55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2010 12:17 pm
@okie,
Quote:
Something I have noticed, if a Republican or conservative has something bad in their record, their own party will throw them overboard.


Unless your name is David Vitter, in which case you get re-elected even though you were revealed to have been an adulterer and hypocrite regarding moral issues. Or Rick Scott; he got caught performing massive fraud as CEO of his insurance company, had to plead the 5th 75 times in a recent deposition - and got elected Gov. of Florida.

Be honest, man. Some guys from both parties skate through no matter what they did wrong, some get kicked out immediately.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2010 12:23 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Looking at the big picture, and what both sides does concerning criminal behavior, okie's brain is myopic. Only liberals commit crimes.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2010 02:04 pm
This is relevant!
Quote:

RedState Morning Briefing
For November 3, 2010

This is an unusual Morning Briefing because you need to understand what happened while you've been sleeping.

Republican gains are massive. And when I say Republican gains are massive, I mean tsunami.

No, the GOP did not take the Senate and some races are still outstanding, but the Senate GOP has moved to the right. More so, the Republicans picking up, in the worst case, seven seats is historically strong.

But consider that as you wake up this morning the Republican Party has picked up more seats in the House of Representatives than at any time since 1948 - that is more than sixty seats. Ike Skelton, Class of 1976, is gone.

Many, many other Democrats are gone.

That, in and of itself, is significant. But that's not the half of it. The real story is the underreported story of the night - the Republican pick ups at the state level.

There will be 18 states subject to reapportionment. The Republicans will control a majority of those - at least ten and maybe a dozen or more. More significantly, a minimum of seventeen state legislative houses have flipped to the Republican Party.

The North Carolina Legislature is Republican for the first time since 1870. Yes, that is Eighteen Seventy.

The Alabama Legislature is Republican for the first time since 1876.

For those saying this is nothing because it is the South, consider these:

The entire Wisconsin and New Hampshire legislatures have flipped to the GOP by wide margins.

The State Houses in Indiana, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Iowa, Montana, and Colorado flipped to the GOP.

The Maine and Minnesota Senates flipped to the GOP.

The Texas and Tennessee Houses went from virtually tied to massive Republican gains. The gains in Texas were so big that the Republicans no longer need the Democrats to get state constitutional amendments out of the state legislature.

These gains go all the way down to the municipal level across the nation. That did not happen even in 1994.

This was a tsunami .
Sincerely yours,
Erick Erickson
Editor, RedState.com
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2010 02:06 pm
@ican711nm,
Is this the calm after the storm? Like gridlock?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2010 02:56 pm
@okie,
Quote:
that Obama was converted to Christianity in a church that was founded upon Black Liberation Theology.

I wonder how a church that existed before Black Liberation Theology existed can be founded on it.
Black Liberation Theology -
Quote:
Modern American origins of contemporary black liberation theology can be traced to July 31, 1966

Trinity Church of Christ
Quote:
Trinity marks its beginning on December 3, 1961,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_United_Church_of_Christ#cite_note-3


Quote:
now, are you going to dispute that? If so, provide real evidence.

I just did provide evidence.. Your turn now.. Provide evidence that Trinity United Church of Christ was founded on Black Liberation Theology.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2010 04:23 pm
Quote:

Dear Fellow Conservative:

Thanks to your support, five new conservative leaders will be fighting for the principles of freedom in the United States Senate next year. Pat Toomey, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Ron Johnson have all won their elections.

We are still waiting for final results in Colorado, Washington, and Alaska.

Many of you made financial sacrifices to help these candidates overcome the Washington establishment and President Obama's attack machine. I want to personally thank you for standing with me in this critical fight.

You helped demonstrate that conservatives can win in any state in the country. Ron Johnson defeated an entrenched incumbent in Wisconsin and Pat Toomey won in Pennsylvania, two blue states.

You also helped overcome the Washington establishment in Pennsylvania, Florida, and Kentucky where they Beltway insiders said Pat Toomey, Marco Rubio, and Rand Paul could not win.

We've won a number of critical victories but our fight is not over.

First, our conservative candidates need to work hard to maintain their independence. The establishment wants to co-opt them to continue business as usual. This must not happen.

I agree wholeheartedly with the statement Marco Rubio made in his victory speech last night:
"We make a grave mistake if we believe that these results are somehow an embrace of the Republican Party. What they are is a second chance. A second chance for Republicans to be what they said they were going to be... not so long ago."

For that reason, I sent a letter to each of the new Senate conservatives this morning, which was published in the Wall Street Journal. I've included the letter below and I hope you will take a minute to read it.

Second, we need to begin plans to achieve more conservative victories in 2012. Over the next couple months, I will be communicating with you on ways that we can start working to strengthen the Senate in two years.

Thank you again for your willingness to fight for your country. America is exceptional and she's worth fighting for. We made great progress yesterday and there's more to come.

Respectfully,

Jim DeMint
United States Senator
...


November 3, 2010

By JIM DEMINT

Congratulations to all the tea party-backed candidates who overcame a determined, partisan opposition to win their elections. The next campaign begins today. Because you must now overcome determined party insiders if this nation is going to be spared from fiscal disaster. [emphasis added]

Many of the people who will be welcoming the new class of Senate conservatives to Washington never wanted you here in the first place. The establishment is much more likely to try to buy off your votes than to buy into your limited-government philosophy. Consider what former GOP senator-turned-lobbyist Trent Lott told the Washington Post earlier this year: "As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them."

Don't let them. Co-option is coercion. Washington operates on a favor-based economy and for every earmark, committee assignment or fancy title that's given, payback is expected in return. The chits come due when the roll call votes begin. This is how big-spending bills that everyone always decries in public always manage to pass with just enough votes.

But someone can't be bribed if they aren't for sale. Here is some humble advice on how to recognize and refuse such offers.

First, don't request earmarks. If you do, you'll vote for legislation based on what's in it for your state, not what's best for the country. You will lose the ability to criticize wasteful spending. And, if you dare to oppose other pork-barrel projects, the earmarkers will retaliate against you.

In 2005, Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) offered a measure to kill funding for the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere." Before the vote, Sen. Patty Murray (D., Wash.), an appropriator, issued a warning on the Senate floor.

"If we start cutting funding for individual projects, your project may be next," she said. "When Members come down to the floor to vote on this amendment, they need to know if they support stripping out this project, Senator Bond [a Republican appropriator] and I are likely to be taking a long, serious look at their projects to determine whether they should be preserved during our upcoming conference negotiations."

The threat worked. Hardly anyone wanted to risk losing earmarks. The Senate voted 82-15 to protect funding for the Bridge to Nowhere.

Second, hire conservative staff. The old saying "personnel is policy" is true. You don't need Beltway strategists and consultants running your office. Find people who share your values and believe in advancing the same policy reforms. Staff who are driven by conservative instincts can protect you from unwanted, outside influences when the pressure is on.

Third, beware of committees. Committee assignments can be used as bait to make senators compromise on other matters. Rookie senators are often told they must be a member of a particular committee to advance a certain piece of legislation. This may be true in the House, but a senator can legislate on any matter from the Senate floor.

Fourth, don't seek titles. The word "Senator" before your name carries plenty of clout. All senators have the power to object to bad legislation, speak on the floor and offer amendments, regardless of how they are ranked in party hierarchy.
Election Night at Opinion Journal

Lastly, don't let your re-election become more important than your job. You've campaigned long and hard for the opportunity to go to Washington and restore freedom in America. People will try to convince you to moderate conservative positions and break campaign promises, all in the name of winning the next race. Resist the temptation to do so. There are worse things than losing an election-like breaking your word to voters.

At your swearing-in ceremony, you will, as all senators do, take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution." Most will fail to keep their oath. Doing these five things will help you maintain a focus on national priorities and be one who does.

Congress will never fix entitlements, simplify the tax code or balance the budget as long as members are more concerned with their own narrow, parochial interests. Time spent securing earmarks and serving personal ambitions is time that should be spent working on big-picture reforms.

When you are in Washington, remember what the voters back home want-less government and more freedom. Millions of people are out of work, the government is going bankrupt and the country is trillions in debt. Americans have watched in disgust as billions of their tax dollars have been wasted on failed jobs plans, bailouts and takeovers. It's up to us to stop the spending spree and make sure we have a government that benefits America instead of being a burden to it.

Tea party Republicans were elected to go to Washington and save the country-not be co-opted by the club. So put on your boxing gloves. The fight begins today.

Mr. DeMint is a Republican senator from South Carolina.
...
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 03:37 pm
12 in '12
I see that Fox News tonight begins interviews with a dozen potential candidates for the Republican Presidential nomination. Thus far, all agreed to participate except Mitt Romney.
Included are:
Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels
Former Mass Gov Mitt Romney
South Dakota Senator John Thune
Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich
Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour
South Carolina Senator Jim Demint
Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty
Indiana Representative Mike Pence
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal
A 13th show will feature "Others."

I don't have a TV. I would be interested in hearing from some conservative poster(s) here with a couple of paragraphs of reflections on each of the guests after they appear. Thanks.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 04:01 pm
@realjohnboy,
There is increasing speculation Rick Perry of Texas will seek to run. He claims "Ain't so" even as his new book about liberals, or federal government, or something, gets released.
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 04:05 pm
@edgarblythe,
I believe he is in Fox's "Other" category. I was surprised he didn't get a place in the top 12.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 04:24 pm
@realjohnboy,
I believe he would make a strong bid, compared to Palin or McCain.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 05:30 pm
@realjohnboy,
rjb, thats great. More competition helps improve the entire field and can allow people more choice and better choices.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 05:32 pm
@okie,
okie, More is not always better choices.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 05:34 pm
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:

12 in '12
I see that Fox News tonight begins interviews with a dozen potential candidates for the Republican Presidential nomination. Thus far, all agreed to participate except Mitt Romney.
Included are:
Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels
Former Mass Gov Mitt Romney
South Dakota Senator John Thune
Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich
Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour
South Carolina Senator Jim Demint
Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty
Indiana Representative Mike Pence
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal
A 13th show will feature "Others."

I don't have a TV. I would be interested in hearing from some conservative poster(s) here with a couple of paragraphs of reflections on each of the guests after they appear. Thanks.



I'm not a Conservative, so I can't speak to their opinion of it. But I don't think any of them have a shot in hell of winning except for Mitch Daniels. The others all have major problems which would stand in the way of a successful bid, including Rick Perry (gag).

I don't expect the nominee to be anyone who is on that list, at all.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 05:53 pm
@okie,
I would certainly agree with that, Okie. I had not seen a comprehensive list of potential Repub candidates. I do hope that someone here will step forward to summarize what they say when interviewed.
Notice that many of them are Governors rather then Senators. That, for better or worse, is becoming the norm I think. Congressman are held accountable in campaign ads for voting for or against something with no mention made of the context.
Senator Okie voted against apple pie and kittens attached to a bill repealing the 2nd amendment.
Governor's can fly under the radar.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 06:31 pm
In an unrelated observation, I listened to Ed Schultz for a while this afternoon. I found it interesting, revealing, and amusing too. Besides Shultz expressing his dissatisfaction with Obama, some callers called in to really complain about Obama, that he has no spine and that he seemed to them like he was a beaten man after the election. All of them complained that Obama has not accomplished more in his first two years. One guy was really mad over the fact that Obama did not push through single payer government run health care, after all Obama had wanted it according to the caller, and the caller seemed to think that Obama had caved and not kept his promise. The caller also claimed the overwhelming majority of the American people wanted single payer government health care, which is a total crock I think. As is my reaction every time I listen to Shultz, I was amazed again at the relative lack of intelligence and low degree of being informed.

Anyway, the general impression of the Shultz show was one of panic and hysteria. Besides giving me the pulse of the liberal world, it at least offered some humor for me today.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 06:44 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

In an unrelated observation, I listened to Ed Schultz for a while this afternoon. I found it interesting, revealing, and amusing too. Besides Shultz expressing his dissatisfaction with Obama, some callers called in to really complain about Obama, that he has no spine and that he seemed to them like he was a beaten man after the election. All of them complained that Obama has not accomplished more in his first two years. One guy was really mad over the fact that Obama did not push through single payer government run health care, after all Obama had wanted it according to the caller, and the caller seemed to think that Obama had caved and not kept his promise. The caller also claimed the overwhelming majority of the American people wanted single payer government health care, which is a total crock I think. As is my reaction every time I listen to Shultz, I was amazed again at the relative lack of intelligence and low degree of being informed.

Anyway, the general impression of the Shultz show was one of panic and hysteria. Besides giving me the pulse of the liberal world, it at least offered some humor for me today.


Think of him as a Liberal version of Beck - he gets highly agitated over stuff, and is entertaining, but not serious in any way, and sometimes wacko.

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 06:56 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Think of him as a Liberal version of Beck - he gets highly agitated over stuff, and is entertaining, but not serious in any way, and sometimes wacko.

Cycloptichorn

Interesting opinion you have about Shultz. I was curious about what liberals think of him. Actually, he might be a decent guy, but I don't find him well informed at all, and I would not put him in the league of Beck at all. Actually, rather than entertaining, I find him both boring and irritating. That on top of being poorly informed and illogical, but I guess those attributes probably apply to any liberal commentator. To be fair, you probably find conservative talkers irritating as well?

I do give the guy credit, he does say on the air that his show is liberal. I think he used that term several times today, so I give him credit for that. I have found some liberals that actually claim they are moderates. NPR claims to be unbiased, but nothing could be further from the truth.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 07:11 pm
@okie,
I was curious about Shultz, so did a quick search, and it didn't take long to find the following. If true, and it probably must be, the guy must have serious emotional problems? I think I should amend my statement about him probably being a decent guy. That is now open to question in my opinion, after reading a bit more about him.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/26/ed-schultzs-msnbc-meltdow_n_695288.html
"I'm going to torch this [bleep]ing place," Schultz is quoted as saying on a phone call in the studio. "[Bleep]ers!" he is said to have shouted upon slamming the phone down.

"According to a Page Six source, Schultz "was furious the network was running election-night promos and he wasn't in them." He was "immediately dragged in for a meeting" with his bosses, NBC News President Steve Capus and MSNBC President Phil Griffin, who told him that he would be fired if he did that again. Schultz is said to have broken down crying."
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 07:13 pm
@okie,
Quote:
Actually, he might be a decent guy, but I don't find him well informed at all, and I would not put him in the league of Beck at all.


Beck is not well informed at all. I'm actually surprised to see you say such a thing.

Quote:
To be fair, you probably find conservative talkers irritating as well?


A lot of them, yeah, and Republican politicians too. And I'll tell ya why - and it's probably not why you think.

It's not that I'm pissed that they are Conservative, or that they have different opinions than me. That's life. Some opinions are worse to deal with than others, but whatever. Doesn't bother me to hear them say what they WANT to do, though of course I have a different opinion most of the time and then want to argue against it. That isn't it, though.

It's that they use terrible and illogical arguments to make their points. It's like they go out of their way to forgo the convincing and rational argument for their point in favor of idiotic and demonizing ones every time.

My older brother is a Conservative and he likes to talk about politics a lot. He's very intelligent and for every Conservative (fiscal and foreign policy, not so much social) position you can imagine, he can come up with a reasonable and factual argument for why this is a good thing to support. Sometimes it's pretty convincing and he has definitely helped me understand which of my arguments hold water and which don't. We have fun conversations about politics all the time.

But he too is disgusted with the level of argumentation and the direction of conversation that is used in the Republican party nowadays. I have no doubt that he pulled the lever for his guys in this last election, but he's always talking about how disappointing it is that the face of the party can't make intelligent arguments for things and in many cases rely upon emotional exhortations and overblown cries of Socialism to get people riled up.

I would have more respect for Republican pundits and many of their politicians if they would take the time to formulate logical and fact-based arguments for their position, and cut down on the constant stream of bullshit.

I know you probably feel different about it, but I'm sorry to say that you suffer from many of the same problems that your pundits and politicians do in this area. I think that your position that Glenn Beck is someone to be respected and listened to, someone who is knowledgeable about the things he speaks about, marks you as someone who may not be able to tell the signs of whether or not someone is well-informed on a topic.

Cycloptichorn
ican711nm
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 07:14 pm
Leftist liberals seek to secure their right to steal wealth rightist liberals earn.

Rightist liberals seek to secure their right to retain wealth they earn.

Leftist Liberals think legitimizing the stealing of wealth rightist liberals earn will lead to leftist liberals being wealthier.

Leftist liberals blame Obama's loss on Obama's failure to steal more wealth rightist liberals earn, so that leftist liberals could now have more of the wealth rightist liberals earned.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 07/22/2025 at 01:46:49