If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(National Journal)   Republican party is starting a concerted and coordinated effort to oust conservative candidates   (nationaljournal.com) divider line 73
    More: Interesting, Todd Akin, human beings, write-in candidates, Dean Heller, farm bills, Cornyn, Charlie Crist, Claire McCaskill  
•       •       •

2224 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Aug 2012 at 9:37 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



73 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-22 09:17:45 AM
If it's an attempt to get the fundietards kicked back out of the party out in the wilderness again, I'm all for it.
 
2012-08-22 09:34:31 AM
Because conservative isn't enough.

now they have to be extremists.
 
2012-08-22 09:35:35 AM
Yeah this is like trying to take the keys away from your drunk buddy when you're already stuck in line for a police check point, too little too late.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-08-22 09:39:17 AM
At some point they are going to have to do that if the GOP wants to remain a major party. Demagoguery isn't really sustainable.
 
2012-08-22 09:40:03 AM

NuttierThanEver: Yeah this is like trying to take the keys away from your drunk buddy when you're already stuck in line for a police check point run thorough the police check point, run over 14 mailboxes, 3 dogs, 12 bushes, driven through the living room of a house and are about to drive off a cliff, too little too late.


FTFY
 
2012-08-22 09:43:23 AM
Republican party is starting a concerted and coordinated effort to oust conservative batshiat insane candidates

FTFSubs
 
2012-08-22 09:44:28 AM
Akin is not a conservative. O'Donnell was not a conservative. Angle was not a conservative. Buck was not a conservative. The Republican Party platform fits all of them, but then the Republican Party platform is not conservative, either.
 
2012-08-22 09:45:04 AM

LordZorch: If it's an attempt to get the fundietards kicked back out of the party out in the wilderness again, I'm all for it.


And I am all for encouraging Tea Partiers to demand their rightful seat at the table.
 
2012-08-22 09:45:24 AM

Arkanaut: Republican party is starting a concerted and coordinated effort to oust conservative batshiat insane candidates

FTFSubs


Ehh, six of one...
 
2012-08-22 09:45:45 AM

vpb: At some point they are going to have to do that if the GOP wants to remain a major party. Demagoguery isn't really sustainable.


I'm confident that the Tea Party won't let these RINOs do that. And by "confident", I mean "laughing my balls off".
 
2012-08-22 09:46:12 AM
I have one issue with TFA: it's far too optimistic. I feel much better about Sen. McCaskill's chances today than two days ago, but it's still Missouri. I'll be more sure about November's outcome once we see how things are playing by mid-September or so. Rep. Akin is a liability for the GOP right now, and he's definitely got an uphill battle as far as independent voters are concerned, but I see the content of his gaffes being a bigger problem seeping up into the general race this fall, more than just a problem for Akin himself.

Or in other words, you better not make a drinking game out of Romney's responses to any birth control or abortion question during the debates, unless you plan to get totally hammered.
 
2012-08-22 09:46:44 AM

IlGreven: Akin is not a conservative. O'Donnell was not a conservative. Angle was not a conservative. Buck was not a conservative. The Republican Party platform fits all of them, but then the Republican Party platform is not conservative, either.


Were any of them Scotsmen?
 
2012-08-22 09:48:39 AM

verbaltoxin: I have one issue with TFA: it's far too optimistic. I feel much better about Sen. McCaskill's chances today than two days ago, but it's still Missouri. I'll be more sure about November's outcome once we see how things are playing by mid-September or so. Rep. Akin is a liability for the GOP right now, and he's definitely got an uphill battle as far as independent voters are concerned, but I see the content of his gaffes being a bigger problem seeping up into the general race this fall, more than just a problem for Akin himself.


If Akin wins, you should blame Democrats. They pumped more than $1.5 million into his primary campaign. The problem with pushing for the craziest of the opposition to win, is that they just might win.
 
2012-08-22 09:49:43 AM
They'll have to take a whole lot of steps further than just Akin...

They'd have to try and do right by your average Americans... repeatedly... for a long time... until I'll even begin to consider them a party that I could consider voting for. As it currently stands, I don't trust them at all.
 
2012-08-22 09:50:44 AM
Republicans can try to oust the extremists all they want, but the fact of the matter is that people like them. People organized around these candidates; they make phone calls for them and raise money for them. Mainstream candidates aren't motivating people like that.
 
2012-08-22 09:51:31 AM
They can try to oust as many as they want, the true damage done to the party are the primary voters. GOP primary voters are increasingly more conservative, and now candidates who would have run on third party tickets find it's easier to get on the ballot if they are Republicans. Conservative activists are a powerful force as they believe what they are doing is in God's name. They will stop at nothing to make their voice heard. To this effect moderate Republicans now have to become ultra-conservative to be nominated.

Much like the Democrats of 1970's, Republicans of late 2000's-teens are forced into being more radicalized. So instead of "Reagan Democrats" complaining that the party has left them you'll have "Rockefeller Republicans" complaining the party has left them. As much as liberals scream about how unliberal the Democratic party has become they keep forgetting you can't govern if you don't win elections; something conservatives will realize in a few years when their candidate don't make it past general election.
 
2012-08-22 09:52:33 AM
That infection goes down to the roots. Check Bachmann's bio.

www.theage.com.au
 
2012-08-22 09:53:11 AM
RepublicanFascist party is starting a concerted and coordinated effort to oust conservative candidates
 
2012-08-22 09:55:28 AM

Scerpes: verbaltoxin: I have one issue with TFA: it's far too optimistic. I feel much better about Sen. McCaskill's chances today than two days ago, but it's still Missouri. I'll be more sure about November's outcome once we see how things are playing by mid-September or so. Rep. Akin is a liability for the GOP right now, and he's definitely got an uphill battle as far as independent voters are concerned, but I see the content of his gaffes being a bigger problem seeping up into the general race this fall, more than just a problem for Akin himself.

If Akin wins, you should blame Democrats. They pumped more than $1.5 million into his primary campaign. The problem with pushing for the craziest of the opposition to win, is that they just might win.


Yes running adds proclaiming that Akin is "Too conservative for Missouri" is surely what lead to his primary victory.
 
2012-08-22 09:56:21 AM

Scerpes: verbaltoxin: I have one issue with TFA: it's far too optimistic. I feel much better about Sen. McCaskill's chances today than two days ago, but it's still Missouri. I'll be more sure about November's outcome once we see how things are playing by mid-September or so. Rep. Akin is a liability for the GOP right now, and he's definitely got an uphill battle as far as independent voters are concerned, but I see the content of his gaffes being a bigger problem seeping up into the general race this fall, more than just a problem for Akin himself.

If Akin wins, you should blame Democrats. They pumped more than $1.5 million into his primary campaign. The problem with pushing for the craziest of the opposition to win, is that they just might win.


You want to know how seriously I take talking points from the Gateway Pundit?

No, you probably don't want to know.

But well played, trying to blame the Democrats for the actions of voters.
 
2012-08-22 10:01:50 AM

LordZorch: If it's an attempt to get the fundietards kicked back out of the party out in the wilderness again, I'm all for it.


This.

Aarontology: Because conservative isn't enough.

now they have to be extremists.


And this.

It's the underlying dynamic of this campaign on the GOP side: The Northeast money guys were horrified by the debt debacle, and are trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube.
 
2012-08-22 10:02:24 AM

LordZorch: If it's an attempt to get the fundietards kicked back out of the party out in the wilderness again, I'm all for it.


Hell, I'm a Democrat and I'm for it.
 
2012-08-22 10:09:44 AM
I've been wondering if the terms "conservative" and "liberal" are even useful as political terms anymore. Certainly the modern definition of conservatism, defined more or less as opposition to modern liberalism, can only be as useful as said opposite.

But what is a modern liberal? Ask them to define themselves, and you get terms that could apply to pretty much anybody. You'd be hard-pressed to find people in the developed world these days in opposition to freedom, equality, or justice, even though these terms are staples of liberals' self-image: the real disputes are over the minutiae of how these terms are to be defined, rather than the terms themselves. Liberals won the debate over freedom, justice, and equality over the past 200-odd years: even modern conservatives are classical liberals nowadays. In the US, some conservatives recite daily a commitment to, among other things, "liberty and justice for all." What could be more liberal than a frequent pledge to such ideals? Likewise, many liberals look back to historical initiatives like the New Deal or the Great Society as models for going forward: what could be more conservative than looking to the past as a guide for the future? At this point, I think the terms only serve to obfuscate the issues.

We need words that better fit the conflicts of our day. I struggle with trying to figure that out. The best match I've found so far deals with whether to place what the ancient Greeks would have called arete ("excellence") or eudaimonia ("the good life") as The Core Value, but it's still not quite a perfect fit. Among other things, neither word translates to English particularly well.
 
2012-08-22 10:10:19 AM

LordZorch: If it's an attempt to get the fundietards kicked back out of the party out in the wilderness again, I'm all for it.


No shiat, the fundies aren't republicans they are farking fascists but too stupid to realize it.
 
2012-08-22 10:13:29 AM

Millennium: I've been wondering if the terms "conservative" and "liberal" are even useful as political terms anymore. Certainly the modern definition of conservatism, defined more or less as opposition to modern liberalism, can only be as useful as said opposite.

But what is a modern liberal? Ask them to define themselves, and you get terms that could apply to pretty much anybody. You'd be hard-pressed to find people in the developed world these days in opposition to freedom, equality, or justice, even though these terms are staples of liberals' self-image: the real disputes are over the minutiae of how these terms are to be defined, rather than the terms themselves. Liberals won the debate over freedom, justice, and equality over the past 200-odd years: even modern conservatives are classical liberals nowadays. In the US, some conservatives recite daily a commitment to, among other things, "liberty and justice for all." What could be more liberal than a frequent pledge to such ideals? Likewise, many liberals look back to historical initiatives like the New Deal or the Great Society as models for going forward: what could be more conservative than looking to the past as a guide for the future? At this point, I think the terms only serve to obfuscate the issues.

We need words that better fit the conflicts of our day. I struggle with trying to figure that out. The best match I've found so far deals with whether to place what the ancient Greeks would have called arete ("excellence") or eudaimonia ("the good life") as The Core Value, but it's still not quite a perfect fit. Among other things, neither word translates to English particularly well.


Your newsletter, please.
 
2012-08-22 10:14:40 AM
Wow, and only 30 years after they welcomed the crazy with open arms (I mean both the American and Afghani Taliban).

But it looks like the party establishment is trying to tell the Tea Party how it's gonna be. They probably won't like that.

// Frankenstein's monster is coming home to roost
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2012-08-22 10:19:50 AM
Concerted and coordinated effort, subby? How do they differ?
 
2012-08-22 10:21:01 AM
If you really think the GOP is trying to oust conservatives, take another look at the Party platform.
 
2012-08-22 10:21:28 AM

Scerpes: If Akin wins, you should blame Democrats. They pumped more than $1.5 million into his primary campaign. The problem with pushing for the craziest of the opposition to win, is that they just might win.


Yup, Operation Chaos worked for her....oh wait

nonicoclolasos.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-08-22 10:33:02 AM

Millennium: , many liberals look back to historical initiatives like the New Deal or the Great Society as models for going forward: what could be more conservative than looking to the past as a guide for the future?


Using history as a guide has nothing to do with conservatism.

Don't disagree with the other things you said but this requires a better example.
 
2012-08-22 10:34:48 AM
So, did anyone notice that his wife is next to him in the pic? I'm thinking he's gay....
 
2012-08-22 10:38:40 AM
Paul/Akin 2012.

Do it!
 
2012-08-22 10:38:54 AM

Millennium: I've been wondering if the terms "conservative" and "liberal" are even useful as political terms anymore. Certainly the modern definition of conservatism, defined more or less as opposition to modern liberalism, can only be as useful as said opposite.

But what is a modern liberal? Ask them to define themselves, and you get terms that could apply to pretty much anybody. You'd be hard-pressed to find people in the developed world these days in opposition to freedom, equality, or justice, even though these terms are staples of liberals' self-image: the real disputes are over the minutiae of how these terms are to be defined, rather than the terms themselves. Liberals won the debate over freedom, justice, and equality over the past 200-odd years: even modern conservatives are classical liberals nowadays. In the US, some conservatives recite daily a commitment to, among other things, "liberty and justice for all." What could be more liberal than a frequent pledge to such ideals? Likewise, many liberals look back to historical initiatives like the New Deal or the Great Society as models for going forward: what could be more conservative than looking to the past as a guide for the future? At this point, I think the terms only serve to obfuscate the issues.

We need words that better fit the conflicts of our day. I struggle with trying to figure that out. The best match I've found so far deals with whether to place what the ancient Greeks would have called arete ("excellence") or eudaimonia ("the good life") as The Core Value, but it's still not quite a perfect fit. Among other things, neither word translates to English particularly well.


How about "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?"
 
2012-08-22 10:40:04 AM
As has been said, conservatives aren't conservative enough for the batshiat insane fundies.

Hell, 25 Years ago, Obama would have been a conservative. The right has driven themselves that far toward extremism and insanity.
 
2012-08-22 10:40:15 AM
batshiat insane candidates elected by batshiat insane voter base? we built that

oh wait nooooooooooooooo
 
2012-08-22 10:43:35 AM

Millennium: I've been wondering if the terms "conservative" and "liberal" are even useful as political terms anymore. Certainly the modern definition of conservatism, defined more or less as opposition to modern liberalism, can only be as useful as said opposite.

But what is a modern liberal? Ask them to define themselves, and you get terms that could apply to pretty much anybody. You'd be hard-pressed to find people in the developed world these days in opposition to freedom, equality, or justice, even though these terms are staples of liberals' self-image: the real disputes are over the minutiae of how these terms are to be defined, rather than the terms themselves. Liberals won the debate over freedom, justice, and equality over the past 200-odd years: even modern conservatives are classical liberals nowadays. In the US, some conservatives recite daily a commitment to, among other things, "liberty and justice for all." What could be more liberal than a frequent pledge to such ideals? Likewise, many liberals look back to historical initiatives like the New Deal or the Great Society as models for going forward: what could be more conservative than looking to the past as a guide for the future? At this point, I think the terms only serve to obfuscate the issues.

We need words that better fit the conflicts of our day. I struggle with trying to figure that out. The best match I've found so far deals with whether to place what the ancient Greeks would have called arete ("excellence") or eudaimonia ("the good life") as The Core Value, but it's still not quite a perfect fit. Among other things, neither word translates to English particularly well.


They're called Social Democrats, and most other Western countries have them.
 
2012-08-22 10:46:59 AM

LockeOak: They're called Social Democrats, and most other Western countries have them.


Who do you mean by "they"?
 
2012-08-22 10:47:59 AM

SoupJohnB: How about "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?"


Again, those aren't things you'd find many people disagreeing with, at least as far as the terms themselves: the real conflicts are over minutiae of what they mean.
 
2012-08-22 11:09:00 AM

Millennium: I've been wondering if the terms "conservative" and "liberal" are even useful as political terms anymore. Certainly the modern definition of conservatism, defined more or less as opposition to modern liberalism, can only be as useful as said opposite.

But what is a modern liberal? Ask them to define themselves, and you get terms that could apply to pretty much anybody. You'd be hard-pressed to find people in the developed world these days in opposition to freedom, equality, or justice, even though these terms are staples of liberals' self-image: the real disputes are over the minutiae of how these terms are to be defined, rather than the terms themselves. Liberals won the debate over freedom, justice, and equality over the past 200-odd years: even modern conservatives are classical liberals nowadays. In the US, some conservatives recite daily a commitment to, among other things, "liberty and justice for all." What could be more liberal than a frequent pledge to such ideals? Likewise, many liberals look back to historical initiatives like the New Deal or the Great Society as models for going forward: what could be more conservative than looking to the past as a guide for the future? At this point, I think the terms only serve to obfuscate the issues.

We need words that better fit the conflicts of our day. I struggle with trying to figure that out. The best match I've found so far deals with whether to place what the ancient Greeks would have called arete ("excellence") or eudaimonia ("the good life") as The Core Value, but it's still not quite a perfect fit. Among other things, neither word translates to English particularly well.


I understand your argument, but there is a difference between a superficial mouthing of allegiance to values like liberty and justice for social acceptability and political purposes and actually favoring those values as a core commitment.

Sure, Republicans do claim allegiance to those values. But they seem to have very skewed definitions. If you're rich, you get more justice and liberty than otherwise. Same if you are white, and male. "Liberty and justice for all those like me and mine" is not a liberal position in any way.
 
2012-08-22 11:21:12 AM

KiltedBastich: I understand your argument, but there is a difference between a superficial mouthing of allegiance to values like liberty and justice for social acceptability and political purposes and actually favoring those values as a core commitment.

Sure, Republicans do claim allegiance to those values. But they seem to have very skewed definitions. If you're rich, you get more justice and liberty than otherwise. Same if you are white, and male. "Liberty and justice for all those like me and mine" is not a liberal position in any way.


Now we're getting into minutiae over definitions, as I mentioned above. You're defining these things by their outcomes, not their processes, which is one of the big splits in politics today. As you see it, if certain groups of people have better outcomes than others, that's by definition unjust, and the rules may have to be adjusted for different groups. To the other side, what matters is that everyone plays by the same rules: even if that leads to outcomes that do not fit a particular aesthetic, that does not inherently point to a problem in the rules themselves (though it might point to problems elsewhere).
 
2012-08-22 11:27:58 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: IlGreven: Akin is not a conservative. O'Donnell was not a conservative. Angle was not a conservative. Buck was not a conservative. The Republican Party platform fits all of them, but then the Republican Party platform is not conservative, either.

Were any of them Scotsmen?


Not true ones.
 
2012-08-22 11:29:25 AM

Millennium: As you see it, if certain groups of people have better outcomes than others, that's by definition unjust, and the rules may have to be adjusted for different groups. To the other side, what matters is that everyone plays by the same rules: even if that leads to outcomes that do not fit a particular aesthetic, that does not inherently point to a problem in the rules themselves (though it might point to problems elsewhere).


Because every Democrat wants everyone to be perfectly equal and every Republican wants to lord over a fiefdom.

The rules can be just and still result in different outcomes, just as unjust rules can produce equitable outcomes. Socialist Democracies like Sweden try and achieve the former ("just" in this case substituting for "doesn't encourage wealth/influence hoarding"); and the Communist USSR is a good example of the latter.

If the outcomes are not so much based on individual inputs, but on starting scenarios (it's not how hard you work, it's the socioeconomic status you were born into that determines your income later in life), that seems unjust. If everyone playing by the same rules creates ludicrous outcomes (poor people paying a 20% FairTax out of money they never really had a chance to save), they are unjust.
 
2012-08-22 11:30:26 AM

IlGreven: Akin is not a conservative. O'Donnell was not a conservative. Angle was not a conservative. Buck was not a conservative. The Republican Party platform fits all of them, but then the Republican Party platform is not conservative, either.


99.99% of Republicans call themselves conservatives.

It's the same thing.
 
2012-08-22 11:37:57 AM

Millennium: LockeOak: They're called Social Democrats, and most other Western countries have them.

Who do you mean by "they"?


You asked "what is a modern liberal?" and seemed to be looking for terminology to describe them. "Social Democrat" is the term used in most Western nations, and they emphasize the necessity and strength of the social fabric. There's no need to invoke Alpha Centauri.
 
2012-08-22 11:48:03 AM

Dr Dreidel: Millennium: As you see it, if certain groups of people have better outcomes than others, that's by definition unjust, and the rules may have to be adjusted for different groups. To the other side, what matters is that everyone plays by the same rules: even if that leads to outcomes that do not fit a particular aesthetic, that does not inherently point to a problem in the rules themselves (though it might point to problems elsewhere).

Because every Democrat wants everyone to be perfectly equal and every Republican wants to lord over a fiefdom.


Only on the extremes: most people on both sides recognize that there are degrees. But in general, someone will find a degree of one side or the other that they deem acceptable, while relegating the other side to a considerably lesser role.

The rules can be just and still result in different outcomes, just as unjust rules can produce equitable outcomes. Socialist Democracies like Sweden try and achieve the former ("just" in this case substituting for "doesn't encourage wealth/influence hoarding"); and the Communist USSR is a good example of the latter.

Though again we find differences in definitions: for example, the idea that the accumulation of wealth is unjust and should be discouraged.

If the outcomes are not so much based on individual inputs, but on starting scenarios (it's not how hard you work, it's the socioeconomic status you were born into that determines your income later in life), that seems unjust. If everyone playing by the same rules creates ludicrous outcomes (poor people paying a 20% FairTax out of money they never really had a chance to save), they are unjust.

And whether or not either of those scenarios is truly the case, or whether or not the answer to that question makes any difference, goes back to arete vs. eudaimonia: what I claimed was the core issue.
 
2012-08-22 11:48:19 AM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: If you really think the GOP is trying to oust conservatives, take another look at the Party platform.


Well exactly. Conservatives are far too liberal for today's GOP.
 
2012-08-22 11:49:44 AM

LockeOak: You asked "what is a modern liberal?" and seemed to be looking for terminology to describe them. "Social Democrat" is the term used in most Western nations, and they emphasize the necessity and strength of the social fabric. There's no need to invoke Alpha Centauri.


I didn't intend to invoke that game: I'm aware of its use of the term "eudaimonia" as a core value, but I haven't actually played it. I got the terms from philosophy.
 
2012-08-22 11:59:59 AM

IlGreven: Akin is not a conservative. O'Donnell was not a conservative. Angle was not a conservative. Buck was not a conservative. The Republican Party platform fits all of them, but then the Republican Party platform is not conservative, either.


That was my split with the party. It has been taken by radicals, who like to pretend that they're Conservative, but they are, simply put, radicals who despise our system of governance, and a good deal of the people of the nation. It is about branding. No one wants to admit that they are radicals. That their agenda is counter to the precepts of the Constitution, and to admit outright that they despise most of the rest of the nation. But when you let the radicals speak for the party, and you keep recruiting and supporting these radicals, then you might as well just be up front about it.

The current GOP has decided that being the radical Right party is what they want to stand for. It is a losing strategy, and some of us figured that out some time ago, but no one wanted to listen...
 
2012-08-22 12:04:07 PM

ghare: 99.99% of Republicans call themselves conservatives.


Yeah, but there is two different connotations to this. Fiscal and Social. These two are seperate platforms that don't always mesh very well. In fact, they often but heads. Just calling yourself conservative in this day and age does not really say very much.

/fiscal conservative.
 
2012-08-22 12:09:53 PM

hubiestubert: , and to admit outright that they despise most of the rest of the nation.


Much of the same could be said about the other side. The toxic rhetoric from both sides and the inaction to do anything about it is just another reason that most folks are becoming more apathetic to the entire system.

It is just worse now that it is silly-season
 
Displayed 50 of 73 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report