Do you want Obama to fail?

This is like asking if you want your car to hit the ground...after it's already fallen off a cliff. Bush has already failed. Obama has already failed. Sorry.
 
Obama's had a really bad first month, probably the worst month for a President ever (unless you are counting the one that died early into their Presidency...hard to top death). But if there's one thing I have to give Obama credit for is getting Clinton out of the way. She has relatively little power for the position she was given. Obama's basically given that power to his own personal advisors that she has no control over.
 
Every time I fool myself into thinking that you occasionally write coherent posts that deserve to be in the vs forum, Broly, you go and type something like this.
 
Let's see...what did Obama say before getting into office? Oh yeah, he wanted this bill on his desk Day 1. It took him 3 weeks to get it. He wanted Bipartisan support. 3 Senate Republicans is not what I call Bipartisan support. How many jobs were cut in January? 3 of his Cabinet nominees backed out, 2 of which because they evaded paying taxes (and why aren't Prosecutors going after their asses, either?). Then you simply have to ask what has he done thus far?

Guantanimo Bay isn't closed yet, and we still don't know where those prisoners are going. He hasn't signed the stimulus bill, which by the way, will do little, if nothing to help this country's economic problems at the moment. Oh wait, he broke his 'we'll wait 48 hours before voting on a bill to get public reactions' promise, I guess that's something. He also went from saying the bill will create 3-4 million jobs to saying it'll save 3-4 million jobs, which is a world of difference.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Let's see...what did Obama say before getting into office? Oh yeah, he wanted this bill on his desk Day 1. It took him 3 weeks to get it.[/quote]
Really? You're knockin him for the machinations of the Congress? That ain't fair man.
He wanted Bipartisan support. 3 Senate Republicans is not what I call Bipartisan support.
Click to expand...
And yet, you, me, and everyone else could probably conclude that if Obama played this partisan style instead of being upfront with the tax cuts (letting the Repubs "fight" to get something he already wanted), it would have gotten far stronger support from Repubs. That ain't fair, man. He's getting shit for trying to fight this one fair.. and that's dumb.
How many jobs were cut in January?
Click to expand...
Before or after the dude took his seat on the 20th? ...really?
3 of his Cabinet nominees backed out, 2 of which because they evaded paying taxes (and why aren't Prosecutors going after their asses, either?).
Click to expand...
The IRS isn't in the business of hauling off every tax dodger. You have to be pretty egregious. Just saying. Still glad they threw them out and wish Geithner would have been chucked, too.
Then you simply have to ask what has he done thus far?
Click to expand...
Eh.
Guantanimo Bay isn't closed yet, and we still don't know where those prisoners are going.
Click to expand...
You think it rational to have G-bay closed in a month?
Oh wait, he broke his 'we'll wait 48 hours before voting on a bill to get public reactions' promise, I guess that's something.
Click to expand...
So you're pissy he didn't sign it on day 1, and you're pissy he's signing it too quickly, and you're pissy he's waited the weekend to sign it. Ok.
He also went from saying the bill will create 3-4 million jobs to saying it'll save 3-4 million jobs, which is a world of difference.
Click to expand...
Remains to be seen and you're probably right, but I try not to throw stones until the thing actually fails.
 
Can't he be pissy that all three were promised and none were delivered? I think that's fair.
[quote name='speedracer']
So you're pissy he didn't sign it on day 1, and you're pissy he's signing it too quickly, and you're pissy he's waited the weekend to sign it. Ok.
[/quote]
 
[quote name='Kayden']Can't he be pissy that all three were promised and none were delivered? I think that's fair.[/QUOTE]
#1 and #2 seem to be mutally exclusive. I just think it's a little ticky tacky is all.
 
[quote name='speedracer']The IRS isn't in the business of hauling off every tax dodger. You have to be pretty egregious. Just saying. Still glad they threw them out and wish Geithner would have been chucked, too.[/QUOTE]

Beat me to this. All of them have paid their back taxes and any penalties assessed by the IRS. Most of the time that's enough; it's usually only those who absolutely refuse to pay who are hauled away.
 
if obama fails, america fails. so, why would anyone want that? i wish obama would be true to his word though. wasn't he preaching, along with Hill-Rod, that if he were elected he'd end the war? but, what's he doing? sending another 17,000 troops for 18 months? wait, isn't that what mccain said he'd do? interesting. he's definitely the epitome of a politician that's a people pleaser with no moral convictions, so i don't expect anything more though. he claims to take no stand on abortion, yet he clearly took the largest stand towards allowing un-regulated abortion that any president has. he claims to support the gay community, yet he's against gay marriage. definitely a lip service president, so God help us these four years...
 
[quote name='von551']if obama fails, america fails. so, why would anyone want that? i wish obama would be true to his word though. wasn't he preaching, along with Hill-Rod, that if he were elected he'd end the war? but, what's he doing? sending another 17,000 troops for 18 months? wait, isn't that what mccain said he'd do? interesting. he's definitely the epitome of a politician that's a people pleaser with no moral convictions, so i don't expect anything more though. he claims to take no stand on abortion, yet he clearly took the largest stand towards allowing un-regulated abortion that any president has. he claims to support the gay community, yet he's against gay marriage. definitely a lip service president, so God help us these four years...[/quote]

Not exactly, IIRC. He said he would withdraw us from Iraq, but from what I've read, he's sending troops to Afghanistan, where there really is a purpose other than oil.

Of course, I could be wrong, I am going on 2 hours of sleep.
 
is it not the war? afghanistan, iraq, it's all OUR war that he fought so hard to say he'd end. i'm not saying i don't believe in staying, i just don't like the american nation being lied to by our leader. my bro-in law was stationed in Kabul for a year driving a Humvee patrolling the US Embassy, so it's closer to my heart than most. He saw too much and had way too many close calls, it's crazy there.
 
It's his war now, whether you like it or not. If he leaves Iraq before the job is done (aka losing) people will blame him. He didn't get us into Iraq, but similarly Nixon didn't start Vietnam, but people blame him for it, even though that's what the people wanted (Troops leaving).
 
[quote name='von551']is it not the war? afghanistan, iraq, it's all OUR war that he fought so hard to say he'd end.[/quote]No... not really. Despite the attempts to make them all part of "The War On Terror", the two are really separate conflicts.

[quote name='von551']i'm not saying i don't believe in staying, i just don't like the american nation being lied to by our leader.[/quote]I'm pretty sure he didn't. Obama's position on Afghanistan has been well known for quite some time. Perhaps it was bigger news in Canada than in the United States because we have a greater stake a greater stake in Afghanistan than Iraq, but it's hardly been some secret, hidden agenda.
[quote name='von551']my bro-in law was stationed in Kabul for a year driving a Humvee patrolling the US Embassy, so it's closer to my heart than most. He saw too much and had way too many close calls, it's crazy there.[/quote]Yeah, I hear ya. One of my brother's best friends died not too long ago in Kandahar.
 
[quote name='von551']if obama fails, america fails. so, why would anyone want that? [/QUOTE]

That's not really a true statement.

A leader can take a country in a direction that's viewed as successful by some, and bad by others. Which is the most likely scenario.

Use Hitler as an example. When he first gained power, could you say "if Hitler doesn't succeed, then Germany doesn't succeed"?

It's all about your definitions of success.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']It's his war now, whether you like it or not. If he leaves Iraq before the job is done (aka losing) people will blame him. He didn't get us into Iraq, but similarly Nixon didn't start Vietnam, but people blame him for it, even though that's what the people wanted (Troops leaving).[/quote]
Why would i blame him for losing the war? I was against it in the first place. Besides, the war in Iraq was doomed form the beginning.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Why would i blame him for losing the war? I was against it in the first place. Besides, the war in Iraq was doomed form the beginning.[/quote]

I'm talking about the mindset here. People don't like losing wars, believe it or not.
 
Why stay in Afghanistan? It is just a good place for weapons to be smuggled in and used against occupying forces.

Anybody watch Charlie Wilson's War?

Anybody wonder if there will be a film title Karl Wilsonchev's War in 20 or so years?
 
How does pulling the troops out mean we lost the war? :whistle2:s
We lost the war already; look at our economy because of the war.
 
This weeks Newsweek had probably the best republican response to Limbaugh's comments I've read yet from David Frum a former speech writer for Bush. Does a good job of outlining how it hurts the party and how he thinks the party needs to adapt to compete. Hopefully conservatives keep listening to Rush and not people like Frum though!

http://www.newsweek.com/id/188279

Why Rush is Wrong

The party of Buckley and Reagan is now bereft and dominated by the politics of Limbaugh. A conservative's lament.

David Frum
NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Mar 16, 2009

It wasn't a fight I went looking for. On March 3, the popular radio host Mark Levin opened his show with an outburst (he always opens his show with an outburst): "There are people who have somehow claimed the conservative mantle … You don't even know who they are … They're so irrelevant … It's time to name names …! The Canadian David Frum: where did this a-hole come from? … In the foxhole with other conservatives, you know what this jerk does? He keeps shooting us in the back … Hey, Frum: you're a putz."

Now, of course, Mark Levin knows perfectly well where I come from. We've known each other for years, had dinner together. I'm a conservative Republican, have been all my adult life. I volunteered for the Reagan campaign in 1980. I've attended every Republican convention since 1988. I was president of the Federalist Society chapter at my law school, worked on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal and wrote speeches for President Bush—not the "Read My Lips" Bush, the "Axis of Evil" Bush. I served on the Giuliani campaign in 2008 and voted for John McCain in November. I supported the Iraq War and (although I feel kind of silly about it in retrospect) the impeachment of Bill Clinton. I could go on, but you get the idea.

I mention all this not because I expect you to be fascinated with my life story, but to establish some bona fides. In the conservative world, we have a tendency to dismiss unwelcome realities. When one of us looks up and murmurs, "Hey, guys, there seems to be an avalanche heading our way," the others tend to shrug and say, he's a "squish" or a RINO—Republican in Name Only.

Levin had been provoked by a blog entry I'd posted the day before on my site, NewMajority.com. Here's what I wrote: President Obama and Rush Limbaugh do not agree on much, but they share at least one thing: Both wish to see Rush anointed as the leader of the Republican party.

Here's Rahm Emanuel on Face the Nation yesterday: "the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican party." What a great endorsement for Rush! … But what about the rest of the party? Here's the duel that Obama and Limbaugh are jointly arranging:

On the one side, the president of the United States: soft-spoken and conciliatory, never angry, always invoking the recession and its victims. This president invokes the language of "responsibility," and in his own life seems to epitomize that ideal: He is physically honed and disciplined, his worst vice an occasional cigarette. He is at the same time an apparently devoted husband and father. Unsurprisingly, women voters trust and admire him.

And for the leader of the Republicans? A man who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as "losers." With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence—exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party. And we're cooperating! Those images of crowds of CPACers cheering Rush's every rancorous word—we'll be seeing them rebroadcast for a long time.

Rush knows what he is doing. The worse conservatives do, the more important Rush becomes as leader of the ardent remnant. The better conservatives succeed, the more we become a broad national governing coalition, the more Rush will be sidelined.

But do the rest of us understand what we are doing to ourselves by accepting this leadership? Rush is to the Republicanism of the 2000s what Jesse Jackson was to the Democratic party in the 1980s. He plays an important role in our coalition, and of course he and his supporters have to be treated with respect. But he cannot be allowed to be the public face of the enterprise—and we have to find ways of assuring the public that he is just one Republican voice among many, and very far from the most important.

All of this began even before Obama took office. In his broadcast on Jan. 16, Limbaugh told listeners he had been asked by a major publication for a 400-word statement about his hopes for the new administration:

I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "OK, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words. I need four: I hope he fails." … See, here's the point: everybody thinks it's outrageous to say. Look, even my staff: "Oh, you can't do that." Why not? Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here … I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's gotta say it.

Notice that Limbaugh did not say: "I hope the administration's liberal plans fail." Or (better): "I know the administration's liberal plans will fail." Or (best): "I fear that this administration's liberal plans will fail, as liberal plans usually do." If it had been phrased that way, nobody could have used Limbaugh's words to misrepresent conservatives as clueless, indifferent or gleeful in the face of the most painful economic crisis in a generation. But then, if it had been phrased that way, nobody would have quoted his words at all—and as Limbaugh himself said, being "headlined" was the point of the exercise. If it had been phrased that way, Limbaugh's face would not now be adorning the covers of magazines. He phrased his hope in a way that drew maximum attention to himself, offered maximum benefit to the administration and did maximum harm to the party he claims to support.

Then, exacerbating the wound, Limbaugh added this in an interview on Sean Hannity's Jan. 21 show on Fox News: "We are being told that we have to hope he succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles, bend over forward, backward, whichever, because his father was black, because this is the first black president." Limbaugh would repeat some variant of this remark at least four more times in the next month and a half. Really, President Obama could not have asked for more: Limbaugh gets an audience, Obama gets a target and Republicans get the blame.

Rush Limbaugh is a seriously unpopular figure among the voters that conservatives and Republicans need to reach. Forty-one percent of independents have an unfavorable opinion of him, according to the new NEWSWEEK Poll. Limbaugh is especially off-putting to women: his audience is 72 percent male, according to Pew Research. Limbaugh himself acknowledges his unpopularity among women. On his Feb. 24 broadcast, he said with a chuckle: "Thirty-one-point gender gaps don't come along all that often … Given this massive gender gap in my personal approval numbers … it seems reasonable for me to convene a summit."

Limbaugh was kidding about the summit. But his quip acknowledged something that eludes many of those who would make him the arbiter of Republican authenticity: from a political point of view, Limbaugh is kryptonite, weakening the GOP nationally. No Republican official will say that; Limbaugh demands absolute deference from the conservative world, and he generally gets it. When offended, he can extract apologies from Republican members of Congress, even the chairman of the Republican National Committee. And Rush is very easily offended.

Through 2008 Rush was offended by the tendency among conservative writers to suggest that the ideas and policies developed in the 1970s needed to change and adapt to the very different world of the 21st century. Here's what he had to say about this subject in his speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference on Feb. 28:

Sometimes I get livid and angry … We've got factions now within our own movement seeking power to dominate it, and, worst of all, to redefine it. Well, the Constitution doesn't need to be redefined. Conservative intellectuals, the Declaration of Independence does not need to be redefined, and neither does conservatism. Conservatism is what it is, and it is forever. It's not something you can bend and shape and flake and form … I cringed—it might have been 2007, late 2007 or sometime during 2008, but a couple of prominent, conservative, Beltway, establishment media types began to write on the concept that the era of Reagan is over. And that we needed to adapt our appeal, because, after all, what's important in politics is winning elections. And so we have to understand that the American people, they want big government. We just have to find a way to tell them we're no longer opposed to that. We will come up with our own version of it that is wiser and smarter, but we've got to go get the Wal-Mart voter, and we've got to get the Hispanic voter, and we've got to get the recalcitrant independent women. And I'm listening to this and I am just apoplectic: the era of Reagan is over? … We have got to stamp this out …

Here is an example of the writing Limbaugh was complaining about: The conservatism we know evolved in the 1970s to meet a very specific set of dangers and challenges: inflation, slow growth, energy shortages, unemployment, rising welfare dependency. In every one of those problems, big government was the direct and immediate culprit. Roll back government, and you solved the problem.

Government is implicated in many of today's top domestic concerns as well … But the connection between big government and today's most pressing problems is not as close or as pressing as it was 27 years ago. So, unsurprisingly, the anti-big-government message does not mobilize the public the way it once did.

Of course, we can keep repeating our old lines all the same, just the way Tip O'Neill kept exhorting the American middle class to show more gratitude to the New Deal. But politicians who talk that way soon sound old, tired, and cranky. I wish somebody at the … GOP presidential debate at the Reagan Library had said: "Ronald Reagan was a great leader and a great president because he addressed the problems of his time. But we have very different problems—and we need very different answers. Here are mine."

I wrote that in spring 2007. But you can hear similar words from bright young conservative writers like Reihan Salam and Ross Douthat, and from veteran Republican politicians like Newt Gingrich. Gingrich told George Stephanopoulos on Jan. 13, 2008: "We are at the end of the Reagan era. We're at a point in time when we're about to start redefining … the nature of the Republican Party, in response to what the country needs."

Even before the November 2008 defeat—even before the financial crisis and the congressional elections of November 2006—it was already apparent that the Republican Party and the conservative movement were in deep trouble. And not just because of Iraq, either (although Iraq obviously did not help).

At the peak of the Bush boom in 2007, the typical American worker was earning barely more after inflation than the typical American worker had earned in 2000. Out of those flat earnings, that worker was paying more for food, energy and out-of-pocket costs of health care. Political parties that do not deliver economic improvement for the typical person do not get reelected. We Republicans and conservatives were not delivering. The reasons for our failure are complex and controversial, but the consequences are not.

We lost the presidency in 2008. In 2006 and 2008, together, we lost 51 seats in the House and 14 in the Senate. Even in 2004, President Bush won reelection by the narrowest margin of any reelected president in American history.

The trends below those vote totals were even more alarming. Republicans have never done well among the poor and the nonwhite—and as the country's Hispanic population grows, so, too, do those groups. More ominously, Republicans are losing their appeal to voters with whom they've historically done well.

In 1988 George H.W. Bush beat Michael Dukakis among college graduates by 25 points. Nothing unusual there: Republicans have owned the college-graduate vote. But in 1992 Ross Perot led an exodus of the college-educated out of the GOP, and they never fully returned. In 2008 Obama beat John McCain among college graduates by 8 points, the first Democratic win among B.A. holders since exit polling began.

Political strategists used to talk about a GOP "lock" on the presidency because of the Republican hold on the big Sun Belt states: California, Texas, Florida. Republicans won California in every presidential election from 1952 through 1988 (except the Goldwater disaster of 1964). Democrats have won California in the five consecutive presidential elections since 1988.

In 1984 Reagan won young voters by 20 points; the elder Bush won voters under 30 again in 1988. Since that year, the Democrats have won the under-30 vote in five consecutive presidential elections. Voters who turned 20 between 2000 and 2005 are the most lopsidedly Democratic age cohort in the electorate. If they eat right, exercise and wear seat belts, they will be voting against George W. Bush well into the 2060s.

Between 2004 and 2008, Democrats more than doubled their party-identification advantage in Pennsylvania. A survey of party switchers in the state found that a majority of the reaffiliating voters had belonged to the GOP for 20 years or more. They were educated and affluent. More than half of those who left stated that the GOP had become too extreme.

Look at America's public-policy problems, look at voting trends, and it's inescapably obvious that the Republican Party needs to evolve. We need to put free-market health-care reform, not tax cuts, at the core of our economic message. It's health-care costs that are crushing middle-class incomes. Between 2000 and 2006, the amount that employers paid for labor rose substantially. Employees got none of that money; all of it was absorbed by rising health-care costs. Meanwhile, the income-tax cuts offered by Republicans interest fewer and fewer people: before the recession, two thirds of American workers paid more in payroll taxes than in income taxes.

We need to modulate our social conservatism (not jettison—modulate). The GOP will remain a predominantly conservative party and a predominantly pro-life party. But especially on gay-rights issues, the under-30 generation has arrived at a new consensus. Our party seems to be running to govern a country that no longer exists. The rule that both our presidential and vice presidential candidates must always be pro-life has become counterproductive: McCain's only hope of winning the presidency in 2008 was to carry Pennsylvania, and yet Pennsylvania's most successful Republican vote winner, former governor Tom Ridge, was barred from the ticket because he's pro-choice.

We need an environmental message. You don't have to accept Al Gore's predictions of imminent gloom to accept that it cannot be healthy to pump gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We are rightly mistrustful of liberal environmentalist disrespect for property rights. But property owners also care about property values, about conservation, and as a party of property owners we should be taking those values more seriously.

Above all, we need to take governing seriously again. Voters have long associated Democrats with corrupt urban machines, Republicans with personal integrity and fiscal responsibility. Even ultraliberal states like Massachusetts would elect Republican governors like Frank Sargent, Leverett Saltonstall, William Weld and Mitt Romney precisely to keep an austere eye on the depredations of Democratic legislators. After Iraq, Katrina and Harriet Miers, Democrats surged to a five-to-three advantage on the competence and ethics questions. And that was before we put Sarah Palin on our national ticket.

Every day, Rush Limbaugh reassures millions of core Republican voters that no change is needed: if people don't appreciate what we are saying, then say it louder. Isn't that what happened in 1994? Certainly this is a good approach for Rush himself. He claims 20 million listeners per week, and that suffices to make him a very wealthy man. And if another 100 million people cannot stand him, what does he care? What can they do to him other than … not listen? It's not as if they can vote against him.

But they can vote against Republican candidates for Congress. They can vote against Republican nominees for president. And if we allow ourselves to be overidentified with somebody who earns his fortune by giving offense, they will vote against us. Two months into 2009, President Obama and the Democratic Congress have already enacted into law the most ambitious liberal program since the mid-1960s. More, much more is to come. Through this burst of activism, the Republican Party has been flat on its back.

Decisions that will haunt American taxpayers for generations have been made with hardly a debate. The federal government will pay more of the cost for Medicaid, it will expand the SCHIP program for young children, it will borrow trillions of dollars to expand the national debt to levels unseen since WWII. To stem this onrush of disastrous improvisations, conservatives need every resource of mind and heart, every good argument, every creative alternative and every bit of compassionate sympathy for the distress that is pushing Americans in the wrong direction. Instead we are accepting the leadership of a man with an ego-driven agenda of his own, who looms largest when his causes fare worst.

In the days since I stumbled into this controversy, I've received a great deal of e-mail. (Most of it on days when Levin or Hannity or Hugh Hewitt or Limbaugh himself has had something especially disobliging to say about me.) Most of these e-mails say some version of the same thing: if you don't agree with Rush, quit calling yourself a conservative and get out of the Republican Party. There's the perfect culmination of the outlook Rush Limbaugh has taught his fans and followers: we want to transform the party of Lincoln, Eisenhower and Reagan into a party of unanimous dittoheads—and we don't care how much the party has to shrink to do it. That's not the language of politics. It's the language of a cult.

I'm a pretty conservative guy. On most issues, I doubt Limbaugh and I even disagree very much. But the issues on which we do disagree are maybe the most important to the future of the conservative movement and the Republican Party: Should conservatives be trying to provoke or persuade? To narrow our coalition or enlarge it? To enflame or govern? And finally (and above all): to profit—or to serve?
Click to expand...
 
I'm familiar with the radio host Mark Levin. Is that the same guy as the popular radio host Mark Levin?

EDIT:

[quote name='Frum']I supported the Iraq War and (although I feel kind of silly about it in retrospect)[/quote]

Glad to know that tens of thousands of deaths and hundreds of billions of dollars misspent make you feel "kind of silly." Me? I feel kind of silly when I yell at my TV because I lost an online SFIV fight. But when I think of the Iraq War, I'm sick to my fuckin' stomach. And I want to kick the living shit out of people who feel "kind of silly" about it.

Well, Levin's right. He is a fuckin' putz.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm familiar with the radio host Mark Levin. Is that the same guy as the popular radio host Mark Levin?

EDIT:



Glad to know that tens of thousands of deaths and hundreds of billions of dollars misspent make you feel "kind of silly." Me? I feel kind of silly when I yell at my TV because I lost an online SFIV fight. But when I think of the Iraq War, I'm sick to my fuckin' stomach. And I want to kick the living shit out of people who feel "kind of silly" about it.

Well, Levin's right. He is a fuckin' putz.[/quote]
I think he said he felt silly about the impeachment of Bill Clinton.
 
We need to modulate our social conservatism (not jettison—modulate). The GOP will remain a predominantly conservative party and a predominantly pro-life party. But especially on gay-rights issues, the under-30 generation has arrived at a new consensus. Our party seems to be running to govern a country that no longer exists. The rule that both our presidential and vice presidential candidates must always be pro-life has become counterproductive: McCain's only hope of winning the presidency in 2008 was to carry Pennsylvania, and yet Pennsylvania's most successful Republican vote winner, former governor Tom Ridge, was barred from the ticket because he's pro-choice.
Click to expand...
This doesn't make sense to me, it's like they're saying they want a democratic republican. I mean, of course a pro-choice guy like Ridge would be barred, his beliefs go against the party's own.

It's like a game of "when is a republican not a republican."

Oh and
Above all, we need to take governing seriously again. Voters have long associated Democrats with corrupt urban machines, Republicans with personal integrity and fiscal responsibility. Even ultraliberal states like Massachusetts would elect Republican governors like Frank Sargent, Leverett Saltonstall, William Weld and Mitt Romney precisely to keep an austere eye on the depredations of Democratic legislators. After Iraq, Katrina and Harriet Miers, Democrats surged to a five-to-three advantage on the competence and ethics questions. And that was before we put Sarah Palin on our national ticket.
Click to expand...
since when has the republican party been the party of integrity?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think he's saying they have to move to the center more on social issues but remain more fiscally conservative if they want to compete.

We're still a center right nation, but extreme right tances on social issues polarize too much of the voting block--especiallly women and more educated conservatives, as there is a shift center/left on a lot of social issues in certain voter blocks. And those are the ones that decide elections.

But again, I hope they continue to ignore that stuff and run with someone like Palin who Obama woud obliterate in 4 years.
 
I fail to understand Frum's logic with regards to abortion. Half of America is supportive of the GOP position on abortion and half is supportive of the Democratic position. How is it a disadvantage to pick a candidate who is in line with half of America as compared to a candidate in line with the other half - especially when the half we're talking about is majority-Republican? Perhaps this argument only applies to swing states, but even then...
 
Frum's real opinion is that the social conservative stuff is all a distraction. Focus on militarism, war, and corporatism, and he'll be happy.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I fail to understand Frum's logic with regards to abortion. Half of America is supportive of the GOP position on abortion and half is supportive of the Democratic position. How is it a disadvantage to pick a candidate who is in line with half of America as compared to a candidate in line with the other half - especially when the half we're talking about is majority-Republican? Perhaps this argument only applies to swing states, but even then...[/QUOTE]

It really depends on swing voters--the hardcore pro lifers and pro choicers always vote the party line.

The moderates that swing elections can often overlook an issue like the VPs stance on abortion or another social issue if they like the rest of the platform--and going to far to the right alienates the moderates and gets them to stay home or vote for someone else.
 
jake, the question isn't whether you want Obama to fail or not. The question is who is obama working for?

Hypothetical question here. If obama was working for the devil to kill humanity, would you want him to succeed? most likely not. I don't believe the left/right Controlled paradigm.

People should be standing for the constitution and the bill of rights, if anyone opposes those 2 things, they should fail and liberty and freedom should succeed.

And the sad thing is, that in main stream america, there are only 2 views. Left VS Right. Which is a completely controlled false paradigm, that's meant to controll the people.

Barak and Bush work for the same people. Check this documentary out. It breaks that Left/Right False paradigm.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw
 
Well, Satan's cool. He brought us metal.

Satan said "here: have some Venom, and Anthrax, and all these other wonderful bands."

And we said "great! can you take Burzum back with you?"

And Satan said: "sorry, that's not part of the deal."

God was offered to meet the challenge head on. But His Holy Name could only find a yellow and black striped drum kit with 8 bass drums.

Therefore, Obama's a metalhead. Go Obama!
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, Satan's cool. He brought us metal.

Satan said "here: have some Venom, and Anthrax, and all these other wonderful bands."

And we said "great! can you take Burzum back with you?"

And Satan said: "sorry, that's not part of the deal."

God was offered to meet the challenge head on. But His Holy Name could only find a yellow and black striped drum kit with 8 bass drums.

Therefore, Obama's a metalhead. Go Obama![/quote]

Say what you want about God, but leave Stryper out of it! :applause:
 
Okay, actually watched a bit of the video. Laughed greatly at the boom mike in front of what's-his-name's face. Stopped when we hit the "Obama promised to bring the US out of NAFTA & GATT" section because... well, because I'm not a fan of being lied to by the internet.

EDIT: Also, new Propaghandi album. Gotta prioritize, people.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I think he's saying they have to move to the center more on social issues but remain more fiscally conservative if they want to compete.[/QUOTE]

I agree with that, in fact that is pretty much my position politically and I consider myself a republican. I am pro-choice and disagree with most of the strict conservative social values, however I also feel that Democrats in general spend way too much on programs that bankrupt themselves & reward poor life decisions while at the same time creating government that is too big and controlling in our personal lives.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']EDIT: Also, new Propaghandi album. Gotta prioritize, people.[/quote]

Great album, "night letters" keeps getting stuck in my head.

And that's my addition to this fantastic thread.
 
Dear Coach's Corner > Night Letters

In fact...

Banger's Embrace > Night Letters
Potemkin City Limits > Night Letters
Supporting Caste > Night Letters
 
[quote name='Ruined']I agree with that, in fact that is pretty much my position politically and I consider myself a republican. I am pro-choice and disagree with most of the strict conservative social values, however I also feel that Democrats in general spend way too much on programs that bankrupt themselves & reward poor life decisions while at the same time creating government that is too big and controlling in our personal lives.[/QUOTE]

I can't think of a political party or individual in the past half a century that's even come close to satisfying what you desire.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I can't think of a political party or individual in the past half a century that's even come close to satisfying what you desire.[/quote]

What about Ron (OLD JEEBUS) Paul?
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Dear Coach's Corner > Night Letters

In fact...

Banger's Embrace > Night Letters
Potemkin City Limits > Night Letters
Supporting Caste > Night Letters[/quote]

Better sure, but as catchy? I don't think so.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']What about Ron (OLD JEEBUS) Paul?[/quote]
Kicks puppies, abuses earmarks, pirated World of Goo.

EDIT: There is no way Night Letters, good as it is, will ever replace Banger's Embrace as "that fucking song that won't leave me alone".
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']What about Ron (OLD JEEBUS) Paul?[/QUOTE]

Total poseur. Has been in office for 12 years, and has all the teenager girls weak in the knees with his political posturing. What has he accomplished in those 12 years?

(Answer: the same as Dennis Kucinich has. Both serve the purpose of fooling extremists on both sides of the political spectrum that their respective party alliances represent their interests.)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Total poseur. Has been in office for 12 years, and has all the teenager girls weak in the knees with his political posturing. What has he accomplished in those 12 years?

(Answer: the same as Dennis Kucinich has. Both serve the purpose of fooling extremists on both sides of the political spectrum that their respective party alliances represent their interests.)[/quote]

Both of them represent one vote out of over 400. The actions of any one representative can be thwarted by two votes in the other direction.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']EDIT: There is no way Night Letters, good as it is, will ever replace Banger's Embrace as "that fucking song that won't leave me alone".[/quote]

We'll have to agree to disagree there (i.e. you are terribly wrong).
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Total poseur. Has been in office for 12 years, and has all the teenager girls weak in the knees with his political posturing. What has he accomplished in those 12 years?

(Answer: the same as Dennis Kucinich has. Both serve the purpose of fooling extremists on both sides of the political spectrum that their respective party alliances represent their interests.)[/QUOTE]

Unless "getting bills passed" is the only form of accomplishment you recognize, it's pretty obvious that Ron Paul's major accomplishment has been to have had a large influence on many people's thinking, whether or not you agree with him on anything. (It looks like you even acknowledge this in your post, albeit with your own spin.) You'd be hard pressed to find another congressman who can make a similar claim.
 
[quote name='rickonker']Unless "getting bills passed" is the only form of accomplishment you recognize, it's pretty obvious that Ron Paul's major accomplishment has been to have had a large influence on many people, whether or not you agree with him on anything. You'd be hard pressed to find another congressman to have made that kind of an impact on people's lives.[/QUOTE]

One single lone congressman can't get anything done by themselves if they venture far from the status quo, no matter how right they are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top