EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Nov 24, 2009 9:36:21 GMT -5
The more I think about it, the more likely this prediction from September is likely to hold true: Sarah Palin will be the GOP's Ted Kennedy. Will never be President, will be widely caricatured by the opposing party, will be the source of lots of campaign loot for both sides, and will be able to have a soapbox totally out of proportion to his/her actual contributions to the debate. spectator.org/archives/2009/09/01/is-sarah-palin-the-next-ted-keRH: I was originally thinking that, too. The problem I have is what job she has. I really can't see her as a senator. Maybe running her own think tank/PAC? The problem with the comparison to Ted Kennedy is that Ted would, in all probability, been elected president were it not for an "unfortunate accident".
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Nov 24, 2009 9:44:46 GMT -5
The other problem is I can't really see Palin as a dealmaker. Even though I disagreed with Kennedy on a lot of things and found his godlike status in Massachusetts maddening, I have to admit the man knew how to horsetrade.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Nov 24, 2009 11:31:15 GMT -5
Well we know for sure that if she is to be the GOP version of Sir Drunky, she'll never be an EMS worker.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Nov 24, 2009 11:43:54 GMT -5
Well we know for sure that if she is to be the GOP version of Sir Drunky, she'll never be an EMS worker. Was there ever any talk of her becoming an EMS worker, or are you just being a prick? Prick? OK, I can do that too. She's also probably never going to become an EMS worker b/c that would require at least a middle school intellect.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Nov 24, 2009 12:16:14 GMT -5
Oh, you've been turned down, huh?
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Nov 24, 2009 12:32:52 GMT -5
Good thing EMS workers aren't involved in teaching abstinence or best practices during child birth.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Nov 24, 2009 12:45:41 GMT -5
How is that at all Reagan inspired? Isn't that sort of thing anti-big-tent, and the direct opposite of what Reagan talked about? Did you read the blog post? It specifically says that "[t]he resolution invokes Ronald Reagan, and noted that Mr. Reagan had said the Republican Party should be devoted to conservative principles but also be open to diverse views. President Reagan believed, the resolution notes, 'that someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent.' Hence the provision calling for cutting off Republicans who agree with the party on seven of 10 items." Hence, "Reagan-inspired" rather than "Reagan-esque." And I won't get into the idea that "diverse views" includes, at most, disagreement 2/10 times.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Nov 24, 2009 12:49:31 GMT -5
How is that at all Reagan inspired? Isn't that sort of thing anti-big-tent, and the direct opposite of what Reagan talked about? Did you read the blog post? It specifically says that "[t]he resolution invokes Ronald Reagan, and noted that Mr. Reagan had said the Republican Party should be devoted to conservative principles but also be open to diverse views. President Reagan believed, the resolution notes, 'that someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent.' Hence the provision calling for cutting off Republicans who agree with the party on seven of 10 items." Hence, "Reagan-inspired" rather than "Reagan-esque." And I won't get into the idea that "diverse views" includes, at most, disagreement 2/10 times. Strangely, as Keith Olbermann pointed out last night, Ronald Reagan would not be a conservative according to this purity examination. Perhaps if the panel of examiners waterboarded him at the time, they would get the answers they were looking for.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Nov 24, 2009 12:54:21 GMT -5
Did you read the blog post? It specifically says that "[t]he resolution invokes Ronald Reagan, and noted that Mr. Reagan had said the Republican Party should be devoted to conservative principles but also be open to diverse views. President Reagan believed, the resolution notes, 'that someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent.' Hence the provision calling for cutting off Republicans who agree with the party on seven of 10 items." Hence, "Reagan-inspired" rather than "Reagan-esque." And I won't get into the idea that "diverse views" includes, at most, disagreement 2/10 times. Strangely, as Keith Olbermann pointed out last night, Ronald Reagan would not be a conservative according to this purity examination. Perhaps if the panel of examiners waterboarded him at the time, they would get the answers they were looking for. You have now revealed that you listen to the delusional rantings of Keith Olbermann. There's a reasonable opinion crrying out in the wilderness. The last important thing he did was have his mom get hit by one of Chuck Knoblauch's errant throws.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Nov 24, 2009 12:59:23 GMT -5
I certainly have never seen you make a delusional ranting, so perhaps the criticism is well-founded.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Nov 24, 2009 12:59:48 GMT -5
Strangely, as Keith Olbermann pointed out last night, Ronald Reagan would not be a conservative according to this purity examination. Perhaps if the panel of examiners waterboarded him at the time, they would get the answers they were looking for. You have now revealed that you listen to the delusional rantings of Keith Olbermann. There's a reasonable opinion crrying out in the wilderness. The last important thing he did was have his mom get hit by one of Chuck Knoblauch's errant throws. Ok now this is a viewpoint I can't stand on either "side:" and for two reasons: (1) the idea that by listenting to someone you're somehow lessened by them. I listen to Olbermann, O'Reilly, Maddow, AND Hannity. What's that make me, Elvado? What's that make anyone who listens to anyone with whom they might not agree or who might not have the evidence or reasoning they consider valid? Would we even have a Congress or a media? (2) dismissing the point because of the messenger. Classic logical fallacy. Justice John Paul Stevens said about the direction of the definition of conservative in this country: [paraphrasing] "it's not that I've become liberal, on the contrary, I'm still center right. It's just that everyone else has gotten SO conservative that I seem liberal!"
|
|
|
Post by williambraskyiii on Nov 24, 2009 13:06:42 GMT -5
Good thing EMS workers aren't involved in teaching abstinence or best practices during child birth. I'm don't understand the latter part of this post? You are obviously poking fun at her teenage daughter having a child, but what does "best practices during child birth" mean? I hope that you aren't mocking the fact that she has a down syndrome baby because that would make you a pretty despicable person. my apologies if i misconstrued your intent.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Nov 24, 2009 13:09:35 GMT -5
A proposal that has not even been considered by the RNC getting major airplay by Keith Olbermann and the NYT.
What a shock!
My guess is that Edward R. Nutbar will have a segment on this every single day until it is actually considered by the RNC.
Fortunately, no one really pays any attention to him.
For the record, I have no problem with asking those who would be in your party to abide by certain governing principles. Last time I checked, that was called a party platform.
People who go against the party platform should not expect support from the party.
Having only 10 items on your list? Well, that's a bit of a problem, which is why this will never go through, at least not as is.
(Oh and BTW, I saw the Olbermann segment on Reagan "failing." It is a complete distortion. Again....what a shock!!!! The amnesty program is probably the only legitimate one and -- as I'm, sure Keith Olbermann knows, but strangely failed to point out (more shock!!) -- amnesty and not securing the borders was regularly cited by Reagan as his biggest regret of his presidency).
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Nov 24, 2009 13:12:49 GMT -5
Good thing EMS workers aren't involved in teaching abstinence or best practices during child birth. I'm don't understand the latter part of this post? You are obviously poking fun at her teenage daughter having a child, but what does "best practices during child birth" mean? I hope that you aren't mocking the fact that she has a down syndrome baby because that would make you a pretty despicable person. That certainly is not the intention of my post. I am referring to the strange mythology surrounding the idea that she was in Arizona or some other state in the southwest (it was TX) when her water broke. She subsequently flew back to Alaska even while experiencing contractions every 3 minutes and arrived at a medical facility in Wasilla 28 hours later. This behavior was romanticized during the campaign as the pseudo-maverick style that Palin purports to exemplify. I respect that people make their own decisions about child birth and respect that Palin made some of these choices. I would, however, guard against this kind of practice in an EMS/medical setting in terms of recommendations that should be made to the public on the basis of sound science. As to the teenage daughter, my point generally with that is more that Republicans should be attacking her if their principles are to mean anything. Here is clear behavior that flies in the face of what the party claims to represent, and the party leaders look the other way in terms of evaluating Palin's success as a parent vis-a-vis those values. If roles were reversed and Sasha/Malia had a child with Levi Johnston, you can bet Obama would have a lot of time to write books.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Nov 24, 2009 13:24:48 GMT -5
A proposal that has not even been considered by the RNC getting major airplay by Keith Olbermann and the NYT. What a shock! My guess is that Edward R. Nutbar will have a segment on this every single day until it is actually considered by the RNC. Fortunately, no one really pays any attention to him. For the record, I have no problem with asking those who would be in your party to abide by certain governing principles. Last time I checked, that was called a party platform. People who go against the party platform should not expect support from the party. Having only 10 items on your list? Well, that's a bit of a problem, which is why this will never go through, at least not as is. (Oh and BTW, I saw the Olbermann segment on Reagan "failing." It is a complete distortion. Again....what a shock!!!! The amnesty program is probably the only legitimate one and -- as I'm, sure Keith Olbermann knows, but strangely failed to point out (more shock!!) -- amnesty and not securing the borders was regularly cited by Reagan as his biggest regret of his presidency). Ok, but you still haven't answered my question (not because I'm entitled to an answer; I genuinely want to know what you think-- and that includes all you guys): which "roots" should the GOP get back to?
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Nov 24, 2009 13:44:02 GMT -5
A proposal that has not even been considered by the RNC getting major airplay by Keith Olbermann and the NYT. What a shock! My guess is that Edward R. Nutbar will have a segment on this every single day until it is actually considered by the RNC. Fortunately, no one really pays any attention to him. For the record, I have no problem with asking those who would be in your party to abide by certain governing principles. Last time I checked, that was called a party platform. People who go against the party platform should not expect support from the party. Having only 10 items on your list? Well, that's a bit of a problem, which is why this will never go through, at least not as is. (Oh and BTW, I saw the Olbermann segment on Reagan "failing." It is a complete distortion. Again....what a shock!!!! The amnesty program is probably the only legitimate one and -- as I'm, sure Keith Olbermann knows, but strangely failed to point out (more shock!!) -- amnesty and not securing the borders was regularly cited by Reagan as his biggest regret of his presidency). Ok, but you still haven't answered my question (not because I'm entitled to an answer; I genuinely want to know what you think-- and that includes all you guys): which "roots" should the GOP get back to? Stay out of people's bedrooms and personal sexual lives. And get government out of the business of defining the religious institution of marriage. Religion can define its institutions how it wants. Stop granting ANY government benefits for marriage, gay or straight, OR grant them to two people of the same gender who see themselves as in a union, whether defined by their own religion as a "marriage" or not. End the "Culture War" rhetoric and get back to securing the nation, locking down borders, and managing fiscal problems. Opposing abortion is fine, but stop using it as the hook to drag every religious nutbag into the party. That happens, and I'm back to right of center. Someone asked before if those who see themselves as "Independent" on the board would vote for Goldwater. And yes, I probably would. But every religion-driven, sex-obsessed, culture-driven candidate that comes out of the Republican party drives me further left. And every time the Republican party talks down to its constituents with blatant lies or blatant attempts to stir up fake grassroots fervor driven by unwarranted fear, I move further left (see "Death panels", Tea Parties).
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Nov 24, 2009 13:44:49 GMT -5
My take on the roots the Republicans should go back to:
1. Fiscal responsibility through balanced budgets, smaller government and lower taxes. And, a corrolary, federal government support of a free-market society. 2. Very strong national defense, adjusted to the threats foreseen for the future. 3. Constitutional government, i.e. following the Constitution as intended by the founding fathers; and, amending the Consititution where modern circumstances warrant it. 4. Reduction of the laws on the books that infringe on our Constitutional rights to property and to bear arms. 5. Promotion of the traditional family as the bedrock of our American society. 6. Promotion, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, of the right to life as the foundation of all rights provided by God.
|
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Nov 24, 2009 13:49:28 GMT -5
A proposal that has not even been considered by the RNC getting major airplay by Keith Olbermann and the NYT. What a shock! My guess is that Edward R. Nutbar will have a segment on this every single day until it is actually considered by the RNC. Fortunately, no one really pays any attention to him. For the record, I have no problem with asking those who would be in your party to abide by certain governing principles. Last time I checked, that was called a party platform. People who go against the party platform should not expect support from the party. Having only 10 items on your list? Well, that's a bit of a problem, which is why this will never go through, at least not as is. I read this completely differently the first time I heard about the story. In a way, it looked like it was designed more to shore up the 80% candidates and protect them from the purifying forces of single-issue activists by certifying that they passed "the Reagan Test." The NYT version makes it much clearer that this is targeted at the 70% voter. I think this proposal might have legs if the author worked harder to shore up the ten core principles first. As it now stands, it looks way too easy (in my opinion) for a person to object on a single issue and get nailed twice. If you're dissenting from the party on Iraq/Afghanistan, you're probably not a hawk on Iran or North Korea; if you're pro-gay, you're probably not pro-life; if you support card-check (for whatever insane reason) you're probably against free trade, etc. One of the major extensions of this complaint is that the so-called core principles are rather ephemeral ... it's hard to believe that half of these will be relavent (in their current phrasing anyway) in 2016. If your current principles are drawn from today's polls or today's headlines, they're not much in the way of core principles. If "the list" is subject to manipulation every few months, every couple years, they're going to have the potential to sunder the party more than they weld it together.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Nov 24, 2009 14:51:57 GMT -5
Did you read the blog post? It specifically says that "[t]he resolution invokes Ronald Reagan, and noted that Mr. Reagan had said the Republican Party should be devoted to conservative principles but also be open to diverse views. President Reagan believed, the resolution notes, 'that someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent.' Hence the provision calling for cutting off Republicans who agree with the party on seven of 10 items." Hence, "Reagan-inspired" rather than "Reagan-esque." And I won't get into the idea that "diverse views" includes, at most, disagreement 2/10 times. I did read the article - it seems like they are attaching Reagan's name to this to make it seem like it is "big-tentish" when it's exactly the opposite of what he was talking about. The 8 out of 10 Reagan was talking about was hypothetical, the 8 out of 10 the designers of this purity test are talking about represent a rigid line in the sand for party inclusion. I still think Arnold Schwarzennager would have won the Presidency for the GOP - how many of the 10 dogmas would he have met?
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Nov 24, 2009 15:27:38 GMT -5
|
|