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.

(Washington Post)   The extreme right of the conservative base is starting to weigh in on the GOP's devastating loss: See, we told you that Mitt Romney was too moderate   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 157
    More: Unlikely, Mitt Romney, GOP, Bob Vander Plaats, human beings, Federalist Society, moderates, Ted Cruz, John McCain  
•       •       •

2943 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Nov 2012 at 10:13 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-20 11:27:13 AM

what_now: Bain sold companies as a healthier concern... To China. And the US taxpayer got to pick up the cost of the bankruptcy of the old company. Bain and Romney made piles of cash, but they did so at the expense of individual people, the states the company used to be in, and the US taxpayers in general. While what he did was legal, it was in no way helpful, and there are many people who feel that it should NOT be legal.



The companies were for sale to anyone who wanted to buy them. They were sale to you if you were in a postion to acquire the funding. Anyone from Oregon, Canada, or England could have bought them. Are you saying you hate brown people?



phaseolus: So, in your opinion, the only problems the RPUSA have are messaging problems? That given a sufficiently comprehensive presentation of information, that the majority of voters will naturally conclude that R policies are the only ones that will actually work?



Look at my comments closely. I said "this time", because the election, like many presidential elections, was closer in the popular vote than the electoral college indicates. This election was winnable.

But time marches on and we accept more and more as normal. Remember when it was a big farking deal when Dennis Franz showed his butt on TV? I watched Firefly with my kids the other day and Nathan Fillion showed his butt after being left in the desert naked--no big deal. By that simplistic example I'm saying it is inevitable many things the Republicans are biatching about will become normal. So it really is time to get off tiny divisive issues and get back to the roots of sustainable government.

We need a more sensible budget, that provides a military that is strong enough to to scare the rest of the world, but have weapons systems the military really doesn't want trimmed to save costs, a scaling back of social programs because they are economically impossible to keep funding as the population ages, a rise in taxation slightly to meet in the middle, and less petty divisiveness on both sides that are blatant vote-pandering maneuvers.
 
2012-11-20 11:27:25 AM
Which is why I wanted them to pick Santorum, a guy so toxic that he makes Akin and Mourdock look reasonable.

But it wasn't worth the risk, and thankfully Romney stole Iowa from Santorum.

But I can almost guarantee that if Santorum had run and lost, the extreme right would be saying the same goddamn thing, that Santorum just wasn't conservative enough.
 
2012-11-20 11:28:07 AM

Leeds: I had dinner with my favorite Republican Senator last Wednesday. During that dinner, not only did the recent election come up, but so did the upcoming split in our party.

She and I think similarly about a lot of things although not all. But what we both agree upon completely is that the people who want to roll back abortion rights, fight against gay rights and fight against the scientific method all need to be kept in check better than they currently are. To put it another way, anyone in our party who thought that Santorum was a viable candidate needs to either be kicked out of our party or at the very least stifled and beat up to the point that they are not given any pull at all within the party.

She mentioned to me that there was a precedent (likely more than just one) for this occurring before. Back in 1884 we faced this same issue in the GOP. At that time there were two factions, one side supporting corruption and the rise of "machine politics" or "patronage politics." The other side supported a more liberal agenda, choosing to eschew corruption and fight for suffrage, small government and prosperity for all. Interestingly, Mark Twain considered himself part of this coalition if name dropping helps put this into perspective.

The anti-corruption movement that split the GOP in 1884 gave themselves a name- they called themselves Mugwumps.

I propose that we once again adopt that moniker as we work to alienate and rid ourselves of the corrupt uber-conservatives in our party. Lets kick out the Santorums, the Akins and anyone else who thinks poorly of women or people of color. Too long have they labeled us, the honorable people in the party, "RINO's" or worse. Now is a time for us to gather under our own banner and I propose that we use the same banner as our forefathers did in 1884. Let us call ourselves Mugwumps.


I'm afraid that William Burroughs has pretty much burned that down.
 
2012-11-20 11:28:14 AM
John Kerry wasn't liberal enough in 2004.
 
2012-11-20 11:29:54 AM
They will forced to pick a moderate during the GOP primaries. The Dems will have their primaries at the same time. This years primaries would've looked crazier go nutz if the Dems were also having a primary.
 
2012-11-20 11:30:46 AM

jigger: John Kerry wasn't liberal enough in 2004.


Caligula wasn't conservative enough in 41 AD.
 
2012-11-20 11:31:18 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: A far right candidate would never have gotten the bump that Romney did after the first debate. He got that bump because he portrayed himself as a moderate and distanced himself from many conservative policies.




I don't quite agree that that's why Romney got a bump. I think that bump had mostly to do with Obama looking bad and Mitt pretty much dominating the debate, regardless of substance. Granted, I'm not convinced Santorum or Bachmann could've done the same as Romney, but Gingrich probably could've and he has much more baggage.
 
2012-11-20 11:31:40 AM

jso2897: jigger: John Kerry wasn't liberal enough in 2004.

Caligula wasn't conservative enough in 41 AD.


Jesus isn't conservative enough.
 
2012-11-20 11:33:30 AM

unexplained bacon: Santorum 2016...do it. DO IT.


2016 is going to wreck the GOP (I hope). The far right will not accept another moderate as the nominee.
If the GOP nominates Christie or some similar establishment figure, I think they'll lose their minds. Possibly split off or at least sit out the election.


Meh. That's what they were saying about Romney during the everlasting debates (too liberal, too Mormon-y, too northeastern-y, not enough waving-a-gun-above-your-head-y, etc.). Those "libertarians" and "independents" came around and voted for him anyway. Much like the republican convictions of "less government" and "more freedom", they have a tendency to drop "I will not vote for this guy if he's our nominee" as soon as a needle through a camel's haystack.
 
2012-11-20 11:34:01 AM

jigger: John Kerry wasn't liberal enough in 2004.


John Kerry got "swiftboated" and criticized for his "global test" comment regarding international security*. The knock on Kerry was that he let his critics get away with defining him via the swiftboat attacks, not that he wasn't liberal enough.


*When Obama "acts Republican" and uses military force unilaterally WITHOUT a "global test", the GOP suddenly has a problem with it. Funny how that works.
 
2012-11-20 11:34:39 AM
No, you farkers. You can't claim this. You guys spent the last six months swearing that Romney was a true conservative. It was all his sucking up to the far right, his 47% and other comments, that hurt him the most. You own this you dumb lying farkers.

But sure. Swear moderation is the problem. Purge your party of moderates and RINOs. Do everything you can to kill intelligence, civil discourse, and the country.
 
2012-11-20 11:35:33 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: JimbobMcClan: Aren't they also proposing Carter-esque austerity measures as well? They love the 70's

What?


I was still young in the 70's, ~9, but I vaguely remember the stagflation that was going on with Carter not spending much and cutting back on gov't services to pay for the Dept of energy and some other dept and the republicans telling him to spend more to get the economy going. I could be wrong, too lazy to look it up now.
 
2012-11-20 11:35:49 AM

jso2897: jigger: John Kerry wasn't liberal enough in 2004.

Caligula wasn't conservative enough in 41 AD.


Breitbart's heart wasn't boostrappy enough for cocaine in 2012.
 
2012-11-20 11:36:42 AM

The Name: Actually, that isn't what happened. What happened was that Republicans LOVED each and every one of those candidates until they made some ridiculously bad mistake that everyone knew would render them unelectable. It wasn't "these guys are too far out on the fringe." It was "Aw shucks, the fringy guy we wanted can't be elected now. On to Rick Santorum, I guess."


Exactly...think Akin but on a national level. The issue with those candidates wasn't what they said, but the fact they said it in public. Jesus, the mere fact most of them were even allowed to be considered candidates speaks volumes.

The fact it took Romney months and zillions of dollars to finally defeat that ship of fools tells you all you need to know about GOP voters.
 
2012-11-20 11:37:04 AM
You know what? They have a point. Let them run a clear conservative using the current definition. Let them put in a theocratic who speaks ill of women other than traditional stay-at-home moms to who live by the motto, "He for God only, she for God in him." Let them speak ill of Blah people. Let them talk of taking America back from...anyone who is not them. Let them talk about protecting our borders from Mexico (but not Canada. Let them talk about an amendment to the constitution that nullify equal marriage, even in states that voted for it.Let them run on an economic plan where the poor and middle class know their place - strictly below those upon whom their god has seen fit to reward with riches. And they should also talk about how their god, a god they say is the god of goodness and love, uses rapists as tools in the creation of life. And, let them talk about the evils of science when the Bible is the only science book we need.

Maybe if they get that candidate, and that candidate loses large, they will STFU and leave us alone.
 
2012-11-20 11:38:11 AM

Leeds: I had dinner with my favorite Republican Senator last Wednesday. During that dinner, not only did the recent election come up, but so did the upcoming split in our party.

She and I think similarly about a lot of things although not all. But what we both agree upon completely is that the people who want to roll back abortion rights, fight against gay rights and fight against the scientific method all need to be kept in check better than they currently are. To put it another way, anyone in our party who thought that Santorum was a viable candidate needs to either be kicked out of our party or at the very least stifled and beat up to the point that they are not given any pull at all within the party.

She mentioned to me that there was a precedent (likely more than just one) for this occurring before. Back in 1884 we faced this same issue in the GOP. At that time there were two factions, one side supporting corruption and the rise of "machine politics" or "patronage politics." The other side supported a more liberal agenda, choosing to eschew corruption and fight for suffrage, small government and prosperity for all. Interestingly, Mark Twain considered himself part of this coalition if name dropping helps put this into perspective.

The anti-corruption movement that split the GOP in 1884 gave themselves a name- they called themselves Mugwumps.

I propose that we once again adopt that moniker as we work to alienate and rid ourselves of the corrupt uber-conservatives in our party. Lets kick out the Santorums, the Akins and anyone else who thinks poorly of women or people of color. Too long have they labeled us, the honorable people in the party, "RINO's" or worse. Now is a time for us to gather under our own banner and I propose that we use the same banner as our forefathers did in 1884. Let us call ourselves Mugwumps.


How very noble. How do the 12 of you expect to win a presidential election?
 
2012-11-20 11:38:30 AM

lordjupiter: jigger: John Kerry wasn't liberal enough in 2004.

John Kerry got "swiftboated" and criticized for his "global test" comment regarding international security*. The knock on Kerry was that he let his critics get away with defining him via the swiftboat attacks, not that he wasn't liberal enough.




I recall plenty of people lamenting that Howard Dean did not get the nomination. While I like the guy and would've loved to vote for him, I'm not convinced he would've won for reasons that are kind of similar to an inverse Santorum.

/it should be noted that "inverse santorum" sounds like an awful sexual innuendo.
 
2012-11-20 11:40:13 AM
allowing the extreme right to have a voice is what cost them the election.
 
2012-11-20 11:43:45 AM

chuckufarlie: allowing the extreme right to have a voice is what cost them the election.


The problem isn't that they have a voice, it's that they are a very large percentage of what's left in the party. They've been purging and making themselves ideologically pure for almost two decades and they are just starting to suffer the consequences. Leeds is absolutely right in what they need to do to stay viable in the long term, I just think they've gone too far down the path of derp to be able to quickly turn it around. Then again, never underestimate the stupidity of people.
 
2012-11-20 11:45:50 AM

coeyagi: hugram: Dr. DJ Duckhunt: Please proceed GOP

These three words are going to be used a lot by the left during the next 4 years...

And if possible in the context of the media being used, should be accompanied by the following image:

[www.cnac.org image 350x249]


Here. I made it easier for you.

i158.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-20 11:45:54 AM

DeaH: Maybe if they get that candidate, and that candidate loses large, they will STFU and leave us alone.


They would find some excuse to explain his loss. Anything but to admit that having someone that far to the right was the culprit.

Remember that these people believe that their candidate has the backing of God. There is no logic, only blind faith. It cannot be reasoned with. You cannot argue with it. And you can never hope to change their mind.
 
2012-11-20 11:46:51 AM

Teufelaffe: The only reason Romney got as many votes as he did was because he was more of a moderate. If the GOP yahoos had actually managed to nominate someone like Santorum or Bachmann, they would have lost by even more.


Sssshhhhhhh! Don't let the secret out, or else they may try a smarter strategy for 2016!
 
2012-11-20 11:55:09 AM
Romney campaigned badly. No amount of spin can make him a better or more able candidate. Folks tried. He said horrible things, he did so in the smarmiest way possible, and showed the empathy of a Shetland pony's hoof trimmings. Instead of noting this, folks went ahead and tried to spin this, and make him seem palatable by describing his every move as wonderful, even when in demonstrably wasn't. FOX and mainstream media outlets played up the spin zone, because they wanted this to be a closer race. It made ratings, and that made cash. Plain and simple. Romney's run wasn't about winning the Presidency, it was securing cash from rubes, and making advertising dollars. He was as much a political special effect as Palin was. A failed Primary candidate, who ran against a pool of idiots and defectives, and THAT race was merely to exercise legal graft to secure dollars from rubes to give to campaigns that everyone KNEW would fail miserably, but it gave a way to slide bucks to the right folks, and under the premise of MOAR DEMOCRACY while never quite telling the public that none of the Idiot Brigade's candidates had a whisper of a prayer of winning, and in fairness, their biggest fear would have been to actually WIN the Primary, and then have to campaign against the guy who got Bin Laden.

It wasn't that he wasn't Right enough. He was a bad candidate, who wasted a lot of time and money, and that was pretty much the job that he was supposed to perform. He helped make a spectacle of the race, to fire up folks who are idiot enough to imagine that their radicalized ramblings are even close to popular beyond their echo chamber, and the policy positions that they've been spoonfed are anywhere near good for even themselves of the nation.

Romney lost because he was not a good candidate. He was not the best that could have been fielded, and a competent campaign manager might have done him some good, but that wasn't what was necessary. In order to KEEP milking the Idiot Brigade, there needed to be sacrifice. Romney fit the bill, and he'll be compensated for the embarrassment, unlike Bob Dole who fell on his political sword for the party going up against Clinton. That is the difference in the races. Dole served his country, and his party, with a modicum of dignity at least, while Romney was a trough to feed folks and shuck and grift rubes of hard earned cash, and keep them focused well and away from the folks who got them into this mess. His loss wasn't from being Not Far Enough, but from being a piss poor candidate from the get go, and a lot of folks who were invested in seeing a narrative moved forward, as opposed to having real policy or anything remotely like a plan for the future.

The butthurt over the loss? That is simply not realizing that they've been had, and are continuing to be milked and massaged for MOAR cash, and falling for it, willingly, and with great enthusiasm.
 
2012-11-20 11:56:44 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: [a.abcnews.com image 640x360]
Soon


I still wonder whether he would actually be acceptable to the far right, "I don't care how many vaginas he wants to sew shut, he's still a Papist!"
 
2012-11-20 11:59:41 AM

meat0918: jso2897: jigger: John Kerry wasn't liberal enough in 2004.

Caligula wasn't conservative enough in 41 AD.

Jesus isn't conservative enough.


Jesus was a bastard hippie who believed in helping the poor, avoiding violence, and sharing wealth. He's pretty much the direct opposite of modern conservatism.
 
2012-11-20 12:00:12 PM

Carn: Leeds: I had dinner with my favorite Republican Senator last Wednesday. During that dinner, not only did the recent election come up, but so did the upcoming split in our party.

She and I think similarly about a lot of things although not all. But what we both agree upon completely is that the people who want to roll back abortion rights, fight against gay rights and fight against the scientific method all need to be kept in check better than they currently are. To put it another way, anyone in our party who thought that Santorum was a viable candidate needs to either be kicked out of our party or at the very least stifled and beat up to the point that they are not given any pull at all within the party.

She mentioned to me that there was a precedent (likely more than just one) for this occurring before. Back in 1884 we faced this same issue in the GOP. At that time there were two factions, one side supporting corruption and the rise of "machine politics" or "patronage politics." The other side supported a more liberal agenda, choosing to eschew corruption and fight for suffrage, small government and prosperity for all. Interestingly, Mark Twain considered himself part of this coalition if name dropping helps put this into perspective.

The anti-corruption movement that split the GOP in 1884 gave themselves a name- they called themselves Mugwumps.

I propose that we once again adopt that moniker as we work to alienate and rid ourselves of the corrupt uber-conservatives in our party. Lets kick out the Santorums, the Akins and anyone else who thinks poorly of women or people of color. Too long have they labeled us, the honorable people in the party, "RINO's" or worse. Now is a time for us to gather under our own banner and I propose that we use the same banner as our forefathers did in 1884. Let us call ourselves Mugwumps.

How very noble. How do the 12 of you expect to win a presidential election?


I think you'll find that the party is split about 50/50.

We (Mugwumps) are the only path forward though, so we need to come up with a final solution for the religious types who are holding us back.
 
2012-11-20 12:01:15 PM
Don't count the Repubs out just yet.

I think 8 years of Obama will cause a Democrat backlash in 2016.

Throw in another financial crisis and you have a Repub victory.
 
2012-11-20 12:02:39 PM

fickenchucker: Bain became the boogyman because most people don't know the ultimate goal of venture capitalists is to trim costs, revive a company, and sell it as a larger and healthier concern


That's not what "Venture Capitalists" do. Venture Capital invests in small startups in underexploited or new markets, by gambling that the startup will make gigantic bank later.

Bain in theory is a Private Equity firm, which behaves in the manner you describe.

However, Bain did/does something a bit different.

1) Find a company with decent levels of sellable assets and a good cash flow. The overall health of the company is irrelevent. Let's pretend the company is worth $200 million.

2) Using a personal stake of just a few % of the target company's value (say $10 million in this example), borrow just enough money from a bank to purchase a controlling stake in the target company ($120 million). The target company's management rolls over for this purchase since Bain promises them huge bonuses if they can avoid a hostile takeover.

3) Now that they have a controlling stake in the target, Bain has the target company (and NOT Bain), borrow $150 million using their sellable assets and cash flow as collateral. The target company then pays that borrowed $150 million as "fees" to Bain, who then pays of their loan (and thus maintain a good credit rating for the next raid) and themselves.

4) So in my example, for a $10 million downpayment, Bain made $20 million profit, while the target company has $150 million in debt structured in a way that does not negatively impact Bain.

5) Since the company is worth $200 million, the second bank will also probably get paid, but the original target company will just be a shell of itself, with massive layoffs and benefits cut in order to make the extremely onerous debt payments that the target compny never needed to take on until Bain showed up.

And it is all perfectly legal.
 
2012-11-20 12:06:05 PM
Mitt Romney presented a different version of himself to every group he spoke to, to such a degree that no one could know what he really believed.

He told moderates what he thought they wanted to hear, and they figured he was probably lying to them.
 
2012-11-20 12:08:50 PM

FuturePastNow: Mitt Romney presented a different version of himself to every group he spoke to, to such a degree that no one could know what he really believed.

He told moderates what he thought they wanted to hear, and they figured he was probably lying to them.


In fairness, after years of dealing with him in Maine, and Massachusetts, I have found that Mitt has a tell when he is lying.

His lips move.
 
2012-11-20 12:09:36 PM

SlothB77: second, many of the companies portrayed in the anti-Bain ads were already in serious trouble before Bain got there and probably would have gone out of business if Bain hadn't intervened anyways.


Not this shait again.
 
2012-11-20 12:10:56 PM

Cubicle Jockey: fickenchucker: Bain became the boogyman because most people don't know the ultimate goal of venture capitalists is to trim costs, revive a company, and sell it as a larger and healthier concern

That's not what "Venture Capitalists" do. Venture Capital invests in small startups in underexploited or new markets, by gambling that the startup will make gigantic bank later.

Bain in theory is a Private Equity firm, which behaves in the manner you describe.

However, Bain did/does something a bit different.

1) Find a company with decent levels of sellable assets and a good cash flow. The overall health of the company is irrelevent. Let's pretend the company is worth $200 million.

2) Using a personal stake of just a few % of the target company's value (say $10 million in this example), borrow just enough money from a bank to purchase a controlling stake in the target company ($120 million). The target company's management rolls over for this purchase since Bain promises them huge bonuses if they can avoid a hostile takeover.

3) Now that they have a controlling stake in the target, Bain has the target company (and NOT Bain), borrow $150 million using their sellable assets and cash flow as collateral. The target company then pays that borrowed $150 million as "fees" to Bain, who then pays of their loan (and thus maintain a good credit rating for the next raid) and themselves.

4) So in my example, for a $10 million downpayment, Bain made $20 million profit, while the target company has $150 million in debt structured in a way that does not negatively impact Bain.

5) Since the company is worth $200 million, the second bank will also probably get paid, but the original target company will just be a shell of itself, with massive layoffs and benefits cut in order to make the extremely onerous debt payments that the target compny never needed to take on until Bain showed up.

And it is all perfectly legal.


Which is the reason the term "Vulture Capitalists" was coined. Though, even that term is a bit misleading, since vultures tend to wait until something is dead before stripping its flesh. Unfortunately, "Flesh-eating Mold Capitalists", while more accurate, just doesn't have the same ring to it.
 
2012-11-20 12:12:02 PM

DeaH: You know what? They have a point. Let them run a clear conservative using the current definition. Let them put in a theocratic who speaks ill of women other than traditional stay-at-home moms to who live by the motto, "He for God only, she for God in him." Let them speak ill of Blah people. Let them talk of taking America back from...anyone who is not them. Let them talk about protecting our borders from Mexico (but not Canada. Let them talk about an amendment to the constitution that nullify equal marriage, even in states that voted for it.Let them run on an economic plan where the poor and middle class know their place - strictly below those upon whom their god has seen fit to reward with riches. And they should also talk about how their god, a god they say is the god of goodness and love, uses rapists as tools in the creation of life. And, let them talk about the evils of science when the Bible is the only science book we need.

Maybe if they get that candidate, and that candidate loses large, they will STFU and leave us alone.



Rand Paul Teases 2016 Presidential Run Again

Seems to fit the bill pretty well.
 
2012-11-20 12:13:47 PM
Severely conservative is just not enough. We need a drastic conservative. One that is forbidding, inexorable and unrelenting.
 
2012-11-20 12:16:36 PM

Leeds: Carn: Leeds: I had dinner with my favorite Republican Senator last Wednesday. During that dinner, not only did the recent election come up, but so did the upcoming split in our party.

She and I think similarly about a lot of things although not all. But what we both agree upon completely is that the people who want to roll back abortion rights, fight against gay rights and fight against the scientific method all need to be kept in check better than they currently are. To put it another way, anyone in our party who thought that Santorum was a viable candidate needs to either be kicked out of our party or at the very least stifled and beat up to the point that they are not given any pull at all within the party.

She mentioned to me that there was a precedent (likely more than just one) for this occurring before. Back in 1884 we faced this same issue in the GOP. At that time there were two factions, one side supporting corruption and the rise of "machine politics" or "patronage politics." The other side supported a more liberal agenda, choosing to eschew corruption and fight for suffrage, small government and prosperity for all. Interestingly, Mark Twain considered himself part of this coalition if name dropping helps put this into perspective.

The anti-corruption movement that split the GOP in 1884 gave themselves a name- they called themselves Mugwumps.

I propose that we once again adopt that moniker as we work to alienate and rid ourselves of the corrupt uber-conservatives in our party. Lets kick out the Santorums, the Akins and anyone else who thinks poorly of women or people of color. Too long have they labeled us, the honorable people in the party, "RINO's" or worse. Now is a time for us to gather under our own banner and I propose that we use the same banner as our forefathers did in 1884. Let us call ourselves Mugwumps.

How very noble. How do the 12 of you expect to win a presidential election?

I think you'll find that the party is split about ...


Have you looked into the Modern Whigs? Same idea but start from the ground up. Center right, pragmatic, and hold ethics and morals in high regard.
 
2012-11-20 12:17:36 PM

Teufelaffe: Unfortunately, "Flesh-eating Mold Capitalists", while more accurate, just doesn't have the same ring to it.


More of a "1980's AIDS Capitalists", I think - feels good when you make the initial deal, but in a couple of years it has weakened you so much that any minor misfortune that comes along will put you in the grave.
 
2012-11-20 12:20:37 PM

Loucifer: Severely conservative is just not enough. We need a drastic conservative. One that is forbidding, inexorable and unrelenting.


Romney was severly conservative? He was squishy and in the debates he agreed with all of Obama's stances and on a couple was to the left.

There has to be a conservative out there that is not a whackadoodle fundy but not a Romney/McCain.
 
2012-11-20 12:21:26 PM

hubiestubert: In fairness, after years of dealing with him in Maine, and Massachusetts, I have found that Mitt has a tell when he is lying.

His lips move.


Do you have any articles you can reference from when he was involved with UMaine?

I remember him being catastrophic, but I am having trouble actually remembering the details.
 
2012-11-20 12:21:57 PM

Leeds: Carn: Leeds: I had dinner with my favorite Republican Senator last Wednesday. During that dinner, not only did the recent election come up, but so did the upcoming split in our party.

She and I think similarly about a lot of things although not all. But what we both agree upon completely is that the people who want to roll back abortion rights, fight against gay rights and fight against the scientific method all need to be kept in check better than they currently are. To put it another way, anyone in our party who thought that Santorum was a viable candidate needs to either be kicked out of our party or at the very least stifled and beat up to the point that they are not given any pull at all within the party.

She mentioned to me that there was a precedent (likely more than just one) for this occurring before. Back in 1884 we faced this same issue in the GOP. At that time there were two factions, one side supporting corruption and the rise of "machine politics" or "patronage politics." The other side supported a more liberal agenda, choosing to eschew corruption and fight for suffrage, small government and prosperity for all. Interestingly, Mark Twain considered himself part of this coalition if name dropping helps put this into perspective.

The anti-corruption movement that split the GOP in 1884 gave themselves a name- they called themselves Mugwumps.

I propose that we once again adopt that moniker as we work to alienate and rid ourselves of the corrupt uber-conservatives in our party. Lets kick out the Santorums, the Akins and anyone else who thinks poorly of women or people of color. Too long have they labeled us, the honorable people in the party, "RINO's" or worse. Now is a time for us to gather under our own banner and I propose that we use the same banner as our forefathers did in 1884. Let us call ourselves Mugwumps.

How very noble. How do the 12 of you expect to win a presidential election?

I think you'll find that the party is split about ...


i18.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-20 12:26:22 PM

Saiga410: Loucifer: Severely conservative is just not enough. We need a drastic conservative. One that is forbidding, inexorable and unrelenting.

Romney was severly conservative? He was squishy and in the debates he agreed with all of Obama's stances and on a couple was to the left.

There has to be a conservative out there that is not a whackadoodle fundy but not a Romney/McCain.


That's like saying "there has to be cheese sandwich out there that doesn't have cheese but also doesn't have bread."
 
2012-11-20 12:47:22 PM

fenianfark: DeaH: You know what? They have a point. Let them run a clear conservative using the current definition. Let them put in a theocratic who speaks ill of women other than traditional stay-at-home moms to who live by the motto, "He for God only, she for God in him." Let them speak ill of Blah people. Let them talk of taking America back from...anyone who is not them. Let them talk about protecting our borders from Mexico (but not Canada. Let them talk about an amendment to the constitution that nullify equal marriage, even in states that voted for it.Let them run on an economic plan where the poor and middle class know their place - strictly below those upon whom their god has seen fit to reward with riches. And they should also talk about how their god, a god they say is the god of goodness and love, uses rapists as tools in the creation of life. And, let them talk about the evils of science when the Bible is the only science book we need.

Maybe if they get that candidate, and that candidate loses large, they will STFU and leave us alone.


Rand Paul Teases 2016 Presidential Run Again

Seems to fit the bill pretty well.


Someone has to take over the family grifting business.
 
2012-11-20 12:49:09 PM

Dinjiin: DeaH: Maybe if they get that candidate, and that candidate loses large, they will STFU and leave us alone.

They would find some excuse to explain his loss. Anything but to admit that having someone that far to the right was the culprit.

Remember that these people believe that their candidate has the backing of God. There is no logic, only blind faith. It cannot be reasoned with. You cannot argue with it. And you can never hope to change their mind.


pictat.com
 
2012-11-20 01:00:27 PM

UberDave: unlikely: Starting?

That's what I cam here to say. They started going berserk at about 10pm (CST) a couple of weeks ago.


No they started in 2007 during the primaries when they said McCain was too moderate. They conveniently forget that both McCain and Romney abandonded all of their moderate ideals to win their support in those primaries, losing all of their moderate credibility in the process. We'll never know what a true moderate race would have looked like because moderate Republicans can't get through the current primary process.

Had Jon Huntsman won by sticking to his moderate guns, I bet he would have beaten Obama pretty handily. Especially since he isn't a robber baron who shiats on half the country as moochers.
 
2012-11-20 01:11:20 PM
After 2 straight "moderate republican" losses, and the inevitable moaning that the candidate was not conservative enough, I would like the see the republicans nominate the most conservative tea-baggers alive. Any combination of Bachmann, Santorum, Perry and/or Palin should prove weather America wants to become a conservative Christian theocracy or not.
 
2012-11-20 01:21:07 PM

Dinjiin: DeaH: Maybe if they get that candidate, and that candidate loses large, they will STFU and leave us alone.

They would find some excuse to explain his loss. Anything but to admit that having someone that far to the right was the culprit.

Remember that these people believe that their candidate has the backing of God. There is no logic, only blind faith. It cannot be reasoned with. You cannot argue with it. And you can never hope to change their mind.


Someone should let them know that if their candidate had the backing of God, God has turned his back on them.... Just sayin'
 
2012-11-20 01:23:11 PM

dahmers love zombie: Two days after the election, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told ABC News that the Republicans' mission was to appeal to nonwhite voters: "How do we speak to all Americans? You know, not just to people who look like us and act like us, but how do we speak to all Americans?"

I would like Boehner to go on the air and explain those three words.


I'd be willing to bet culturally, the upper class is very different from the middle\lower class. I know there's a huge difference in middle v. lower, but it's actually not really a stretch to say that if you're middle\lower class, you're going to act really differently from a rich-class person.

/I refuse to call them high-class, because they generally are really, really not.
 
2012-11-20 01:35:54 PM

PsiChick: dahmers love zombie: Two days after the election, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told ABC News that the Republicans' mission was to appeal to nonwhite voters: "How do we speak to all Americans? You know, not just to people who look like us and act like us, but how do we speak to all Americans?"

I would like Boehner to go on the air and explain those three words.

I'd be willing to bet culturally, the upper class is very different from the middle\lower class. I know there's a huge difference in middle v. lower, but it's actually not really a stretch to say that if you're middle\lower class, you're going to act really differently from a rich-class person.

/I refuse to call them high-class, because they generally are really, really not.


The difference between the lives folks who are in the media income grouping, and the upper tiers is astoundingly wide. As a chef, I get to see a part of that. Between jobs in Boston, in Bar Harbor, in ski resorts and the Biltmore in Phoenix, the cultural gulf between middle income earners and the wealthy in this country isn't just money, but a entire culture grown around them to insulate and protect them. From private schools, to care for their homes and property while away, from clubs and communities that are, by design, to keep the "wrong" element out.

In Maine, Northeast Harbor is a fine example. Northeast Harbor and the "camps" that about around there, are not fishing camps, but modest and well concealed mansions, with docks and private services that keep them off the map. Police and other services maintain their privacy. It is an entirely different world than across the harbor in Sullivan or even in Bar Harbor itself. I've worked in these mechanisms as a chef, and it is very much a class division. Different education, different culture, different and secluded and by design. The wealthy keep themselves at an arm's distance, and that really is what showed in this election. Romney didn't have the touch that some have managed, to build up ties to communities. Romney has flitted between communities as needs demanded. From Maine, to Mass to Utah, to Michigan, but he has always remained in the bosom of class, and separated from the hoi polloi.

It really is a quite different world for the top 10% even. The top 1%? They might as well be a different species in being able to understand the drives and needs of the folks who work for them.
 
2012-11-20 01:45:07 PM

Carn: chuckufarlie: allowing the extreme right to have a voice is what cost them the election.

The problem isn't that they have a voice, it's that they are a very large percentage of what's left in the party. They've been purging and making themselves ideologically pure for almost two decades and they are just starting to suffer the consequences. Leeds is absolutely right in what they need to do to stay viable in the long term, I just think they've gone too far down the path of derp to be able to quickly turn it around. Then again, never underestimate the stupidity of people.


The reason that they are a large percentage of the party is because they have a voice and they have chased the moderates away.

Extremists are never viable, they do not represent a large enough group to get anything accomplished. Political demographics resemble a bell curve. Extremists make up a very small percentage of the population. That makes them pointless, except for the laughs

Extremists rarely turn "it" around. They would not be extremists is they were able to change.
 
2012-11-20 01:49:23 PM

Saiga410: Loucifer: Severely conservative is just not enough. We need a drastic conservative. One that is forbidding, inexorable and unrelenting.

Romney was severly conservative? He was squishy and in the debates he agreed with all of Obama's stances and on a couple was to the left.

There has to be a conservative out there that is not a whackadoodle fundy but not a Romney/McCain.


Romney is a Massachusetts conservative. That means that in the rest of the country he would be a moderate liberal. He got the nomination because he was able to convince the real conservatives that he was one of them. All you need to do to appeal to real conservatives is to take their stance on certain "religious issues".
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2012-11-20 01:56:30 PM

mcreadyblue: Don't count the Repubs out just yet.

I think 8 years of Obama will cause a Democrat backlash in 2016.

Throw in another financial crisis and you have a Repub victory.


or so you hope. Which is kind of sad to think you hope for it. TEAM USA
 
Displayed 50 of 157 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report