View Full Version : General Politics Why some ChiefsPlanet Right-Wingers insist that they're "moderates"
orange
10-01-2009, 03:50 PM
Assessing the GOP brand
By Brendan Nyhan
October 1, 2009
How weak is the Republican brand right now? This issue came up yesterday when a Media Matters criticized The Hill for failing to mention the GOP's poor polling numbers in a story on the 2010 elections. Similarly, I recently suggested that that the damaged Republican brand might limit the number of seats that the party picks up. But is the party really worse off than previous opposition parties at this point in the election cycle?
As a first cut at the question, I pulled all the relevant polling on approval of the party in Congresss and party favorability from the Roper iPoll database for the periods leading up to the four most recent midterms (1994, 1998, 2002, and 2006). In both cases, the results are consistent, but I'll focus on the favorability questions since Pew and CBS asked comparable questions about party favorables in each cycle.*
The overall finding is simple -- the GOP's standing relative to the Democrats on both measures is worse than any opposition party in the sample. For instance, the Pew data show that the Republicans are currently viewed more negatively than any minority party in the previous four midterms in terms of both net favorables and the difference in net favorables between parties:**
http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/.a/6a00d83451d25c69e20120a5b0f103970b-450wi
The CBS results (not shown) are even more dramatic. In June, when the question was most recently asked, Republican net favorables were -30% and Democratic net favorables were 25%, which swamps the comparable results from the previous cycles.
In short, there's no question that the GOP party brand is in worse shape than any opposition party in recent memory. The question, however, is whether this difference in party valence will (a) persist through next November and (b) translate into fewer GOP House seats at the polls, especially once we account for the generic Congressional ballot, which should (in principle) take much of this difference into account (see Alan Abramowitz's model, for instance). Those questions remain to be addressed.
* Also, the approval question seems to be less closely related to electoral outcomes -- for instance, disapproval of Republicans in Congress was high in September 1994.
** I chose the survey closest to the current point in the electoral cycle, though the exact date varied. Net favorables are defined as the percentage of Americans who have a favorable view of the party minus the percentage who have an unfavorable view.
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/assessing_the_gop_brand.php
orange
10-01-2009, 03:53 PM
Nobody wants to be a Republican these days.
KCTitus
10-01-2009, 03:54 PM
This wouldn't be the side effect of the Republican party abandoning the conservative base in favor of people like Colin Powell and John McCain would it?
Of course not.
orange
10-01-2009, 03:58 PM
This wouldn't be the side effect of the Republican party abandoning the conservative base in favor of people like Colin Powell and John McCain would it?
Of course not.
You might think that...
I believe the opposite is the case. The Republicans have become associated with the wild-eyed fringe elements seen on TV and radio and non-wild-eyed ordinary folks who might lean conservative are being driven away.
KCTitus
10-01-2009, 04:09 PM
...I believe the opposite is the case...
Shocking...
When I watch election campaigns, I hear the democrats using conservative talking points but governing from the left, but it's the Republicans who tried going left last cycle that got trounced.
As one who has left the Republican stable, I think I know what Im talking about...I'm going to guess that you're not or werent a republican prior to the 2008 elections.
orange
10-01-2009, 04:16 PM
As one who has left the Republican stable, I think I know what Im talking about...I'm going to guess that you're not or werent a republican prior to the 2008 elections.
I was actually a College Republican. My first vote was for Ford.
But no, not lately. I still voted for McCain, though.* Shocked?
* Even "campaigned" for him here.
Direckshun
10-01-2009, 04:18 PM
I think current trends have to play out to their logical conclusion. The rhetoric on the conservative side of the fence has gotten more and more severe, it's been disgusting at times, as the wingers take control of the party and moderates find themselves more and more isolated.
In my opinion, the wingers need to hit the reset button by the time Obama wins re-election, and the moderates need to grow their backbone to the point where they call the shots for the party and can take back the White House in 2016.
banyon
10-01-2009, 04:19 PM
You might think that...
I believe the opposite is the case. The Republicans have become associated with the wild-eyed fringe elements seen on TV and radio and non-wild-eyed ordinary folks who might lean conservative are being driven away.
This is true, they're driving away their own intellectual nucleus, people like David Frum, David Brooks, Olympia Snowe, etc. People who used to be thought of as moderately conservative.
ChiTown
10-01-2009, 04:19 PM
But no, not lately. I still voted for McCain, though.* Shocked?
* Even "campaigned" for him here.
Woa. I didn't know that.
Hell, I didn't even vote for McCain. He was way too weak for my liking.
Taco John
10-01-2009, 04:31 PM
Anyone who thinks that anyone has taken control of the Republican party should check their own personal political biases at the door and take a look again. The Republican party is a football right now, and it will be a football up until at least Super Tuesday. And if Patreaus runs, the Democrats just might lose the Whitehouse altogether.
You guys are getting way too comfortable in your britches right now. You think that you can put the focus on the fringe elements of the Republican party, and coast on the idea that "smart" America is with you - meanwhile you could very likely facing a knuckle full of military hero campaigning against his boss, the sitting commander in chief.
You think Obama could beat Patreaus? Not the way things are looking now.
orange
10-01-2009, 04:37 PM
... meanwhile you could very likely facing a knuckle full of military hero campaigning against his boss, the sitting commander in chief.
You think Obama could beat Patreaus? Not the way things are looking now.
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/mexican-war/pictures/john-c-fremont.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Dm4sFu73cJo/SpQOaqSvBeI/AAAAAAAAT6A/U5Xa7B_koYs/s400/01aaa-abe-mcclellan.jpg
... and the winner is
http://www.americaslibrary.gov/assets/jb/civil/jb_civil_lincoln2_1_e.jpg
Taco John
10-01-2009, 04:39 PM
Obama as Abe Lincoln.
Interesting.
Jenson71
10-01-2009, 04:41 PM
This is the first I've heard of speculation that Petraeus might run.
Taco John
10-01-2009, 04:45 PM
This is the first I've heard of speculation that Petraeus might run.
Draw your own conclusions... (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=214911)
Direckshun
10-01-2009, 04:46 PM
There has been some discussion that Patreus should run.
Patreus himself has sworn off higher office, though. And I have no idea if he's Republican.
Direckshun
10-01-2009, 04:47 PM
That said, Patreus would be a wet dream for neocons, which is why the drumbeat on Fox News would grow to a fever pitch.
I have no idea where he stands on anything, though. Does anybody?
Taco John
10-01-2009, 04:53 PM
OF course he's Republican. You think Cheney and Rove are going to let Bush put a Democrat in control of the war? You give your opponent no credit.
This wouldn't be the side effect of the Republican party abandoning the conservative base in favor of people like Colin Powell and John McCain would it?
Of course not.
Amazing that you list Powell. Powell left W's administration precisely because W abandoned every true conservative principle except tax cuts. "Maverick" media sukk-up McCain bragged about being 90% with W.
Colin Powell is for true conservatism - small, less intrusive government, no socializing senior drugs, use of the US military for US national interest only, non-interventionalist foreign policy, steadfast support for US Constitution and Bill of Rights, as well as respecting the US brand by abiding by treaties signed by past Presidents.
Colin Powell is a true conservative. Nobody who supported W can make that claim.
Direckshun
10-01-2009, 05:00 PM
OF course he's Republican. You think Cheney and Rove are going to let Bush put a Democrat in control of the war? You give your opponent no credit.
Eh. That still doesn't seal it.
stevieray
10-01-2009, 05:01 PM
Amazing that you list Powell. Powell left W's administration precisely because W abandoned every true conservative principle except tax cuts. "Maverick" media sukk-up McCain bragged about being 90% with W.
Colin Powell is for true conservatism - small, less intrusive government, no socializing senior drugs, use of the US military for US national interest only, non-interventionalist foreign policy, steadfast support for US Constitution and Bill of Rights, as well as respecting the US brand by abiding by treaties signed by past Presidents.
Colin Powell is a true conservative. Nobody who supported W can make that claim.
curious, where do you live?
Direckshun
10-01-2009, 05:02 PM
You think Obama could beat Patreaus? Not the way things are looking now.
I think I'd like Obama's chances in debating healthcare, energy, and education over Patreus.
Patreus is a wet dream for neocons, but you have zero idea what Patreus would be like as anything other than a general.
Taco John
10-01-2009, 05:02 PM
Grand New Party
President Petraeus--For 2012
Reihan Salam, 10.06.08, 12:00 AM EDT
A national figure for the post-Obama era.
With less than a month to go until Election Day, I find myself miserably depressed about the political scene. The time has come to think about what happens to the Republican Party if Barack Obama is our next president. And in truth, the omens are pretty terrible, particularly for those of us who think conservatism needs to change.
John McCain is running far behind, and he's even in danger of losing Florida and Virginia, states tailor-made for his brand of hawkish conservatism. Just think about that for a moment. For all his admirable qualities, no one disputes that Barack Obama is a fairly liberal Democrat--more liberal than John Kerry or Al Gore or Bill Clinton, certainly. And he is nevertheless on the verge of winning these two redoubts of Sunbelt conservatism.
Michigan once looked like a potential game-changer for McCain--a victory there would almost make up for losing in Colorado and New Mexico and Nevada, and it would point the way towards a new Republican coalition. But now the McCain campaign has abandoned the state. More depressingly still, this happened after McCain reversed his earlier opposition to a huge package of federal giveaways to Detroit's failing automakers, a move that undercut his reform message without winning him the state. There's a certain nobility in going down fighting as a rock-ribbed conservative who stands firm against biofuel boondoggles and corporate giveaways; there is far less in going down fighting as an unconvincing culture warrior who compromises on core principles.
Meanwhile, the Obama campaign's investment in North Carolina, which once looked more than a little quixotic, now looks very shrewd indeed. Expect Democrats to do well in crucial down-ballot races in states like Texas and Georgia, where McCain will win by a decent margin, but newly elected statehouse Democrats will help redraw the congressional map. Obama recognizes that he is less popular than the Democratic brand and that the success of his liberal restoration depends on a strong party--he understands this far better than Bill Clinton did. That's why the Democrats are entering landslide territory.
So for the sake of argument, let's assume that Republicans will have to spend the next four years climbing uphill. There's some small consolation here. The Iraq War has caused more partisan division than any other post-war conflict. Whereas Vietnam was supported and later opposed by Republicans and Democrats in roughly equal measure, Iraq is widely seen as a Republican cause, and the same goes to some extent for the broader War on Terror. Faced with difficult choices in Iran and Afghanistan, a Democratic president might have an easier time taking a tough stand. Many conservatives of my acquaintance would reply that Obama's strategic naiveté makes this a slender hope, and that could be right. Nevertheless, the prospect of an activist foreign policy embraced by Democrats as well as Republicans is one potential silver lining.
What will happen to Congressional Republicans? It is easy to imagine Republicans scoring easy victories by opposing every expensive program and every tax hike Obama proposes. Now, generally speaking this will be the right thing to do. But it won't give Republicans a governing agenda. The tough economic climate we're likely to see over the next four years will force a serious rethink of the American social model. Rather than just oppose the Democratic approach, Republicans need to offer their own vision of our economic future, one that builds on American strengths. Alas, Republicans have never been good at the Vision Thing, so the default strategy will be Attack, Attack, Attack. And when this Gingrichian Revival brings Congressional Republicans roaring back in 2010, the party will find itself bereft of a constructive agenda.
So with all this in mind, who would be the ideal person to take up the mantle of Republican leadership?
Because Sarah Palin has emerged as a conservative folk hero, she can't be counted out. She has an instinctive sense that Republicans need to do a better job of building policies that respond to the needs of working class voters, but she hasn't been in office long enough to develop strong and effective policies on education and training, health care, job creation and other areas where she could make a real contribution. Her best bet would be to develop a strong policy profile as governor of Alaska, and to immerse herself in foreign policy issues. That will likely take more than four years.
Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, in contrast, are both well positioned to make an impact. Romney's run was premature. Had he chosen to take Massachusetts seriously and run for reelection in 2006 instead of the presidency in 2008, Romney could have run in 2012 as a post-ideological reformer with the economic experience the country needs. Instead, he's positioned himself as an unconvincing right-wing caricature. Fortunately for Romney, he still has plenty of time to develop a pro-market domestic policy agenda. First, he needs to fire whoever wrote his preposterous speech to the Republican National Convention and hire a team of economists who can go toe-to-toe with Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee.
Had Huckabee run against Mark Pryor for U.S. Senate, he might have demonstrated his seriousness about leading Republicans in 2012. Instead, he's signed up with Fox News to become a television talk-show host. That doesn't mean he can't rally evangelicals behind worker-friendly conservatism--in an odd way, he'd be the perfect partner for Romney in that regard--but it makes it a lot less likely.
Finally, there is my personal favorite, General David Petraeus, the man who brought Iraq back from the brink and is now leading CENTCOM. Because Petraeus has been so lionized by conservatives, one imagines he'll have a complicated relationship with a President Obama, particularly when their views clash on the next steps to take in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama might want to put another general at the helm, one who is less closely associated with policies he has explicitly opposed. That will clear the way for Petraeus to start thinking about his political future.
Petraeus has reportedly described himself as a "Rockefeller Republican," which tells us virtually nothing. It could mean that he is a social liberal or that he is fanatical about balanced budgets or both. He is attractive to Republicans because he is, like Colin Powell in 1996 and Dwight Eisenhower in 1952, an unknown quantity, a vessel in which we can invest our ideological hopes. At the same time, he is intimately familiar with the limits of American power and the nature of the strategic challenges we face. There is every reason to believe that we are about to enter an era of renewed geopolitical competition. This will require deft handling of rising powers, but also close attention to the economic source of our strength. Who better to lead us through it than our most celebrated military leader? It helps that Petraeus, like McCain and to a lesser extent Obama, has no real regional or sectarian identity. He is a national figure with the prestige and the experience to drag Republicans into the post-Obama era.
Reihan Salam is an associate editor atThe Atlanticand a fellow at the New America Foundation. The co-author ofGrand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream, he writes a weekly column for Forbes.com.
http://www.forbes.com/2008/10/05/obama-politics-petraeus-oped-cx_rs_1006salam.html
curious, where do you live?
Why, in the United States of America.
Direckshun
10-01-2009, 05:05 PM
I can't believe I'd see the day when TJ would support the general of an empire exercise in the Middle East.
orange
10-01-2009, 05:05 PM
Petraeus has reportedly described himself as a "Rockefeller Republican"
Do tell!
:ears-perking-up-smiley:
"Petraeus has reportedly described himself as a "Rockefeller Republican," which tells us virtually nothing."
BS. It tells us all we need to know. A "Rockafeller Republican" is a porker big spender with a bleeding heart. No wonder W liked this guy... Petraeus likely understands precisely nothing about FISCAL CONSERVATISM. We just got through eight years with someone just like that...
stevieray
10-01-2009, 05:07 PM
Why, in the United States of America.
I'm guessing east coast.
I'm guessing east coast.
You and the rest of the Mossad...
Direckshun
10-01-2009, 05:08 PM
I'm guessing east coast.
What do you care?
You probably think I'm one of the biggest liberal hippie gaywad on the entire board, but I've lived in the Ozarks most of my life.
So... what are we getting at here?
Taco John
10-01-2009, 05:08 PM
I think I'd like Obama's chances in debating healthcare, energy, and education over Patreus.
Patreus is a wet dream for neocons, but you have zero idea what Patreus would be like as anything other than a general.
You're wrong. I know what he would be like as a candidate. He's like a PR man's wet dream.
I personally wouldn't vote for him. I'm pretty certain that I'll disagree with him over America's role as a nation building world protectorate. But I recognize that he's the most 'made for TV' candidate that the Republicans have right now.
Direckshun
10-01-2009, 05:09 PM
You're wrong. I know what he would be like as a candidate. He's like a PR man's wet dream.
I personally wouldn't vote for him. I'm pretty certain that I'll disagree with him over America's role as a nation building world protectorate. But I recognize that he's the most 'made for TV' candidate that the Republicans have right now.
You have no idea how he'd be as a candidate. You know how he'd be marketed.
Two completely different things. (see: Palin, Sarah)
Direckshun
10-01-2009, 05:10 PM
By the way, if you think a neoconservative candidate is what the Republican party needs while America remains exhausted from two never-ending wars...
Because that's all Patreus can credibly run as in the Republican Party, a neocon.
stevieray
10-01-2009, 05:10 PM
What do you care?
You probably think I'm one of the biggest liberal hippie gaywad on the entire board, but I've lived in the Ozarks most of my life.
So... what are we getting at here?
what do you care that I care?
liberal hippe gaywad? so what are you getting at here?
Taco John
10-01-2009, 05:11 PM
I can't believe I'd see the day when TJ would support the general of an empire exercise in the Middle East.
What are you talking about. I'm an analyst giving an opinion based on my perception of the playing field, not a political supporter of his.
Direckshun
10-01-2009, 05:12 PM
What are you talking about. I'm an analyst giving an opinion based on my perception of the playing field, not a political supporter of his.
Fair enough.
I'm just certain he's built to fail as a candidate right now. The times are not in his favor.
Taco John
10-01-2009, 05:13 PM
You have no idea how he'd be as a candidate. You know how he'd be marketed.
I don't recognize your distinction. And whatever the distinction is, it seems pretty irrelevant to me.
Taco John
10-01-2009, 05:14 PM
Fair enough.
I'm just certain he's built to fail as a candidate right now. The times are not in his favor.
See post #10. Rinse and repeat.
Direckshun
10-01-2009, 05:15 PM
I don't recognize your distinction.
Believe it or not, sometimes politicians are marketed as imaginary people that they actually can't live up to.
orange
10-01-2009, 05:15 PM
What are you talking about. I'm an analyst giving an opinion based on my perception of the playing field, not a political supporter of his.
Answer me this - how does Petraeus run against Obama? For P. to be viable, Afghanistan has to be a win. If Afghanistan is a win, Obama will get credit.
Taco John
10-01-2009, 05:18 PM
Answer me this - how does Petraeus run against Obama? For P. to be viable, Afghanistan has to be a win. If Afghanistan is a win, Obama will get credit.
Have you never watched Fox News?
Taco John
10-01-2009, 05:23 PM
You see the last time that I heard this talk, it was something about permanent majorities, only it didn't work out for them so well as far as that goes. The pendulum will find its way back.
orange
10-01-2009, 05:24 PM
Have you never watched Fox News?
I can't say that I have, actually. I've seen some of their broadcasts online, of course.
FOX News gets less than 1 million viewers. The three broadcast networks combine for about 24 million. FOX has/will have minimal impact on the national election.
"For all that, however, nearly 23 million viewers still tune into the three nightly newscasts each day, several* times the number that are tuned into the three cable news channels at any given moment during prime time."
http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2009/narrative_networktv_audience.php?cat=2&
* "several times" is about "eight times"
I ask again - how does Petraeus run against Obama?
BucEyedPea
10-01-2009, 06:53 PM
Nobody wants to be a Republican these days.
Cause they acted like left-wingers for 8 years. I don't blame anyone for feeling that way. I said myself, during Bush's reign, I'd leave the party then except for being able to vote in my state primary. Too many RINOs and NeoCons ( The War Party) in the party these days. Listen to 'em too, they still have realized why they're out of power with their continuing to push a failed FP and ridiculing Obama on his. I tell ya' I think they have a death wish.
If anything, I think this is a rejection of left-wingism more.
Taco John
10-01-2009, 06:53 PM
Believe it or not, sometimes politicians are marketed as imaginary people that they actually can't live up to.
Yeah, so?
http://blog.norway.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/barack-obama-2.jpg
BucEyedPea
10-01-2009, 06:55 PM
Believe it or not, sometimes politicians are marketed as imaginary people that they actually can't live up to.
True, but I would add, that the masses are made to put too much stock in the presidency creating unrealistic expectations when we have three brances of govt and the president is the weakest, particularly legislatively—or is supposed to be the weakest. It's a reason elected leaders like Allende and his ilk elsewhere suspend Consitutions or try to revise them by decree once in power—to build dictatorship. Because that's what it would take to implement a socialist agenda. Single handed power.
BucEyedPea
10-01-2009, 07:02 PM
If Petreus runs this country has had it....while he takes down the GOP in any national election.
Bwana
10-01-2009, 07:18 PM
what do you care that I care?
liberal hippe gaywad? so what are you getting at here?
I think it's his way of asking you out for a drink Steve. :evil:
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A9aKmFcHnktBAM:http://www.lookalikes.net/music/pics/village.jpg (http://www.lookalikes.net/music/pics/village.jpg)
JohnnyV13
10-01-2009, 08:43 PM
I nominate BEP as dictator.
You might think that...
I believe the opposite is the case. The Republicans have become associated with the wild-eyed fringe elements seen on TV and radio and non-wild-eyed ordinary folks who might lean conservative are being driven away.
I believe I resemble that remark.
KILLER_CLOWN
10-01-2009, 08:54 PM
A thread off the mark exactly 180 degrees.
banyon
10-01-2009, 09:08 PM
A thread off the mark exactly 180 degrees.
There are moderates insisting they are right wingers?
Who?
patteeu
10-01-2009, 10:50 PM
This is true, they're driving away their own intellectual nucleus, people like David Frum, David Brooks, Olympia Snowe, etc. People who used to be thought of as moderately conservative.
This post doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Maybe you just didn't word it exactly the way you meant it because it sounds like you're suggesting that the Republican intellectual nucleus only included moderates and moderate conservatives. Frum and Brooks might belong to the intellectual nucleus of the Republican party, but where did you get the idea that Snowe belongs in that group? But even if Frum and Brooks are being driven away to some extent, that's not true of other Republican intellectuals like George Will, Charles Krauthammer, and many others.
patteeu
10-01-2009, 11:03 PM
"Petraeus has reportedly described himself as a "Rockefeller Republican," which tells us virtually nothing."
BS. It tells us all we need to know. A "Rockafeller Republican" is a porker big spender with a bleeding heart. No wonder W liked this guy... Petraeus likely understands precisely nothing about FISCAL CONSERVATISM. We just got through eight years with someone just like that...
I've got news for you big guy. Colin Powell is a Rockefeller Republican too.
morphius
10-01-2009, 11:27 PM
As people said, when the GOP stopped acting like conservatives, odd, conservatives became disenchanted with them. Unlike when Clinton took a bunch of the ideas from the Republicans and Democrats celebrated his genius.
alnorth
10-01-2009, 11:51 PM
Frum and Brooks might belong to the intellectual nucleus of the Republican party, but where did you get the idea that Snowe belongs in that group? But even if Frum and Brooks are being driven away to some extent, that's not true of other Republican intellectuals like George Will, Charles Krauthammer, and many others.
Yep, Snowe is merely who she is: a very dark-purple republican. She has the luxery of being beloved by the people of her state to the point where she doesnt have to care about the right wing, and has no fear of a left-wing challenge, so she can do whatever it is she honestly believes. I never thought of her as an "intellectual" though, just a moderate politician in a very free and enviably invulnerable position.
My main disappointment this year is just simply seeing all this incredible insanity from the far right. To some of these people, this isnt politics or a philosophical debate, its a bloodsport, and they belong on the republican football team. Obama is the opposing QB, so ANYTHING that is negative, no matter how crazy or hilarious, is automatically 100% credible.
Its like when they read fringe news sites there's no "this is crazy" filter in their minds. They see something that validates a pre-conceived bias and run with it. We had to put up with that crap from the left vs Bush for a long time, but for some reason I just thought the conservatives were better than that.
Reaper16
10-02-2009, 12:04 AM
curious, where do you live?
Why, in the United States of America.
Really? My guess was Jordan or maybe the U.A.E.
Taco John
10-02-2009, 12:09 AM
My main disappointment this year is just simply seeing all this incredible insanity from the far right. To some of these people, this isnt politics or a philosophical debate, its a bloodsport, and they belong on the republican football team. Obama is the opposing QB, so ANYTHING that is negative, no matter how crazy or hilarious, is automatically 100% credible.
And this is different from the last 8 years exactly how?
alnorth
10-02-2009, 12:12 AM
And this is different from the last 8 years exactly how?
Ahh, thats right, I forgot to address that. Or maybe I did, I dont remember.
We had to put up with that crap from the left vs Bush for a long time, but for some reason I just thought the conservatives were better than that.
Taco John
10-02-2009, 12:19 AM
Apparently you forgot the whole Clinton impeachment.
Saggysack
10-02-2009, 01:02 AM
Really? My guess was Jordan or maybe the U.A.E.
Nah. Sounds pretty great plainish to me.
I've got news for you big guy. Colin Powell is a Rockefeller Republican too.
That is total BS. Reagan would never have made him a GOP star if he wasn't pure.
You are still defining "conservative" as "supporting the most liberal act of US foreign policy in US history." Powell left the W Administration because W abandoned everything conservative except tax cuts, which require spending cuts to work properly.
You hate Powell for obvious reasons, Zionist. Powell doesn't believe the US exists to serve Israel. You do...
There are moderates insisting they are right wingers?
Who?
Correction, there are liberal big government Bible Thumping Socialists who insist they are "conservative" even as they are too dumb to know what "conservative" means, too lazy to find out, and too hateful to care.
W
Cheney
Frist
Hastert
Lindsay Graham
Lamar Alexander
Mike Huck-a-Thump
Tom Delay
the entire Murkowski family of Alaska
Trent Lott
I could list just about everyone in a GOP elected office during W's final term, after the purge of fiscal conservatives from the GOP by Rove and W.
"Frum and Brooks might belong to the intellectual nucleus of the Republican party,"
Wrong. Perhaps the Likud Party, but not the fiscally conservative and patriotic GOP of Lincoln, Reagan, Gingrich and Bush 41.
SHTSPRAYER
10-02-2009, 04:39 AM
Assessing the GOP brand
By Brendan Nyhan
favorable view of the party minus the percentage who have an unfavorable view.
[http://www.pollster.com/blogsurl
http://nbimg.dt00.net/pnews/clipta.com/416633_b.jpg
Cause they acted like left-wingers for 8 years. I don't blame anyone for feeling that way. I said myself, during Bush's reign, I'd leave the party then except for being able to vote in my state primary. Too many RINOs and NeoCons ( The War Party) in the party these days. Listen to 'em too, they still have realized why they're out of power with their continuing to push a failed FP and ridiculing Obama on his. I tell ya' I think they have a death wish.
If anything, I think this is a rejection of left-wingism more.
RINOs and "neo-cons" are often one and the same. Susan Collins and Arlen Specter, for example. They also are almost all Zionists, but if you point that truth out, you get a bunch of cards tossed at you...
SHTSPRAYER
10-02-2009, 04:43 AM
RINOs and "neo-cons" are often one and the same. Susan Collins, for example. They also are almost all Zionists, but if you point that truth out, you get a bunch of cards tossed at you...
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nxOdvH1Qygs&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nxOdvH1Qygs&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Saggysack
10-02-2009, 04:44 AM
TFG
How would you solve the water rights issue on the Golan Heights?
Neo-con Zionists
William Kristol
Joe Lieberman (career ACU rating: 16)
Ed Koch
Arlen Specter
Susan Collins
Eric Cantor
David Frum
Ari Fleischer
Paul Wolfowitz
Dick Morris
Not one of them ever made a peep complaining about the W porkfest...
TFG
How would you solve the water rights issue on the Golan Heights?
You forgot my plan for peace in that area...
Set a date, like 12.1.09
On that date, the US, Russia and China promise to nuke the Promise Land into oblivion. Every sane person leaves. Every supremacist religious whack job nutcase stays. The land gets nuked repeatedly and becomes uninhabitable for 20,000 years.
Middle East peace
ACHIEVED
patteeu
10-02-2009, 05:24 AM
That is total BS. Reagan would never have made him a GOP star if he wasn't pure.
You are still defining "conservative" as "supporting the most liberal act of US foreign policy in US history." Powell left the W Administration because W abandoned everything conservative except tax cuts, which require spending cuts to work properly.
Reagan had a Rockefeller Republican as his running mate so I don't think the fact that Powell worked for the Reagan administration is dispositive. Sorry dude, Powell isn't a "pure" conservative even if he holds some conservative positions. Leaving foreign policy aside, since you and I don't see eye to eye on that, he's a mixed bag of conservatism and government solutions and he's certainly not a social conservative just like most Rockefeller Republicans. Here's an excerpt of what his wiki page says about his politics:
A moderate Republican, Powell is well known for his willingness to support liberal or centrist causes. He is pro-choice regarding abortion, and in favor of "reasonable" gun control. He stated in his autobiography that he supports affirmative action that levels the playing field, without giving a leg up to undeserving persons because of racial issues. Powell was also instrumental in the implementation of the military's Don't ask, don't tell policy.
You hate Powell for obvious reasons, Zionist. Powell doesn't believe the US exists to serve Israel. You do...
On the contrary, I think it is you who are swayed by the fact that Powell didn't fully agree with the neoconservative foreign policy of the Bush administration. His lack of enthusiastic support for that policy and the fact that he's not a Jew is all you need to believe he's a conservative.
patteeu
10-02-2009, 05:29 AM
Correction, there are liberal big government Bible Thumping Socialists who insist they are "conservative" even as they are too dumb to know what "conservative" means, too lazy to find out, and too hateful to care.
W
Cheney
Frist
Hastert
Lindsay Graham
Lamar Alexander
Mike Huck-a-Thump
Tom Delay
the entire Murkowski family of Alaska
Trent Lott
I could list just about everyone in a GOP elected office during W's final term, after the purge of fiscal conservatives from the GOP by Rove and W.
Cheney is far closer to Reagan ideologically than Powell has ever been.
If it is a Zionist posting, lies about the GOP will flood the Planet...
"Reagan had a Rockefeller Republican as his running mate so I don't think the fact that Powell worked for the Reagan administration is dispositive."
Um, that genuine baloney. Reagan, as a governor, chose a former CIA Director to unite the party and bring foreign policy experience, something Reagan didn't have himself.
Powell, a decorated military figure, was very different. Many Zionists in the media were calling Reagan a "racist." Reagan was not a racist. Eager to find some genuine black conservatives, Reagan embraced several, including Alan Keyes (who really is not close to being as conservative as Powell). While Powell was a military expert, what impressed Reagan about Powell was Powell's understanding of Reagan's main message, that government was not a "solution" but almost always the "problem" instead. Powell understood fiscal conservatism. So did Bush 41, who presided over 40 some odd vetoes of Dem spending bills as President. Nice try, liar.
"Powell was also instrumental in the implementation of the military's Don't ask, don't tell policy."
LOL!!!
Really, since that was a friggin CLINTON program...
Let's try to get one thing straight. The "social issues" are a side show. Whether being for or against abortion is "conservative" is speculative. Legal abortion is 40 year old law. Trying to CHANGE that law is LIBERAL.
Conservatism is about resisting CHANGE, keeping the government SMALL and not INTRUSIVE, following a non-interventionalist foreign policy. The true conservative angle on abortion is to push it down to the local level and keep the Feds out of it.
To you, "conservative" means porking out, socializing senior drugs, selling out the US military to the AIPAC lobby in exchange for campaign contributions and favorable media coverage, being against abortion and gays, making those who hit us on 911 "not a priority" because the "priority" is to sell out the troops to the AIPAC lobby and boast of being "I'm a war President," firing US attorneys who dare prosecute Zionists like Madoff and Polanski.
To you, truth doesn't matter, the definition of "conservative" is whatever FIXED says it is, and the US exists to serve Israel.
This is because you are not a conservative. You are a liberal traitor of the Zionist cause.
Cheney is far closer to Reagan ideologically than Powell has ever been.
It is quite amazing how many FIXED NOISE "experts" we have about Ronald Reagan, who was a uniter in that he united 99% of Zionists against him.
Dick Cheney did not agree with Reagan's philosophy of shrinking government. Just the opposite. Dick Cheney likely disagreed with Reagan's decision to withdraw from Lebanon, because Dick Cheney doesn't support conservative foreign policy, which is non-interventionalist and patriotic only to the US. Dick Cheney is, laughably, for gay marriage. Dick Cheney and Reagan are polar opposites on the issues of
1. size and scope of government
2. use of the US military
3. foreign policy
4. gay marriage
Nice try.
There is precisely nothing "conservative" at all about Dick Cheney. He was 100% for everything against the truly conservative agenda, right down to selling out the lives of our heroes in uniform by any means necessary, even breaking our laws and treaties and lying to Congress and the American people...
Reagan is a true American hero of the conservative cause.
Cheney is a traitor to America, the GOP, and the cause of true conservatism.
patteeu
10-02-2009, 07:35 AM
Reagan, as a governor, chose a former CIA Director to unite the party and bring foreign policy experience, something Reagan didn't have himself.
Yeah, a former CIA Director who was a Rockefeller Republican. Here's how his 1980 campaign for POTUS is described on his wiki page:
Bush represented the centrist wing in the GOP, whereas Reagan represented conservatives. Bush famously labeled Reagan's supply side-influenced plans for massive tax cuts "voodoo economics."
Later, after Reagan's success, Bush, who was more politician than ideologue, pandered to conservatives but never really became one. W was more conservative than his father, but even he falls significantly short in many respects, IMO.
Powell, a decorated military figure, was very different. Many Zionists in the media were calling Reagan a "racist." Reagan was not a racist. Eager to find some genuine black conservatives, Reagan embraced several, including Alan Keyes (who really is not close to being as conservative as Powell). While Powell was a military expert, what impressed Reagan about Powell was Powell's understanding of Reagan's main message, that government was not a "solution" but almost always the "problem" instead. Powell understood fiscal conservatism. So did Bush 41, who presided over 40 some odd vetoes of Dem spending bills as President. Nice try, liar.
You're insane if you think that Powell is more conservative than Alan Keyes. Not that we didn't already know that about you.
"Powell was also instrumental in the implementation of the military's Don't ask, don't tell policy."
LOL!!!
Really, since that was a friggin CLINTON program...
Let's try to get one thing straight. The "social issues" are a side show. Whether being for or against abortion is "conservative" is speculative. Legal abortion is 40 year old law. Trying to CHANGE that law is LIBERAL.
Conservatism is about resisting CHANGE, keeping the government SMALL and not INTRUSIVE, following a non-interventionalist foreign policy. The true conservative angle on abortion is to push it down to the local level and keep the Feds out of it.
To you, "conservative" means porking out, socializing senior drugs, selling out the US military to the AIPAC lobby in exchange for campaign contributions and favorable media coverage, being against abortion and gays, making those who hit us on 911 "not a priority" because the "priority" is to sell out the troops to the AIPAC lobby and boast of being "I'm a war President," firing US attorneys who dare prosecute Zionists like Madoff and Polanski.
To you, truth doesn't matter, the definition of "conservative" is whatever FIXED says it is, and the US exists to serve Israel.
This is because you are not a conservative. You are a liberal traitor of the Zionist cause.
ROFL
FYI, Powell served as Clinton's first Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and was serving in that capacity when the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy was designed. Your understanding of our recent political history leaves as much to be desired as your understanding of conservatism.
Saggysack
10-02-2009, 07:40 AM
You forgot my plan for peace in that area...
Set a date, like 12.1.09
On that date, the US, Russia and China promise to nuke the Promise Land into oblivion. Every sane person leaves. Every supremacist religious whack job nutcase stays. The land gets nuked repeatedly and becomes uninhabitable for 20,000 years.
Middle East peace
ACHIEVED
Since your preferred option is least likely of options out there. My question still stands. How would you solve the water rights issue on the Golan Heights?
Take into account I haven't attacked you in any way. A reasonable answer is all I'm looking for.
patteeu
10-02-2009, 07:46 AM
It is quite amazing how many FIXED NOISE "experts" we have about Ronald Reagan, who was a uniter in that he united 99% of Zionists against him.
Dick Cheney did not agree with Reagan's philosophy of shrinking government. Just the opposite. Dick Cheney likely disagreed with Reagan's decision to withdraw from Lebanon, because Dick Cheney doesn't support conservative foreign policy, which is non-interventionalist and patriotic only to the US. Dick Cheney is, laughably, for gay marriage. Dick Cheney and Reagan are polar opposites on the issues of
1. size and scope of government
2. use of the US military
3. foreign policy
4. gay marriage
Nice try.
There is precisely nothing "conservative" at all about Dick Cheney. He was 100% for everything against the truly conservative agenda, right down to selling out the lives of our heroes in uniform by any means necessary, even breaking our laws and treaties and lying to Congress and the American people...
Reagan is a true American hero of the conservative cause.
Cheney is a traitor to America, the GOP, and the cause of true conservatism.
Ronald Reagan embraced the neoconservatives. He had many of them working in his administration. Using today's definitions (not crazy definitions like yours and BucEyedPea's, but reasonable ones), Reagan *was* a neocon. His foreign policy was neoconservative and he was a friend of Israel.
During Cheney's early years in Washington, working for the Nixon and Ford administrations, he was ideologically agnostic. His experiences with wage and price controls during the Nixon administration and the Reagan revolution converted him to conservatism. Unlike GHWBush, Cheney actually became a believer in small government, strong defense conservativism.
It's funny that in one post you call social issues a "side show" and in the next you use Cheney's (unspoken but IMO obvious) support for gay marriage to discredit him as a conservative. I'd be the first to admit that Cheney is a libertarian on that issue and that that separates him from social conservatives a bit, but that being said, he is still more similar to Reagan ideologically than either Bush or Powell.
Since your preferred option is least likely of options out there. My question still stands. How would you solve the water rights issue on the Golan Heights?
Take into account I haven't attacked you in any way. A reasonable answer is all I'm looking for.
Why, desalination, of course. Instead of spending billions studying "warming" that isn't happening, we should build large desal facilities, especially in California. There are plenty if rich people who care about the Golan Heights. Raise a few billion and get it done peacefully and environmentally correct.
Yeah, a former CIA Director who was a Rockefeller Republican. Here's how his 1980 campaign for POTUS is described on his wiki page:
Later, after Reagan's success, Bush, who was more politician than ideologue, pandered to conservatives but never really became one. W was more conservative than his father, but even he falls significantly short in many respects, IMO.
You're insane if you think that Powell is more conservative than Alan Keyes. Not that we didn't already know that about you.
ROFL
FYI, Powell served as Clinton's first Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and was serving in that capacity when the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy was designed. Your understanding of our recent political history leaves as much to be desired as your understanding of conservatism.
Well, if Wiki says so, then Bush 41's record of rejecting spending increases again and again was "less conservative" that W porking out at a record pace...
:thumb:
Powell is more conservative than Alan Keyes, who is an insane THUMPER who supports liberal foreign policy like Iraq and "faith based" federal spending increases. Powell, like Bush 41 and Reagan, was for LESS GOVERNMENT.
Anyone who claims W was "more conservative" than anyone except career ACU rated 16 Joe Lieberman is a liar. W was the biggest failure of a US President in US history precisely because he was not conservative about anything except tax cuts. W was
THE BIGGEST SPENDER SINCE LBJ
and how that translates into "conservative" is beyond the scope of rational debate...
banyon
10-02-2009, 08:11 AM
Correction, there are liberal big government Bible Thumping Socialists who insist they are "conservative" even as they are too dumb to know what "conservative" means, too lazy to find out, and too hateful to care.
W
Cheney
Frist
Hastert
Lindsay Graham
Lamar Alexander
Mike Huck-a-Thump
Tom Delay
the entire Murkowski family of Alaska
Trent Lott
I could list just about everyone in a GOP elected office during W's final term, after the purge of fiscal conservatives from the GOP by Rove and W.
you think Trent Lott, Dick Cheney, and Tom Delay are socialists?
You're a moron.
"Ronald Reagan embraced the neoconservatives."
Gee, I do not recall that. "Neocon" Zionists hated Reagan for withdrawing from Lebanon. "Neocon" Zionists are also not for SMALL GOVERNMENT. Just the opposite. "Neocons" like Joe Lieberman HATED EVERYTHING about Reagan.
"you think Trent Lott, Dick Cheney, and Tom Delay are socialists?"
Remind us, which one of them stood up and said "this is wrong to socialize senior drugs."
Yeah, none. They all voted for socializing senior drugs.
Delay, especially, was the main source of "energy" behind getting rid of Gingrich, because Gingrich was preventing Federal spending increases, and Delay wanted to get "his share." Lott is for anything and everything that helps Trent Lott, and should be executed for admitting "I voted for Iraq without having a clue about the difference between a Sunni and a Shia. They all look the same to me." Um, before voting to send our armed forces abroad, shouldn't a Senator at least attempt to GET A CLUE first???
"During Cheney's early years in Washington, working for the Nixon and Ford administrations, he was ideologically agnostic. His experiences with wage and price controls during the Nixon administration and the Reagan revolution converted him to conservatism. Unlike GHWBush, Cheney actually became a believer in small government, strong defense conservativism."
That is an amazing display of the damage FIXED has done to the GOP. Cheney was the one quoted as saying "Reagan proved deficits do not matter" as a reason to support W's porkfest. Reagan himself tried to cut spending, but a Dem Congress prevented it. Cheney and W had no such excuse. Cheney and W had a GOP Congress, and NEVER TRIED TO CUT ANYTHING. NEVER. NOT ONCE. EVERY PROPOSAL WAS PORK PORK SOCIALIZE DRUGS, UNIONIZE BAGGAGE HANDLERS, PORK OUT TO FAITH PEOPLE...
patteeu
10-02-2009, 08:24 AM
Well, if Wiki says so, then Bush 41's record of rejecting spending increases again and again was "less conservative" that W porking out at a record pace...
:thumb:
Powell is more conservative than Alan Keyes, who is an insane THUMPER who supports liberal foreign policy like Iraq and "faith based" federal spending increases. Powell, like Bush 41 and Reagan, was for LESS GOVERNMENT.
Anyone who claims W was "more conservative" than anyone except career ACU rated 16 Joe Lieberman is a liar. W was the biggest failure of a US President in US history precisely because he was not conservative about anything except tax cuts. W was
THE BIGGEST SPENDER SINCE LBJ
and how that translates into "conservative" is beyond the scope of rational debate...
HW was working with a democrat-majority Congress. W was working with a Republican-majority Congress. That had much more to do with their respective veto records than their personal political ideologies did. I'm afraid I don't have time to bring you up to speed on the recent political history of our country so you're going to have to look elsewhere for your education.
Saggysack
10-02-2009, 08:27 AM
Why, desalination, of course. Instead of spending billions studying "warming" that isn't happening, we should build large desal facilities, especially in California. There are plenty if rich people who care about the Golan Heights. Raise a few billion and get it done peacefully and environmentally correct.
Desalination already happens. Israel has the largest plant in the world. Israel is known to one of the best at desalination.
Syria has rejected Israel's help on desalination. They demand full return of the Golan Heights. Where do you go from here?
patteeu
10-02-2009, 08:45 AM
"Ronald Reagan embraced the neoconservatives."
Gee, I do not recall that. "Neocon" Zionists hated Reagan for withdrawing from Lebanon. "Neocon" Zionists are also not for SMALL GOVERNMENT. Just the opposite. "Neocons" like Joe Lieberman HATED EVERYTHING about Reagan.
What do neocons like Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, Frank Gaffney, Jeane Kirkpatrick and Ken Adelman have in common? They all held influential positions on the Reagan administration's foreign policy team. Many others held lesser positions or worked in other parts of the administration. For example, William Kristol was the chief of staff to Reagan's education secretary, Bill Bennett.
As is the case with most ideologues when confronted with the pragmatism of politics, some neocons were disappointed with some of the things Reagan did (e.g. his withdrawal from Lebanon), but the same is true of ideologues who might be more aligned with your foreign policy views. Ron Paul, for example, supported Reagan initially, but was so disillusioned by Reagan's administration that he left the Republican party to run for President as a Libertarian. On balance though, Reagan's foreign policy was more neocon than not.
patteeu
10-02-2009, 08:45 AM
Desalination already happens. Israel has the largest plant in the world. Israel is known to one of the best at desalination.
Syria has rejected Israel's help on desalination. They demand full return of the Golan Heights. Where do you go from here?
He'll just suggest desalination with a bigger font. That should convince them.
Direckshun
10-02-2009, 10:01 AM
I've got news for you big guy. Colin Powell is a Rockefeller Republican too.
Far as I can tell, Rockefeller Republicans voted for Obama.
HW was working with a democrat-majority Congress. W was working with a Republican-majority Congress. That had much more to do with their respective veto records than their personal political ideologies did. I'm afraid I don't have time to bring you up to speed on the recent political history of our country so you're going to have to look elsewhere for your education.
W spent, socialized, and porked out like nobody since LBJ. Jimmy Carter is "conservative" in comparison to W.
Bush 41 vetoed one porky spending bill after another. Bush 41's record is in the history books and it is fiscally conservative.
The comparison is laughable.
Desalination already happens. Israel has the largest plant in the world. Israel is known to one of the best at desalination.
Syria has rejected Israel's help on desalination. They demand full return of the Golan Heights. Where do you go from here?
Since the Golan Heights are recognized by the UN as Syrian territory, I would follow every President except the two sellouts (Clinton and W) in supporting the UN position, that Israel should get out of the "occupied territories" and live within its original 1948 boundaries.
That was the position of Bush 41, Reagan, Carter, Ford, and Nixon.
patteeu
10-02-2009, 10:19 AM
Far as I can tell, Rockefeller Republicans voted for Obama.
I think a lot of them did and Colin Powell was one of them.
"What do neocons like Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, Frank Gaffney, Jeane Kirkpatrick and Ken Adelman have in common? They all held influential positions on the Reagan administration's foreign policy team."
Wow is someone desperate. I am going to start a full topic on Ronald Reagan and what he really did and supported and who did and did not support him. FIXED has painted Ronald Reagan as a supporter of "Greater Israel." Nothing could be further from the truth, best exemplified by Reagan's pulling out our troops in Lebanon.
Kirkpatrick, to my knowledge, is no "neo-con." The others were either minor figures in the Reagan White House or BS.
Paul Wolfowitz, especially, is a known leftist. The only thing he had in common with W was a desire to use the US military to wipe out all of Israel's enemies while making OBL "not a priority."
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=6131304#post6131304
In August 1963, "when he was nineteen, he and his mother attended the civil-rights march on Washington organized by Martin Luther King, Jr. and others
In the 1970s Wolfowitz served as an aide to Democratic Senator Henry M. Jackson,
Attempting to counter these claims, the new Director of Central Intelligence, George H.W. Bush formed a committee of anti-Communist experts, headed by Richard Pipes, to reassess the raw data. Based on the recommendation of Richard Perle, Pipes picked Wolfowitz for this committee
LOL... A Dem Senate aide becomes a "Republican" when a Zionist in the CIA gives him a job. Get real...
In 1977, during the Carter administration, Wolfowitz moved to the Pentagon. He was U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Regional Programs for the U.S. Defense Department
Following the 1980 election of U.S. President Ronald Reagan, the new U.S. National Security Advisor Richard V. Allen formed the administration's foreign policy advisory team. Allen initially rejected Wolfowitz’s appointment but following discussions
... and some contributions no doubt...
Wolfowitz broke from this official line by denouncing Saddam Hussein of Iraq at a time when Donald Rumsfeld was offering the dictator support in his conflict with Iran.
LOL....
From 1989 to 1993, Wolfowitz served in the administration of George H.W. Bush as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, under then U.S. Defense Secretary Dick Cheney. During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Wolfowitz’s team co-ordinated and reviewed military strategy, raising $50 billion in allied financial support for the operation. Wolfowitz was present with Cheney, Colin Powell and others, on 27 February 1991 at the meeting with the President where it was decided that the troops should be demobilised.
On February 25, 1998, Wolfowitz testified before a congressional committee that he thought that "the best opportunity to overthrow Saddam was, unfortunately, lost in the month right after the war."
... there's that ZIONIST "didn't finish the (Israeli) job" again, the election slogan of Clinton 92...
I think a lot of them did and Colin Powell was one of them.
A lot of big spenders disguised as "Republicans" did. For the non-Rokafellers and fiscal conservatives, the grounds for opposing McCain and the Zionist controlled dumbed down GOP was purely on patriotic grounds, that what the GOP did during the War on Exclusively Anti-Israel Terror was TREASON, and nobody was more aware of the lies than those in the White House meetings. Powell was in the meetings. Powell quit on W when he discovered his speech to the UN was based on 100% pure Zionist George Tenet lies.
Inspector
10-02-2009, 10:29 AM
You forgot my plan for peace in that area...
Set a date, like 12.1.09
On that date, the US, Russia and China promise to nuke the Promise Land into oblivion. Every sane person leaves. Every supremacist religious whack job nutcase stays. The land gets nuked repeatedly and becomes uninhabitable for 20,000 years.
Middle East peace
ACHIEVED
Well, at least you didn't suggest anything extreme.
patteeu
10-02-2009, 10:29 AM
W spent, socialized, and porked out like nobody since LBJ. Jimmy Carter is "conservative" in comparison to W.
Bush 41 vetoed one porky spending bill after another. Bush 41's record is in the history books and it is fiscally conservative.
The comparison is laughable.
Divided government has a more fiscally conservative record than one party control of both the White House and the Congress. That's the lesson you should draw from the comparison you're trying to make, not that HW was more conservative than his son.
Since the Golan Heights are recognized by the UN as Syrian territory, I would follow every President except the two sellouts (Clinton and W) in supporting the UN position, that Israel should get out of the "occupied territories" and live within its original 1948 boundaries.
That was the position of Bush 41, Reagan, Carter, Ford, and Nixon.
You're so ignorant of history that it's not really worth debating these things with you. Reagan's position wasn't that Israel should live within it's 1948 boundaries and I doubt that that was Nixon or Ford's position either. Carter, maybe, but I don't think he publicly held that position. Here's what Reagan had to say about the subject in 1982 (beware of the link though because it comes from a Jewish website and they might be able to track you if you click on it):
I have personally followed and supported Israel's heroic struggle for survival, ever since the founding of the State of Israel 34 years ago. In the pre-1967 borders Israel was barely 10 miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel's population lived within artillery range of hostile Arab armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again. - Ronald Reagan, Sept. 1, 1982 (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/reaganplan.html)
Taco John
10-02-2009, 10:30 AM
you think Trent Lott, Dick Cheney, and Tom Delay are socialists?
You're a moron.
They sure aren't libertarians...
"Divided government has a more fiscally conservative record than one party control of both the White House and the Congress. That's the lesson you should draw from the comparison you're trying to make, not that HW was more conservative than his son."
Oh, I get it. It was OK for W to pork out, socialize, and spend more than anyone since LBJ on every conceivable waste... because he had fellow greedy slimy treasonous Bible Thumping Socialists disguised as "Republicans" and "conservatives" controlling the Congress.
Fiscal conservatism means nothing. Only FIXED NOISE parroting matters. That W porked out and spent like crazy when he could have LED and SENT BUDGET CUTS to Congress, well, immaterial... when the goal is really just to destroy the GOP, get the US to use the US military to wipe out all of Israel's enemies, and make sure the DOJ doesn't prosecute anyone Zionist...
"Reagan's position wasn't that Israel should live within it's 1948 boundaries and I doubt that that was Nixon or Ford's position either."
Pretty dubious source for some fundraising words that don't mention the withdrawl from Lebanon. I'll get the Reagan topic up today. It will quote something other than...
"jewishvirtuallibrary.org."
It may not have been true, but if FIXED says so, it is "virtually" true...
They sure aren't libertarians...
Some of the recent quotes by "Republicans" about libertarians are 180 degrees away from what Reagan said.
http://www.nocommunism.com/quotes_libertarian_reagan.php
"I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer, just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals...The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom, and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is. -President Ronald Reagan"
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. -President Ronald Reagan" - wow was that accurate. More precisely, one generation of the Bush family...
"We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much. -President Ronald Reagan" - ie Reagan did care, and tried to spend less to solve the deficit. Cheney then concludes "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
patteeu
10-02-2009, 10:45 AM
"Divided government has a more fiscally conservative record than one party control of both the White House and the Congress. That's the lesson you should draw from the comparison you're trying to make, not that HW was more conservative than his son."
Oh, I get it. It was OK for W to pork out, socialize, and spend more than anyone since LBJ on every conceivable waste... because he had fellow greedy slimy treasonous Bible Thumping Socialists disguised as "Republicans" and "conservatives" controlling the Congress.
Fiscal conservatism means nothing. Only FIXED NOISE parroting matters. That W porked out and spent like crazy when he could have LED and SENT BUDGET CUTS to Congress, well, immaterial... when the goal is really just to destroy the GOP, get the US to use the US military to wipe out all of Israel's enemies, and make sure the DOJ doesn't prosecute anyone Zionist...
No, it wasn't OK, it just doesn't prove that the father was more conservative than the son. You haven't seen me claim that W was a good conservative. You've just seen me say that HW was even less conservative than W was. The apple didn't fall all that far from the tree, but it fell on the conservative side. W was a social conservative. His father wasn't. W believed in tax cuts to improve the economy. His father called that kind of thinking "voodoo economics" when Reagan campaigned on it. W tried to privatize (a tiny portion of) SS. His father didn't ever so much as mention such a thing. W's administration opposed affirmative action to a much greater degree than HW's ever did. W wasn't a thoroughbred conservative by any stretch of the imagination, but he wasn't as Rockefeller as his dad.
"You've just seen me say that HW was even less conservative than W was. "
The two have historical records. One vetoed pork. The other embraced it as "compassion." It takes a serious psycho to still argue this. Were the Chiefs the best team in the NFL last year? If someone on FIXED said so, you'd be sure of it...
BucEyedPea
10-02-2009, 10:49 AM
Desalination already happens. Israel has the largest plant in the world. Israel is known to one of the best at desalination.
Syria has rejected Israel's help on desalination. They demand full return of the Golan Heights. Where do you go from here?
Give them the Golan Heights and then help them with desalination is one option. NWWT.
SHTSPRAYER
10-02-2009, 10:54 AM
Well, at least you didn't suggest anything extreme.
Up there, up there in the vastness of space, in the void that is the sky, up there is an enemy know as isolation. It sits there in the stars waiting, waiting with the patience of eons, forever waiting… in the Twilight Zone.
banyon
10-02-2009, 02:31 PM
They sure aren't libertarians...
Yes, and of course there's more than a binary code for the political spectrum.
Well, there is for most people.
banyon
10-02-2009, 02:33 PM
"you think Trent Lott, Dick Cheney, and Tom Delay are socialists?"
Remind us, which one of them stood up and said "this is wrong to socialize senior drugs."
Yeah, none. They all voted for socializing senior drugs.
Delay, especially, was the main source of "energy" behind getting rid of Gingrich, because Gingrich was preventing Federal spending increases, and Delay wanted to get "his share." Lott is for anything and everything that helps Trent Lott, and should be executed for admitting "I voted for Iraq without having a clue about the difference between a Sunni and a Shia. They all look the same to me." Um, before voting to send our armed forces abroad, shouldn't a Senator at least attempt to GET A CLUE first???
So, that's all it takes huh? Believe old people in poverty should have affordable access to medicine and you're the same as Joe Stalin.
So, that's all it takes huh? Believe old people in poverty should have affordable access to medicine and you're the same as Joe Stalin.
And there you have it, nevermind it isn't just for those "old people in poverty" (weep weep), but every old person listed in the US, alive and most likely plenty dead once the crooks figure out how to game the system. As the Zionist will eventually fart out that getting OBL and AQ and wiping them out post 911 would have been "pointless revenge," the Bible Thumping Socialist defends the socialization of senior drugs as "compassion." Indeed, it wasn't just that. The socialization of senior drugs was just a clear easy chance to demonstrate opposition to socialism. Your "conservative" heroes failed that test.
And they failed most others too...
W was the biggest spending President since LBJ. You call that "conservative." I call you a Bible Thumping Socialist with a sub 30 IQ.
banyon
10-02-2009, 03:00 PM
And there you have it, nevermind it isn't just for those "old people in poverty" (weep weep), but every old person listed in the US, alive and most likely plenty dead once the crooks figure out how to game the system. As the Zionist will eventually fart out that getting OBL and AQ and wiping them out post 911 would have been "pointless revenge," the Bible Thumping Socialist defends the socialization of senior drugs as "compassion." Indeed, it wasn't just that. The socialization of senior drugs was just a clear easy chance to demonstrate opposition to socialism. Your "conservative" heroes failed that test.
And they failed most others too...
W was the biggest spending President since LBJ. You call that "conservative." I call you a Bible Thumping Socialist with a sub 30 IQ.
Do you have a DSM-IV criteria diagnosis that would prevent you from being able to follow standard logic and argument in this thread?
These people aren't my heroes. In fact, quite the contrary, I've condemned these people repeatedly in this forum for their conservative views. I just think your criteria for "socialism" is ridiculously overbroad.
In fact, I would challenge you to define it in a way that still leaves us with a political spectrum, given that you have a misguided believe that Lott and Delay are socialists.
Jenson71
10-02-2009, 03:02 PM
Speaking of moderates and the Republican Party, David Brooks has an article today arguing the overall weakness of celebrity right wing heads like Beck, Hannity, and Rush.
Over the years, I have asked many politicians what happens when Limbaugh and his colleagues attack. The story is always the same. Hundreds of calls come in. The receptionists are miserable. But the numbers back home do not move. There is no effect on the favorability rating or the re-election prospects. In the media world, he is a giant. In the real world, he’s not.
But this is not merely a story of weakness. It is a story of resilience. For no matter how often their hollowness is exposed, the jocks still reweave the myth of their own power. They still ride the airwaves claiming to speak for millions. They still confuse listeners with voters. And they are aided in this endeavor by their enablers.
The Republican Party is unpopular because it’s more interested in pleasing Rush’s ghosts than actual people. The party is leaderless right now because nobody has the guts to step outside the rigid parameters enforced by the radio jocks and create a new party identity. The party is losing because it has adopted a radio entertainer’s niche-building strategy, while abandoning the politician’s coalition-building strategy.
The rise of Beck, Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and the rest has correlated almost perfectly with the decline of the G.O.P. But it’s not because the talk jocks have real power. It’s because they have illusory power, because Republicans hear the media mythology and fall for it every time.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/opinion/02brooks.html?em
What makes him different is that Brooks is a guy with a conscience and an understanding greater than the wallet and pulpit he hopes to fill. I like him.
orange
10-02-2009, 04:02 PM
Speaking of moderates and the Republican Party, David Brooks has an article today arguing the overall weakness of celebrity right wing heads like Beck, Hannity, and Rush.
First Jason Whitlock...
... now David Brooks getting his story ideas from ChiefsPlanet! :D
"I would challenge you to define it in a way that still leaves us with a political spectrum, given that you have a misguided believe that Lott and Delay are socialists."
That is a trumped up left wing pro big government question right now, given that we have two big government parties at a time when a majority of the population is now against more Federal spending.
Newt Gingrich as Speaker was not a socialist. He kept Federal spending flat for four years, and the economy boomed, and the deficit turned to a surplus. What do we call such an ideology today?
EXTINCT - MURDERED BY KARL ROVE
BucEyedPea
10-02-2009, 05:10 PM
Newt Gingrich as Speaker was not a socialist. He kept Federal spending flat for four years, and the economy boomed, and the deficit turned to a surplus. What do we call such an ideology today?
Gringrich twisted arms of junior republicans to vote against tax cuts under Clinton. He's also sold out American sovereignty every chance he gets, wanted to curb speech on the net, and pushed for WWIII. Gingrich is on record for not really upporting free-markets and wanting bureaucrats to think like entrepreneurs. He was on Fox saying how socialized Health Insurance could be implemented. Gingrich is a classic Neo-Con.
"Gringrich twisted arms of junior republicans to vote against tax cuts under Clinton."
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Are you claiming Clinton wanted more tax cuts than Gingrich gave him???
I agree Gingrich has lost his mind since being couped as Speaker. Lost it. Has made no sense since Karl Rove took over - none. As Speaker, his RECORD was awesome, it worked, it was "what was best" for the US, and neither party wants any part of it anymore. Sold out b-tards...
BucEyedPea
10-02-2009, 05:21 PM
"Gringrich twisted arms of junior republicans to vote against tax cuts under Clinton."
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Are you claiming Clinton wanted more tax cuts than Gingrich gave him???
I agree Gingrich has lost his mind since being couped as Speaker. Lost it. Has made no sense since Karl Rove took over - none. As Speaker, his RECORD was awesome, it worked, it was "what was best" for the US, and neither party wants any part of it anymore. Sold out b-tards...
I posted somewhere here before on conservatives talking about Gingrich behind the scenes....he's not what he appears to be. He even admitted in a closed door meeting with conservatives in DC in the 90's that he's not a conservative. You know that he worked on a Rockefeller election campaign? Says all about the guy.
Baby Lee
10-02-2009, 05:40 PM
Up there, up there in the vastness of space, in the void that is the sky, up there is an enemy know as isolation. It sits there in the stars waiting, waiting with the patience of eons, forever waiting… in the Twilight Zone.
I don’t know enough about stars to dispute this.
banyon
10-02-2009, 05:48 PM
"I would challenge you to define it in a way that still leaves us with a political spectrum, given that you have a misguided believe that Lott and Delay are socialists."
That is a trumped up left wing pro big government question right now, given that we have two big government parties at a time when a majority of the population is now against more Federal spending.
Newt Gingrich as Speaker was not a socialist. He kept Federal spending flat for four years, and the economy boomed, and the deficit turned to a surplus. What do we call such an ideology today?
EXTINCT - MURDERED BY KARL ROVE
So, you can't define it except to throw it at everyone you dislike in a vague way. That's expected.
alnorth
10-02-2009, 05:54 PM
So, you can't define it except to throw it at everyone you dislike in a vague way. That's expected.
The other possibility is that he believes both parties and most politicians in the US are "socialist". A middle and a right theoretically exists, but not in the US.
BucEyedPea
10-02-2009, 06:07 PM
The other possibility is that he believes both parties and most politicians in the US are "socialist". A middle and a right theoretically exists, but not in the US.
I would say that's correct nowadays.
“The difference between Democrats and Republicans is: Democrats have accepted some ideas of Socialism cheerfully, while Republicans have accepted them reluctantly” — Norman Thomas former 3x socialist candidate
banyon
10-02-2009, 06:11 PM
The other possibility is that he believes both parties and most politicians in the US are "socialist". A middle and a right theoretically exists, but not in the US.
If he did, I suppose he could try to define it in a way that reflect that I suppose, though I don't think it would be very credible, since there are pretty genuine policy differences.
chiefzilla1501
10-02-2009, 06:11 PM
Assessing the GOP brand
By Brendan Nyhan
October 1, 2009
How weak is the Republican brand right now? This issue came up yesterday when a Media Matters criticized The Hill for failing to mention the GOP's poor polling numbers in a story on the 2010 elections. Similarly, I recently suggested that that the damaged Republican brand might limit the number of seats that the party picks up. But is the party really worse off than previous opposition parties at this point in the election cycle?
As a first cut at the question, I pulled all the relevant polling on approval of the party in Congresss and party favorability from the Roper iPoll database for the periods leading up to the four most recent midterms (1994, 1998, 2002, and 2006). In both cases, the results are consistent, but I'll focus on the favorability questions since Pew and CBS asked comparable questions about party favorables in each cycle.*
The overall finding is simple -- the GOP's standing relative to the Democrats on both measures is worse than any opposition party in the sample. For instance, the Pew data show that the Republicans are currently viewed more negatively than any minority party in the previous four midterms in terms of both net favorables and the difference in net favorables between parties:**
http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/.a/6a00d83451d25c69e20120a5b0f103970b-450wi
The CBS results (not shown) are even more dramatic. In June, when the question was most recently asked, Republican net favorables were -30% and Democratic net favorables were 25%, which swamps the comparable results from the previous cycles.
In short, there's no question that the GOP party brand is in worse shape than any opposition party in recent memory. The question, however, is whether this difference in party valence will (a) persist through next November and (b) translate into fewer GOP House seats at the polls, especially once we account for the generic Congressional ballot, which should (in principle) take much of this difference into account (see Alan Abramowitz's model, for instance). Those questions remain to be addressed.
* Also, the approval question seems to be less closely related to electoral outcomes -- for instance, disapproval of Republicans in Congress was high in September 1994.
** I chose the survey closest to the current point in the electoral cycle, though the exact date varied. Net favorables are defined as the percentage of Americans who have a favorable view of the party minus the percentage who have an unfavorable view.
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/assessing_the_gop_brand.php
The reason why so many seemingly conservatives are moderates is because most people with any knowledge of the political system would realize that both sides, left and right, are fundamentally fucked up.
The President is liberal as is the Congress. So the majority of the agenda being pushed so far is liberal. Therefore, it's to be expected that moderates would spend most of their time pushing back against a liberal agenda.
I consider myself a moderate. I hated Bush's agenda backed by a Republican agenda too, and I'm sure a lot of people here did too. It has nothing to do with not wanting to be a Republican. It has everything to do with being smart enough that party lines don't determine the way that I think.
I don’t know enough about stars to dispute this.
I do, and I can not.
Taco John
10-02-2009, 07:35 PM
I would say that's correct nowadays.
“The difference between Democrats and Republicans is: Democrats have accepted some ideas of Socialism cheerfully, while Republicans have accepted them reluctantly” — Norman Thomas former 3x socialist candidate
ROFL
mlyonsd
10-02-2009, 07:49 PM
ROFL
I think BEP's quote is correct. Republicans during the 90's and Bush's administration repeatedly moved away from true conservatism by giving money to totally anit-conservatism issues.
Taco John
10-02-2009, 08:23 PM
It's absolutely correct. But it's gone on much longer than the last 20 years.
The Republicans lost their republican bearings a long, long time ago.
Bwana
10-02-2009, 10:38 PM
I can't say that I have, actually. I've seen some of their broadcasts online, of course.
LMAO
Live in a fucking cave much donk boy?
Mr. Kotter
10-02-2009, 11:41 PM
:BS:
You know, despite conventional wisdom, of the moment....some of us ARE moderates.
It's just that the RWNJ trailer-park trash/redneck faction of the Republican party, and the LWNJ moon-bat gaywad/loony-toon faction of the Democratic party....keep drowning us reasonable folks out, because...well, "ratings" matter, you know?
:hmmm:
orange
10-03-2009, 04:12 AM
LMAO
Live in a ****ing cave much donk boy?
Yeah - just me and my 299,000,000 closest friends. LMAO thinking you believe you're mainstream.
Have you never watched Fox News?
I can't say that I have, actually. I've seen some of their broadcasts online, of course.
FOX News gets less than 1 million viewers. The three broadcast networks combine for about 24 million. FOX has/will have minimal impact on the national election.
"For all that, however, nearly 23 million viewers still tune into the three nightly newscasts each day, several* times the number that are tuned into the three cable news channels at any given moment during prime time."
http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2009
[edit] Now I'm LMAO at myself for repeating the facts that you're obviously oblivious to (since they were in the very message you quoted from) - JUST AS IF FACTS MATTERED TO YOU! WTF was I thinking?!?
:BS:
You know, despite conventional wisdom, of the moment....some of us ARE moderates.
It's just that the RWNJ trailer-park trash/redneck faction of the Republican party, and the LWNJ moon-bat gaywad/loony-toon faction of the Democratic party....keep drowning us reasonable folks out, because...well, "ratings" matter, you know?
:hmmm:
America and Americans have been DUMBED DOWN, not just the GOP. Good thing "conservative" W never pushed for SCHOOL VOUCHERS, but rather instead porked out to the Dem Lobbying group known as PUBLIC EDUCATION...
Bwana
10-03-2009, 09:42 AM
Yeah - just me and my 299,000,000 closest friends. LMAO thinking you believe you're mainstream.
Your far left is "mainstream?" LMAO
Sure thing sparky.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.