First time visitor? Learn more.

Republicans are looking for new ways to lose – and finding them

by Speranza ( 150 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Debt, Democratic Party, Economy, Elections 2012, History, Politics, taxation at December 5th, 2012 - 8:00 am

As I have mentioned many times,  protecting the wealthy (most of whom voted for Obama anyway) is not the political sword that the Republicans should fall on when they make their “Last Stand”. We need to come across as the party of Main Street not Wall Street, in a sense become what the Democrats were in the 1940′s, 50′ and early 60′s – the party of middle class working people.  Timothy Geithener’s attempt to circumvent the U.S. constitution by allowing the president to raise the debt limit by executive order is a pure hubristic attempt at a constitutional coup  and needs to be hammered home to the American public, as Caddell says  ” Republicans need to make their case to the people, not the Beltway..

by Pat Caddell

In the “fiscal cliff” negotiations, the Republicans are in desperate need of a game-changer. That is, the current dynamics in Washington DC are so bad right now for Republicans that they are likely to go off a political cliff. President Obama and the Democrats have always been looking to push the GOP into the abyss, of course, but lately, Republicans have volunteered to stand at the edge of the precipice and lean far over.

And yet amazingly, in the meantime, just last week, Republicans were handed a possible game-changer—and they did nothing with it. They just ignored it, so the Democrats will keep pushing.  If the GOP doesn’t get a clue as to the real nature of the fiscal cliff negotiations, they will lose.

In a nutshell, Republicans need to understand that the real struggle is not with the Obama administration; instead, the real struggle is for American political opinion, including the broad middle that preferred Obama to Romney, but nevertheless feels no great trust or affection for the re-elected 44th President.

If Obama is seen as a fellow who wants to move the economy to a better place by raising taxes on the Koch Brothers, he will win. But if Obama is seen as an arrogant and unconstitutional power-grabber, he will lose. By that logic, then, Republicans should shift their perceived focus, from defending the low tax rates of billionaires to defending the US Constitution against executive Caesarism.

On Thursday, November 28, amidst delicate negotiations over the “fiscal cliff” on Capitol Hill, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner presented Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner with a radical proposal: the Legislative Branch should cede over to the Executive Branch the power to raise the debt ceiling by executive fiat. If this cession of fiscal authority were ever to happen—if Congress were to lose its right to vote “yea” or “nay” on debt-limit increases—that would be an epochal political power shift. It would mean that for the first time in US history, the President would have complete dominance on spending issues. And that’s a kind of dominance that no president should be trusted with, let alone Obama.

Yet one can’t blame Geithner for asking on behalf of his boss. Obama has hardly been the first big spender in US history, but he has certifiably been the biggest spender ever, so he needs that debt-ceiling increase.  Yet interestingly, in his first term, Obama showed that he understood the political risk of big spending; in the run-up to the 2012 election, we might recall, the President was afraid to ask for an increase in the debt ceiling, for fear that the resulting political backlash could hurt his re-election chances.

But now, of course, Obama is liberated—liberated to be as hubristic as he wants to be. And if that means spending more money to build his “legacy,” then so be it. As we have seen over the last month, he certainly isn’t interested in spending reductions.

Today, the national debt is $16.330 trillion, and it’s rising fast; the debt appears destined to hit the current debt-ceiling limit of $16.394 trillion in January.

Of course, for the nation as a whole, the deficit and the debt ceiling are major political and economic issues. If the Republicans in Congress wish to have any impact on federal spending levels, the requirement for a specific vote on a higher debt ceiling is perhaps the best lever that they possess.

Thus there was little chance that Congress would go along with Geithner’s suggestion that it emasculate itself. Even Democrats on the Hill would be leery of that sort of surrender of their power.

[.........]

Thus the Republican duo simply laughed off Geithner’s suggestion, and McConnell’s press aides evidently shared the “laughter” anecdote with friendly reporters, such as Barnes. Meanwhile, most of the media simply ignored the story; neither The Washington Post nor The New York Times took note of McConnell’s mirthful moment. Within hours of Geithner’s exchange, the media caravan had moved on.

And that was a big mistake. A huge missed opportunity. Once again, the issue is not wheeling and dealing with Geithner and the Democrats, which is obviously the sort of inside game that McConnell and Boehner feel most comfortable playing. Instead, the real issue—the real opportunity—is playing the outside game. That is, the game that includes the American people.

As an aside, Grover Norquist was right when he said on Sunday’s “Meet the Press” that all fiscal cliff negotiations should be on C-SPAN. Norquist knows that Republicans can’t win if they go behind closed doors; they will only have a chance of winning if the American people can see, for themselves, what the Democrats are trying to do. And my suggestion here is in the same spirit; the Republicans must make their case to the people, not to the Beltway.

The Republican leadership thought that Geithner’s suggestion was ridiculous, and so they just laughed it off. But they should have done far more than that. After all, spending and over-spending are important issues to most Americans. Even many Democrats, including this Democrat, are worried about too much federal spending. Thus, for the Obamans to try to pull a fast one so that they can spend more—well, that is a serious matter.

Indeed, according to Article One of the Constitution, the Congress has the power of the purse, including the power “to borrow money on the credit of the United States.” And for Obama to propose that the Congress simply turn over that precious power to his Executive Branch is not just an insult to the 112th Congress. It is also an insult to all other Congresses, past and future, and to the sacred document of the Constitution itself.

McConnell and Boehner should have recognized that Geithner’s suggestion was really an unconstitutional power play, and they should have called him out.

More precisely, here’s what Republicans should have done: on Thursday, as soon as Geithner made his silly suggestion, the GOPers should have asked Geithner to repeat himself, so that there could be no doubt as to what exactly the Treasury man had said. And if Geithner had committed that suggestion to paper, they should have scooped that up, too, for future use.

Then McConnell and Boehner should have politely ended the meeting and walked out into the Capitol hallway, where reporters were milling around, waiting for some news, and he should then have given then some news—spectacular news. Leaving Geithner behind, McConnell and Boehner, between them, should have laid out their case before the American people, invoking a famous past example of presidential overreach, FDR’s “court-packing” plan, which we will examine in a moment:

Ladies and gentlemen of the media, we are speaking now, not only to you, but to the people of the United States. Folks, we have just heard a serious proposal from Treasury Secretary Geithner that is so outrageous, so ludicrous, so insulting, so unconstitutional that we have to report it to all of you.

[.........]

We might note that just six years ago, when Barack Obama was himself a US Senator in 2006, he declared that raising the debt ceiling above $9 trillion was a “leadership failure.”  Well, now that national debt has nearly doubled, to more than $16 trillion. And now Secretary Geithner has the unconstitutional gall and gumption to suggest that the Congress, the first branch of government whose powers are enumerated in the constitution, give up a vital check against reckless overspending of the type we have seen over the last four years.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are truly astonished. But we are more than astonished, we are alarmed.  Therefore, we are issuing this warning to the administration and this pledge to the America people and their sacred Constitution: in the House, Speaker Boehner will immediately put Secretary Geithner’s radical suggestion to a vote, where we have no doubt that every Republican—and more than a few debt- and deficit-averse Democrats—will vote “no” on this big-spending, budget-packing power grab.

And in the Senate, Leader McConnell will seek to attach an amendment so that Republicans and likeminded Democrats can also vote “no” on this big-spending, budget-packing, power-grabbing proposal from the Obama administration. In addition, Leader McConnell pledges to use the filibuster and all his other parliamentary powers to stop the business of the US Senate until Secretary Geithner retracts and renounces his unconstitutional suggestion.

And we call upon the American people—who care about the Constitution as much as we do—to join us in demanding that this presidential “budget-packing” power grab be thwarted immediately, and forever.

Such words from McConnell and Boehner would have caused a sensation. They would have led the political news that night on all the networks—even MSNBC.

[...........]

All re-elected presidents face the danger of hubris in their second term. The classic cautionary tale is Franklin D. Roosevelt’s infamous 1937 proposal to expand the nine-member Supreme Court with six of his own new appointees—the notorious “court-packing” plan. FDR’s proposal came on the heels of his 1936 landslide re-election, in which he not only won 46 of 48 states but also reduced Republican numbers in the House to just 76 and in the Senate to just 16. The Republican Party was thus on the edge of extinction when it found its salvation in opposing to the court-packing plan. In 1937-38, the hardy few Republicans joined with Jeffersonian Southern Democrats to oppose the increasingly imperial FDR—and they won.

In 1938, the GOP won a huge comeback victory in the midterm elections; among the Republicans elected to the Senate that year was a future GOP superstar, Sen. Robert A. Taft of Ohio. And, for all practical purposes, the forward motion of the peacetime New Deal came to a halt in FDR’s second term.

Indeed, it’s fair to say that the 1938 midterms preserved the viability of the two-party system in the US.

Eight decades later, contemporary Republicans could have done the same thing. Just as anti-FDR Republicans found that they had new allies among restive Southern Democrats, so McConnell and the Republicans would have found that they had allies in a “budget-packing” fight among Democrats. There’s no way, for example, that Democratic Senators such as Mary Landrieu and Mark Prior, to name just two, wouldn’t have felt obligated to side with McConnell against imperious Washington. Their respective re-election imperatives, in the Jeffersonian states of Louisiana and Arkansas, would have demanded their opposition.

So yes, Obama seems to be in more danger than previous presidents of second-term hubris and overreach, and that overreach could yet save the Republicans, in spite of themselves.

History tells us that even in the midst of seeming defeat, it’s possible to reclaim victory. The key to such a turnaround is to see the strategic situation clearly, even amidst all the confusion, and then to reach for the winning counter-stroke. In the Battle of the Marne in 1914, the French were reeling under the German onslaught, and so they did the one thing the Germans weren’t expecting; they counterattacked. The Kaiser’s overconfident army was shocked and fell back in confusion. This was the “Miracle of the Marne”; Paris was saved, and with the help of the British and the Americans, the French ultimately won World War One.

The key, now, for the Republicans is to have their own “Marne Moment” of clarity. They need to see that the time has come to stop negotiating with Obama. It’s his economy now, he wants to do everything his way, so he now owns it.

Instead, Republicans must realize that the larger battle—the greater war—is Obama’s attempt not only to win a big political victory and break the Republicans, but also to transform the American constitutional system permanently. That’s a fight worth fighting.

Indeed, if Republicans take up that fight, they will gain allies in perhaps unexpected places. But first they must change the focus of definition of the fight—from mere tax rates to the the grander question of the future of American constitutional liberty. If the current crop of Republican leaders has a hard time seeing the immediate struggle in those terms, well, that’s a loss for them, to be sure, but it’s a bigger loss for the rest of us and for our country.

So once again, the key for Republicans is putting the Geithner Grab in context, so as to start building a new narrative for Obama’s second term. A new narrative, that is, that shows that Obama is wildly exaggerating his mandate and dangerously seeking to concentrate power in the Presidency.

Here are two more examples of Obama overreach that feed into the same negative narrative:

First, Obama is evidently serious about trying to jam through Susan Rice as his Secretary of State. She is, of course, discredited on the basis of her Benghazi deception, as well as for other blemishes on her record. In addition, she also obviously lacks the measured personality needed for effective diplomacy. As Rice said recently, “People know not to mess with me. And if they haven’t learned, and they try, then they will learn.” Such is not the preferred tone and meter of, say, Talleyrand or Metternich.

Second, Politico reports that Obama is already planning for his Versailles-like presidential library. Its projected cost—wait for it—is $500 million. That’s right: The economy is still in doldrums, and we could be going into a double dip, and yet Obama will be taking time away from his duties to schmooze fatcats, here and around the world. Is this what the hard-pressed middle class voted for last month? A president who will be cultivating the same moneyed class that he was supposedly railing against during the campaign?

[.........]

So is too late to revive the issue of Obama’s debt-ceiling power grab? We shall see; we will have to find if Geithner continues to make it a key part of his bargaining agenda.

Yet it’s definitely never too late to make an issue of Obama’s second-term hubris; that’s a guaranteed constant over the next four years.

Unfortunately, in the meantime, even as Obama overreaches, Republicans are looking for new ways to lose—and finding them.

In the next installment, we will see just how McConnell and Boehner are finding those new ways  of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Read the rest – Obama’s Arrogant Overreach—and the Republican Opportunity

 

 

Tags:

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

150 Responses to “Republicans are looking for new ways to lose – and finding them”
( jump to bottom )

  1. buzzsawmonkey
    1 | December 5, 2012 8:25 am

    The Republicans are morons. Obama is demagoguing the “raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires” issue in ads—as he has demagogued it now for two years.

    Meanwhile, the Republicans trot to meetings and make proposals and occasionally get 37 seconds of trimmed soundbite time on the news. Are they running ads about the reality of Obama’s spending? Are they explaining that he is refusing to address the entitlement problem? Of course not. They are lying down in front of his public-opinion steamroller, and of their own accord.

    If the Republicans were a serious opposition, they would be running ads constantly to get out an opposing view. They would, furthermore, go Obama one better: get rid of a raft of tax loopholes for “the rich” and increase the taxes on upper incomes—especially those in entertainment, sports, and similar professions populated by wealthy people who overwhelmingly supported Obama—that would cause Obama’s donor base to squeal like stuck pigs.


  2. buzzsawmonkey
    2 | December 5, 2012 8:33 am

    The key, now, for the Republicans is to have their own “Marne Moment” of clarity. They need to see that the time has come to stop negotiating with Obama.

    “It’s Marne-ing in America”?


  3. Speranza
    3 | December 5, 2012 8:55 am

    I wish Fox would have more of Pat Caddell and less of Karl Rove on.


  4. Speranza
    4 | December 5, 2012 8:58 am

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    The Republicans are morons. Obama is demagoguing the “raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires” issue in ads—as he has demagogued it now for two years.
    Meanwhile, the Republicans trot to meetings and make proposals and occasionally get 37 seconds of trimmed soundbite time on the news. Are they running ads about the reality of Obama’s spending? Are they explaining that he is refusing to address the entitlement problem? Of course not. They are lying down in front of his public-opinion steamroller, and of their own accord.
    If the Republicans were a serious opposition, they would be running ads constantly to get out an opposing view. They would, furthermore, go Obama one better: get rid of a raft of tax loopholes for “the rich” and increase the taxes on upper incomes—especially those in entertainment, sports, and similar professions populated by wealthy people who overwhelmingly supported Obama—that would cause Obama’s donor base to squeal like stuck pigs.

    Look at all the opportunities they missed on running ads based on Obama’s pathetic record from 2009 -- 2012 that they never even brought up during the campaign.


  5. buzzsawmonkey
    5 | December 5, 2012 9:12 am

    Speranza wrote:

    I wish Fox would have more of Pat Caddell and less of Karl Rove on.

    I believe that I saw last night—possibly here—that both Rove and Morris are being sidelined by Fox.


  6. buzzsawmonkey
    6 | December 5, 2012 9:13 am

    Speranza wrote:

    Look at all the opportunities they missed on running ads based on Obama’s pathetic record from 2009 — 2012 that they never even brought up during the campaign.

    They should be running ads year round, since they’re shut out of the mainstream media.


  7. 7 | December 5, 2012 9:17 am

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    They would, furthermore, go Obama one better: get rid of a raft of tax loopholes for “the rich” and increase the taxes on upper incomes—especially those in entertainment, sports, and similar professions populated by wealthy people who overwhelmingly supported Obama—that would cause Obama’s donor base to squeal like stuck pigs.

    Remember the opinion piece by Susan Estrich that I linked the other day? She was whining that her taxes were fixing to go up, as though Obama hadn’t been preaching tax increases. Certainly if the Republicans really go after the wealthy elites they will scream. But I see no evidence that the Republican leadership wants to win this fight. It is, as I’ve said before, as though the Republican Elites prefer to be the minority party. They’d certaily rather be in the minority than embrace their base, whom they look down on. I am coming to despise the Republican “leadership” almost as much as I do the Democrats. There are differences in the Parties, espcially if you move away from the leadership and look at the positions of lesser lights, but at the top they are all Washington Animals, and they[‘d rather be in the righ tparty circuit than be right on the issues. And neither party is serious abou tsaving this nation from the real Fiscal Cliff that we face when our creditors will no longer loan us trillions of dollars for effectively 0% interest.


  8. Speranza
    8 | December 5, 2012 9:17 am

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Speranza wrote:
    I wish Fox would have more of Pat Caddell and less of Karl Rove on.

    I believe that I saw last night—possibly here—that both Rove and Morris are being sidelined by Fox.

    Thank God. I am glad to see Rove sidelined. Morris at least is entertaining.


  9. Speranza
    9 | December 5, 2012 9:19 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    Certainly if the Republicans really go after the wealthy elites they will scream.

    I have this theory that the wealthy elites vote Democratic but secretly are hoping (counting on actually) that the Republicans reign the Democrats in on taxes. This Machiavellian game has got to stop. They need to know that elections have consequences.


  10. 10 | December 5, 2012 9:20 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    The quicker Rove goes the way of the dodo the better. He was never very good. He barely won two elections, and the second one was really a gimme. The first one was blind luck: it could have easily tilted the other way. Politics is War. The Democrats realize this. They live it. The Republicans, at best, do not. You have to show up to win, and the Republicans have made a career of not showing up.


  11. Speranza
    11 | December 5, 2012 9:20 am

    Fox News benches Karl Rove and Dick Morris


  12. Speranza
    12 | December 5, 2012 9:22 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    The quicker Rove goes the way of the dodo the better. He was never very good. He barely won two elections, and the second one was really a gimme. The first one was blind luck: it could have easily tilted the other way. P

    “The Architect” -- my ass. He is so overrated. Some conservatives have an attachment to him because the Left made him this “bogeyman” but just because the Left hates you does not necessarily make you virtuous.


  13. Buckeye Abroad
    13 | December 5, 2012 9:22 am

    “As I have mentioned many times, protecting the wealthy..”

    Do you use the democrat double-speak on purpose? The wealthy are democrats. They want to raise income taxes, not tax wealth. There is a difference.

    GOP should just resign. They are not going to beat the media hate machine and the democrats scapegoating any time soon. When there is no enemy to blame, lets see how creative they can get with societal collapse to avoid responsibility.


  14. Speranza
    14 | December 5, 2012 9:23 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    You have to show up to win, and the Republicans have made a career of not showing up.

    John McCain being exhibit 1.


  15. 15 | December 5, 2012 9:24 am

    @ Speranza:

    I agree completely. They vote Democrat with the understanding that teh ebil Republicans will keep the Democrats from doing exactly what they have promised to do. I say end that. We need to let Obama do his worst. He wants to raise taxes on the upper middle class? Fine, let him, but make him own it. To do that, though, the Republicans have to fight, and they’ve not been willing to fight in my lifetime. Reagan was an exception, but even he got snookered by their “raise taxes now and we’ll cut spending later” bullshit. They are the tax-and-spend Democrats. That is the most effective line we have against them, and we are not using it. It is very frustrating.


  16. buzzsawmonkey
    16 | December 5, 2012 9:26 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    It is, as I’ve said before, as though the Republican Elites prefer to be the minority party.

    Orwell, in his essay on Kipling, discusses how Kipling’s work—which he largely dislikes, even though he admits being moved by it—wears well because

    He identified himself with the ruling power and not with the
    opposition. In a gifted writer this seems to us strange and even
    disgusting, but it did have the advantage of giving Kipling a certain
    grip on reality. The ruling power is always faced with the question, ‘In
    such and such circumstances, what would you DO?’, whereas the opposition is not obliged to take responsibility or make any real decisions. Where
    it is a permanent and pensioned opposition
    , as in England, the quality of its thought deteriorates accordingly.

    It appears that being a “permanent and pensioned opposition” is the goal of many in the Republican party.


  17. Speranza
    17 | December 5, 2012 9:27 am

    Buckeye Abroad wrote:

    “As I have mentioned many times, protecting the wealthy..”
    Do you use the democrat double-speak on purpose? The wealthy are democrats. They want to raise income taxes, not tax wealth. There is a difference.
    GOP should just resign. They are not going to beat the media hate machine and the democrats scapegoating any time soon. When there is no enemy to blame, lets see how creative they can get with societal collapse to avoid responsibility.

    I don’t know what your problem is. I said that trying to protect wealthy Democrats from having their taxes raised is a fools errand. Bleep them, they love liberalism so let them live with the consequences. Eight of the top ten wealthiest counties voted for Obama.


  18. Speranza
    18 | December 5, 2012 9:30 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    I’ve said before, as though the Republican Elites prefer to be the minority party.

    Yes, as long as they have their fiefdoms and get a cut of the pie from the Democrats they are not obsessed with winning. The Republicans in New York State are perfect examples of that. That’s why running a Deede Scozzafava was such a natural thing for them to do.


  19. Speranza
    19 | December 5, 2012 9:31 am

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    It appears that being a “permanent and pensioned opposition” is the goal of many in the Republican party.

    Very good analogy. “Pensioned” indeed!


  20. buzzsawmonkey
    20 | December 5, 2012 9:36 am

    @ Speranza:

    Read Orwell’s essay at the link; it’s fascinating to see his ever-so-earnest desire to be a Socialist conflicting with his patriotism and his disgust for the Left’s hypocrisy, all bundled up with his distaste for Kipling and his genuine admiration of Kipling’s work.

    It’s like watching someone put both their legs in one pantsleg and falling on their face, literarily speaking.


  21. Speranza
    21 | December 5, 2012 9:42 am

    There Is A Brutal Civil War In The GOP, And It Looks Like Karl Rove Will Be The First Casualty

    Karl Rove presents a different problem — while [evangelical leaders] are politically naive (from my angle) — Karl is not, he’s as shrewd as a serpent.

    Karl is far more formidable…in the presidential Republican primary in 12′, Karl stepped on Rick Perry and then Newt Gingrich every chance he got — albeit with deceit and sophistication — and elevated Mitt Romney at strategic, crucial points along their way to the Republican nomination — Rove’s candidate.

    As an example of how sophisticated Rove is…Karl Rove was out raising money to keep Santorum alive until they could kill Newt — Santorum basically ran for Governor of Iowa in 2011, visiting all 99 counties; Santorum, out of Iowa, had no organization, no money and no chance in 2012 to be the Republican nominee; he was only a stalking horse for Mitt Romney — Rove kept Santorum alive until he could kill Rick Perry first, and then Newt Gingrich.

    It’s instructive to note that Santorum placed 3rd in the South Carolina Presidential Primary the third week of January, and placed 3rd again the next week in Florida — yet Rove [by encouraging GOP donors to donate Santorum] was able to parlay two third place finishes into a $1M shot of money to keep Santorum alive…this is political gamesmanship on a whole other level, plus access to unlimited money.

    That FOX News and the The Wall Street Journal worked out a hefty financial contract with Karl Rove is of no concern to me, Karl has every right to be paid well and — like me —participate in the political process. But giving Karl Rove the perch as a neutral analyst and an unbiased observer — honest broker — when in reality Karl is driven by his desire to enhance his clients and/or personal interests — corrupts the process.

    Being whipsawed…[by] Karl Rove & the GOP chieftains and lieutenants has to be dealt with on our way toward 2016.

    And among Republicans, there is a sense that the Establishment is getting what it deserves. In an email to Business Insider, one GOP strategist summed it up:

    “A party who won’t paint in bold colors, who puts out flawed messengers, who doesn’t focus on fundamentals, who pisses off the young and the libertarian, well, that party just got what was coming to it.”


  22. Speranza
    22 | December 5, 2012 9:50 am

    Watching Karl Rove’s melt down on election night is funny (even when I want to cry reliving Obama’s victory).

    http://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-ohio-2012-11


  23. Speranza
    23 | December 5, 2012 9:54 am

    God just watching the videos of election night gave me chills.


  24. 24 | December 5, 2012 9:54 am

    Speranza wrote:

    “A party who won’t paint in bold colors, who puts out flawed messengers, who doesn’t focus on fundamentals, who pisses off the young and the libertarian, well, that party just got what was coming to it.”

    Just as with taxing the “rich” the problem with this is that we all have to suffer these richly-deserved consequences. I am all for punishing the Republican “elites”, whom I despise, but we are going to watch the Country collapse as a result of their game-playing. One of the worst things about the Romney campaign was he didn’t act as though this was the most consequential election since 1864. He acted like there was no real emergency, that things would be OK no matter who won. He wasn’t as bad as McCain, by any stretch of the imagination, but he still saved his dirty fighting for fellow Republicans, and tried to play the straight arrow with Obama. We see how well that worked out.


  25. Speranza
    25 | December 5, 2012 9:59 am

    @ Iron Fist:
    Romney also was too much the “gentleman” and was afraid to go harder after Obama as if it would create greater sympathy for Obama. Obama being this messianic figure to too many people needed to be brought down to the human level and that required debunking and demolishing him. I was told that one of Romney’s Florida ads was of the Bush “kinder and gentler” sort.


  26. Speranza
    26 | December 5, 2012 10:00 am

    We also need to stop pissing off the young.


  27. buzzsawmonkey
    27 | December 5, 2012 10:04 am

    Speranza wrote:

    We also need to stop pissing off the young.

    We need to point out to the young that the Democrats are pissing on them.


  28. Speranza
    28 | December 5, 2012 10:06 am

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Speranza wrote:
    We also need to stop pissing off the young.

    We need to point out to the young that the Democrats are pissing on them.

    That’s easier said then done. We need to stop coming across as a party of stodgy old scolds. No more Santorum’s!


  29. theoutsider
    29 | December 5, 2012 10:08 am

    @ Speranza:
    Who told you that? Romney did not want to be associated with Bush whatsoever, especially in Florida.


  30. bluliner10
    30 | December 5, 2012 10:08 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    It needs an Atlas Shrugged that can be digested in an hour and a half, or in multi-part reality TV style. Freedom versus slavery cannot be that difficult to sell.


  31. EBL
    31 | December 5, 2012 10:12 am

    We need to storm the Bastile!


  32. waldensianspirit
    32 | December 5, 2012 10:13 am

    New Majority Party?


  33. waldensianspirit
    33 | December 5, 2012 10:16 am

    You are not going to ‘fix’ the GOP establishment


  34. 34 | December 5, 2012 10:17 am

    @ Speranza:

    The problem is that responsibility doesn’t sell. The Democrats tell them to do anything that they won’t, and there won’t be consequences. When there are consequences, the Democrats blame the Republicans. This is at work in the general population, but it is especially easy to sell to the young most of whom think that they are ten feet tall and bullet-proof to begin with. I don’t know what you do about that.


  35. buzzsawmonkey
    35 | December 5, 2012 10:18 am

    Speranza wrote:

    That’s easier said then done. We need to stop coming across as a party of stodgy old scolds. No more Santorum’s!

    Old Scolds™—reminds me of the “not a cough in a carload” cigarettes.

    Santorum’s problem is not that he was “a scold”—it is that he comes across as the nasty little prick in high school who’s always running for student council.

    Sorry, but there is reason for the Right to be “scolds”—if, by that, you mean saying that you can’t spend what you don’t have; that the ideal is that people stand on their own two feet, which means that the “safety net” should be just enough to stop you from slamming full force into the pavement, and not a lifestyle choice; that “same-sex marriage” is a stalking horse for the destruction of the First Amendment, not a “civil rights issue”; that “abortion” is not a secular sacrament but a devaluing of women into sex objects far more pernicious and pervasive than the supposed “bad old days.”

    Do these things have to be packaged/phrased properly so that the young and ill-educated will comprehend them and take heed? Of course. That goes to the “scold” issue, but does not jettison the issues themselves.


  36. 36 | December 5, 2012 10:19 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    The problem is that responsibility doesn’t sell.

    That is why Republicans should push for freedom and liberation. That sells better than responsibility or dependency.


  37. 37 | December 5, 2012 10:20 am

    theoutsider wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    Who told you that? Romney did not want to be associated with Bush whatsoever, especially in Florida.

    Romney refused to throw Bush under the bus. He never made it clear he was not a Bush Republican. His biggest mistake was his foreign policy stances that across like nation building.


  38. 38 | December 5, 2012 10:21 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    The way to appeal to young people is not to attack them. It’s sell them on liberation and freedom. Make the Democrats the system and sell rebellion against the system.


  39. 39 | December 5, 2012 10:23 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    He wasn’t as bad as McCain, by any stretch of the imagination, but he still saved his dirty fighting for fellow Republicans, and tried to play the straight arrow with Obama. We see how well that worked out

    .

    Scorch earth is the way to defeat the Democrats. Hit them with an IRON FIST! :-)


  40. buzzsawmonkey
    40 | December 5, 2012 10:24 am

    Rodan wrote:

    The way to appeal to young people is not to attack them. It’s sell them on liberation and freedom. Make the Democrats the system and sell rebellion against the system.

    True. But there are moral principles which need to be “sold” that require a certain effort to explain.


  41. Prebanned
    41 | December 5, 2012 10:25 am

    Need to go head to head with the Republican establishment on every level in 2014 and 2016 primarys.
    Or Start a Constitution party and run candidates in every uncontested election in the country?


  42. 42 | December 5, 2012 10:25 am

    Speranza wrote:

    I wish Fox would have more of Pat Caddell and less of Karl Rove on.

    Karl Rove is washed up a loser.


  43. 43 | December 5, 2012 10:26 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Do explanation in increments. But the first goal is to make different voter segments hate the Democrats as the system.


  44. Speranza
    44 | December 5, 2012 10:26 am

    theoutsider wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    Who told you that? Romney did not want to be associated with Bush whatsoever, especially in Florida.

    Duh someone who actually saw the ad. The ad was not praising Bush but was a wishy-washy “kinder, gentler” generic sort of ad.


  45. Prebanned
    45 | December 5, 2012 10:26 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    The problem is that responsibility doesn’t sell.
    That is why Republicans should push for freedom and liberation. That sells better than responsibility or dependency.

    Portray the establishment politicians as wrecking the economy and sticking the young with the bill.


  46. Speranza
    46 | December 5, 2012 10:27 am

    EBL wrote:

    We need to storm the Bastile!

    Grover Norquist thinks that he is a King (maker).


  47. 47 | December 5, 2012 10:27 am

    Speranza wrote:

    Watching Karl Rove’s melt down on election night is funny (even when I want to cry reliving Obama’s victory).
    http://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-ohio-2012-11

    300 million wasted and Rove hacd nothing to show for it. Honestly, Fox has lost credibility with me. They did not portray a true picture of the election and relied on Rove and Morris. They need new blood.


  48. theoutsider
    48 | December 5, 2012 10:27 am

    @ Rodan:
    Half true. The Republican party did not invite Bush or Cheney to the RNC. They did not want anything to do with them. You’re right about the foreign policy advisers, I think it was 17 of 24 Romney FP advisers were Bush appointees. Real scumbags like John Bolton and Dan Senor.


  49. 49 | December 5, 2012 10:28 am

    Speranza wrote:

    EBL wrote:
    We need to storm the Bastile!

    Grover Norquist thinks that he is a King (maker).

    He need to be expelled from the right. He’s a Muslim Brotherhood agent.


  50. Speranza
    50 | December 5, 2012 10:28 am

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Santorum’s problem is not that he was “a scold”—it is that he comes across as the nasty little prick in high school who’s always running for student council.

    He is nasty little prick. His moments of glory was going up against lunatic Ron Paul and trying to debate him as to whether Iran was a threat or not.


  51. Prebanned
    51 | December 5, 2012 10:29 am

    Encouraging the young to run up big college tuition bills for jobs that aren’t there because of the democrats.

    Enriching the democrat-college establishment and forcing the young to pay for thier own brainwashing.


  52. Speranza
    52 | December 5, 2012 10:30 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    He wasn’t as bad as McCain, by any stretch of the imagination, but he still saved his dirty fighting for fellow Republicans, and tried to play the straight arrow with Obama. We see how well that worked out.

    He (along with his lackeys Bachmann and Rove) fought harder against first Perry and then Gingrich.


  53. 53 | December 5, 2012 10:30 am

    @ theoutsider:

    Dan Senor is a pure slimeball. He was one of the assholes that decided to disband the Iraqi Army. He’s punk and I can’t stand him. I am getting sick of Bolton as well. He has an obsession with Russia, when the enemy is the Muslim Brotherhood.

    The Republican foreign policy establishment are a bunch of Leftist nation builders conning Conservatives.


  54. 54 | December 5, 2012 10:31 am

    @ Rodan:

    Freedom means responsibility. You can’t have freedom without responsibility. What you are really saying is give license, but the Democrats already do that. Their dependancy trap ensures that you have freedom from responsibility, and all it costs you is the rest of your freedom as well. Many, many Americans are willing to make that trade. Simply becoming the Democrats on social issues won’t win elections. We’ve discussed this before. You can’t have an orderly society and have no functional public morality. You simply can’t. If you want to see what America will look like in 20 years, look at the destruction of the black family under werlfare. That is the fate prepared for enough of us to win every election from here on out. Now you can’t have a productive society with that maney people on the dole, but you make a grave error when you think that the Democrats want a productive society. They do not. They want the mass of the people trapped in a semi-serfdom where they have a minimal level of subsistance supplied by the State, and they have no hope of bettering their lives. At the top you’ll have the same wealthy elite that we have now, onlymore entrenched and with more power. There will be a small middle class. The machinery of state requires that some functions be performed. You’ll have the technical people, and to a degree the health care people (though I expect that the elites will go to Costa Rica or the Caymans for their medical treatments), but upward mobility will become a thing of the past. You have to sell the young on the concept of upward mobility. They’ve been sold that a gender-studies Master’s will be their ticket to unlimited wealt, if only they borrow $100K to get it.


  55. Speranza
    55 | December 5, 2012 10:31 am

    Rodan wrote:

    Speranza wrote:
    EBL wrote:
    We need to storm the Bastile!
    Grover Norquist thinks that he is a King (maker).

    He need to be expelled from the right. He’s a Muslim Brotherhood agent.

    He is a rodent of kingmaker. He has been around way too long.


  56. waldensianspirit
    56 | December 5, 2012 10:32 am

    Yea I didn’t think so. Yinz will be forever shrinking the tent


  57. Speranza
    57 | December 5, 2012 10:32 am

    Rodan wrote:

    I am getting sick of Bolton as well.

    Me too. General Bolton is always is calling for Israel to attack Iran but never explains how the hell they can do it. /


  58. RIX
    58 | December 5, 2012 10:32 am

    I am bemused by the pundits, especially conservative
    pundits who wonder what Obama is trying to accomplish.
    While he is busy dismantling society they wonder what
    his goals are.
    It’s kind of like, “I know that Vinny said that he wants
    to kill me, but how did he mean that?”
    Obamas goals are obvious.


  59. 59 | December 5, 2012 10:32 am

    @ Speranza:

    He (along with his lackeys Bachmann and Rove) fought harder against first Perry and then Gingrich.

    Romney tried to be something he’s not in the primaries and it burned him in the general election.


  60. 60 | December 5, 2012 10:34 am

    @ RIX:

    Obama wants another recession. It will have no impact on him politically since the media will cover for him and it will create more people dependent on government. It’s a win-win for him.


  61. Speranza
    61 | December 5, 2012 10:34 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    He (along with his lackeys Bachmann and Rove) fought harder against first Perry and then Gingrich.

    Romney tried to be something he’s not in the primaries and it burned him in the general election.

    When he stuck his nose into the Texas in state tuition issue (which was purely a Texas internal matter) it told me he was playing to a certain sector.


  62. Speranza
    62 | December 5, 2012 10:35 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ RIX:
    Obama wants another recession. It will have no impact on him politically since the media will cover for him and it will create more people dependent on government. It’s a win-win for him.

    Sad but true. He paid no long-term price for the terrible economic policies he put into place in 2009 (and losing the House was a small price to pay).


  63. heysoos
    63 | December 5, 2012 10:36 am

    here’s your target voters…and guess what?
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/05/Poll-Majority-Of-Young-Voters-Favors-Bigger-Government


  64. 64 | December 5, 2012 10:37 am

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    True. But there are moral principles which need to be “sold” that require a certain effort to explain.

    Exactly. A society without a functional public morality is just a band of apes. We will have public morality,though. What is Obama massive “Green” effort if not a moral crusade? They even want to tell you how to eat. Bloomberg and Michelle Antionette are perfect examples of moral crusaders, and they are every bit as odious as Santorum (I think far more so, but I don’t have a bug up my ass about Santorum). The problem is selling our vision to the young. The Leftist vision is preached to them by almost every authority figure in their lives from preschool onward. By ceeding education to the Left, we have lost the moral battle.


  65. Prebanned
    65 | December 5, 2012 10:37 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    They’ve been sold that a gender-studies Master’s will be their ticket to unlimited wealt, if only they borrow $100K to get it.

    They are absolutely screwed.
    No job in the rediculous field of study they were encouraged to pursue, loads of debt and if they do somehow get a high paying job they will have to pay draconian tax rates, work longer and get less when they retire.


  66. 66 | December 5, 2012 10:39 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    They want the mass of the people trapped in a semi-serfdom where they have a minimal level of subsistance supplied by the State, and they have no hope of bettering their lives.

    Use this mentality against the Left. It’s matter of how you come across. If you try to lecture people, they will shut you out,. If you try to be people’s friends and point out how they are oppressed by the system, they rebel. The Left has made the Republicans the system, we need to make the Democrats the system.

    If the Republicans do not make this argument, then another Rightwing Party will emerge and the GOP will go the way of the Whigs.


  67. 67 | December 5, 2012 10:41 am

    @ heysoos:

    I hope these little brats like the minimum wage jobs they have now -- because that’s probably as far as they’re going to go.

    A caller to Mark Levin yesterday had a drastic but wonderful solution to John Boehner’s power-grab and kicking of conservatives to the curb, but we’d need all Republicans to go along with it (except Boehner and Cantor -- they don’t get to join the treehouse club): All Republicans immediately declare they are a new party -- “the Constitution Party” -- they would then have the majority in the House and could elect someone better as Speaker and Johnny No-Balls can go back to being the back bencher he deserves to me. The rebels can go back and run as Republicans again in 2014. I’m sure most of them will have constituents that will thank them for sticking to their guns.

    They’ll never do it, of course -- it’s rather drastic. But as Eliza Doolittle once said -- “wouldn’t it be loverly?”


  68. 68 | December 5, 2012 10:41 am

    heysoos wrote:

    here’s your target voters…and guess what?
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/05/Poll-Majority-Of-Young-Voters-Favors-Bigger-Government

    The reason is because Republicans have told them to fuck off. SO they only hear one side of the argument. That is why young people want more government. The Republicans do not even speak to them and insults them.

    If the GOP doesn’t, then another Party will emerge to challenge the Democrats. Nature abhors a vacuum.


  69. 69 | December 5, 2012 10:42 am

    Rodan wrote:

    If the Republicans do not make this argument, then another Rightwing Party will emerge and the GOP will go the way of the Whigs.

    We don’t have the time fo rthis to happen. In fact, we are already screwed. By the end of Obama’s second term we’ll be at least $21 trillion in debt, and that is probably way low-balling it. When the Republicans cave on the Fiscal Cliff, Obama will have an unlimited credit card to run up charges on. I expect him to go wild, without ever submitting a budget to the Legislature. We no longer have a tripartate system. Obama is king in all but name.


  70. buzzsawmonkey
    70 | December 5, 2012 10:42 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    They’ve been sold that a gender-studies Master’s will be their ticket to unlimited wealt, if only they borrow $100K to get it.

    Good semen-sip is always in demand…


  71. Prebanned
    71 | December 5, 2012 10:42 am

    @ heysoos:
    Let the bush tax cuts expire, raise taxes as necessary to pay for the level of spending.
    Do not raise the debt level again.
    Then the reality of bigger government will be defined.
    Our country needs a dose of reality, we are going over the cliff sometime and it keeps getting higher


  72. 72 | December 5, 2012 10:42 am

    I’m starting to think the GOP is a lost cause. Too many in the Party are stuck in the old ways and don;’t want to take the argument to groups that do not vote for us.

    Maybe it is time for a new Party of the Right.


  73. 73 | December 5, 2012 10:45 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    We don’t have the time fo rthis to happen. In fact, we are already screwed. By the end of Obama’s second term we’ll be at least $21 trillion in debt, and that is probably way low-balling it. When the Republicans cave on the Fiscal Cliff, Obama will have an unlimited credit card to run up charges on. I expect him to go wild, without ever submitting a budget to the Legislature. We no longer have a tripartate system. Obama is king in all but name.

    Many on the Right are tired of attitude Republicans have. I am sick of hearing this group will not vote for us or do not bother. The fact that Obama is creating a train wreck will make the emergence of a new Party even easier. That is if our country survives, which is the big question!


  74. Prebanned
    74 | December 5, 2012 10:47 am

    @ Rodan:
    I think it is more than time, we either have 2 years to take over the house with a new party and 4 years to take over the Republican party or nothing.
    The Republicans will lose in 2016, with or without a third party.


  75. 75 | December 5, 2012 10:47 am

    @ Rodan:

    I tweeted Johnny No-Balls yesterday that if he keeps this up, we’ll be setting his Wayback Machine to 2006 in the next election.+


  76. Prebanned
    76 | December 5, 2012 10:49 am

    We only have one shot left, we really don’t have to worry about 2018.


  77. theoutsider
    77 | December 5, 2012 10:49 am

    @ Rodan:
    You are totally right about Dan Senor. He is an incompetent moron. Disbanding the Iraqi army is probably the second stupidest foreign policy decision ever. First was going into Iraq in the first place.


  78. Speranza
    78 | December 5, 2012 10:50 am

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    @ Rodan:
    I tweeted Johnny No-Balls yesterday that if he keeps this up, we’ll be setting his Wayback Machine to 2006 in the next election.+

    You probably made him cry.


  79. 79 | December 5, 2012 10:51 am

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    @ Rodan:
    I tweeted Johnny No-Balls yesterday that if he keeps this up, we’ll be setting his Wayback Machine to 2006 in the next election.+

    I think its time for a new Party of the Right.


  80. RIX
    80 | December 5, 2012 10:51 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ RIX:

    Obama wants another recession. It will have no impact on him politically since the media will cover for him and it will create more people dependent on government. It’s a win-win for him.
    </blockquote

    >

    That is the most obvious & reasonable explanation.
    He said that he would transform America & here we go.


  81. Da_Beerfreak
    81 | December 5, 2012 10:53 am

    @ Carolina Girl:
    You’re going to have to find a different name for a new party; the Constitution Party is already taken. :wink:


  82. 82 | December 5, 2012 10:53 am

    @ Prebanned:

    I think the GOP is a lost cause and they will lose in 2016. The Republicans don’t know how to compete for certain groups and are happy with the purity of defeat.

    I already think 2016 is a lost cause. The only way I see Republicans getting their act together is suffering a 40 state landslide. Then, they will get serious about entering the 21st Century and competing for votes as America exists now.


  83. 83 | December 5, 2012 10:53 am

    theoutsider wrote:

    First was going into Iraq in the first place.

    Yes, because allowing sanctions to end with Saddam Hussein in power was the brilliant way to go. You really believe that? What was your genius plan to handle Saddam Hussein? Leaving him alone simply wasn’t an answer any more than letting the Iranians get atomic weapons is a legitimate answer. Do you really want a nuclear war in th emiddle east? Because that is where your man’s policy is sending us.


  84. 84 | December 5, 2012 10:54 am

    @ RIX:

    Obama was not lying.


  85. RIX
    85 | December 5, 2012 10:54 am

    theoutsider wrote:

    @ Rodan:

    You are totally right about Dan Senor. He is an incompetent moron. Disbanding the Iraqi army is probably the second stupidest foreign policy decision ever. First was going into Iraq in the first place.

    But becoming the air force for the Libyan “Freedom Fighters”
    was a good move?
    Maybe Susan Rice can redo the Sunday talk show circuit &
    defend that.


  86. buzzsawmonkey
    86 | December 5, 2012 10:54 am

    Rodan wrote:

    I think its time for a new Party of the Right.

    “We’re right, we’ll fight, get used to it!”

    /borrowing from the gay-rights lobby…


  87. waldensianspirit
    87 | December 5, 2012 10:55 am

    @ Iron Fist:
    Ah you see what outsider is up to


  88. 88 | December 5, 2012 10:55 am

    @ Da_Beerfreak:

    Oh I know. That’s the one they should declare they’re in now. I was trying to think of another legitimate party they could declare for, but I didn’t like any of the others.


  89. RIX
    89 | December 5, 2012 10:56 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ RIX:
    Obama was not lying.

    No he wasn’t. He told us who he is in his crappy memoirs.


  90. 90 | December 5, 2012 10:56 am

    @ Rodan:

    He’s down to -1 at Ras today. I can see him go into positive numbers shortly, and he hasn’t been there since July of 2009.


  91. buzzsawmonkey
    91 | December 5, 2012 10:57 am

    Speranza wrote:

    You probably made him cry.

    While John Boehner Gently Weeps
    —apologies to the Beatles, and “While My Guitar Gently Weeps”

    I look at the fiscal cliff, see that it’s looming
    While John Boehner gently weeps
    I look at effective defense that it’s dooming
    Still John Boehner gently weeps

    I don’t know whatever possessed him
    Little more than one year ago
    To agree down the road to sequestering
    Everyone told him so

    All vestige of financial sanity’s ending
    While John Boehner gently weeps
    He’s done nothing to slow the government spending
    So John Boehner gently weeps

    No matter how he may maneuver
    Now his back’s to the wall
    With Obama, he’s a prime mover
    Of our financial fall

    I look at the fiscal cliff, see that it’s looming
    While John Boehner gently weeps
    Look at the cliff…
    Still John Boehner gently weeps

    Oh, oh
    Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh
    Oh, oh, oh, oh

    Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
    Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, oh, ooh


  92. 92 | December 5, 2012 10:57 am

    Rodan wrote:

    Then, they will get serious about entering the 21st Century and competing for votes as America exists now.

    The GOP’s first priority should be maximizing its base. Romney lost because he wasn’t able to get enough of the base out. Pandering to the ghetto crowd won’t do that, and it won’t win the ghetto crowd, either. You can’t out-bid the Democrats on the free shit bus. The Democrats are trying to bring the system down. They’ll always spend mre than we take in, no matter what they raise taxes to. Obama isn’t raising taxes to bring in more money. He is doing it to try to end upward mobility in the upper middle class.


  93. 93 | December 5, 2012 11:01 am

    @ waldensianspirit:

    The “No War In Iraq” people are de facto pro-Saddam Hussein, and always have been. The best thing you can say about Saddam Hussein was that he was an inept genocidal maniac. His sons, who would be in power now if it weren’t for our invasion of Iraq, were worse. The invasion was fine, and put us in a good strategic position vis Iran and Syria. The aftermath of the invasion is where we fucked up, and part of that can be blamed on Bush and his people, but a sizable helping of blame can be focused on the Democrats who were in no uncertain terms treasonous in their opposition to American success in Iraq.


  94. RIX
    94 | December 5, 2012 11:01 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    He is doing it to try to end upward mobility in the upper middle class.

    That has been the goal all along.


  95. buzzsawmonkey
    95 | December 5, 2012 11:01 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    Obama isn’t raising taxes to bring in more money. He is doing it to try to end upward mobility in the upper middle class.

    Twenty years in a church with “the disavowal of middleclassness” as one of its central principles, lest people forget…


  96. waldensianspirit
    96 | December 5, 2012 11:02 am

    @ Iron Fist:
    So between elections we need to find a way to stop them. O’Keefe keeps doing his part.

    Right now they are gaining everything they want unimpeded.

    Instead we chew anyone we don’t like who isn’t in power. Last I check, Bolton, Santorum et al are powerless.


  97. Da_Beerfreak
    97 | December 5, 2012 11:03 am

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    @ Da_Beerfreak:

    Oh I know. That’s the one they should declare they’re in now. I was trying to think of another legitimate party they could declare for, but I didn’t like any of the others.

    I know what you mean. Every time I have to think of a new name for something my mind goes blank… :oops:


  98. 98 | December 5, 2012 11:04 am

    @ RIX:

    Wait’ll the little tikes find out that government control of the student loan program is going to be a charming pathway in the future to the government doling out your job for you. Want to study Engineering? Well, sorry, bub, but test scores indicate that you should be an auto mechanic instead. We’ll give you money for a trade school.


  99. 99 | December 5, 2012 11:04 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    Pandering to the ghetto crowd won’t do that, and it won’t win the ghetto crowd, either

    No everyone who votes for the Democrats is part of the ghetto crowd. They vote for the Democrats because Republicans are viewed as hating them. This perception exists because Republicans don’t try to expand their base. They are happy with a shrinking base. For many Republicans, the purity of defeat is better than the impurity of winning.

    I think the GOP is a lost cause will not win another Presidential election ever.


  100. 100 | December 5, 2012 11:05 am

    @ Da_Beerfreak:

    Yeah, I didn’t think the Country would for the “Eff You, Johnny No-Balls” Party.


  101. theoutsider
    101 | December 5, 2012 11:06 am

    @ Iron Fist:
    Come on IF, Give us your plans for the middle east, Iran, Iraq, Syria, blah blah blah.


  102. 102 | December 5, 2012 11:06 am

    @ waldensianspirit:

    Yep, if Obama were smart he’d back off and let us finish destroying ourselves. What I am seeing on the right is a mindless lashing-out at anything and everything, but I am not seeing any strategic leadership from anyone. Politic is War, and in wr strategy is, if not everything, 80% of your effort. The best army in the world will lose if they have a losing strategy. Witness what Obama has done in Afghanistan for one example of this. We have no strategy to take on the Left. We never have. We got lucky with Reagan, but let’s face it: Reagan was a fluke. He was opposed by the Republican “elites”, and won in spite of the Republican party. And the Party “elites” have been fighting against Reaganism ever since.


  103. Da_Beerfreak
    103 | December 5, 2012 11:07 am

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    @ Da_Beerfreak:

    Yeah, I didn’t think the Country would for the “Eff You, Johnny No-Balls” Party.

    But it would make a great bumper sticker. :twisted:


  104. RIX
    104 | December 5, 2012 11:08 am

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    @ RIX:
    W

    ait’ll the little tikes find out that government control of the student loan program is going to be a charming pathway in the future to the government doling out your job for you. Want to study Engineering? Well, sorry, bub, but test scores indicate that you should be an auto mechanic instead. We’ll give you money for a trade school

    .

    That is going to happen. They will probably offer debt
    forgiveness for those that get with the program.


  105. 105 | December 5, 2012 11:10 am

    @ theoutsider:

    While you are at it, genius, explain to us what your plan is for dealing with the debt? By the end of Obama’s second term we’ll be nearing 150% GDP in debt. What do you propose to do about it? You have no answers to any questions, because your plan is for the ruination of this nation. That’s why you support Obama. We can see through you.


  106. 106 | December 5, 2012 11:10 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    The Iraq war was a con job. The goal was never WMDs, it was about creating a Mideast Democracy that would then inspire other Mideast countries to go Democratic. It was a Nation building project that cause us 3,000 lives and 30,000 wounded and empowered Iran.

    There was nothing Conservative about the Iraq war,. It was a Socialist project.


  107. 107 | December 5, 2012 11:12 am

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    We’ll give you money for a trade school.

    No, that would actually be better than what we have now. Now they will loan you $100K to get a Masters in transgenedered theory, and then you’ll be on th ehook fo rthat $100K for the rest of your life. Kids would be better off if the State would only give loans for degrees that had the potential to make some kind of return on investment.


  108. Speranza
    108 | December 5, 2012 11:12 am

    Rodan wrote:

    The only way I see Republicans getting their act together is suffering a 40 state landslide. Then, they will get serious about entering the 21st Century and competing for votes as America exists now.

    The country would be destroyed if that happens.


  109. 109 | December 5, 2012 11:13 am

    @ Rodan:

    While I certainly can’t argue that possibility, I think with a good message and a good candidate, we win in 2016. By then the economic cruelties of Obama’s policies will be really felt by the middle class. And frankly, conservatives need to check their damn egos at the door and decide among themselves who they think is the best messenger of our principles in 2016 and let them run against the RINO offering. No more of this five conservatives, none of whom are electable, taking up room on the debate stage. And please….can the damn campaign start in either LATE 2015 or early 2016? Starting a Presidential campaign 18 months before an election just wears out the electorate.

    Baby boomers will be losing their Medicare benefits and kids under the age of 30 will be realizing there are no jobs. There is nothing in any of Obama’s plans that are going to allow this economy to recover. There is only so much more the stock market can do to inflate itself before it seriously comes crashing down.

    Fox News, surprisingly, has taken a good step in benching Karl Rove. He and his White Board need to find newer pastures. They need to develop shows that will appeal to the youth culture -- an alternative to Jon Stewart. These things will matter. Dump “The Five” (and it’s a good show, don’t get me wrong) and give Gutfeld a better vehicle.


  110. buzzsawmonkey
    110 | December 5, 2012 11:14 am

    Rodan wrote:

    The Iraq war was a con job. The goal was never WMDs, it was about creating a Mideast Democracy that would then inspire other Mideast countries to go Democratic. It was a Nation building project that cause us 3,000 lives and 30,000 wounded and empowered Iran.

    There was nothing Conservative about the Iraq war,. It was a Socialist project.

    I was under the impression that the purpose of the Iraq war was originally twofold: to end Saddam Hussein’s financial support for and safe haven for terrorists, and to place Iran in a pincer between an American-occupied Iraq and an American-occupied Afghanistan—after which Iran’s terror regime could be dealt with.

    That should have been the objective, at any rate—and I believe it initially was, but that George Bush allowed himself and his military to be cowed by the opposition.


  111. Speranza
    111 | December 5, 2012 11:15 am

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    I think with a good message and a good candidate, we win in 2016.

    Me too. I am not throwing in the towel four years ahead of the time. Obama won by 3% -- hardly an insurmountable landslide.


  112. 112 | December 5, 2012 11:16 am

    @ Rodan:

    So what would you have done about Saddam Hussein? Bear in mind that it was a mistake to leave him in power after the First Gulf War, and that sanctions were crumbling. If we had backed off and not invaded, the final shell of sanctions would have ended, and Hussein would have been seen as the strong man backing down the United States. His stock would have gone up exponentially in the Muslim world, at a time when we are de facto at war with the Muslim World. Taking Iraq made perfect strategic sense. It gave us ingress to fight the more formidibla fe Iran. It was the aftermath when they started in on the nation building that they fcked up. We should have built bases to support an Invasion of Iran, and gone after that enemy as hard as we could. But that would have required fighting the traitors in the Democrat Party, and Bush didn’t have the stomach for that.


  113. waldensianspirit
    113 | December 5, 2012 11:16 am

    @ Carolina Girl:
    Unless the economy is bad enough to take away people’s cheap texting etc that won’t work. They like to read about life getting worse for people they hate


  114. Speranza
    114 | December 5, 2012 11:17 am

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    Fox News, surprisingly, has taken a good step in benching Karl Rove. He and his White Board need to find newer pastures. They need to develop shows that will appeal to the youth culture — an alternative to Jon Stewart. These things will matter. Dump “The Five” (and it’s a good show, don’t get me wrong) and give Gutfeld a better vehicle.

    They picked up every out of work “conservative” -- Dick Morris, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Karl Rove -- find fresher more insightful blood.


  115. 115 | December 5, 2012 11:18 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    Oh, I couldn’t agree more on that -- trying to find a good mechanic these days is like water in the desert. Fortunately I have a good friend who are one. I was simply pointing out that the middle class will not be allowed to move upward. If you are middle class now, you will stay middle class forever.

    Want to go to business school and get an MBA? Is your dad a plumber? Faggitaboutit.


  116. buzzsawmonkey
    116 | December 5, 2012 11:18 am

    Speranza wrote:

    They picked up every out of work “conservative” — Dick Morris, Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin,Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove — find fresher more insightful blood.

    I’m available. And I’m funnier than any of those people.


  117. 117 | December 5, 2012 11:18 am

    Speranza wrote:

    The country would be destroyed if that happens.

    Exactly. I am certain that that is Obama’s plan, but I don’t know if he’ll succeed. As you say, Obama didn’t win a resounding victory. If we could have brought the base out sstronger in a few states, the election would have had a different result. Romney spent the entire campaign running away from the Tea Party, and that was a mistake.


  118. Speranza
    118 | December 5, 2012 11:21 am

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Speranza wrote:
    They picked up every out of work “conservative” — Dick Morris, Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin,Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove — find fresher more insightful blood.

    I’m available. And I’m funnier than any of those people.

    You’re not out of work Rebbe?


  119. 119 | December 5, 2012 11:21 am

    New Thread.


  120. Da_Beerfreak
    120 | December 5, 2012 11:23 am

    If something is not done to repair the electoral system back to a point where the results can be trusted, nothing else maters… :evil:


  121. 121 | December 5, 2012 11:23 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    I would have destroyed the whole Mideast. I would have launched a WWII style campaign against Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria and Iran. I would have destroyed their farms, infrastructure and religious centers. I then would withdraw and let them eat rock.


  122. theoutsider
    122 | December 5, 2012 11:24 am

    @ Rodan:
    Why can’t Conservatives come to that point?, and move on. 75% of the people in the country think the Iraq war was wrong. I guess Iron Fist is going to defend that idiotic war, because he was such a Bush supporter.


  123. 123 | December 5, 2012 11:24 am

    @ waldensianspirit:

    It will be interesting to see what people give up when inflation hits. Who the heck is going to be able to afford a cell phone when you’re paying $6 for a loaf of bread, $6 for a gallon of milk and $5 for a gallon of gas? Certainly parents will be yanking cell phones for the kids if nothing else.


  124. buzzsawmonkey
    124 | December 5, 2012 11:24 am

    Speranza wrote:

    You’re not out of work Rebbe?

    I am part of the great legion of the self-employed, which inevitably means that I am self-unemployed much of the time. A regular paycheck would be a wonderful thing.


  125. 125 | December 5, 2012 11:25 am

    theoutsider wrote:

    @ Rodan:
    Why can’t Conservatives come to that point?, and move on. 75% of the people in the country think the Iraq war was wrong. I guess Iron Fist is going to defend that idiotic war, because he was such a Bush supporter.

    That is not Iron Fist’s position. Re-read what he wrote. I will let him answer you fully!


  126. buzzsawmonkey
    126 | December 5, 2012 11:26 am

    theoutsider wrote:

    75% of the people in the country think the Iraq war was wrong.

    And this means what, exactly—other than that “75% of the people in this country” have been fed the same line of crap you’re spouting?


  127. waldensianspirit
    127 | December 5, 2012 11:28 am

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    @ waldensianspirit:
    It will be interesting to see what people give up when inflation hits. Who the heck is going to be able to afford a cell phone when you’re paying $6 for a loaf of bread, $6 for a gallon of milk and $5 for a gallon of gas? Certainly parents will be yanking cell phones for the kids if nothing else.

    By 2016 I predict there will be a majority who don’t have to pay a thing for a cell phone, and food.


  128. 128 | December 5, 2012 11:29 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Not everyone who think Iraq is a mistake has been fed crap. Nation Building is a Leftist concept and the Iraq war was just some academic idea that cost real Americans live.


  129. 129 | December 5, 2012 11:30 am

    @ Rodan:

    I am not going to bother. I am fixing to go to lunch, but I will note that the Outsider again ducks every question aimed at him. He doesn’t answer because he has no answers. I’ve made my position clear. The war I wanted fought isn’t the war that Bush’s war turned into, but like Buzzsawmonkey I don’t think the initial was was intended to go the way it did. We would have won the war walking away without traitors like Dick Durbin (D-al Qaeda) working to undermine us at every turn. Durbin should be in prison, and the Democrats are proud of him.


  130. buzzsawmonkey
    130 | December 5, 2012 11:31 am

    Rodan wrote:

    Nation Building is a Leftist concept and the Iraq war was just some academic idea that cost real Americans live.

    “Nation building” was not the original concept of the Iraq war, as far as I know; it became the stated objective as Bush became increasingly interested in trying to placate the treasonous Left.

    As a way of “blooding” the troops before going into Iran, it was an excellent idea—but that has nothing to do with “nation building.”


  131. bluliner10
    131 | December 5, 2012 11:33 am

    @ theoutsider:
    You are only correct on the disbanding the only ‘national’ entity the Iraqi’s had. The Iraqi police were local yokels and had no unity of effort. The second point. I was there. It was not a mistake.


  132. 132 | December 5, 2012 11:33 am

    @ waldensianspirit:

    You’ve got a point there. I imagine the government will have no trouble finding a reason to take over all communications and the internet. For our own good of course. You’ll all have an unlimited plan, from OT&T.

    And your phone will come from whatever company writes the biggest check to Obama’s Presidential Library Fund.


  133. 133 | December 5, 2012 11:36 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Sorry, the Iraq war was about nation building. Bush read a book by Natan Sharansky which the premise was everyone wanted democracy. He thought the answer to Terror was Democracy. He choose Iraq, becasue it was the weakest of possible targets. He used the WMD pretext to sell the war to a nervous public post 9-11. Bush lied and the war’s real intentions were clear when Baghdad fell. The US Army was not allowed to shoot looters and the Iraqi Army was disbanded.

    Bush lied and Americans died as a result. No Conservative should defend a Leftist act.


  134. Da_Beerfreak
    134 | December 5, 2012 11:38 am

    “Everything which might cause doubt about the wisdom of the government or create discontent will be kept from the people. The basis of unfavorable comparisons with elsewhere, the knowledge of possible alternatives to the course actually taken, information which might suggest failure on the part of the government to live up to its promises or to take advantage of opportunities to improve conditions–all will be suppressed. There is consequently no field where the systematic control of information will not be practiced and uniformity of views not enforced.”
    A quote from The Road To Serfdom.


  135. 135 | December 5, 2012 11:38 am

    bluliner10 wrote:

    @ theoutsider:
    You are only correct on the disbanding the only ‘national’ entity the Iraqi’s had. The Iraqi police were local yokels and had no unity of effort. The second point. I was there. It was not a mistake.

    Since you were there, let me ask you. Why was it turned into a nation building project and not smash and leave? Didn’t they realize that Islamic culture is not compatible with Democracy? I do not fault the US military for this, but people like Bremmer and Senor.

    I’m just curious your take on this.


  136. waldensianspirit
    136 | December 5, 2012 11:39 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    Not everyone who think Iraq is a mistake has been fed crap. Nation Building is a Leftist concept and the Iraq war was just some academic idea that cost real Americans live.

    First 6 weeks there was no nation building. Should have continued that until Saddam and Sons were done in and then diced up the country and taken the oil fields


  137. waldensianspirit
    137 | December 5, 2012 11:43 am

    @ Rodan:
    You are forgetting Gulf War I


  138. buzzsawmonkey
    138 | December 5, 2012 11:43 am

    @ Rodan:

    Just as I do not believe Obama when he says he wants to help the middle class, or that he intends to protect Israel; just as I do not believe Al Gore when he says that he wants carbon taxes to save the planet rather than to line his bank account; so I did not believe Bush when he said—said—that he was trying to “nation-build” in Iraq. I believe that he said this under the foolish assumption that “bringing democracy” would sell well to the Left, and that it would, therefore, guarantee him widespread support for the war. But he was mistaken in this belief, and sadly, when you don a mask your face grows to fit it.

    What was intended as a project for the encirclement of Iran became a nation-building enterprise, but despite the sales job I do not believe that was the original objective.


  139. 139 | December 5, 2012 11:47 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    This is where we disagree. Bush was a Leftists. There was nothing Conservative (except for social issues) about him. I do think he fell for the domino theory about Mideast Democracy. Personally I think Bush should have gone in WWII style and destroy Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria and Iran. Then leave them in rubble. If Bush had done that, his face would be on Mt Rushmore right now and he would have gone down as one of the biggest slayers of Islam ever. But he didn’t because he was a man of the Left.


  140. bluliner10
    140 | December 5, 2012 11:52 am

    Iraq was a regional threat who maintained that status throughout the “staggering” sanctions placed against it by the WHOLE WORLD! Except that France, Germany, Russia were using Jordan and Syria to move illicit and illegal items in and out. Secondly, we have and still had credible evidence of active bio-warfare development that was occuring, Saddam’s interference in the entire inspection process, support to groups (such as al Qaeda) by harboring key members.

    Saddam had enough to convince the Chinese and Russians to no longer support the sanctions against it. The next vote was coming due in the next year. Without sanctions, the Oil For Food monstrocity was about to payoff in spades.

    With my own eyes, yes, we had two ammo supply points that were full of chemical munition shells that were “destroyed” and reported destroyed to the UN. Funny, they were still there, waiting to be utilized.

    Bush’s ‘Nation-building’ is closer to the Powell Doctrine. It is not that we wanted to build Iraq (yes, there is some of that) but rather not leaving it to others to rebuild Iraq in some other nefarious vision. al Qaeda arrived very quickly. Of course Saddam had already allowed them in.


  141. buzzsawmonkey
    141 | December 5, 2012 11:53 am

    @ Rodan:

    I think your view is too Manichean. I think Bush was a flawed man with conservative instincts, but without quite enough political courage to stand by them. And I think that his (incorrect) instinct to listen to the voices of the Left—it was not quite as obvious twelve years ago just how far-left the “mainstream media” had become—proved his undoing.


  142. bluliner10
    142 | December 5, 2012 11:55 am

    @ bluliner10:
    One last point. Iraq is an islamic country. However, they were just about as secular as one could find in the middle east. Saddam had long resisted the Salafi’s and Wahhabs. Christians were treated very well, and the Shia were treated as not quite trustworthy due to the Iranian influence. But there was no god before Saddam. Turning over sovereignty too soon was a huge mistake, we should have ran the nation much longer than we did.


  143. 143 | December 5, 2012 11:56 am

    @ bluliner10:

    Thanks for your take on this!


  144. 144 | December 5, 2012 11:57 am

    @ bluliner10:

    Turning over sovereignty too soon was a huge mistake, we should have ran the nation much longer than we did.

    If we were going to nation build, we should have done it like Japan. We should have written their constitution and take out the Imams and mullahs causing trouble. We should have placed our boots around their necks.


  145. waldensianspirit
    145 | December 5, 2012 11:57 am

    bluliner10 wrote:

    Oil For Food monstrocity

    Sorta like Obama’s food stamps for votes


  146. buzzsawmonkey
    146 | December 5, 2012 12:00 pm

    bluliner10 wrote:

    Bush’s ‘Nation-building’ is closer to the Powell Doctrine.

    Colin Powell is the Barack Obama of the military.


  147. bluliner10
    147 | December 5, 2012 12:05 pm

    @ Rodan:
    Walang problema! I think a lot of things got buried in the media coverage, the lack of conviction by our political leaders, and the demonization of the key players. I say this frequently the plan that Gen Franks and Sec Rumsfeld instituted was a very good plan. But there is always an issue with plans. The planners fall in love with them and are hesitant to change even when the enemy voted to change the paradigm. We spent a lot of time building an Army in Iraq, especially after General Casey left. Up to that point and similar to what is going on in Afghanistan now, is we were building riflemen. Not a real modern military. I can train a rifleman in 2 weeks. It takes much more to build NCO’s and mid-level Officers, and even more time to build competent Commanders.


  148. lobo91
    148 | December 5, 2012 3:02 pm

    @ bluliner10:

    We spent a lot of time building an Army in Iraq, especially after General Casey left. Up to that point and similar to what is going on in Afghanistan now, is we were building riflemen. Not a real modern military. I can train a rifleman in 2 weeks. It takes much more to build NCO’s and mid-level Officers, and even more time to build competent Commanders.

    I’m amazed by how many supposedly intelligent people don’t understand that concept.

    I remember a few years back hearing someone on one of the talk shows say something to the effect of, “It only takes us 3 months to train our own soldiers. Why is it taking years to train these people?”

    Apparently, it’s never occurred to these geniuses that there’s more to an army than a bunch of guys with rifles.


  149. Canoe Convoy
    149 | December 6, 2012 12:58 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    I’m in a similar situation.


  150. Speranza
    150 | December 6, 2012 8:27 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    @ Canoe Convoy:
    And you are not counted amongst the unemployed.


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David