Conservatives roar; GOP trembles

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/...

Comment above, please click and read ABC News Story on Obama and his Administration and oh lets not forget his Obama's CZARS.

Irreverent One wrote:

<quoted text>
You might actually be surprised about the number of things we may agree about. The fact is that it might be beneficial to some of the other posters if they saw two people from opposite points of view being able to discuss policy issues with putting each other down. That doesn't mean that something is wrong, it means that most people are more than they seem to be.

I agree that there is nothing wrong -- please forgive my hyperbole. Most seem to forget that each side has a lunatic fringe of 10% or so, with the remainder closer to center. The fringes have a way of getting more press, exaggerating their credence while making great targets for the other side.

Imagine if most foreigners thought that Fred Phelps' group were mainstream, everyday American Christians!

Tom Shakopee wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, but not true. These radio personalities are imploring the Conservatives in the Republican Party to take the party back, as they should. Tax-Breaks, less spending, less government, more personal control of one's finances and more opportunity are what has and will continue to win elections for Republicans...

I think rush and beck are more principle driven and not beholden to the republican party. Hannity and Jason Lewis talk a good line, but at the end of the day they are republican first and conservative second. Lewis claims to have libertarian views but he mocks libertarians that call in as well as ron paul--he can't really leave the mother ship though he pretends he already has.


One thing I think all of the talk radio conservatives are wrong about is that they support borrow and spend and our continued occupation of afg and iraq. We are told that it would be cowardly to quit and lose, yet we are not told exactly why our children should die while we prop up the economy and corrupt governments of these two countries for an indeterminate number of years or decades to come.

Madaman wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree that there is nothing wrong -- please forgive my hyperbole. Most seem to forget that each side has a lunatic fringe of 10% or so, with the remainder closer to center. The fringes have a way of getting more press, exaggerating their credence while making great targets for the other side....

When those with the common sense and moral courage to object to the out of control borrowing and spending in america are called extremists and fringe elements, that is a sad commentary on the country and political parties.

A minority of people warned of the popping of the mortgage bubble--another group of 'extremists' who exxagerated their importance as well.

Dman wrote:
Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glen Beck will be the best friends the Democracts ever had in 2010."

Bingo.

And I hope not, but the moderate wing of the GOP must defeat this vermin within their ranks.

NY23 is a microcosm of the problem within the GOP.

Tom wrote:

Dman wrote:
Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glen Beck will be the best friends the Democracts ever had in 2010."
Bingo.
And I hope not, but the moderate wing of the GOP must defeat this vermin within their ranks.
NY23 is a microcosm of the problem within the GOP.

Yes, and VA and NJ are a GIGANTOCOSM of the problems within the Demoncrat party.

Madaman wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree that there is nothing wrong -- please forgive my hyperbole. Most seem to forget that each side has a lunatic fringe of 10% or so, with the remainder closer to center. The fringes have a way of getting more press, exaggerating their credence while making great targets for the other side.
Imagine if most foreigners thought that Fred Phelps' group were mainstream, everyday American Christians!

I honestly thought that you and I might be able to engage in a meaningful dialogue. I don't really give too much thought to what foreigners think about much of anything. When the Europeans quit relying on the US to protect their sorry butts and the Japanese and the Koreans decide to stand on their own hind legs and tell Communist China and its puppet government in North Korea to pound sand, then I will be willing to listen. Your last remark is what makes me believe that there is really not as much as I had hoped there was that we might agree on. There was no need to post anything about any fringe group unless you were going to post about ones on both fringes. But, noooo. You had to bring up a ridiculous group of ridiculous people from the so-called right fringe but neglected [of course] to mention any of the idiots who support the socialist agenda of the Democratic Party. You may respond to this post if you so desire. I have decided that you are unworthy of meaningful conversation. That you are, as I believed, a tried and true believer in the Marxist philosophy being promulgated by the current administration.

Irreverent One wrote:

<quoted text>
I honestly thought that you and I might be able to engage in a meaningful dialogue. I don't really give too much thought to what foreigners think about much of anything. When the Europeans quit relying on the US to protect their sorry butts and the Japanese and the Koreans decide to stand on their own hind legs and tell Communist China and its puppet government in North Korea to pound sand, then I will be willing to listen. Your last remark is what makes me believe that there is really not as much as I had hoped there was that we might agree on. There was no need to post anything about any fringe group unless you were going to post about ones on both fringes. But, noooo. You had to bring up a ridiculous group of ridiculous people from the so-called right fringe but neglected [of course] to mention any of the idiots who support the socialist agenda of the Democratic Party. You may respond to this post if you so desire. I have decided that you are unworthy of meaningful conversation. That you are, as I believed, a tried and true believer in the Marxist philosophy being promulgated by the current administration.

O ye of little faith! You give up far too easily, my friend. I mentioned the Phelps wingnuts as the most outrageous fringe group that I can think of -- they offend many of the Christian Right with their disrespect of American soldiers. They really are a fringe group unto themselves!

I cited the example of foreigners thinking that the Phelps group were mainstream Christians -- not because I am unduly concerned about the opinions of foreigners, but to show how easily influenced those without any background knowledge can be by the press a fringe group obtains.

The problem we have in America is that the sensible people in the middle, the uncommitted, unpartisan voters, will hear a leftist fringe group's manifesto, and conclude that is what the Left is all about. They will hear some right-wing nutcases raving, and think that is what the Right is all about. They lack the context of knowing that these fringe groups are just that -- extremely noisy minorities on either side, that poison ordinary people against that side -- just as any foreigners who think that Phelps is a mainstream Christian will not be open to any teachings offered by genuine missionaries in the field.

Does this make any sense to you? I hope it does. What is needed is dialogue between reasonable folk from right-center and left-center, finding common ground and inventing new common ground through the power of communication. Let's just ignore the fringes!

What I think conservative ideologues are missing is that we live in a democracy, and candidates have to get votes to be elected to office. If you badmouth everybody that doesn't exactly fit a very narrow definition of a conservative, you're not going to get very many votes. You can't hate everybody and still get elected.

Big Al wrote:

What I think conservative ideologues are missing is that we live in a democracy, and candidates have to get votes to be elected to office. If you badmouth everybody that doesn't exactly fit a very narrow definition of a conservative, you're not going to get very many votes. You can't hate everybody and still get elected.

The exact same thing can be said for the ideologues on the liberal side as well. Or don't you remember what Harry Belafontes had to say about former Secretary of State Colin Powell. I can't get it posted on topix because of the terminology but it was along the lines of; [paraphrasing here]that house [bad n letter word]isn't really black. I have been inundated with article after article from the mainstream stream media insisting that the conservative movement is filled with hate and divisiveness while the other side [liberals] are thoughtful and tolerant. Oh yeah..BS is still BS, no matter who is shoveling it.

Irreverent One wrote:

<quoted text>
The exact same thing can be said for the ideologues on the liberal side as well. Or don't you remember what Harry Belafontes had to say about former Secretary of State Colin Powell. I can't get it posted on topix because of the terminology but it was along the lines of; [paraphrasing here]that house [bad n letter word]isn't really black. I have been inundated with article after article from the mainstream stream media insisting that the conservative movement is filled with hate and divisiveness while the other side [liberals] are thoughtful and tolerant. Oh yeah..BS is still BS, no matter who is shoveling it.

I think you miss my point. Certainly there is name-calling and general disrespect on both sides.(Why does no one ever say; "I respectfully disagree", any more?) I have never voted for a candidate that I agree with 100%. Conservative activists and talk show hosts seem to be badmouthing anyone and everyone who does not agree with their position 100%. Colin Powell and John McCain are good examples. Rush Limbaugh said, "Powell's not a Republican. McCain's not a Republican." Why can't he just voice his disagreement rather than kick them out of the party? Which goes to my point; the more people conservative ideologues kick out of their party the less votes they're going to get.

Big Al wrote:

<quoted text>
I think you miss my point. Certainly there is name-calling and general disrespect on both sides.(Why does no one ever say; "I respectfully disagree", any more?) I have never voted for a candidate that I agree with 100%. Conservative activists and talk show hosts seem to be badmouthing anyone and everyone who does not agree with their position 100%. Colin Powell and John McCain are good examples. Rush Limbaugh said, "Powell's not a Republican. McCain's not a Republican." Why can't he just voice his disagreement rather than kick them out of the party? Which goes to my point; the more people conservative ideologues kick out of their party the less votes they're going to get.

Yes, he totally missed your point. He must not have noticed that this is a one-sided phenomenon -- you don't see extremely liberal Democrats castigating less liberal Democrats, calling them DINOs, telling them they are not "really" Democrats -- not even the Blue Dogs. We only have that internecine warfare going on in the Republican Party.

Sadly, instead of actually discussing the issue, he just gets defensive -- ignoring your point and attempting to make an equal-and-opposite case against liberals. It is difficult to engage in a discussion with someone who frequently gets rigidly defensive.

You are right on the money here -- the more people the conservative idealogues drive out of the Republican Party, their electoral victories will be less.

That is perfectly OK with me!

Big Al wrote:

<quoted text>
I think you miss my point. Certainly there is name-calling and general disrespect on both sides.(Why does no one ever say; "I respectfully disagree", any more?) I have never voted for a candidate that I agree with 100%. Conservative activists and talk show hosts seem to be badmouthing anyone and everyone who does not agree with their position 100%. Colin Powell and John McCain are good examples. Rush Limbaugh said, "Powell's not a Republican. McCain's not a Republican." Why can't he just voice his disagreement rather than kick them out of the party? Which goes to my point; the more people conservative ideologues kick out of their party the less votes they're going to get.

I'm not a Republican, I vote for people whose alleged goals for this country are the same as mine. I have been disappointed by the vast majority of people I have voted for in the past and prefer to be able to end that. If it takes a political cleansing of Washington DC by eliminating ALL incumbents I would be happy to participate. It should be the goal of ALL of us to elect people at the federal level whose main concern is making sure that the country is safe from threats, both external and internal, that the currency remains solvent and that the powers granted to the federal government by the US Constitution are not exceeded.

Madaman wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, he totally missed your point. He must not have noticed that this is a one-sided phenomenon -- you don't see extremely liberal Democrats castigating less liberal Democrats, calling them DINOs, telling them they are not "really" Democrats -- not even the Blue Dogs. We only have that internecine warfare going on in the Republican Party.
Sadly, instead of actually discussing the issue, he just gets defensive -- ignoring your point and attempting to make an equal-and-opposite case against liberals. It is difficult to engage in a discussion with someone who frequently gets rigidly defensive.
You are right on the money here -- the more people the conservative idealogues drive out of the Republican Party, their electoral victories will be less.
That is perfectly OK with me!

Tis will be the last time I bother with you. In my opinion the only reason you don't see Democrats arguing with other Democrats over issues is that Democrats have no desire to lose power, no matter if it means losing their principles and their values. A Democrat is a Democrat is a Democrat, no matter if they are criminals, sociopaths or anti-American progandists or just too naive or plain ignorantto know any better.

Irreverent One wrote:

<quoted text>
Tis will be the last time I bother with you. In my opinion the only reason you don't see Democrats arguing with other Democrats over issues is that Democrats have no desire to lose power, no matter if it means losing their principles and their values. A Democrat is a Democrat is a Democrat, no matter if they are criminals, sociopaths or anti-American progandists or just too naive or plain ignorantto know any better.

Think outside of the Fox.

Bigger Picture wrote:

<quoted text>Think outside of the Fox.

Brilliant. This would make a great bumper sticker.

Bigger Picture wrote:

<quoted text>Think outside of the Fox.

And where is it, pray tell, that you get your information? Allow me to take a guess. MSNBC, NPR, Huffington Post. I don't need Hannity or Limbaugh or any one else to tell me what I believe or don't believe. I read points of view from a myriad of sources and decide what, if anything, I believe to be factual. My political views lean towards the right but there are positions that have been taken by some on the other side of the aisle that are totally acceptable to me.

Irreverent One wrote:

<quoted text>
Tis will be the last time I bother with you. In my opinion the only reason you don't see Democrats arguing with other Democrats over issues is that Democrats have no desire to lose power, no matter if it means losing their principles and their values. A Democrat is a Democrat is a Democrat, no matter if they are criminals, sociopaths or anti-American progandists or just too naive or plain ignorantto know any better.

I can't stop you from taking your marbles and going home. We have a documented case of Republicans losing their principles and their values (as they accuse each other of that), and they are so naive and plain ignorant as to engage in nasty very public internecine warfare -- and then can't imagine why they lost NY 23.

I thought you might actually have something to contribute to the debate here, but this venom-laden post blasting Democrats simply because they are Democrats shows an inability to engage in nuance, distinction, and independent thinking. You certainly aren't showing any Irrevelance in your ongoing homage to the right wing. I think you are capable, but lack the desire to take on anything else. What a shame.

Irreverent One wrote:

<quoted text>
And where is it, pray tell, that you get your information? Allow me to take a guess. MSNBC, NPR, Huffington Post. I don't need Hannity or Limbaugh or any one else to tell me what I believe or don't believe. I read points of view from a myriad of sources and decide what, if anything, I believe to be factual. My political views lean towards the right but there are positions that have been taken by some on the other side of the aisle that are totally acceptable to me.

My point "exactly". This is why my eyes are on the courage of the people in Colorado who are taking a stand as Independents. Most of us have grown tired of the endless football game keeping us stuck!

djigoo wrote:

<quoted text>
Brilliant. This would make a great bumper sticker.

I thought so too, however, I got it from another blogger!!!