responsibility, and generally am conservative.
That being said, if the GOP were really doing what he says they are, then they would have some respect from me. The GOP is in disarray, they are finally realizing that it is hard to change people opinions of them after they have acted like whores for years. I too am anti-republican even though I have been registered as such for 26 years now.
Moderates? I have no problem with moderates of any stripe as long as what they promote keeps personal liberties in place. (I am NOT a libertarian, heaven forbid!)
There are tons of opinions and good ideas on all sides, unfortunately we seem to have lost the ability to thoughtfully debate and discuss them. Likewise the attention span of the American people doesn't allow for deep debate either.
Not all denial is bad, it's logical to deny that for which there is no evidence.
How and/or where do you see instances of Republicans "screwing" Democrats?
I don't see it anywhere. Republicans are barely functioning, never mind orchestrating some grand conspiracy to "screw" the opposition.
The mid term congressional elections are FIFTEEN months away.
Presently, the (R) are going through contortions. Its entirely natural. But if you trust in democracy you can be assured future candidates will be representatives of the majority of the party and not the vocal minority currently basking in attention.
Bruce give a hint of the leader he would like for the GOP: Bill Clinton. This suggests that he would, in all political candor, be happier with the Democrats. No need for him to feel betrayed by the GOP, or the GOP to feel betrayed by him. A no-fault divorce.
Independents mostly vote GOP or Democratic. By definition, they are uncommitted, free-lovin', voters, flouncin' here and there. At some point before they get to the polling station they find a significant policy. or a person they approve of, or disapprove of, to guide their vote. And at that precise moment, they belong to a party again. A month passes, and the party feels too crowded, its extremes smell. No amount of counseling can reconcile the differences. Bags are packed. The lonesome road is calling...
Yes, the extreme wing of the GOP is very determinedly driving out anyone who smells like a moderate.
In my viewpoint, it's more like
Yes, the extreme wing of the GOP is very determinedly driving out anyone who smells like a moderate. doesn't think exactly as they do.
The extremists, the theocrats / creationists, the paulians, the birchers, the libretarians under the guise as Republicans, are basically trying to do to the sane conservative and moderate part of the party the same thing we did to them in the 60's and 70's. It is imperative the sane wing stays and fights.
I was referring to the comments here. There are comments on every thread that I read that imply or outright state that:
The Republican party needs to be more conservative.
John McCain lost because he was too moderate (Check the numbers. He was highly competitive until right about the time his VP pick started to go public.)
That Republicans aren't being driven out of the party, they're just self-banishing. Excuse me, but I read that as same end, different means (or even just different syntax.)
That such and such poll is obviously a liberal outfit. And the one we believed yesterday is obviously biased today.
Some (Rs) are closing their eyes to a situation that they do not wish to acknowledge. This is my opinion.
I have a different theory. There are a group of former liberals who are looking for a new party--a party that's tough on national defense and moderate to liberal on most other issues. They want the Republican Party to be the new home for those who used to be "conservative Democrats."
The problem is that these people see one of the key founding principles of this country--limited government--as "extreme." Sure, people are angry about ObamaCare. Government shouldn't even be asking the questions that ObamaCare is designed to answer.
The Republican Party has leadership problems, but not in the sense that the quote suggests. The problem is that too many Republicans want to come up with a real bipartisan plan for greater government intrusion. Instead, they should be opposing Democrats on Jeffersonian principles.
Fine, don't blame me for not taking into account things that you say you've seen on every thread but choose not to present here. My opinion is that the Republican Party, as a whole, is far more centrist than at any time I can remember. The Democrat Party is being run by the most extreme ideologues it possesses.
I don't think the problem is with the GOP (let's face it, there are ZERO "powerful" Republicans on the political landscape), except to the extent that we may not learn from the Dems and end up electing our Wingnuts like they did.
It's not a good reaction, but looking at the other side, we've had nothing but self-criticism for a while now. There might be excellent proposals, plans, leaders even on the right side, but they're completely lost in all the noise.
And it certainly doesn't help that the opposition press, you know ABC, CNN etc, will prominently feature the critical and the extreme, while completely ignoring anything sensible from the right whatsoever.
Fine, don't blame me for not taking into account things that you say you've seen on every thread but choose not to present here. My opinion is that the Republican Party, as a whole, is far more centrist than at any time I can remember. The Democrat Party is being run by the most extreme ideologues it possesses.
I don't think the problem is with the GOP (let's face it, there are ZERO "powerful" Republicans on the political landscape), except to the extent that we may not learn from the Dems and end up electing our Wingnuts like they did.
And it's the Democratic party, not Democrat party.
That little bit of snark is very old and very tired.
I almost got queasy reading this last night. It was so bad that at first I thought I was reading a parody. Half-truths, generalizations, stereotypes - apparently all just fine and dandy when applied to Republicans. But we are 'part of the problem in America' and 'divisive' if we dare speak this way of Democrats. It's the same old double-standard. If Bartlett had said these things about Democrats, in the way presented here, we'd be using it as an example of extreme Republican rhetoric.
My opinion is that the Republican Party, as a whole, is far more centrist than at any time I can remember.
The real problem is the Republican party doesn't know what it is. They are the proverbial chicken running around with its head cut off. Or perhaps, a whole flock of chickens, headless, blood spirting, running in circles. They are waking up from their self induced fog and they can see a target - Obama - but they are firing in all directions. Being rudderless doesn't work for them. The advantage of the left is even though there are so many factions going in different directions, they understand that all their roads lead to the same conclusion more or less.
Republicans aren't centrist just because they behaved like democrats for so many years. Dare I say it again? They are just used to being the same kind of whores the democrats are. The hangover has hit them and they are just trying to shake it off. G-d help us all.
So in opposing the most leftist agenda that the nation has ever seen it's because we want to "screw the President"? Screw you, it's all about principle. I didn't read the link, are we racists too?
You most probably did not read the health bill either, and you are against that too, I suspect.
What else have you not read that you are against?
I think the point of the post is that people who think differently, and actually read stuff to inform their opinions, if when they do, they come to different ones than what the SoCons approve, are being chased out of the party by rabid Parisians who are proud of not reading, not informing, or not really thinking for themselves.
This comment will most likely do wonders for my newbie-lurker influenced karma, but considering that this is supposedly a moderate conservative blog, I'm disappointed by the denial evidenced by some of the comments made here. Well, it ain't just a river in Egypt, I suppose.
Welcome to the deep end, jump right in!
You're not (completely) on your own here.
I was referring to the comments here. There are comments on every thread that I read that imply or outright state that:
The Republican party needs to be more conservative.
John McCain lost because he was too moderate (Check the numbers. He was highly competitive until right about the time his VP pick started to go public.)
That Republicans aren't being driven out of the party, they're just self-banishing. Excuse me, but I read that as same end, different means (or even just different syntax.)
That such and such poll is obviously a liberal outfit. And the one we believed yesterday is obviously biased today.
Some (Rs) are closing their eyes to a situation that they do not wish to acknowledge. This is my opinion.
Get used to the "It's the liberal medias fault!!", too.
That's very popular.
Maybe you think it has no effect when people like Bartlett -- and me for that matter -- are cursed and vilified and called RINOs and shunned by overwhelming numbers of partisan Republicans?
Yes, the extreme wing of the GOP is very determinedly driving out anyone who smells like a moderate.
Well, Charles, I remember previous posts of yours where you quite specifically noted you never publically noted your party affiliation or that in fact you even had one.
So now am I to assume that 'people like me' means you are affiliated with the Republican Party?
For an overview of conservatism, Google "Sir Michael Oakeshott" and learn what the members of the Democratic Party do not stand for. The extreme Liberalism, Statism, Racism, and in some cases, nefarious opportunism and Neo Fascism of the current Democratic Party Administration and Congressional Leadership as well as the the Black Congressional Caucus speaks for itself.
For once, the Republicans stand on a conservative principle of not enabling a Federal takeover of healthcare and this is "screwing over the Democrat party"? Clue to Bartlette and his fanboys: It's called "opposition" and is SUPPOSED to happen, especially when the ideas being opposed are bad all around. Thank GOD somebody in DC is standing up to bad ideas.
And Bartlette parrots the Democrat talking point of "the Republicans have no ideas", not realizing that 1. Repubs DO have some ideas, (less Gov't involved) and 2. Sometimes it is best to not do anything, especially when the "crisis" is largely manufactured around a false premise: that getting other people to pay for your healthcare is a right.
Opposing bad ideas is GOOD, Mr Bartlette. I will be voting for those that do so and not shady whiners who talk about the Republicans like Nancy Pelosi does.
When in disgrace with fortune and men’s eyes
I all alone beweep my butthurt state,
And trouble deaf heaven with my butthurt cries,
And look upon myself, and curse my fate,
Wishing me like to one more rich in hope,
Featur’d like him, like him with friends possess’d,
Desiring this man’s art, and that man’s scope,
With what I most enjoy contented least;
Yet in these thoughts myself almost despising,
Haply I think on thee,—and then my state,
Like to the lark at break of day arising
From sullen earth, sings hymns at heaven’s gate;
For thy sweet love remember’d such wealth brings
That then I scorn to change my state with kings
This is a really nice place. Don't f*ck it up. -- Chrysler Hall, Norfolk, Virginia in the Spring of 1984. A very genteel place to see fine compositions performed live. Usually the opera folks hang out there.
Frank says: