View Full Version : Republicans. Fix Bayonets.
http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/republicans-fix-bayonets/
After his narrow defeat by Gerald Ford at the Kansas City convention in 1976, Ronald Reagan was seen as a has-been.
Came the Carter-Torrijos treaties of 1977, however, which gave away the Panama Canal, and the old cowboy strapped on his guns:
“We bought it. We paid for it. It’s ours. And we’re gonna keep it.”
America loved it. Bill Buckley said we must recognize reality and transfer the canal. GOP Senate leader Howard Baker was the toast of the city as he led 16 Republicans to vote with Jimmy Carter. The treaties were approved.
Reagan’s consolation prize? The presidency of the United States.
Voters in New Hampshire in 1980, remembering his lonely stand, rewarded Reagan with a decisive victory over George H. W. Bush, who had defeated Reagan in Iowa. When Howard Baker came in, he was greeted as “Panama Howie,” and did not survive the primary.
The Republican war over whether to bow to the seemingly inevitable and fund Obamacare is a Panama Canal issue. How one votes here may decisively affect one’s career.
Ted Cruz may have, as Richard Nixon used to say, “broken his pick” in the Republican caucus. Yet, on Obamacare, his analysis is right, his instincts are right, his disposition to fight is right.
These are more important matters than the news that he is out of the running for the Mr. Congeniality award on Capitol Hill.
If Obamacare is funded, the subsidies starting in January will constitute a morphine drip from which America’s health-care system will not recover. If not stopped now, Obamacare is forever.
Senate Republicans should be asking themselves why Cruz and Rand Paul, two newcomers to the Senate of decidedly different temperaments, are being talked of as credible candidates in the presidential primaries of 2016.
Answer: Both are clear in their convictions, unapologetic about them and willing to break some china to achieve them. And that part of America upon which the GOP depends most is increasingly frustrated and angry with those who run the national party.
Americans don’t want a dignified surrender on Obamacare. They want someone to drive a stake through Obamacare.
And the question that is going to be answered in coming weeks is: Is the GOP willing to shove its whole stack into the middle of the table, for a showdown over Obamacare? Or will the House GOP in the end cast the decisive vote to make Obamacare permanent?
For, as columnist Terry Jeffrey writes, “[M]ake no mistake. If Obamacare is funded and implemented, it will be because Republican members of Congress decided to do it.”
As Terry notes, Congress has absolute power over the public purse. Article I of the Constitution says, “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law.”
The law authorizing President Obama to spend more money for Obamacare expires Sept. 30. If the House refuses to vote for any bill that contains new Obamacare funding, Obamacare is dead.
Thus the Republican House controls the fate of Obamacare.
But if we don’t fund Obamacare, comes the Republican wail, Harry Reid will let the government shut down, the American people will blame us, and all of our pundits say we can’t win this fight.
For sure you cannot win if you do not fight.
But if a Democratic Senate refuses to pass the House-passed continuing resolution funding the government, because Obamacare is not in the bill, who is shutting down the government?
If Obama vetoes any continuing resolution funding the government that does not contain Obamacare, who is shutting down the government then?
Who is putting the U.S. economy at risk to protect a bollixed program the American people do not want and Congress would never approve if they voted on it today?
What House Republicans have lacked is not courage, but a political and communications strategy.
Having provided a continuing resolution to fund the government, except Obamacare, the House should next begin passing CRs – one for each department. A CR to fund defense and veterans affairs. A CR to fund state, the CIA and Homeland Security. A CR for justice, transportation, energy, etc. One every day.
Would Harry Reid refuse to fund the U.S. Army and Navy unless John Boehner’s House stuffs Obamacare into the defense budget?
Do Republicans really feel incapable of winning this argument?
Are Republicans so tongue-tied they cannot convince America of the truth: They have already voted to fund the government.
If Republicans capitulate and lose this battle, and this unwanted mess passes into law, there is something deeply wrong with the party.
Two weeks ago, a brave Congress, listening to America, stood up and told Obama: Your red lines be damned; we’re not voting for war on Syria.
Now House Republicans need to tell the country: Come hell or high water, we’re not voting to fund Obamacare. We will pass a CR on everything else in the budget, but Obamacare is not coming out of this House alive.
SNip
Trapper John
09-27-2013, 13:10
We can only hope that they have the courage to take a stand, a red line of sorts, on this issue. I agree, this is a very, very bad piece of legislation that will bankrupt the US for sure. Now, is the time for all good men......:lifter
The most flabbergasting part of the whole issue is that roughly two-thirds or more of the people don't want this piece of garbage, but RINO's are blasting Cruz for trying to fight it.
We need to sweep all RINO's and Obama sycophants out of their seats next year. Especially disguised dems such as King, Graham and McCain.
Strategically, I think it's better to let it blow up. Then the Republicans need to develop, clearly articulate and sell a counter-plan for 2016. Just my opinion.
Strategically, I think it's better to let it blow up.
Have you ever seen a government program disappear because it didn't work?
Pat
I think the ACA is going to be a debacle but they can't win this way. The Dems have the votes. Let them touch the stove. They have to treat the Dems like the guerrilla leader in Robin Sage.
The goal has to be a decisive win in 2016 and that means winning the independent vote. Their goal should be to fix it, not block it; programs get modified all the time. We spend twice the percentage of GDP needed to have an excellent healthcare system. Look at Japan, Germany, France. Better outcomes, half the money spent. It means taking on big pharma and the AMA.
This isn't the only battle that needs fighting. If the ten year bond goes to the mean of the last 20 years--just 5.3%--by 2020 we'll be spending 100% of tax revenues just on interest to service our debt. We're screwed and we need positive solutions.
rubberneck
09-27-2013, 14:54
Fix bayonets? The Republican leadership likely knows more about croquet than they do about bare knuckle brawling.
I used to consider myself a member of the GOP but then I realized 90% of the elected members of the GOP are exactly like their democrat counterparts. The only difference is in how they spin themselves on any given issue. They care about securing their reelection and enriching themselves by catering to whatever special interests pay the most, and if they create bad policy along the way they exempt themselves. There is no better example of that then the exemption they secured from the administration from the ACA for themselves and their staff. Never mind the fact that they voted to be forced into the public exchanges. That was just a political sideshow.
With a few notable exceptions the whole lot of them are dirty, rotten no good bastards.
The goal has to be a decisive win in 2016 and that means winning the independent vote.
We're gonna win it by being democratish? Like we did in '08 and '12?
Four million independents (and Republicans) plus didn't vote in either of those elections because the candidates weren't Conservatives. The only shot in the arm for McCain's campaign was Palin.
Look what happened in '10 and what will happen in '14. Tea Party Conservatives like Cruz are what the Country needs in order for our freedoms to survive.
Have you ever seen a government program disappear because it didn't work?
Pat
Exactly. Once this gets in, no matter how bad it smells it won't ever be gone. The only thing that will happen is they will throw more money at it, create bigger beauracracies and create more democrat voters who are completely entitled. Like the founding fathers said once a majority realizes they can vote more benefits for themselves it's over.
Like the founding fathers said once a majority realizes they can vote more benefits for themselves it's over.
Amen and amen.
Obamacare was designed to fail, obviously. It's the ticket to a single payer system, which is what the libs wanted in the first place.
Ever wonder how many cottage business plans are being drawn up as I type to enable those who can afford it to fly OCONUS and pay cash on the barrel head for health care? (Because the way the libs are steering it, you won't be able to do it, here, much longer.)
TrapperFrank
09-27-2013, 16:00
A good example of a government program that lives on eternally is the REA, the Rural Electrification Administration. Rural America has long since had electricity, yet this holdover from the Roosevelt administration lives on.
A good example of a government program that lives on eternally is the REA, the Rural Electrification Administration. Rural America has long since had electricity, yet this holdover from the Roosevelt administration lives on.
I think it's called Rural Utilities now. I'm not sure what they do, though, since we couldn't get power to our land here in SE AZ without paying $100,000 for the poles and a $250,000 bond. I prefer being off-grid anyway. ;)
Pat
Amen and amen.
Obamacare was designed to fail, obviously. It's the ticket to a single payer system, which is what the libs wanted in the first place.
Ever wonder how many cottage business plans are being drawn up as I type to enable those who can afford it to fly OCONUS and pay cash on the barrel head for health care? (Because the way the libs are steering it, you won't be able to do it, here, much longer.)
It's been happening for at least 3 years now. I have a friend who cuts discount deals with US hospitals for bulk-rate procedures. He then approaches big employers and gets them to sign exclusive deals. Win-win. Lower costs for the employers (even with airfares) and because the more procedures a center does the better the outcome, a win for the patient. Far fewer complications than using a local hospital (that might do 20 a year) which means much less cost.
He's already being undercut by guys doing the same thing but using Bangalore and St Petersburg hospitals. One tenth the cost and comparable outcomes. He says they charge about $6 to hang a bag of D5W in India vs $100-$700 here. Baxter sells a liter of D5W to US hospitals for about $1.10. Indian hospitals are happy with 100% profit on the bag, administration set, and labor.
It's been happening for at least 3 years now. I have a friend who cuts discount deals with US hospitals for bulk-rate procedures. He then approaches big employers and gets them to sign exclusive deals. Win-win. Lower costs for the employers (even with airfares) and because the more procedures a center does the better the outcome, a win for the patient. Far fewer complications than using a local hospital (that might do 20 a year) which means much less cost.
He's already being undercut by guys doing the same thing but using Bangalore and St Petersburg hospitals. One tenth the cost and comparable outcomes. He says they charge about $6 to hang a bag of D5W in India vs $100-$700 here. Baxter sells a liter of D5W to US hospitals for about $1.10. Indian hospitals are happy with 100% profit on the bag, administration set, and labor.
Whaddya know. Good info.
IMO, there will be hell to pay if the GOP short circuits the ACA without simultaneously offering alternative solutions that are economically and politically sustainable.
IMO, there will be hell to pay if the GOP short circuits the ACA without simultaneously offering alternative solutions that are economically and politically sustainable.
Are you implying that Obamacare is economically and politically sustainable?
Are you implying that [the ACA] is economically and politically sustainable?No. I am saying that Americans have a list of issues <<LINK (http://www.gallup.com/poll/162347/americans-give-guns-immigration-reform-low-priority.aspx)>> that they want addressed and that they're losing confidence in Congress's ability to address those concerns <<LINK2 (http://www.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx)>>.
I think I'm not communicating my point well. I think the ACA will be a massive failure, and two years will make that point perfectly obvious, even to a democrat. See this: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-25/they-got-it-wrong-all-accounts-where-obamacare-now
The ACA is going to hammer the democratic base.
I think the ACA will be a massive failure, and two years will make that point perfectly obvious, even to a democrat.Can the GOP afford to say "We told you so?"
Can the GOP afford to say "We told you so?"
What? :confused:
Logically, if Obamacare is worse than what was in place before it became law, then all that's needed is to erase it and revert back to situation normal.
Like the founding fathers said once a majority realizes they can vote more benefits for themselves it's over.
Which "founding fathers" said that?
"Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations from the Library of Congress" lists it as "Attributed to ALEXANDER FRASER TYTLER, LORD WOODHOUSELEE. Unverified."
The quote, however, appears in no published work of Tytler's, the author remains unknown, and its source disputed.
Richard
What? :confused:
Logically, if [the ACA] is worse than what was in place before it became law, then all that's needed is to erase it and revert back to situation normal.First, when are electoral politics logical? If the ACA fails, I predict that a narrative that will be offered to explain that failure will be as follows.
We, the Democrats, did the best we could under the circumstances to reform medical care in the United States. At every step of the way, the GOP put politics over people by obstructing these efforts without bringing to the table counter proposals that would have addressed the concerns of tens of millions of Americans who worry about the rising cost of health care. MOO, this narrative will be a centipede with sound bites and video clips as legs.
Second, saying "let's start over" on the issue of health care reform is going to go down as well as the dream season of Dallas--especially if the GOP does not produce anything resembling a comprehensive alternative.
Paragrouper
09-27-2013, 19:00
Let me take a moment to comment before I go back to shredding the latest request for money from the Republican party.
I am sick and tired of the mealy mouth BS that comes from the Republican party. I have had enough of their perpetual avoidance of 'tough' economic issues. They're as bad, if not worse that the consistently deluded Democratic party. If they roll over again, they won't just need to worry about how to sway the independents, they'll need to figure out where their base went off to.
The time to kill the ACA is now--all else is BS.
Let me take a moment to comment before I go back to shredding the latest request for money from the Republican party.
I am sick and tired of the mealy mouth BS that comes from the Republican party. I have had enough of their perpetual avoidance of 'tough' economic issues. They're as bad, if not worse that the consistently deluded Democratic party. If they roll over again, they won't just need to worry about how to sway the independents, they'll need to figure out where their base went off to.
The time to kill the ACA is now--all else is BS.
I'm with you. Even if it means a government shutdown.
The Reaper
09-27-2013, 20:40
I'm with you. Even if it means a government shutdown.
Concur.
TR
craigepo
09-27-2013, 22:41
The fiscal irresponsibility of The federal government has, somehow, become perpetual. I find it amazingly disingenuous that we are arguing about whether to fund Obamacare, when the Feds have failed to even pass a budget for years. Why is it the several States have to balance their budgets, but not the Feds?
Unless and until we have a federal balanced budget amendment, we are going to continually have the yearly issue of D.C. spending too much money. Hell, if there is no limit to what the government can spend, it is just monopoly money being spent by people trying to ensure they send enough pork home to get re-elected.
Stated differently, as it stands right now, our legislators don't have to say "no" to anybody. If they aren't saying "no" at least once in a while, then they aren't truly governing. We can get any dumbass to go to Washington to just sign checks. Personally, I am glad that we finally have at least a few people with the stones to try to put the brakes on spending.
Sigaba makes an interesting point of proffering alternatives to Obamacare. Unfortunately, I would have to say that no one in D.C. either the brains or the guts to forward any real solutions to fix the problem, republican or democrat. We have neutered any market forces that would bear force on the medical industry, and any attempt to curtail entitlements brings shouts of "Killer". So, the taxpayers of the country are pinched between well-represented medical lobbies on one side, while being forced to pick up the tab of the millions of non-paying welfare types on the other.
I'm a federal employee and can not believe the crap that is going on in the office that I work in.
We were just informed by management that if there is a furlough we are required to come in to work on the first for four hours to "unwind".
To us that means get as much crap done in those four hours to last a month!
I will willingly take off as much furlough time as they need "as long as they are working to resolve the issues they have, and aren't just being stubborn pricks"
Every year in September it's get out the catalogs and spend every cent in the budget! They have a contest in our region to see who has the least left, our management was proud they spent all but less than $5! Mad all that was purchased was crap.
We need some serious change!
Amen
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/28/Flushing-Critters-and-Retrieving-2014
Snip
"Americans are getting slammed by Obamacare right now. Workforces are decimated as health care prices rise. Public opinion is on our side. If now was not the time to unite and fight it, when was? Those who are attacking Cruz and Lee’s efforts have forgotten how negotiations are won.
Use as an example the negotiations a governor of energy-rich Alaska must engage in with powerful multinational oil tycoons. In my experience, I found that the key to achieving success for the people you’re elected to serve is to take a firm position, stand solid, and negotiate from there when the other guy is ready to take you seriously. You fight as hard as you can with whatever small edge you’ve got until the other guy respects you enough to wise up, sit down, and come to a mutually acceptable agreement. You get nothing at all if you preemptively surrender before the battle even commences.
Imagine how much stronger the GOP’s hand would have been if every Republican (and those Democrats who’ve finally admitted Obamacare’s devastating flaws) stood together against cloture in order to prevent Harry Reid from cutting off debate and stripping Obamacare defunding from the bill?
Snip
Use as an example the negotiations a governor of energy-rich Alaska must engage in with powerful multinational oil tycoons. In my experience, I found that the key to achieving success for the people you’re elected to serve is to take a firm position, stand solid, and negotiate from there when the other guy is ready to take you seriously. You fight as hard as you can with whatever small edge you’ve got until the other guy respects you enough to wise up, sit down, and come to a mutually acceptable agreement. You get nothing at all if you preemptively surrender before the battle even commences.
Ms. Palin provides an interesting, if not intentional, insight into her actual level of confidence in her skills as a politician.
Peregrino
09-28-2013, 15:34
Ms. Palin provides an interesting, if not intentional, insight into her actual level of confidence in her skills as a politician.
I'm tired of the snark. If you can't make a contribution that advances the discussion, you will be invited to play elsewhere. P
Trapper John
09-28-2013, 17:44
I'm tired of the snark. If you can't make a contribution that advances the discussion, you will be invited to play elsewhere. P
I concur. Sig- I have said several times that I really think you add value with your historical insights in your posts, if often as a counterpoints. I genuinely appreciate that. But, this time I'm with Peregrino and snarkiness adds nothing to the discussion and will in the end only piss-off Dusty.:eek:
You know some of the same attitudes were prevalent towards Ronald Regan.;)
I concur. Sig- I have said several times that I really think you add value with your historical insights in your posts, if often as a counterpoints. I genuinely appreciate that. But, this time I'm with Peregrino and snarkiness adds nothing to the discussion and will in the end only piss-off Dusty.:eek:
You know some of the same attitudes were prevalent towards Ronald Regan.;)
What? :confused:
Ronnie never pissed me off once.
;)
Surf n Turf
09-28-2013, 22:45
The fiscal irresponsibility of The federal government has, somehow, become perpetual.
I find it amazingly disingenuous that we are arguing about whether to fund Obamacare, when the Feds have failed to even pass a budget for years
Why is it the several States have to balance their budgets, but not the Feds? .
Craigepo,
I do not see a happy ending to this madness. We have so many competing interests for the "federal $" that it is quite literally formatting division and strife (perhaps more) between:
MAKERS vs TAKERS
OLD vs YOUNG
RICH MIDDLE CLASS vs POOR
URBAN vs RURAL
NATIVE BORN vs ILLEGAL /REFUGEE
NORTH vs SOUTH
EMPLOYED vs UNEMPLOYED
REPUBLICAN vs CONSERVATIVE
In the meantime, the "Ruling Class" in DC, (and some of the State Capitals), sits back, and laughs --- secure in their position because they can play one group against another to "win" reelection.
Unfortunately, I would have to say that no one in D.C. either the brains or the guts to forward any real solutions to fix the problem, republican or democrat.
I would have to say, that I don't believe this is not a D.C. problem or responsibility.
Where is the lacking in perspective that decides the US Congress should come between me and my healthcare. Isn't that a long reach for a Congressman or Senator to decide if, or by whom, I am treated, what my treatment will be, and how it will be compensated. I must have missed my class on Constitutional micro management ----
We have neutered any market forces that would bear force on the medical industry, and any attempt to curtail entitlements brings shouts of "Killer"..
,the taxpayers of the country are pinched between well-represented medical lobbies on one side, while being forced to pick up the tab of the millions of non-paying welfare types on the other.
We stopped welfare from being an "entitlement" --- and have some sensible welfare to work requirements built into law. Would not this same personal responsibility argument enter into the healthcare debate.
Where is it written that the taxpayer must pay for every cut, scrape, drug overdose, or gunshot wound for the 3rd world, or the nations miscreant population.
Perhaps I am being over-simplistic, but wouldn't leaving it (healthcre) alone, and providing care directly from the doctor to the patient -- without outside $$ --- answer 85-95% of the current problems. Leaving just the 5-15% that can't or won't provide for their own welfare to be looked at as a separate "national debate" issue. If the issue is framed in this manner, than the political class can address how they would fund the care and feeding of the nations supplicants in a manner acceptable to the voters.
We stopped welfare from being an "entitlement" --- and have some sensible welfare to work requirements built into law.
You may have had a Rip van Winkle moment. The Almighty "O" overturned that law with an EO (or edict, whatever the hell the difference is) while you were snoozing. ;)
In July 2012, the Obama Administration issued a bureaucratic edict proposing to overturn the work requirements that formed the core of the 1996 reform law. This action clearly violated the intent and letter of the law.
<snip>
On July 12, the Obama Administration issued a bureaucratic edict declaring that state welfare bureaucracies would no longer need to comply with the work participation standards established in the 1996 welfare reform law. Under the new policy, all states and all TANF recipients could potentially be exempted from federal work requirements. This edict blatantly violated the intent and letter of the welfare reform legislation.
<snip>
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/09/obamas-end-run-on-welfare-reform-part-two-dismantling-workfare
Pat
On the other hand, I also understand the concerns about if O-Care becomes law, that it could still be very difficult to undo unless it proves itself really terrible, and fast. But a problem is, how can what someone like Cruz was/is doing help the GOP at all when it's a losing battle from his vantage point?
Where have you been? Obamacare is the "law of the land" now (major libdem talking point), and it has already proven itself really terrible.
The way someone like Cruz helps the GOP is to set an example of showing a spine, and letting the chips fall where they may.
Remember 2010? People like Cruz were voted in to do exactly what he's doing. We will not stop socialism with the current batch of appeasers in place.
Since when is standing up for what's right a "losing battle", regardless of outcome?
Have you not read the polls, all of which hold Obamacare to be an overwhelmingly unpopular system with both Conservatives as well as the other guys?
http://www.anncoulter.com/
If I could briefly interrupt the Republican firing squad aiming at Ted Cruz, let's talk about something we all agree on. And by "we all," I mean a majority of the American people, the Teamsters, many Democrats and every single last Republican.
Obamacare is an unmitigated disaster.
It was passed illegally without the House ever voting on the Senate bill and became law absent a single Republican vote -- even "the girls from Maine" and "the girl from Arizona" -- the only major legislation ever enacted on a strict party-line vote. The Supreme Court had to violate the Constitution's separation of powers to uphold Obamacare as a "tax" -- despite the fact that no elected body could ever have enacted such a massive tax hike even with the sleazy parliamentary tricks used to pass this bill.
Proving that everyone hates it, Congress has now exempted itself from Obamacare's provisions, having asked for, and received, a waiver from President Obama.
Yes, these are the exact same politicians who lecture us that Obamacare is "the law of the land!" (So are our immigration laws.) The same ones who huffily announce that the Supreme Court upheld it! (The court also upheld the First Amendment in Citizens United, but that doesn't stop Obama from demanding Congress overturn the First Amendment.) They are the same sanctimonious frauds who tell us that Obamacare is "the right thing to do!"
Those guys waived Obamacare for themselves. If national health care is so great, why don't they want it?
In every single category of Crap Forced On the Country by the Left, liberals always have a work-around for themselves.
They love the public schools and denounce school choice -- but their kids go to St. Albans or Sidwell Friends. As Al Gore responded to a question from a black journalist for Time magazine who asked him why he opposed school vouchers while sending his own kids to private schools, "My children -- you can leave them out of this!"
Snip
Badger52
09-29-2013, 08:26
As Al Gore responded to a question from a black journalist for Time magazine who asked him why he opposed school vouchers while sending his own kids to private schools, "My children -- you can leave them out of this!" "Rules for thee, but not for me."
Paragrouper
09-29-2013, 09:21
Since when is standing up for what's right a "losing battle", regardless of outcome?
Its a shame that more in Congress cannot amass the courage to stand with him.
Its a shame that more in Congress cannot amass the courage to stand with him.
Amen, Brother.
The Reaper
09-29-2013, 09:35
Its a shame that more in Congress cannot amass the courage to stand with him.
Does anyone really think that the words "courage" and "Congress" belong in the same sentence?
TR
Surf n Turf
09-29-2013, 09:41
You may have had a Rip van Winkle moment. The Almighty "O" overturned that law with an EO (or edict, whatever the hell the difference is) while you were snoozing. ;)
In July 2012, the Obama Administration issued a bureaucratic edict proposing to overturn the work requirements that formed the core of the 1996 reform law. This action clearly violated the intent and letter of the law.
Pat
Pat,
I stand corrected. I did not know that :confused:
Maybe I knew it at one time, but I don't know it now, OR I knew, but forgot it, or maybe I never knew it at all --- man, this getting old sucks
SnT
But shutting down the government is also unpopular, and the GOP we don't want to be seen as irresponsible or anything like that by the American people. Standing up for a right can be a losing proposition if one doesn't play the politics correctly.
That kind of attitude is why we're in the predicament we're in.
What's difference between Obamacare "unpopular" and shutdown "unpopular"?
What's wrong with having balls in this Country nowadays? Huh?
Who cares a whit what the simpering libdems think about it? Obama's been given a choice he can take to avoid a shut down-blame him.
Until we get some truly non-demlib leaders in the GOP who can reach down between their legs and grab a pair of their own balls instead of Pelosi's crotch, we're not gonna get anywhere, dude.
I hope you are right, but blaming him won't mean anything if the GOP can't get the message across effectively or the American people don't buy it. And Obama and his acolytes will seek to blame the GOP and the media will help them right along.
I'm fully aware of that, dude. What difference does it make? Since when have they not blamed the GOP?
Do you know the definition for doing the same thing over and over and over again while getting the same negative results? You want to lose in 2016? Then keep sucking up to the people you've been sucking up to. That's how we lost the last two elections-our guys weren't conservative enough, by a long shot.
We need to identify a candidate who wears a jockstrap instead of Depends, forget about these mealy-mouthed, whimpering fenceriders and take back the Country, without fidgeting about what the public will think. The public thinks what the media wants you to think it thinks, and it's a false representation of the true feelings of most Americans.
Let me illustrate. Do you believe the polls, which all say an overwhelming majority of people don't want Obamacare? You should, because they don't.
THEN WHY LET OBAMA HAVE HIS WAY!?
This is, IMO, one of the great political questions of our time, i.e. is the GOP unable to win due to running candidates that are not conservative enough, or that come across as too conservative in certain ways (ex. abortion, same-sex marriage), but too non-conservative in other ways. I am no expert, but I fear that if we try running a "solid" conservative come 2016, we will lose. I think what we need is a conservative who comes across as a conservative, but a more moderate kind, one that the media cannot successfully paint as radical.
Right now, it seems we either get the mealy-mouthed conservatives who are not able to defend conservatism and thus unable to really distinguish themselves from the Democratic candidate, and thus come across as being a light-hearted version of a Democrat, or the more hardcore conservatives that the media can paint as radical. We need someone who is not seen as hard-right but who can nonetheless tear down the Democrat. Remember, the Hispanic vote was lost big-time in this last election. It is of supreme importance for the GOP to keep in mind that it can't come across to Hispanics as engaging in thinly-veiled racism or anything like that. And then there's the issue of abortion with the women's vote, which I don't know how much a role that plays or not. And also the youth vote, which looks to views on things like same-sex marriage and also abortion often. I view John McCain-style conservatives as too mealy-mouthed to win, but then I also think a Ted Cruz or a Rand Paul will be a loser too, being seen as too conservative.
Your stance typifies that which the media presents as across the board for the public, and it's a false representation.
The GOP tried it your way twice in a row. Third time won't be a charm.
It's incredible to me that everyone has forgotten that 700+ pols got their chairs snatched out from under them in 2010 because Conservatives were winning in a sweep.
It will happen again in 2014, now that Lerner's not stonewalling them.
In 2016-mark my words-it won't be the Hispanic males or any other males you'll have to worry about. A Romney or a McCain won't take the win, and neither will a "fairly" conservative candidate. We pull out all stops, or the Country goes socialist.
I hope you are right, but blaming him won't mean anything if the GOP can't get the message across effectively or the American people don't buy it. And Obama and his acolytes will seek to blame the GOP and the media will help them right along.
What is an effective message you don't follow through with?
Do you know the definition for doing the same thing over and over and over again while getting the same negative results?
Looking up a dead horse ass to see what it died from.
The Reaper
09-29-2013, 18:24
This is, IMO, one of the great political questions of our time, i.e. is the GOP unable to win due to running candidates that are not conservative enough, or that come across as too conservative in certain ways (ex. abortion, same-sex marriage), but too non-conservative in other ways. I am no expert, but I fear that if we try running a "solid" conservative come 2016, we will lose. I think what we need is a conservative who comes across as a conservative, but a more moderate kind, one that the media cannot successfully paint as radical.
Right now, it seems we either get the mealy-mouthed conservatives who are not able to defend conservatism and thus unable to really distinguish themselves from the Democratic candidate, and thus come across as being a light-hearted version of a Democrat, or the more hardcore conservatives that the media can paint as radical. We need someone who is not seen as hard-right but who can nonetheless tear down the Democrat. Remember, the Hispanic vote was lost big-time in this last election. It is of supreme importance for the GOP to keep in mind that it can't come across to Hispanics as engaging in thinly-veiled racism or anything like that. And then there's the issue of abortion with the women's vote, which I don't know how much a role that plays or not. And also the youth vote, which looks to views on things like same-sex marriage and also abortion often. I view John McCain-style conservatives as too mealy-mouthed to win, but then I also think a Ted Cruz or a Rand Paul will be a loser too, being seen as too conservative.
So what you want is a Republican who has Dim positions.
I guess McCain and Romney were too conservative for you?
Based on your criteria, I am afraid that I cannot support a candidate that you would find acceptable. Prepare for a poor compromise with a RINO candidate, and yet another loss as the millions of conservative voters stay at home in masses.
Again.
TR
I think what we need is a conservative who comes across as a conservative, but a more moderate kind, one that the media cannot successfully paint as radical.
What kind of gobbledygook is that?
This is, IMO, one of the great political questions of our time, i.e. is the GOP unable to win due to running candidates that are not conservative enough, or that come across as too conservative in certain ways (ex. abortion, same-sex marriage), but too non-conservative in other ways. I am no expert, but I fear that if we try running a "solid" conservative come 2016, we will lose. I think what we need is a conservative who comes across as a conservative, but a more moderate kind, one that the media cannot successfully paint as radical.
Right now, it seems we either get the mealy-mouthed conservatives who are not able to defend conservatism and thus unable to really distinguish themselves from the Democratic candidate, and thus come across as being a light-hearted version of a Democrat, or the more hardcore conservatives that the media can paint as radical. We need someone who is not seen as hard-right but who can nonetheless tear down the Democrat. Remember, the Hispanic vote was lost big-time in this last election. It is of supreme importance for the GOP to keep in mind that it can't come across to Hispanics as engaging in thinly-veiled racism or anything like that. And then there's the issue of abortion with the women's vote, which I don't know how much a role that plays or not. And also the youth vote, which looks to views on things like same-sex marriage and also abortion often. I view John McCain-style conservatives as too mealy-mouthed to win, but then I also think a Ted Cruz or a Rand Paul will be a loser too, being seen as too conservative.
So who do you think a good candidate will be? Christie, Ryan, Jeb Bush?
I'll put my money on a Cruz or Rand Paul ticket.
Looking up a dead horse ass to see what it died from.
lol Other than that. :D
Not stonewalling on O-Care isn't avoiding following through on the message though, it is just seeking to adhere to it via a different method.
So are you saying they are advertising something to their audience and then doing something different than was advertised?
Remember also that Romney might well have won, if not for:
1) The big storm that all-of-a-sudden made him irrelevant
2) Christie's huge praise for Obama
I don't know if those things threw the election or not though.
If that is what sways peoples minds and elections we as a nation are in big trouble.
Not a Republican that has Democratic positions, but one more socially liberal. It depends on where the country truly is socially. It seems that the GOP's being against same-sex marriage and against legalized abortion is hurting it with women, independents, and young folk. It is perceived by many as being bigoted against gays, as being anti-woman, and racist against Hispanics. On abortion for example, I think the candidate ought to be pro-life in their personal life, but otherwise okay with legalized abortion (with limitations on late-term abortion, and who would emphasize that being for limitations on late-term abortion does not make one for outlawing all abortion, no more than being for some gun control measures means one wants to outlaw guns (use that in particular on the Democrats).
Explain that the GOP understands the concerns about Hispanics having their families cut in half, and emphasize to them that they want to create a sound way to integrate the illegals into society while securing the border from those illegals who are truly criminals (as in murder, rape, etc...not ones that are technically criminals from being here illegally, but just trying to provide for their families). If the GOP goes all hardcore anti-illegal-immigrant-sounding, like it or not, it strikes some as racist and scares many Hispanics. Otherwise we will lose the Hispanic vote. Also explain to Hispanics that conservatives very much believing in helping their fellow human, but that there is a difference between society and government. This must be explained because some Hispanics in the last election said they don't necessarily agree with the GOP with its philosophy of limited government, that in their culture, they believe in helping others (i.e. government programs). They need to realize that government programs do not always help, sometimes harm, and that one can help without government. The GOP should also point out that this view does not make them against government programs, just for a more limited government welfare state.
On same-sex marriage, I view it like abortion. Be against it in one's personal beliefs, but not for legislating it. This will attract more independents. On all other issues, such as arms rights, fiscal conservatism, economics, foreign policy, etc...I think the GOPer could tear the Democrat apart.
This type of GOP candidate would clearly be a conservative, but a more moderate-seeming conservative. If we run a conservative who is against legalized abortion, who is seen as hardcore against illegal immigration, and hardline against same sex marriage, I am afraid we will lose.
I'm so sick of this argument. If you just change what you believe, and your core values maybe people will like you. Bullshit, historically the GOP will only get around 35% of the hispanic vote, even after they did the immunity in the 80's. Reagan wasn't popular with the GOP but he didn't back down from a fight and stood on his principles (not withstanding the immunity debacle). That is what America needs, and it is what the republican base is crying out for. It's why McCain and Romney had such a poor showing, they tried to play the game and get everyone to like them and it makes them look weak, so people don't come out and vote. We need someone who says what they believe and if you don't like it, tough.
The Reaper
09-29-2013, 21:09
Not a Republican that has Democratic positions, but one more socially liberal. It depends on where the country truly is socially. It seems that the GOP's being against same-sex marriage and against legalized abortion is hurting it with women, independents, and young folk. It is perceived by many as being bigoted against gays, as being anti-woman, and racist against Hispanics. On abortion for example, I think the candidate ought to be pro-life in their personal life, but otherwise okay with legalized abortion (with limitations on late-term abortion, and who would emphasize that being for limitations on late-term abortion does not make one for outlawing all abortion, no more than being for some gun control measures means one wants to outlaw guns (use that in particular on the Democrats).
Explain that the GOP understands the concerns about Hispanics having their families cut in half, and emphasize to them that they want to create a sound way to integrate the illegals into society while securing the border from those illegals who are truly criminals (as in murder, rape, etc...not ones that are technically criminals from being here illegally, but just trying to provide for their families). If the GOP goes all hardcore anti-illegal-immigrant-sounding, like it or not, it strikes some as racist and scares many Hispanics. Otherwise we will lose the Hispanic vote. Also explain to Hispanics that conservatives very much believing in helping their fellow human, but that there is a difference between society and government. This must be explained because some Hispanics in the last election said they don't necessarily agree with the GOP with its philosophy of limited government, that in their culture, they believe in helping others (i.e. government programs). They need to realize that government programs do not always help, sometimes harm, and that one can help without government. The GOP should also point out that this view does not make them against government programs, just for a more limited government welfare state.
On same-sex marriage, I view it like abortion. Be against it in one's personal beliefs, but not for legislating it. This will attract more independents. On all other issues, such as arms rights, fiscal conservatism, economics, foreign policy, etc...I think the GOPer could tear the Democrat apart.
This type of GOP candidate would clearly be a conservative, but a more moderate-seeming conservative. If we run a conservative who is against legalized abortion, who is seen as hardcore against illegal immigration, and hardline against same sex marriage, I am afraid we will lose.
If no issues are core, and everything is negotiable, just to pander to some special interests for their votes, then we Republicans have already lost.
The good news is that the Dim's plan currently being pursued will eventually result in an national, if not global economic catastrophe and the subsequent sorting out period should eliminate large numbers of their constituents. The winners, in the aftermath of that scenario, would probably be the Libertarians.
I think selling out a little at the time, time after time, whether it be giving away our God given 2nd Amendment rights, murdering unborn children for convenience of the parent, unwillingness to enforce the soverign borders of this country and rewarding those who choose to violate our "laws" by putting them on the public dole, supporting the violation of others' social and religious beliefs by establishing deviants as special, protected classes, should be solely the realm of the Democratic party.
And back to the problem, I do not believe that I would care to vote for any candidate you might find acceptable.
TR
Your answer is a simple no. We tried it the last two presidential elections and lost. But look at the tea party candidates who picked up seats. Those are the candidates who instill pride and can motivate the base.
Yes, I know. Just stating my ideal candidate though. Don't know if they could win or not.
To me, it's simple. You have two choices. One probably won't be your ideal candidate; the other will be a socialist. Don't vote, and the socialist gets half a vote.
It's happened twice. If it happens again, we'll never get back on track.
........I am saying that regarding same-sex marriage and abortion, conservatives shouldn't force their views on others, ......
And they don't? Can conservatives even express their opinion on those issues now days without being savaged by the press, left and collage leadership like a pack of wild dogs?
Broadsword 2004, buddy, your line of reasoning is the reason Obama got in the WH and stayed there.
Some said that Obama's helping of New Jersey during the storm, articulated by Chris Christie, is what swayed them to vote for him.
Then in all reality if you could control the weather you could control peoples minds and the outcomes of elections.
And hypothetically....
Yo HAARP, this is the O-Man and I need some lightening storms in Texas, Colorado and California! Then only provide disaster relief to those states that supported you in a previous election or as a means to sway votes in an upcoming election.
Barbarian
09-30-2013, 06:48
You have two choices. One probably won't be your ideal candidate; the other will be a socialist.
Truth.
Airbornelawyer
09-30-2013, 15:19
........I am saying that regarding same-sex marriage and abortion, conservatives shouldn't force their views on others, ......
And they don't? Can conservatives even express their opinion on those issues now days without being savaged by the press, left and collage leadership like a pack of wild dogs?
I don't think it was conservatives who forced that Oregon bakery out of business because they didn't want to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding.
Photographers cannot refuse gay weddings in New Mexico either
ddoering
09-30-2013, 15:35
The good news is that the Dim's plan currently being pursued will eventually result in an national, if not global economic catastrophe and the subsequent sorting out period should eliminate large numbers of their constituents.
TR
Counting the days and loading magazines.:lifter
The Reaper
09-30-2013, 17:28
This type of thing intrigues me: do businesses have a right to refuse on such a thing (homosexuality)? For example, if such a business refused to bake a cake for a wedding based on ethnicity, wouldn't that be illegal?
If it is, it shouldn't be.
Business owners have the right to serve or not serve anyone they want.
The market will determine whether that is a good business move or not.
Can you make the muslim bookstore owner sell me a Koran?
Can the Jewish baker be forced to bake Christmas cookies for me?
Could a gas station owner be forced to sell a can of gasoline to a couple of Klan thugs in robes?
A Wal-Mart refused to make a birthday cake for "Adolf Hitler", and it was determined to be legal, IIRC.
TR
Remember though, McCain and Romney both ran as pro-life in the sense of outlawing abortion and same-sex marriage. They did not run as candidates okay with legalized same-sex marriage and legalized abortion, and yet still lost. I do hope you are right and I am wrong on this issue though.
Well, sure. So'd Bush twice, his daddy, and every Repub POTUS in history, but that's not why Romney or McCain lost. They lost because millions of Conservative voters stayed home instead of settling for the lesser of two weevils.
Do we know for sure that McCain and Romney lost because a large number of conservatives stayed home? That was foolish of them, IMO if so.
The number I heard today was over 4 million republican voters stayed home in 12.
Latest offer:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/30/budget-showdown-test-wills-as-shutdown-deadline-comes-into-view/
Essentially, postpone the individual mandate for a year (just like the President did for employers) and force our elected officials to participate like everyone else. IMO, not only just (comparatively) but if the Senate (and the President) turn this down, they are, for a ll practical purposes, giving the finger to the American people.
I say, if they refuse (the Senate), shut.....it.....down.
ddoering
09-30-2013, 18:53
The number I heard today was over 4 million republican voters stayed home in 12.
Why?
Why?
Didn't want to settle.
Didn't want to settle.
Honestly, I think many thought Mormanism a cult of sorts.....lots of evangelical Christians stayed home.
Nose/spite/face.
Honestly, I think many thought Mormanism a cult of sorts.....lots of evangelical Christians stayed home.
Nose/spite/face.
I happen to know for a definite fact you're right about that, based on a conversation I had with someone prior to the election.
The Reaper
09-30-2013, 19:49
I guess they were okay with the muslim, then.
TR
I think the main reason is no passion, no excitement. No one who people were willing to fight for who would be able set fire to the base. Not another beltway, career politician who will throw away all there core values just to get a few more votes.
Honestly, I think many thought Mormanism a cult of sorts.....lots of evangelical Christians stayed home.
Nose/spite/face.
I often find myself exasperated with my fellow Christians. Having spent many years in the 19th, I've lived and worked with many, many Mormons (Teammates, etc.) I've found most Mormons to act more Christian than a majority of so-called Christians. And don't even get me started with the Catholic virtual lockstep vote for Democrats... I talked with many Conservatives who had great reservations about voting for a Mormon and some who flatly stated they would not ever vote for one.
And what did it get us? Well as you see TR nails it again.
I guess they were okay with the muslim, then.
TR
Of course YMMV.
I guess they were okay with the muslim, then.
TR
The impression I got was that they were appalled by both. The reply to my question as to which they'd rather have running the Country was "neither".
It's unfathomable to me, but it seems to me I've read comments expressing a similar conviction on this BB, e.g. an unwillingness to vote for Romney because he wasn't close enough to the ideal as POTUS.
To me, it was like choosing between a blue krait or a copperhead bite-you'll be uncomfortable, but you'll likely live through the latter.
Never understood why anybody felt threatened by Latter-Day Saints, anyway, personally.
I often find myself exasperated with my fellow Christians. Having spent many years in the 19th, I've lived and worked with many, many Mormons (Teammates, etc.) I've found most Mormons to act more Christian than a majority of so-called Christians. And don't even get me started with the Catholic virtual lockstep vote for Democrats... I talked with many Conservatives who had great reservations about voting for a Mormon and some who flatly stated they would not ever vote for one.
And what did it get us? Well as you see TR nails it again.
Of course YMMV.
I mirror your thoughts regarding Mormons, I have never met a more decent bunch of people. I was blown away by a visit to BYU back in 07 they have a dress code on campus. Their religious beliefs are a stretch to me but I admire their faith and conviction.
The wife and I became friends with a Mormon family many years ago and when my aunt found out about them she went so far as to send me a bunch of anti Mormon brochures warning me about the danger of associating with people of this ilk. Through this family I met many more Mormons and never met a bum amongst them. They raise good decent contributing children with values. At least that has been my experience with Mormons.
A former mormon myself (resigned my membership some time ago), I will agree with them, generally, being a decent group of people with good values that align, for the most part, with most christian faiths. However, their belief system, in my opinion, is fantastical and you have to suspend logic in order to buy into it. Personally, it is because of this that I was hesitant to support Romney though, in the end, I voted for him as the lesser of two evils. To me, on the religious side, the beliefs are so fantastical that it makes me question their ability to reason. And I was not a convert, but born into it.
Honestly, I think many thought Mormanism a cult of sorts.....lots of evangelical Christians stayed home.
Nose/spite/face.
Poll: Evangelical Turnout Increased in 2012 Over 2008
<snip>New polling data from the Faith and Freedom Coalition, headed by pro-life advocate Ralph Reed, shows that the evangelical turnout was up in 2012 for Mitt Romney compared to the 2008 numbers for John McCain.
The data makes it appear other reasons are behind the Romney loss to pro-abortion President Barack Obama last night than a failure of social conservative voters to support him.
A national post-election survey commissioned by the Faith and Freedom Coalition last night found that the evangelical vote increased in 2012 to a record 27% of the electorate and that white evangelicals voted roughly 78% for Mitt Romney to 21% for Barack Obama. This was the highest share of the vote in modern political history for evangelicals, Reed said.<snip>
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/11/07/poll-evangelical-turnout-increased-in-2012-over-2008/
:confused:
Richard
Poll: Evangelical Turnout Increased in 2012 Over 2008
I'm not doubting the poll results and I think it will give many pause. Thank you.
I believe it is foolish for all sides to categorize this or any group.
While most Evangelicals are Christian, most Christians are not Evangelical.
Again, YMMV.
I don't doubt some didn't vote for Romney because he was a Mormon but I think most didn't vote because he was a moderate progressive republican. Look at the turnout for the tea party members in 2010/2012 and the excitement that came when Ted Cruz did his kinda sorta filibuster. Cruz blew up in the social network and right now he is a front runner because he took a stand for what was right and the.American people are drawn to that like a starving man towards food.
The truly scary part is our country is at the tipping point where right around 50% are part of the entitlement community and live off of the.government tit. If obamacare is shoved down our throat, and we get immunity the scales will be tipped against us and America as we know it is over. If we fight those.two issues and get a candidate who excites and motivates the base we can barely push the scales in our favor then get more small government legislation over the next 2 to 4 years we might be able to get our country back.
craigepo
10-01-2013, 11:34
Honestly, I think that Obama won because he ran a much more effective campaign. If you will read the article below, Obama's campaign guy says some stuff that is really fascinating. As you will note, Obama's folks paired cutting-edge technology with old-school campaigning. With this, they came out with crushing ads against Romney in battleground states during the Republican primary that were never really answered.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84103.html?hp=r7
ZonieDiver
10-01-2013, 11:39
Honestly, I think that Obama won because he ran a much more effective campaign. If you will read the article below, Obama's campaign guy says some stuff that is really fascinating. As you will note, Obama's folks paired cutting-edge technology with old-school campaigning. With this, they came out with crushing ads against Romney in battleground states during the Republican primary that were never really answered.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84103.html?hp=r7
I agree completely. As I said during the campaign, there were times (like the last 'debate') when Romney looked like he had NO clue what he was doing.
Then there was "Orca"!
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/08/Orca-How-the-Romney-Campaign-Suppressed-Its-Own-Vote
I agree completely. As I said during the campaign, there were times (like the last 'debate') when Romney looked like he had NO clue what he was doing.
Then there was "Orca"!
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/08/Orca-How-the-Romney-Campaign-Suppressed-Its-Own-Vote
I imagine all Obama voters were just tickled pink.
ZonieDiver
10-01-2013, 12:21
I imagine all Obama voters were just tickled pink.
And at least one Romney voter was completely bummed out.
ddoering
10-01-2013, 13:04
Personally I don't see any hope for the Republican party. The next election will bring more Tea Party people into office. They will become, effectively, a third party and push their agenda. That will make the country 48% Dim, 10-15% Tea Party, and 35-40% Republican with 2-5% retards left over. That means conservatives will not be able to collect a majority so it will be business as usual. As time goes on, more people will leave the Republican party for one of the other two.
They have failed across the board in vision, leadership, getting the message out, and grooming new leaders at the national level. We now have nothing but asshats like Boner and McCain, both dinosaurs too stupid to know when they are extinct.
And at least one Romney voter was completely bummed out.
lol I can definitely vouch for that.
Of course, I'd rather be a dead Conservative than a live libdem.
ZonieDiver
10-01-2013, 14:53
lol I can definitely vouch for that.
Of course, I'd rather be a dead Conservative than a live libdem.
Soooo, you don't subscribe to the old adage: "He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day"? :D
You could be a "Conservative in 'LibDem' Clothing" until time to regroup and strike. Couldn't you? Death is so... well... permanent.
Soooo, you don't subscribe to the old adage: "He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day"? :D
You could be a "Conservative in 'LibDem' Clothing" until time to regroup and strike. Couldn't you? Death is so... well... permanent.
Naw.
I joined the Army to make war against communism, not slowly embrace it in my own Country.
GratefulCitizen
10-01-2013, 18:44
All those precincts where Romney got 0 votes probably didn't help.
Maybe he should've pushed for easier registration and more relaxed voter ID requirements.
ddoering
10-01-2013, 19:41
All those precincts where Romney got 0 votes probably didn't help.
Maybe he should've pushed for easier registration and more relaxed voter ID requirements.
Or a recount. That is if the NBPP would let that happen.
At this rate, we'll be a third-world country most ricky tick.
At this rate, we'll be a third-world country most ricky tick.
Ha! Third world countries can't run up debt, print money to buy it back and then pay themselves interest with more printed money and claim it's a good deal because they're making money - but we can - for now.
Ha! Third world countries can't run up debt, print money to buy it back and then pay themselves interest with more printed money and claim it's a good deal because they're making money - but we can - for now.
lol My point.
I go through a weedwhacker a year out here-usually wear out the motors on them. This year, the only thing that broke was the lower drive shaft assembly.
I was out front sharpening my yoyo (some people call it a sling blade, ayuh), and my wife asked me what I was doing. I told her I was switching over to hand tools only.
May not be able to get gas next spring.
I'm tired of the snark. If you can't make a contribution that advances the discussion, you will be invited to play elsewhere. P
I concur. Sig- I have said several times that I really think you add value with your historical insights in your posts, if often as a counterpoints. I genuinely appreciate that. But, this time I'm with Peregrino and snarkiness adds nothing to the discussion and will in the end only piss-off Dusty.:eek:
You know some of the same attitudes were prevalent towards Ronald Regan.;)The purpose of my previous post was to question Ms. Palin's use of war as a metaphor for domestic politics and to underscore my long standing reservations about her participation in national politics. The purpose of this post is to clarify my meaning on those two points.
As I've said many times, albeit not recently, I have an ongoing concern over the continuing militarization of American civilization. This dynamic sees common place activities of everyday life across almost every sector of American society being described as "war," "combat," and "battles." In turn, this dynamic leads to civilians describing themselves (and others) as "warriors" and "soldiers."
IMO, the consequences of these practices are harmful to America for several reasons. Three of those reasons follow. First, they degrade the ability of civilians to appreciate and to respect the expertise of professionals in the armed forces. Politicians do not go "to battle." Athletes are not "warriors."
Second, IMO, conceptualizing competition in civil society as "battle" pushes that competition towards "a win, lose, or die/winner take all" frame of mind. That is, by conceptualizing politics as war, one runs the risk of turning Clausewitz on his head and legitimizing politics as war by different means. To me, such a formulation might lead to a devolution of American political culture back towards its antecedents from the Georgian era of British history--an interval that saw cut throat domestic politics and frequent wars.
Third, the use of militaristic metaphors, similies, and imagery further confuses issues that are already complex. As an example, I would point to the term "strategy" in civil society. In military affairs/military history, that term has a specific meaning. Among civilians, the term more and moe refers to any plan, great or small, important or, ultimately meaningless. This declension inhibits civilians from getting on the same page and forming a common understanding of an issue and the means by which it may be solved.
To return to Ms. Palin's. My criticisms of her remain the same. She has not made full use of the years since the 2008 election to couple her patriotism and her vision of America with an increasingly refined understanding of how politics in the Beltway work. However dysfunctional and ineffective that arena may be, those who operate within it still have the means and the will to thwart the efforts of political "outsiders" to bring about meaningful reform. IMO, the GOP needs young politicians who can balance their vision as political "outsiders" with expertise and experience in getting things done on the "inside."
YMMV.
Trapper John
10-02-2013, 12:10
Now that's some sound reasoning rat there! ;)
One of the great strengths of Ronald Reagan, IMO, was his ability to articulate simple American values into guiding principles for decision making. Something that is lacking in the zero-sum game and the adversarial win-lose debate we have today. Sig- you are on to something, IMO.
In the end it all boils down to leadership doesn't it? Not which party or which ideology wins. Either way that leads to demagoguery, not liberty, and as a result everyone loses.
It's time for some new thinking!
Interesting perspective Sig. Good reply, thank you.
WRT Gov. Palin, I do believe she has carved out a niche. Probably not as lofty a niche as you or I hoped, but some boats float only so far...
... the use of militaristic metaphors, similies, and imagery further confuses issues that are already complex. As an example, I would point to the term "strategy" in civil society. In military affairs/military history, that term has a specific meaning. Among civilians, the term more and moe refers to any plan, great or small, important or, ultimately meaningless. This declension inhibits civilians from getting on the same page and forming a common understanding of an issue and the means by which it may be solved.
This is an important point that I would extend to the growing use of hyperbole in discourse. It is also a way to lose votes. It further alienates Republicans who are now deemed RINOs. You rarely (ever?) hear Democrats railing against DINOs. They welcome their votes. IMHO, there are not enough white, male, Christian social and fiscal conservatives in the US to out vote the rest of the nation.
Do other groups have people who vote this way? Of course. But they start having narrower margins to go either way. The vocabulary in a single issue drives many Americans to the fight or flight instinct -- and on this board, definitely not to flight. :D
So with respect to all, here are some of my thoughts on this.
Women - - including myself, are wary when we hear men discuss our ability to reproduce based upon a definition of rape. Then it suddenly extends to birth control. Men get Viagra on their insurance and women -- pay out of pocket when these guys head you way. That is a point where white noise could enter a female brain. You may never know. My mother always answered people that she voted as my father did. Then she would whisper to me, "I vote what I believe but that is our secret. I vote the same as Dad about 50% of the time." I hear that a lot amongst females. The ballot is secret.
Hispanics are often social conservatives but cautious on immigration rhetoric. More votes growing every year. Reproduction will occur with or without strong borders.
Blacks are not all on the dole and are not fond of the stereotype. They find themselves on the fringe of the Republican party despite many agreeing with the fiscal conservative or social conservative platform. They are two separate platforms.
Libertarians are definitely small government capitalists. Yet they are not social conservatives. So they are alienated in the rhetoric.
I am old enough to remember when a version of the ACA was the Republican plan for people to take personal responsibility. In addition, many of the complaints about it are tied to other initiatives (such as electronic records). Cost increases and people not insuring themselves until it is a problem would suggest we need an improved system. So improvements rather than drama is a better option for many voters who think it is not perfect but also not the slippery slope to socialism. We probably could have fixed 5-10 points in it and accomplished far more, but it might look like compromise rather than improvement?
I am not a pundit, but I am a practical person. I like to hear ideas rather than "stand-offs, battles, wars, x is like Hitler, x is worse than Stalin, etc..." terminology to describe elections and political platforms in a first world country. Hitler was like Hitler. Wars are wars. Politics are politics.
These are just some thoughts after reading the string. Along these lines, I would suggest that neither of the last 2 presidential/VP candidates stacked up well for moderates or conservatives. And they lost. So I guess we can conduct an experiment and pick the most extreme candidate and run them and see what happens. I can accept the premise that I have it wrong. And if I am somehow right and that fails, 4 years later, we can try a fiscal conservative with a more libertarian social viewpoint.
This is not to suggest that the social issues are my personal ones, but that many of our 300+ million people have sub issues within these categories. Just like every soldier is not special ops material, neither is every citizen pure as the driven snow.
Just my $.02
And Sigaba, I was sure you did not mean to be snarky. You are just too thoughtful. :lifter
.......You rarely (ever?) hear Democrats railing against DINOs. They welcome their votes.........
DINOs?
Didn't you get the memo? DINOs are extinct.
RINOs are just endangered......
DINOs?
Didn't you get the memo? DINOs are extinct.
RINOs are just endangered......
If your analogy holds true, 2016 is a cake walk. :)
If your analogy holds true, 2016 is a cake walk. :)
HRO will be picking up her trinkets one after another all the way to the White House.
ddoering
10-02-2013, 16:32
I watched Jim Moran (VA-Dem) pitch a hissing fit about the Tea Party today. Where was he when the Dims locked the Republicans out of the Healthcare debate? Hey Rich, you guys created the Tea Party now you have to eat shit.:munchin
craigepo
10-02-2013, 20:00
An interesting article concerning how many times Tip O'Neil and the democrats shut down the government.
http://nationalreview.com/article/360135/when-tip-did-it-andrew-stiles
ZonieDiver
10-03-2013, 09:49
An interesting article concerning how many times Tip O'Neil and the democrats shut down the government.
http://nationalreview.com/article/360135/when-tip-did-it-andrew-stiles
I was watching "Meet the Press" when Rep. Labrador "ate Chris Matthew's lunch"! When Matthews sputtered "Where did you get those statistics?" and Labrador replied, "The Washington Post!", you could see Matthews deflate.
Labrador even scored when he countered Matthews argument that the Rs are trying to 'undo' a law, that one of the shut-downs under O'Neill was an effort to repeal the Rs repeal of the "Fairness Doctrine"!
(I cannot stand Matthews, so I was having a good time.)