| RotoGuru Politics Forum View the Forum Registry XML Get RSS Feed for this thread | Self-edit this thread |
|
| 0 |
Subject: The direction of the Republican Party Posted by: Seattle Zen - [178161719] Thu, Aug 18, 2005, 12:46 Republicans are headed towards the metal detectors. "Please empty your pockets into the tray, don't touch the walls. Republican office holders pleading Guilty or No Contest, courtrooms one, two and four." Gov. Bob Taft pleaded no contest Thursday to charges that he broke state ethics law by failing to report golf outings and other gifts.  I've hated this guy since he spent considerable time and resources fighting Ohio's "treatment not incarceration" initiative in 2002. Enjoy the heavy burden of destroying your four-generation family name in Republican politics, you pathetic hack! | |||||||
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.] | ||||||||
| 902 | Perm Dude ID: 19246310 Tue, Mar 03, 2009, 20:34 | So David Limbaugh is wrong then. I know you won't make that leap yourself (the Maoist self-criticism wing of the GOP won't allow you to actually criticize a member of the party in public) but this is as close as we'll get so we'll call it a gimme. | ||||||
| 903 | Boldwin ID: 581202816 Tue, Mar 03, 2009, 21:17 |
Marxist, Alinsky inspired schemes, Stalinist propaganda...which part is he wrong on? Black knight much? | ||||||
| 904 | Seattle Zen ID: 2025310 Tue, Mar 03, 2009, 21:42 |
Badlwin: Obama [and his minions] is going to be working off Saul Alinski's 'Rules For Radicals', one of which, the rule “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it” is being used against Rush in an attempt to 'wedge' conservatives out of control in the Republican party, thus neutering it. Do you even read what you type, Baldy? Obama and his "minions" have been saying that Rush IS the Republican Party, they certainly are not trying to "wedge" him and conservatives out. It may come as news to you, but Goldwater lost and Goldwater conservatives continue to lose and lose BAD. I know it is your dream and the dream of many in the blogosphere to have a "pure" conservative party, and I hope you get your wish. You see, 30% will never win an election. You think that "liberal" is a bad word, but ha, we've got one in the White House who has overwhelming popularity and support. You see that blue type right there, it's a link to a poll where FACTS are found. You might want to try it sometime. By the way, it states that Obama has a 60% approval rating, pretty damn amazing for a president during such a horrible economic recession. | ||||||
| 905 | Boldwin ID: 581202816 Wed, Mar 04, 2009, 09:03 |
What would you call what Chris Matthews is doing then? Of course there is an obvious attempt to seperate Rush from the Republican party. Not a stupid tactic at all. Especially considering that the Republican party organization at the top left him way back when they started nominating globalists and neocons. There is an obvious fault line and Dems are sledge-hammering away at it night and day, all shoulders to the task, on message. Why bother denying something so obvious? | ||||||
| 906 | Boxman ID: 337352111 Wed, Mar 04, 2009, 09:44 |
You see, 30% will never win an election. I wasn't aware that Reagan won in 80 and 84 with only 30% of the electorate. Carter and Mondale must've really sucked. The best thing to happen to liberals in a generation was for conservatives in the post-Reagan America to be marginalized and left supporting the only candidates we could; neo-conservatives. Why vote for liberal-lite when you can have the full fledged thing? Liberal-lite basically gave the power to the Democrats. | ||||||
| 907 | Perm Dude ID: 5222248 Wed, Mar 04, 2009, 10:20 |
That's exactly what Rush believed. Despite the GOP's disdain for revisionist history, that's all we seem to be hearing from them these days. The electorate didn't turn away from the GOP because of politicians like Spector or Snowe, however. | ||||||
| 908 | Pancho Villa ID: 51546319 Wed, Mar 04, 2009, 11:04 |
>Marxist, Alinsky inspired schemes, Stalinist propaganda...which part is he wrong on?< All of it. Let's break it down in real terms. Marxist inspired schemes. Where's your evidence? Obama has proposed, as he did in the campaign, to raise taxes on those making $250,000 a year. He has allotted money in the spending/stimulus bill for an increase in social spending(which I oppose), a bedrock of the Democratic Party for decades. Specifically point out to me a Marxist-inspired scheme. Not what he's going to do or what he's planning based on your own bias, lay out the scheme and explain how it's Marxist. Alinsky inspired schemes. Obama [and his minions] is going to be working off Saul Alinski's 'Rules For Radicals', one of which, the rule “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it” is being used against Rush in an attempt to 'wedge' conservatives out of control in the Republican party, thus neutering it. Is going to be is a projection. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it can be applied just as easily, even more so in ways, to the conservative commentary about Obama. You don't think it's radical to personalize Obama with references to Marx, Alinsky and Stalin in an attempt to polarize him in the eyes of the American public? Which brings us to the final and most absurd claim. Stalinist propoganda. That accusation, in itself, is propaganda which far surpasses anything Obama, Rahm Emmanuel or any other Democratic leader has said about Rush Limbaugh. That you casually accept such a characterization shows just how radical and increasingly desperate the right wing has become. You'd think conservatives would be conscious enough to realize that lowering the political dialogue in this country to such embarrassing levels is counter-productive, since there's plenty of ammunition in the real world to voice opposition to the direction Obama is leading the country, and even more so with Congress, led by two of the poorest national representatives this country has ever experienced - Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. It should be clear that the Alinsky, Marxist, Stalinist, Ayers, Rev. Wright, Kenyan-born Muslim terrorist approach hasn't worked and won't work. The vast majority of Americans have and will continue to tune that out. The vast majority of Americans are concerned about jobs, housing, education, health care, retirement, crime, banks, the stock market, national security, the environment and the cost of goods and services. If the conservative movement wants to focus on sarcasm, satire and radical characterizations of the Obama administration, it should prepare for further marginalization. If they promote their politicians who oppose the Democrats in measured, mature and forward moving rhetoric, there's a good chance, as in 1994, that 2010 will see a swing back in their favor. That likely won't happen when you have the Michael Steele publicly apologizing to Rush Limbaugh for being truthful. | ||||||
| 909 | Tree ID: 61411921 Wed, Mar 04, 2009, 11:15 |
Baldwin - here's another kernel of truth for you to ignore, like you did post 900. personally, i'm thinking what's good for the goose, is good for the gander. after all, Republicans tried - oh, and failed miserably - in trying to tie Obama to the "terrorist" Ayers, and the "racist" Wright. so, it doesn't seem to be out of bounds to tie the Republicans to Limbaugh, who, by the way, is much more disliked by Americans than both Ayers and Wright. probably has something to do with Limbaugh being a radical hater of America, wanting it to fail. | ||||||
| 910 | Perm Dude ID: 5222248 Wed, Mar 04, 2009, 11:32 | We also need to be clear: It is Limbaugh who sets himself up as the leader of true Republicans. Democrats are merely encouraging his takeover. | ||||||
| 911 | jedman ID: 552262217 Wed, Mar 04, 2009, 11:42 |
Tree - You are taking the Democrat talking point on Limbaugh's "wants America to fail". He believes Pres. Obama's policies are socialistic and bad for America. He wants him to fail to have those policies implemented because he believes they are bad for America. He has repeatedly stated that he wants America to succeed and doesn't believe that Pres. Obama's policies will let that happen. There is a huge difference IMHO in those two statements. You can agree with him or not, I am not sure I am that far in my beliefs, despite my concerns with what is going on. I listen to him a lot and he has not said he wants America to fail. Let me see if I can post a link that explains it better than me, coming from a person on the left no less. link | ||||||
| 912 | Perm Dude ID: 5222248 Wed, Mar 04, 2009, 11:51 |
The letter you link two is about two separate things: Someone on the left hoping that we lose in Iraq, versus Limbaugh hoping for widespread economic failure as a result of Obama's policies. This is apples to oranges comparisons. And yet, there is an echo of Republican political campaigns of the recent past, in which it was said that being against the President's policies was un-American. Ironic that you'd be using an example of what the GOP would call "un-American" for the last few elections as an example of Limbaugh not being un-American. And regardless of whether Limbaugh is couching this in terms of "Obama's policies" failing or "American failing," there is absolutely no practical difference. Limbaugh hopes that Obama's policies are implemented and massively fail in order to demonstrate that Obama is wrong on the economy. He hopes America tanks to prove himself correct politically. He could not be more clear on the point. | ||||||
| 913 | jedman ID: 552262217 Wed, Mar 04, 2009, 12:03 |
Can you link to me where he has said he wants America to tank? I just disagree that what he is saying is the same thing as wanting the American economy to fail. You can say that if his policies are totally implemented, the economy will fail,therefore you don't want him to succeed in getting them implemented but that is way different than saying you want America to fail. I know there is no love lost here for Rush Limbaugh, but I think what he has said on this has been taken way out of context if you listen to more than just a few sound bites. | ||||||
| 914 | Boxman ID: 337352111 Wed, Mar 04, 2009, 12:05 | Kinda like being against the war but for the troops eh? | ||||||
| 915 | Perm Dude ID: 5222248 Wed, Mar 04, 2009, 12:06 | Not at all--in fact, it is the opposite. Rush is against the economic troops--that's why he's against the plan. | ||||||
| 916 | Tree ID: 61411921 Wed, Mar 04, 2009, 12:09 |
Tree - You are taking the Democrat talking point on Limbaugh's "wants America to fail". no, i'm not. i'm taking the talking point from Rush's own mouth, as the transcript from his own site provides... never mind the title of the transcript, again, per his own web site, is "I Hope Obama Fails..." I know what (Obama's) politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed. If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails." you can parse it how you want, but if Obama's plans fail, America fails. our economy is in the $hitter, our job market is in the $hitter, our stock market is quickly going down the $hitter. Limbaugh was very clear in his words. in no uncertain terms, he said he doesn't want Obama's plans to succeed, and he hopes he fails. period. i won't go as far as saying that Limbaugh oughta go join Osama Bin Laden, but their hopes are one and the same. they both hope for the failure of the American President. | ||||||
| 917 | Boxman ID: 337352111 Wed, Mar 04, 2009, 12:11 |
Not at all--in fact, it is the opposite. Rush is against the economic troops--that's why he's against the plan. Do you listen to Rush Limbaugh's show? He's been going out of his way this week to explain himself on those remarks. He's very clear that he doesn't want Obama's socialistic policies to succeed. Isn't it possible for the country to move forward in spite of Obama? | ||||||
| 918 | Seattle Zen ID: 829410 Wed, Mar 04, 2009, 12:16 |
Kinda like being against the war but for the troops eh? Not even remotely close. The war was tragic, a disgusting abuse of our might. It was completely unnecessary and disgusting. Protesting this march to murder in no way is the same as hoping the US troops fail. The economic policies undertaken by the current administration is far from a unilateral strike at a country that posed no threat to our security. We are in the midst of a depression that requires government intervention. This intervention is going to limit the damage to the American economy. Actively campaigning against these programs is nothing more than the pathetic bleatings of a partisan mouthpiece who can't face facts: Republican economic policy is responsible for this disaster. Actively campaigning for these programs to fail can ONLY mean that this bovine bloviator wants the American economy to remain in this depression. Easily the least entertaining entertainer still in business. | ||||||
| 919 | Perm Dude ID: 5222248 Wed, Mar 04, 2009, 12:16 |
I don't think we are in disagreement about what Rush Limbaugh wants. Isn't it possible for the country to move forward in spite of Obama? I really have no idea of what this means. Forward where? To the failed Bush policies, cheered on by Limbaugh and others, who got us into the problems the country now faces? What you should be asking is: What happens to you if Obama, who enjoys wide and deep approval and was swept into office by voters expecting change from the past, succeeds? | ||||||
| 920 | Boxman ID: 337352111 Wed, Mar 04, 2009, 12:18 |
Not even remotely close. The war was tragic, a disgusting abuse of our might. It was completely unnecessary and disgusting. Protesting this march to murder in no way is the same as hoping the US troops fail. A lot of people say the same thing about the structure of the stimulus package. | ||||||
| 921 | Seattle Zen ID: 829410 Wed, Mar 04, 2009, 12:22 |
A lot of people say the same thing about the structure of the stimulus package. Really, who are the "people" who think that a stimulus package is a "march to murder"? Are you really that trite? Government spending is the equivalent of invading a country? How frequently do you have to replace your knuckle-padded gloves? | ||||||
| 922 | Boxman ID: 337352111 Wed, Mar 04, 2009, 12:24 |
Mincing words again. Typical when I engage you in discussion. You gloss over the disgusting abuse of our might, unnecessary and disgusting. Oh and you must not think prolonged recessions and depressions kill people? | ||||||
| 923 | Perm Dude ID: 5222248 Wed, Mar 04, 2009, 12:29 |
Goldman Sachs: Worse before it gets better Good to hear some straight talk from a financial services company. But Goldman echoes exactly what the Administration has said: That the stimulus package doesn't solve the problem but helps in the meantime. Glenn Beck hasn't met an overwraught analogy that he won't throw at the Democrats. Where was he during the Bush free spending years? Oh yeah, taking on the Democrats for not signing on. Beck, and others, seeming miss the irony of their whining about losing the opportunity for high-end taxpayers to eat at the government trough. Isn't charity supposed to be personal? Here's an opportunity to prove it. | ||||||
| 924 | Seattle Zen ID: 829410 Wed, Mar 04, 2009, 13:09 |
The continued call for Republican economic policies to be implemented right now is the same as asking Andre Maginot to build a defense system for our country. You failed, move on, we've decided to go with something that works. | ||||||
| 925 | Boxman ID: 337352111 Wed, Mar 04, 2009, 13:12 |
You failed, move on, we've decided to go with something that works. You're going to have to do better than that statement. Show some backup to that claim. | ||||||
| 926 | Pancho Villa ID: 51546319 Wed, Mar 04, 2009, 13:18 |
Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. Where is Obama talking about that? Even health care, which would be the closest of any of those issues mentioned, is Obama suggesting a complete absorption of the private sector. There are lots of people talking about nationalizing banks(including some conservatives), but point me to where Obama is talking about it. Point me to where Obama is talking nationalizing the mortgage and automobile industries. Limbaugh says he's talking about which is a lie. Had he said, I fear or It's possible, then one could respect him for using an honest evaluation. As for banks, he could have referred to this AP story. The Obama administration opposes nationalizing the banking industry, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Friday, but Gibbs did not absolutely rule out the possibility of nationalization. “This administration continues to strongly believe that a privately held banking system is the correct way to go, ensuring they are regulated sufficiently by this government,” Gibbs told reporters. “That’s been our belief for quite some time, and we continue to have it.” When a reporter asked to clarify whether that meant Obama was absolutely against a government takeover of the banking industry, asking, “But does that mean he will not nationalize the banks? Gibbs said, “It’s hard for me to be clearer than what I just said.” Free market advocates have expressed concern about the federal government taking over the banking industry since the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Act was enacted last fall. Earlier this week, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), said nationalizing banks is an option that should be left open. “We need to keep option three [nationalization] on the table for any bank that fails the stress test,” Graham said. | ||||||
| 927 | Perm Dude ID: 25219128 Thu, Mar 12, 2009, 11:54 |
Michael Steele: Slow-motion train wreck. The only reason this zombie has lasted this long at the top is that the GOP is too weakened to even bother to remove him. | ||||||
| 928 | DWetzel ID: 33337117 Thu, Mar 12, 2009, 13:39 | My take on that is that it's far, far more disappointing that he feels the need to try to "correct" what he said to pacify one wing of the party than to hear what he actually said in the first place. | ||||||
| 929 | Perm Dude ID: 6259179 Tue, Mar 17, 2009, 12:11 | In response to all sorts of gaffes by Michael Steele, the response is-- a halt to TV appearances! | ||||||
| 930 | Perm Dude ID: 32291914 Sat, Mar 21, 2009, 10:07 | New York special election candidate: Please don't construe my anti-Rush comment as being directed against Rush. Please. I don't want him to find out. | ||||||
| 931 | Baldwin ID: 38241203 Sat, Mar 21, 2009, 14:21 | Exactly why should a republican stand up to a republican leader who has more popular support than they themselves do? | ||||||
| 932 | Perm Dude ID: 302192110 Sat, Mar 21, 2009, 14:25 |
Besides the fact that people like Rush have brought the GOP to its knees at the ballot box? No reason at all. As for these particular Republicans, I'm not saying whether they should or should not be critizing Rush Limbaugh themsleves. But once they do, they should have the stones to continue the debate. Not slink back behind the skirts. | ||||||
| 933 | Baldwin ID: 38241203 Sat, Mar 21, 2009, 14:40 |
This Dem triumphalism is so unseemly. It's like total amnesia that they were in the wilderness ever since the end of the failed great society experiment all the way back when disco was king. But let them win a couple election cycles by surfing the economic cycle and the tail end of a 20 yr bull market and you'd think they've always been America's darling. Maybe eight years of the sychophantic press licking Obama's boots to a shine and dems can actually boast in public that they are the class warfare marxists that they are. | ||||||
| 934 | Seattle Zen ID: 38256219 Sat, Mar 21, 2009, 15:05 |
Exactly why should a republican stand up to a republican leader who has more popular support than they themselves do? That's like saying that Guinea-Bissau has a higher GDP per capita than Burundi. Everyone outside his listeners thinks he's an idiot, and his audience is shrinking. "Rush Limbaugh, the Guinea-Bissau of popular opinion!" | ||||||
| 935 | Baldwin ID: 38241203 Sat, Mar 21, 2009, 19:57 | Telling that lie often enuff seems to be the Dem talking point of the year. | ||||||
| 936 | Seattle Zen ID: 38256219 Sat, Mar 21, 2009, 20:02 |
 This just arrived in my mailbox. Who is this irrelevant fellow, Baldwin? | ||||||
| 937 | Boxman ID: 571114225 Sat, Mar 21, 2009, 20:21 | Its not a question of Limbaugh's relevance. It is whether or not he is the leader of the Republican Party. | ||||||
| 938 | Baldwin ID: 38241203 Sat, Mar 21, 2009, 20:30 | Actually he's not the leader of the Republican party. He's only the defacto leader of the only faction of the Republican party that actually represents the people. | ||||||
| 939 | Seattle Zen ID: 38256219 Sat, Mar 21, 2009, 21:02 |
Its not a question of Limbaugh's relevance. It is whether or not he is the leader of the Republican Party. So he could be both irrelevant and the leader of the Republican Party. Now that you mention it, yeah, that sounds about right. | ||||||
| 940 | Boxman ID: 571114225 Sat, Mar 21, 2009, 21:09 |
He's only the defacto leader of the only faction of the Republican party that actually represents the people. As stated by Republicans or the liberals and their media attack dogs? I would caution against going with the consensus pick the media wants if for no better reason than to look at the election results with their darling John McCain last fall. | ||||||
| 941 | Perm Dude ID: 442272116 Sat, Mar 21, 2009, 23:14 | I thought the media darling was Barack Obama. | ||||||
| 942 | bibA ID: 22131614 Sun, Mar 22, 2009, 11:09 |
938 He's only the defacto leader of the only faction of the Republican party that actually represents the people. 940 As stated by Republicans or the liberals and their media attack dogs? Lemme get this straight Box. Are you saying Baldwin is just a Republican, or a liberal and one of their media attack dogs? | ||||||
| 943 | Boxman ID: 571114225 Sun, Mar 22, 2009, 11:41 | I wasn't aware that I was attacking or refering to Baldwin in that post. | ||||||
| 944 | Tree ID: 61411921 Sun, Mar 22, 2009, 12:42 |
He's only the defacto leader of the only faction of the Republican party that actually represents the people. nice oxymoron (cue original comeback from Baldwin involving use of the word "moron"), especially considering the definition from Merriam-Webster - although the "self-seeking" part is so perfect for Limbaugh and his sheep of fools. 1 : a party or group (as within a government) that is often contentious or self-seeking : 2 : party spirit especially when marked by dissension this is a pretty good example of why you, and your beliefs, are outdated, in the minority, and will continue to push the Republican party into obscurity... | ||||||
| 945 | Mith ID: 2894309 Thu, Mar 26, 2009, 13:00 |
Rice rebukes Cheney | ||||||
| 946 | Perm Dude ID: 54242267 Thu, Mar 26, 2009, 14:24 |
Michael Steele: "I meant to do that!" Incompetance is so ugly when it is so public. | ||||||
| 947 | walk ID: 181472714 Thu, Mar 26, 2009, 14:30 |
Boehner: I'll get back to you The republicans' budget proposal = big tax cut...and the rest is tbd. | ||||||
| 948 | Perm Dude ID: 54242267 Thu, Mar 26, 2009, 16:45 |
The more I read about Rep Bachmann, the more I think: What a crank. Reminds me of Helen Chenoweth. | ||||||
| 949 | Mith ID: 2894309 Thu, Mar 26, 2009, 17:54 |
Senate Republicans skip out on White House briefing on the Afghan War Senate Republican Leaders Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and Jon Kyl (Ariz.) declined the president's invitation to be briefed Thursday on Afghanistan war policy going forward.In honesty I have no idea to what extent this should be perceived as a snub. But I know full-well what the right's reaction would have been to the headline if it were Senate Democrats turning down a GWB invite to a briefing on changing war policy and foreign policy. Two full days worth of strutting by the likes of Limbaugh, blog posts ranging from snide to ferocious and FOX talking heads questioning their patriotism and charges of anti-americanism and calling them "defeatocrats", followed by a rehash on the Sunday morning shows as one of the big stories of the week. Lets see what kind of legs this story grows in the mainstream media between now and Sunday. | ||||||
| 950 | Perm Dude ID: 336813 Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 14:20 | GOP: Give us money now, because Obama and ACORN are rigging the 2010 Census! | ||||||
| 951 | Tree ID: 61411921 Fri, Apr 10, 2009, 02:01 |
O'Reilly and Bruce bring the funny. oh no! Eminem mocks Palin (and Winehouse and Simpson and DeGeneres and Kardashian and Lohan) | ||||||
| If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect, you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?) | ||||||||