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.

(Daily Kos)   More GOP infighting: The moderates are revolting   (dailykos.com) divider line 228
    More: Followup, GOP, infighting, Speaker Boehner, moderates, Saxby Chambliss, Health Care, International, American Solutions  
•       •       •

9528 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Nov 2012 at 9:39 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-12 06:17:53 AM  

mscleo: <b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7428808/80631883#c80631883" target="_blank">Stone Meadow</a>:</b> <i>clambam: The line I found disturbing nfrom that articl is this one:

"First, of course, is that the GOP won't be able to get anywhere near 50% of the vote. Democrats will win. More so, democrats can win without the need for blue dogs. We will be able to pass progressive legislation without needing to water it down."

Agreed...this is wishful thinking. Not only is it unlikely in the extreme given the makeup of the Democratic party right now, but the backlash would be epic. The Dems just need to stay center-right, minding the store and rebuilding the economy without going off the deep end over guns, climate change or any of a number of other hot button issues.</i>


As a libby liberal...

I concur.


Not only that, but the Blue dogs and the RINOs would team up like the "Gang of #" you hear about whenever compromise is needed.

//They could use a rino as their part logo.
 
2012-11-12 07:05:58 AM  

Publikwerks: mscleo: <b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7428808/80631883#c80631883" target="_blank">Stone Meadow</a>:</b> <i>clambam: The line I found disturbing nfrom that articl is this one:

"First, of course, is that the GOP won't be able to get anywhere near 50% of the vote. Democrats will win. More so, democrats can win without the need for blue dogs. We will be able to pass progressive legislation without needing to water it down."

Agreed...this is wishful thinking. Not only is it unlikely in the extreme given the makeup of the Democratic party right now, but the backlash would be epic. The Dems just need to stay center-right, minding the store and rebuilding the economy without going off the deep end over guns, climate change or any of a number of other hot button issues.</i>


As a libby liberal...

I concur.

Not only that, but the Blue dogs and the RINOs would team up like the "Gang of #" you hear about whenever compromise is needed.

//They could use a rino as their part logo.


I am ok with this.
 
2012-11-12 07:45:08 AM  
FTA: It is no secret that the GOP has effectively joined three different factions to create their ruling majority. That is, the business wing, the libertarian wing and the evangelical wing have hung together since Nixon created the southern strategy--drawing disaffected southern bigots who had previously been democrats.

Since the dawn of the Southern Strategy, did Christianity in America change from compassion to the poor, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:23-24), to "Prosperity Doctrine" as preached by many of the popular evangelicals today.

And if so, did Richard Nixon destroy Christianity?

I'm just asking questions.
 
2012-11-12 07:48:29 AM  

Aarontology: No they won't.

They'll fall in line like they always do. If they really wanted to revolt, they'd leave and become blue dogs or start their own center right party.


If they were REALLY moderate Republicans, they'd be happy that Obama won.
 
2012-11-12 07:49:31 AM  
Today, I think, that may have just happened.

Is this referring to something specific? What 'first shot' are they referring to?
 
2012-11-12 07:57:23 AM  

Aarontology: No they won't.

They'll fall in line like they always do. If they really wanted to revolt, they'd leave and become blue dogs or start their own center right party.


But... But if a politician did that, they'd lose *influence* and *status*!

No, far better to be associated with the Rape Apologists than to risk *that*
 
2012-11-12 08:04:47 AM  

dervish16108: "Prosperity Doctrine" as preached by many of the popular evangelicals today.


I'm not sure I count as Christian anymore (grew up in the very liberal UCC, spiritual views have drifted-I'm probably more a Pratchettist/Pratchian, if anything), but the Prosperity Doctrine still makes me rage, and rage hard.

I mean, the bible, in multiple places, EXPLICITLY STATES IT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. "You cannot serve both God and Mammon" "God causes the sun to shine on the just and unjust, and rain to fall on the good and the wicked", etc etc.

I just. It. ARRRGGGGGHHH
 
2012-11-12 08:14:35 AM  

Aarontology: propasaurus: Aarontology: No they won't.

They'll fall in line like they always do. If they really wanted to revolt, they'd leave and become blue dogs or start their own center right party.

Why do we need another center right party, we already have Democrats.

Well, center right compared to the current GOP, I mean.


So, the Democrats.
 
2012-11-12 08:21:46 AM  
I said this the very first day the GOP hooked up with the Tea Party, that it was a poor choice and would lead to problems down the road. It's like taking crack...it might give a big boost initially, but it will eventually destroy you.

The Tea Party arguably had valid points at first. But it was soon occupied by the craziest of the crazy....incapable and certainly unwilling to: compromise, think outside the box, admit when they are wrong. And now we have the same stupid morons, except they are empowered and will likely remain so.

Good job, GOP...you took what was only a dispute between ideologies and turned it into a bathiat crazy looney bin. I hope you are proud.
 
2012-11-12 08:56:37 AM  
Moderates revolt against whom and why? Themselves?

They got their choice in the primary as the nominee twice now. They ran the convention their way, with those pesky conservatives or libertarian Republicans muzzled. They had Romney run his campaign they wanted him to, just like McCain, and they lost the Presidency again, like they always do.

Sound more like they're trying to deflect blame for their loss.

Or trying to redistrubute it, like the socialists they really are
 
2012-11-12 08:57:23 AM  

Macinfarker: The Tea Party arguably had valid points at first.


Sure, it did: MOAR TAKS KUTZ. Was there anything else?



[gabbyjohnson.jpg]

Oh, right. That, too. Both salient points have been duly noted.
 
2012-11-12 09:11:02 AM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: mikemoto: Another thing to ponder. After 1964, you could easily have written this same article. Goldwater lost far more convincingly than Romney had and where were we 4 years after that? Also, one would assume Hillary is the frontrunner for 2016. Don't be so sure that she's a lock to win the presidency.

Who is assuming that? If she was, I don't know if she's be stepping down as Secretary of State. I could see her as VP nominee, possibly, but she's getting on in years. She'd be almost 70 if she ran in 2016 IIRC.


Isn't she the same age as Romney? I never see anyone saying he should not have run in 2012 because he'd be "getting on in years" if he ran for reelection in 2016.
 
2012-11-12 09:12:47 AM  
I think there's a issue of perception here...

The United States currently has a strong Center/Center-Right party.

The Democrats.

A mild inching towards a slightly less offensive position on Immigration (and not much else) does not make these guys 'Moderates' by a long shot.

Give me Huntsman.. Collins.. Snowe... THOSE are as solid Right as one would ever farking want. Not moderate, but solid Capital C Conservative. Anyone else is delving into the far-right fundie fringe.
 
2012-11-12 09:34:47 AM  
ecx.images-amazon.com
 
2012-11-12 09:40:39 AM  

mikemoto: Another thing to ponder. After 1964, you could easily have written this same article. Goldwater lost far more convincingly than Romney had and where were we 4 years after that? Also, one would assume Hillary is the frontrunner for 2016. Don't be so sure that she's a lock to win the presidency.


Johnson didn't run in 1968 and Nixon ran a southern strategy leveraging on the passing of the Civil Rights Act that Johnson had passed. There's no chance of such a repeat in 2016.
 
2012-11-12 09:57:00 AM  

mikemoto: Before you liberals get too cocky, you might want to look to Canada where the Conservative Party took an unbelievable shellacking in 1993. Take a guess which party controls their government now.


I don't care if the Republicans come back so long as they learn a few things on the way:

* Stop demonizing immigrants
* Stop demonizing Muslims
* Stop demonizing gays
* Stop demonizing atheists
* Stop demonizing women
* Stop demonizing blacks

Well... you get the picture. If the GOP can drop all the stupid hatred, maybe they can start moving back towards sanity.

Likewise, if they can stop denying basic biology, math, and physics, maybe we can have a talk about letting you guys have some power, again. In the meanwhile, enjoy your walk through the wilderness while you figure yourselves out.
 
2012-11-12 10:14:16 AM  

brandent: RedPhoenix122: Kittypie070: Boehner must be a librul plant, right?

Of course, I've seen him golfing with the enemy.

[i.usatoday.net image 490x360]

You know Boehner doesn't seem unreasonable. He spouts a little demagoguery once in awhile but it's just lip service. It seems him and Obama have a pretty well thought out compromise put together but Boehner knows he can't get the wingnuts to go along.


Boehner always did seem to be the guy who is willing to at least have a rational conversation with Obama, but keeps getting distracted by Tea Party bomb he is trying to defuse. I kind of feel bad for him in that the Tea Party is probably going to take their rage out on him and primary him out in 2014.
 
MIU
2012-11-12 10:16:55 AM  

brantgoose: Jean Charest, who is still he Liberal Prime Minister (or Premier) of Quebec.


Small quibble, but Charest was ousted recently by Pauline Marois of the PQ. He was a very long-serving Liberal premier, as you said, though.
 
2012-11-12 10:44:54 AM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do:
I don't care if the Republicans come back so long as they learn a few things on the way:

* Stop demonizing immigrants
* Stop demonizing Muslims
* Stop demonizing gays
* Stop demonizing atheists
* Stop demonizing women
* Stop demonizing blacks

* Stop demonizing science and scientists
* Respect the separation of church and state
 
2012-11-12 11:02:09 AM  

StopLurkListen: If the Republican Party would just quit bashing immigrants, science, gays, and women's reproductive health and prove to me that 'trickle down' actually works, I might be convinced to vote for them again.

But then they'd be Democrats, so who cares anyway?


Promote a less interventionist stance on foreign policy (read: cut military spending and foreign aid, wean Isreal from the US taxpayer teat) and I think we have a party platform!
 
2012-11-12 11:34:23 AM  

clambam: The line I found disturbing nfrom that articl is this one:

"First, of course, is that the GOP won't be able to get anywhere near 50% of the vote. Democrats will win. More so, democrats can win without the need for blue dogs. We will be able to pass progressive legislation without needing to water it down."

This is precisely what happened between 1972 and 1980. The repubs disgraced themselves, the government was thrown into the hands of the Democrats and they proceeded to push through thoughtless progressive legislation that wrecked the economy and paved the way for the Reagan Revolution. Come to think of it, it happened again in 2000 when the Democrats disgraced themselves (or were tricked into giving the appearance of being disgraced), the government was thrown into the hands of the repubs and they proceeded to push through thoughtless conservative legislation that wrecked the economy and paved the way for Obama. If the Democrats can keep their pants zipped up, avoid hubris and put country before ideology, they have a chance of holding on to power; more importantly, of doing something useful with it. But they probably won't. 

Wouldn't it be nice to having two grown-up parties again, one dedicated to making the country a better place for the poor and the disadvantaged, one to keeping the country on an even financial keel, neither particularly interested in poking their noses into other people's bedrooms? Sigh, the good old days...


Thoughtful analysis thanks .. and I agree the Dems got a bit crazy (much like the Bennite Labour party in my country) but I think the influence of the oil crisis/OPEC etc is something that needs to be considered as well.

A lot of European countries (the usual.. Sweden, Finland, Germany ... ) stuck with social policies much the same as those in the US and UK but tempered them with an Ordo-Liberal economic approach and therefore didn't feel the same pain when currencies starting going crazy..

As I said .. I agree with your sentiment that not thought through social policies and bending over for the unions gave us 30+ years of monetarist 'fiscal alchemy' but I think progressives have paid enough and learned from those mistakes that we can start talking about consensus politics again with, in the case of the US, a Liberal and moderately right party representing the people.
 
2012-11-12 12:30:45 PM  
The thing I haven't noticed with all this "how will the Republicans react" is who will be voting in the primaries? You know, the people who removed the Lugars from the Senate and put rape candidates in their place? How about the endless parade of "not Mitt" candidates, Trump, 999, Bachmann, Santorum, and Gingrinch?

Sham GOP primaries wouldn't surprise me. Fox news trimming its sails ever so toward reality will leave me mildly shocked. But unless the primary voters change, nothing else will.
 
2012-11-12 05:26:16 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: I don't care if the Republicans come back so long as they learn a few things on the way:

* Stop demonizing immigrants
* Stop demonizing Muslims
* Stop demonizing gays
* Stop demonizing atheists
* Stop demonizing women
* Stop demonizing blacks


then they wouldn't be the GOP.
 
2012-11-12 08:05:39 PM  
i.imgur.com

/bad kitty, meddling with a pro's artwork!
 
2012-11-12 08:50:05 PM  

GAT_00: Now, do you consider the Tea Party Caucus a separate party? That matters too.


Only if they officially break from the Republicans, by holding separate primaries.
 
2012-11-12 10:59:14 PM  

Roy_G_Biv: They got their choice in the primary as the nominee twice now. They ran the convention their way, with those pesky conservatives or libertarian Republicans muzzled. They had Romney run his campaign they wanted him to, just like McCain, and they lost the Presidency again, like they always do.


And how would you propose the GOP capture more of the vote? This is basic math here. Current GOP positions do not appeal to enough voters - in fact they alienate many people who would otherwise vote for the party.

It's pretty clear to both of us (and pretty much everyone else) that staying where they are is not a viable play. But it's also pretty clear to most that moving to the right will be a zero sum game where they lose as many moderates as they would gain in conservatives - at best.

Their best political bet is to actively court the Latino vote. Their best intellectually honest bet is drop the evangelicals.

An abandonment of the xenophobia and interventionist social policies is not abandonment of conservatism. Well, it's an abandonment of the conservatism of the last 20 years, but not real conservatism.
 
2012-11-13 12:12:43 AM  

Babwa Wawa: But it's also pretty clear to most that moving to the right will be a zero sum game where they lose as many moderates as they would gain in conservatives - at best.


Nonsense. Moving to the right and purging the GOP of any vestiges of compromise will convince voters of the sincerity and correctness of their beliefs, and persuade increasing numbers of voters to become True Conservatives.
 
2012-11-13 03:43:34 PM  

RexTalionis: The Bush Tax Cuts were made for a stupid reason initially. Bush thought that because we had a federal surplus (which, if you want to get truly technical, we never actually had), then we should have a temporary tax cut (and the tax cut was originally intended to be temporary) to redistribute the surplus to the tax payers.

Well, we don't have a surplus anymore (not that we ever did), but we're still extending that tax cut and it's one of the largest reasons why our debt grows so fast.


And then, of course, there's the fact that even if we had a budget surplus, we still had $5.7 trillion in debt to pay down. Which, if nothing had changed and the CBO 2001 estimates would've been correct, would have been wiped out by the end of Bush's presidency. Instead, we get the Bush tax cuts and a tripling of the debt in that time.
 
Displayed 28 of 228 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report