An updated and enhanced website is now available for the proposed plan to improve the RNC that I've publicly supported.
Much work will have to be done by various Republicans fashioning a more compelling agenda than the inconsistent mish-mash put forth by John McCain in 2008 and the comparative nothingness being promulgated by Congressional Republicans writ large in the last couple cycles. In the meantime, Rebuild the Party is a necessary step forward on the internal improvements that also must be undertaken by the GOP.
Posted by Eric Earling at November 25, 2008 07:28 AM | Email ThisWho ya gonna get rid of?
The Creationists?
The Evangelicals?
The Corporate Crooks?
The Libertarian "everyone for themselves" folks?
The no tax now way no how folks?
The lobbyists?
The regular crooks?
The hate filled bigots?
The billionaires?
I can hear the cries now. "Let's be more conservative", and "Let's be more inclusive", and how about "(fill in the blank)".
Your party, and it's trickle "UP" ideology has been mostly (mostly - not all) responsible for destroying the middle class, manufacturing, family farms, our financial system, and exploding our national debt with nothing to show for it except Swiss bank accounts full to the brim.
You and I both know it.
Now you want to "Rebuild" the party.
Good luck. If I were you (and I used to be) I would change the name.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on November 25, 2008 08:01 AMxenophobes
neoconservative Trotskyites
gun nuts
Indeed, the GOP IS a big tent.
Posted by: billy goat on November 25, 2008 08:11 AMLooks like the church was simply a ruse to get ahead as predicted. Obama hasn't attended a service since getting elected. Can you say 'Sunshine Christian'?
Posted by: Rick D. on November 25, 2008 08:40 AMDemocrats are far wealthier. Most of it is their ability to milk money from supporters and the government. Just look at Bill Clinton. He is known for his ability to milk the public of its money and has become one of the richest people in America.
There is a reason they keep pushing big government. It is pure greed and lust for power. They all want to be like him.
What sucks is the fact that we need an opposition party, which could be the Republicons, interested in accountability, openness, fairness, and eliminating fraud, waste, and abuse. I repeat. Accountability. READ MY LIPS
So which of you "smaller government" conservatives would be willing to cut the military budget? Do we really need to spend more than the rest of the world combined on our Department of Offense? 1 trillion plus per year while our economy is sinking, and our bridges are falling into rivers, full of cars?
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on November 25, 2008 08:47 AMI'm sure you failed your history class, but who controls the gov cash & spending.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 25, 2008 09:04 AMCan he do this?
Waiting for your answer.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 25, 2008 09:09 AMThe Rs are once again having to walk a thin line. As fiscal managers, Rs are against a bailout of the auto industry and want to make the market work.
So, most Rs want the car companies to go Chapter 11. I am leaning that way myself.
Politically, that means when the promised pensions get reduced or cutback, you will have even more upset workers the Rs are trying to get away from the union cult. It mean Michigan is lost.
Unless. The Rs have to make their case and make it now. They need to spend a million in Michigna explaining their position, holding forums, bringing in the big guns like Romney, Jindal, Huckabee,etc. and make the case. I know if I were a retiree, I would be seething mad even if I knew it would be best for the country.
This would also accentuate the stereotype of Rs being antiworker.
This needs to be done and needs to be done now.
However, Rs are as slow as elephants.
Posted by: swatter on November 25, 2008 09:20 AMHey, we're all for your right to reproduce. We just don't think you should have a "right" to slaughter your own children. The Constitution doesn't specify any such "right", nor for that matter would any sane, civilized people, support any "right" to tear an innocent child limb from limb.
Posted by: Interested Observer on November 25, 2008 09:22 AMThe essence of the problem is that the West is dying. The left likes the idea (it's why they're the evil party), and the right just stumbles around trying to get power (it's why they're the stupid party).
And I personally want to thank our gracious (Yes I know... it's difficult to type while laughing) for the best advice we will certainly ignore.
What in God's name would make you think we would entertain "advice" from people that have gleefully exhibited utter hatred for us?
Oh wait. I know! You were fulfilling your duties as our local jesters with your joke of the day!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 25, 2008 10:12 AMI think you hit the nail on the head!
Posted by: Doug on November 25, 2008 11:11 AMREAGAN
A government big enough to do anything for you can do anything to you.
Economic freedom means not only freedom to succeed but freedom to fail.
America is the last best hope for human freedom in the world. We are a shining light on a hill that calls to people living under oppression around the world.
The best welfare program is a job.
Government does not create wealth, the private sector creates wealth. Government just redistributes wealth.
The American people know better what to do with their money than government bureaucrats do.
Communists think it is OK to lie, cheat, and steal to achieve power.
Accomodating Tyranny does not stop it.
------------------
I would be happy to back an Republican running on those ideals.
I'll second every bit of that.
Posted by: G Jiggy on November 25, 2008 11:27 AMIt was a biased media that helped deliver Obama his nomination and eventual presidency, so how are you going to counter this in future elections?
Posted by: Smoley on November 25, 2008 12:33 PMAs it stands the GOP party decided the Constitution was out-of-date and decided to reinterpret it to their liking (what branch of Gov. does Cheney belong to?). Given the fact they presided over the largest spending spree in US History, increased the Govt. to the largest size in US history, and increased the deficit to it's highest point in history, I doubt anyone will belive that the GOP is the party of small Govt., low taxes, and strong moral values. When the Dem's screw things up as they inevitably will we'll see a swing back to the right.
"Rebuild the Party" is a great idea, I look forward to seeing the GOP pull their heads out of their collective a**es and start trying to court moderates and swing voters rather than trying to secure the rabid fringes of the party who will turn out for the GOP regardless as long as a Pro-Life candidate is on the ticket.
yeah, what freaks we are to celebrate and want to maintain the sanctity of life for the most vulnerable in our society. I mean, how archaic and barbaric is it to hold onto that basic standard of civilized moral principals? I mean really, how 20th century thinking is that?
Posted by: Rick D. on November 25, 2008 01:55 PMI don't think the loss by the GOP was as bad as you make it out to be. The GOP is going through a bit of introspection. Let's see what shakes out.
Posted by: swatter on November 25, 2008 01:55 PMWhen all the Republican party does is offer a choice between big government and bigger government, the low-info voters will always pick the bigger government Democrats.
The only way up from obscurity is to go back to being the small government, individual liberty, free market party that the Republicans used to be.
Until there is a deep libertarian streak running through the party, prepare for more goose-stepping to the drumbeat of no responsibility, more socialism, and the endless downward spiral of institutional mediocrity.
Posted by: blindman on November 25, 2008 02:04 PMI truly want a functioning reality based Republican Party, ran by rational, truth tellers.
Give up on the "smaller government" crap though. No one is gonna cut medicare, or the military industrial complex's budgets.
Only so many people are gonna vote for people just because they are anti choice too.
Time to come to grips with realty.
Letting banks, corporations, and petroleum, and mining companies pillage at will, and avoiding oversight is what got your party into the trouble it is in today. That and helping Bush commit all them crimes unchallenged.
No one is buying the "bull" anymore.
If your party hadn't done so much damage to our nation, I would feel sorry for it.....
Now cough up the 7 trillion they plan on loaning the banks.....
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on November 25, 2008 02:15 PMSo on one hand you want the Fed's out of your life and on the other you want to legislate the Fed's into what people can and cannot do with their body. I don't particularly like abortion but I feel it's not the Fed's job to define what can and cannot happen in a mothers womb. That's a personal and moral choice that the individual must decide upon. Since this is a huge can of worms I'm not going to debate this with you, I have my view you have yours, so be it.
I don't think the loss by the GOP was as bad as you make it out to be.
I wouldn't have a leg to stand on if it were not true. GOP pushed the limits of partisan politics, screwed up the economy, and gave us the largest deficit/Govt. in history. It's going to be a long recovery after such major political/economic blunders.
The GOP is going through a bit of introspection. Let's see what shakes out.
Considering that Palin is getting top billing for 2012 I would be hesitant on a comeback in the near future for the GOP. Of course top billing doesn't always pan out as expected as we saw during the 2008 primary battle of Clinton, Romney & Giuliani all went down and the party faithful chose two very diverse candidates.
I really don't agree with any of your "facts" you mentioned. Only thing for certain is that the Rs lost a bunch of seats in '06 that should have been lost in '02 and '04, but weren't. In '08 a lesser percentage of seats were lost.
Speaking of facts, I don't belong to the R party, so let's not go overboard
Let's not forget that six months is a long time in national politics. In six months the Obama honeymoon will be a pigment of everyone's imagination. Let's not talk about 3 years from now when the first primary is going to happen. Why do you guys hate on Palin so much? You need a little introspection yourself. Even the Hollywood elites are digging on her, but not her politics. She has earned their respect after the beating she has endured and keeps on ticking.
Posted by: swatter on November 25, 2008 02:40 PMIt is about dis-belief that anyone would think someone (besides Bush) that can't even complete a sentence without rambling would do a good job as leader of the free world. Gimmee a break.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on November 25, 2008 03:00 PMYou fell right into that one fool. LOL
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 25, 2008 03:08 PMI still don't understand his hate. She is everything Obama is with the exception she has a life outside politics, which I like. Too bad he just can't admit he doesn't like her politics and tells us exactly what he doesn't like.
Hey, do you suppose Facts is a male, chauvinistic pig? Nyah, he is too enlightened.
Posted by: swatter on November 25, 2008 03:13 PMLike that matters, I also don't belong to a political party. That doesn't exempt me from being associated with a particular party by SP posters. Personally, I think modern political parties are half the problem (the other half being those people who blindly follow them).
In six months the Obama honeymoon will be a pigment of everyone's imagination.
A pigment eh...little Freudian slip there? You have issues with Obama's personal melanin level there swatter?
Why do you guys hate on Palin so much?
Why would anyone have a problem with a poorly educated individual who's uses folksy charm to cover up her lack of knowledge of basic civics serving as Commander in Chief? I just can't seem to put my finger on it, ya know.
She has earned their respect after the beating she has endured and keeps on ticking.
What beating? She never held a press conference, never held a town hall, and couldn't answer basic questions poised to her by major media outlets.
Meanwhile Obama took quite a beating by the GOP and still managed to do something the GOP had been trying to do for that last decade and a half (beat the Clintons).
On a side note I must say after eight long years it's a relief to have a President who doesn't lean on the podium when talking. A small pet peeve of mine that will finally be eliminated with a new POTUS.
Let me guess, "Facts", you get most of your "news" from the liberal media.
What you can't stand, "Facts" is any conservative woman of accomplishment. So you and your nasty big city elitist friends portray her as ignorant rural trailer trash.
You are an ill informed, biased jerk with a very prejudiced view of the people who live outside your narrow little leftist bubble.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 25, 2008 03:53 PMROFL, the sexism defense...that's the best you got? Stand up and defend her qualifications rather than pulling some BS sexist liberal media argument.
So you and your nasty big city elitist friends portray her as ignorant rural trailer trash.
You sound a little defensive there Bill. Why don't you share with us some fine examples of her clearly numerous accomplishments that she's made as a small town mayor, and Governor of a state that has a population total equiv to Seattle & Bellevue put together. Obviously we're all missing something here in "big city liberal elitist" land, do enlighten us with your superior conservative intellect.
You know as well as I that the left hates Palin because she is a conservative woman who opposes abortion.
That's what its really all about for you people. The avalance of snotty liberal big city bias is just a smokescreen. She clearly has accomplished more in her life than Barack Obama has. If you wish to illustrate otherwise have at it.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 25, 2008 04:30 PMSo can't the same be said for your side going the other side of the 10/90 divide only reversed? you want 90% involvement by the government in every facet of your life with the exception of abortion. Your party and candidate was even in favor of partial birth abortions and ending the life of a fetus born and then ignored in the soiled linen closet until said fetus expired.
Somehow, I don't think your maker would consider that type of behavior "progressive" by today's or any other time in history's standards for that matter, do you?
Ill informed Bill? I think not. You're right. I listen to AM1090, and have a far better understanding of how the "real" world works than anyone listening to the right wing hate radio liars day after day, having their heads with pure manure.
The word "conservative" makes me want to puke also. It means nothing but fraud, and always has.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on November 25, 2008 04:48 PMLiberalism is indeed a mental disorder.
Don't you people ever get tired of lying?
By the way, how many ethics charges has Caribou Barbie had during her short governorship? What is her problem? Doesn't understand them law thingies and stuff? Even when Monegan warned her not to take actions because they were ILLEGAL, she went ahead and did them anyway. What an idiot. "broke a state ethics law that bars public officials from pursuing personal interest through official action"
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/13/palin.investigation/index.html
She is a sad, sad joke. And to think. The best the GOP could do is Palin/McCain. Just shows how bankrupt the party really truly is. And what is sad is the fact that 10 years ago McCain was someone who deserved respect. Ah but for the ass kissing, and stance changing he had to do to get to run..... Sad. Very sad.
By the way, I can always provide links.
How can the GOP rise to power with all them anchors around it's throat?
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on November 25, 2008 05:11 PMI got:
You know as well as I that the left hates Palin because she is a conservative woman who opposes abortion.
Clearly not an answer, why don't you answer the question I asked instead of recycling conservative talking points? Why can't you share your intellect into the many accomplishments of Gov. Palin that we all obviously missed on the campaign trail? This question should be a piece of cake for you as she's done so much during her time in office right?
you want 90% involvement by the government in every facet of your life with the exception of abortion.
Good answer, but I don't see 90% involvement by the Govt. But hey, if you want to expose your kids to milk containing melamine and have them sucking on lead painted toys be my guest.
After all what sort of company would ever skimp on something simple like lead-free paint save a few bucks per toy and make their stock price go up a point or two? Good thing we here in the US can trust the toy manufactures and that the US Govt. doesn't have to have laws in place to regulate that sort of thing.
I'm old enough to remember the young lefties of the day deriding Reagan as a "grade-B movie star governor". Not unlike the nonsense we hear from them now about "Caribou Barbie".
Cato and "Facts" ought to be happy. But they aren't, as is readily apparent. Unhappiness is the natural state of mind for liberals.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 25, 2008 05:39 PMLet Obama, the Milk Chocolate Messiah, flounder with the Middle East. He's too beholden to the northeastern financial interests to get out of the Middle Eastern mess. Those people will expect Obama to do their bidding when it comes to the Middle East.
I say let the Middle East stew in its own juice. Either they'll sell oil or not, but they can't drink it!
Of course they aren't. Have you ever given in to a toddler and granted him everything he whined for? How long was he happy? How long before he found someting new to whine about?
Duh.
Same mindset. Same maturity.
They just got everything they wanted in an enviable election win and they are still miserable. I tickles me to no end that we accept and they complain. I believe they didn't expect it to happen and now that it has they think, "Oh God, now what do we do??" They know this baby bear-y is bear-ly qualified to tie his shoes and THEY are responsible for him ACTUALLY HAVING TO GOVERN!. They know he prefers "Present!" to taking a stand. In their hearts they harbored the secret thought and hope that we'd deliver McCain so they could bitch with no responsibilty for the next 8 years. They got exactly what they wanted and now don't know what the heck to do with it. Hard to enjoy that sword hanging over your head.
We'll be here to watch the show and to pick up the pieces.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 25, 2008 07:45 PMBush/Cheney decimated it over eight years after Gingrich had self-destructed during Clinton's reign. The Dems could clean themselves up too, but not before those who embraced the 60's either die off or get the hell out of politics !
Posted by: KS on November 25, 2008 08:05 PMUnless terrible things go on to happen under Gregoire/Obama, McKenna couldn't win a governorship here. Just because he wins the AG--a voter after-thought-- by a large plurality does not mean he could do the same when the stakes are much higher and he doesn't have the incumbency advantage.
The Republicans really have a problem, because there are large constituencies, some growing relentlessly larger, that they've thrown away, such as Hispanics; gays and all the many people with gay friends who they respect and care about; and people who care about saving the Creation from extinction (OK, I admit, that constituency is shrinking).
But what will really hurt Republicans is the self-inflicted wound from authoring the bailout. (Despite the valiant mutiny of many rank and file House Republicans who deserve credit for trying). This will expose any Republican from now on who wants to reduce government spending and meddling in the economy to charges of hypocracy and favoritism and inconstancy. This could be fatal, as the Republicans may never be able to say they oppose borrow-and-spend or tax-and-spend ever again without eliciting skepticism.
Still and all, there's alway a good chance that eventual Democratic missteps could open the door wide for a completely unchanged Republican Party--dreary as that prospect is-- once again.
Thanks and best wishes,
New Left Conservative #1
Has anyone here been to the Gold Class Cinema in Redmond Town Center? Please tell me your experience.
Posted by: Crusader on November 25, 2008 11:30 PMCan you explain what you feel are the major accomplishments Palin has made? I've read brief summaries of her career as governor of Alaska, but I don't recall anything that seemed particularly noteworthy.
As far as why I personally wouldn't like to see her as the President, she generally seemed unqualified for the job regardless of her views. She sounded unknowledgeable on a variety of issues, and when she was questioned about unfamiliar areas she didn't bring the acumen I would hope to see in a candidate for such a high office.
It's possible that the Couric interview was edited unfairly, that her lack of other interviews (besides Gibson, Couric, and Hannity) or unscripted appearances was out of her control, that lackluster performance were due to new pressures, that the allegations of misuse of power are unfounded. But this seems unlikely in the absence of evidence to believe it, and I think I've done a fair job of paying attention to the substance of her interviews and the VP debate, and I don't see her being ready for the job.
The rhetoric she used in late speeches and rallies was also worrying, I'm concerned about her lack of knowledge of extra-US affairs, and many other issues.
"You know as well as I that the left hates Palin because she is a conservative woman who opposes abortion."
There are many other reasons why she is unpopular as a political candidate with many people on the left. Moreover, the suggestion that she is unqualified to be President doesn't mean we all hate her - it means we don't believe she's qualified to be President.
I share the hope that the GOP rebuilds strongly in the next few years. Although I'm a liberal, I share many of the core values of the GOP - small government, staying out of private lives, fiscal conservatism - and I hope the party is able to put those front and center. But I don't see Sarah Palin as the face of that party. From everything I know about her, if she emerges as the leading spokesperson for the GOP, that party will be far from what I believe and hope it could be.
Posted by: Icarus on November 26, 2008 12:49 AMSo being an executive of her state is not as noteworthy as being a zero executive experience first time Jr. Senator from a State who's made no individual decisions, but merely as one voice in a collective decision-making body (senate)?
Interesting illogic there. Perhaps you can explain.
"As far as why I personally wouldn't like to see her as the President, she generally seemed unqualified for the job regardless of her views."
You may have noticed she wasn't running for the office of U.S. President, she was picked as the VP nominee. As for qualifications, see above. Once again, someone with zero executive experience gets a pass by the media to being the POTUS, while someone with actual executive experience isn't qualified for the VP slot according to that same group.
Are people really this disconnected from reality?
Posted by: Rick D. on November 26, 2008 05:22 AMLysander: You threw your vote out the window, so what's the difference?
She was prepared, knowledgeable and was a clear winner.
As for Biden, he's the guy who claimed FDR appeared on television to calm the nation following the 1929 market crash...except there was no TV in '29 and Hoover was President. Biden also claimed that the US has routed Hamas in Lebanon, a stunning display of ignorance that was,(big surprise), unreported by the left's Obama salivating media lackeys.
What was that you lefties were saying about being unqualified?
Phonies.
I also am watching with pleasure as Obama marches steadily to the right. Those on the far left might be started to wonder if perhaps their annointed one played them for suckers.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 26, 2008 08:15 AMAll we heard was Change, change. Yet what are seeing from Obama. Clinton people, what so far 60% of them are. Plus a few of these winners were in charge if BIZ that have failed under their leadership. So much for change would ya say.
The best part of all. The dem's went nuts when Bush gave us 500 to 1200 bucks to help our econ. They said it wouldn't work and what do we see Obama saying now... Let's give them more. The last one didn't help, what makes them think this well!
Let's not forgwet what he said yesterday. He would go over the budget and remove any waste. Ahhh it's called a line item veto that the courts threw out. LOL
Were we not told that Obama was 'smart', yet he doesn't even know this.
Bill could you pass me the popcorn please. (-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 26, 2008 09:05 AMI'm not saying that being a governor has no value. But I don't think this fact alone means that, as you put it, "she clearly has accomplished more in her life than Barack Obama has." Her being governor means that she has the basis as consideration for what she was seeking, not that she has automatically made it. I do think Obama has accomplished things, and it's perfectly reasonable of me to ask what you feel Palin's most significant accomplishments are. This is not a 'gotcha' question and I am not trying to trick anyone; I am looking for a real answer. I am willing to admit that I may not be well-informed about Palin's accomplishments and am asking you to correct this.
As for Obama's lack of executive experience - this is a legitimate point to bring up against him. I believe he has done a good job showing that he is prepared to be President, but I agree that it's a legitimate question, and it was a question that came up repeatedly during the campaign. He addressed the issue during the primary campaign and during the general season and he wasn't given a free pass. This doesn't mean he has no major accomplishments, and he's done a more thorough job of addressing the issue than Palin has.
"You may have noticed she wasn't running for the office of U.S. President, she was picked as the VP nominee." In my mind, the most important qualification of the VP is the ability to be the President, and that is the standard we should hold candidates to. Again, Obama doesn't get a pass on the issue. The fact that we should hold Obama to a high standard doesn't mean Palin gets a free pass either.
"I also am watching with pleasure as Obama marches steadily to the right. Those on the far left might be started to wonder if perhaps their annointed one played them for suckers."
To begin with, I don't think I know anyone who has considered or currently considers Obama as 'the one' or any other special characterization. He is a politician. I don't see him sliding to the right - he's never been that far to the left. He is a centrist liberal and he's beginning centrist liberal policies. McCain called him the most liberal Senator, but the claim wasn't true then and it isn't true now. He may betray what we believe him to be in the future, but the only people being 'played for suckers' now are people who were hearing the rhetoric rather than the reason.
And this is who the President should be - representing a constituency closer to the center. It would not help the country to swing back and forth between representatives of extreme views on either side. It is a positive, not a negative, that the President tends towards the middle, slowing the pendulum swing in either direction and bringing a larger portion of the country along on any new directions.
Posted by: Icarus on November 26, 2008 09:15 AMI notice also that the mainstream phony liberal media has suddenly turned down the "we're heading for economic armegeddon" rhetoric now that Obama has announced his economic team.
I'm not complaining, mind you, just sitting back enjoying my popcorn.
As for what Republicans need to do to rebuild the party? For starters get rid of all those danged RINOs that are really nothing more than Deomocrats lite. We don't win elections by trying to out Democrat Democrats. We win when we stick with conservative principles. We probably couldn't have won this one with Reagan given the timely market downturn and Bush's failure to reign in spending, but next election will be a vastly different game.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 26, 2008 09:24 AMThey just got everything they wanted in an enviable election win and they are still miserable.
I'm angry at the current President, and rightly so. If you told me 4 years ago Bush lead us into a terrible recession, nationalize banks, and screw up Afghanistan I would have laughed and said 'not a chance'. The reality is far more grim, lots of people loosing their jobs, unemployment at 16 year high, credit crisis out of control, Gold at $80/oz, consumer confidence down. Good thing we have a new competent President-elect who seems to have some good people working on picking up the pieces and fixing the problems Hurricane Bush left behind.
I also am watching with pleasure as Obama marches steadily to the right
He's actually marching toward the center when the country as a whole is. If he keeps it up the GOP will have a hard time convincing the country to take another right-wing President (especially after the current one went all Socialist on us). The far-left will keep voting for Obama since the alternative is far worse.
Personally I'm happy with Pres-Elect Obama cabinet decisions so far, but I'm not going to be making any judgment calls about his competency till he actually take the oath and starts running the country.
Gold is at $80 an ounce? You're in worse shape than I thought, buddy. Try $800.
Step away from the Koolaid.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 26, 2008 09:35 AM(Icarus)
You said Obama is ready to be the prez.
Excuse me sir, but most of the time when Obama was in the Senate all he did was vote "present" Not what I would call much of a leader.
At lease we can say Sarah did more than that.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 26, 2008 09:43 AMSince you nor anyone else here can bother to answer the question why would I assume anything differently than my original notions of her that were acquired via the campaign trail (and posted at #40) are correct.
Being a conservative and a woman are great qualifications, but your going to need a whole lot more than that if your aiming to have her sitting in the Oval Office come 2013. Given the lack of quality candidates on the GOP side (minus Romeny who says he's out for 2012) I am left to assume the worst about the future of the GOP.
I'm sure all of America is counting down the days till the Socialist-in-Chief is forced into retirement. Maybe then we can get some real leadership and start making real progress towards undoing the mess Hurricane Bush and his spend-happy party members has left the American people with.
Contrast that with the "Bush Recession" that appeared magically the day Bush took office in 2001.
Pass that popcorn.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 26, 2008 10:15 AM"all this liberal babbling about Palin's experience is just a smokescreen. What they really hate is that she's conservative, a woman, she's not from a snotty liberal city and didn't go to Harvard. She's everything liberals, who are the most biased, prejudiced individuals in the land, fear."
How is this fair based on what has actually been said here? I don't hate her, I'm not scared of her, and I'm not concerned about where she's from. I'm concerned about her judgement, her knowledge, and her experience.
Obama has asked that bank executives not take bonuses:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/11/25/national/a185914S60.DTL&feed=rss.business
I hope Obama follows up by doing more than just asking and ties federal aid to restrictions on executive pay to some extent.
Where did you get the figure of $108 million for Rubin? I haven't seen anything about it, and this doesn't show anywhere near that:
http://people.forbes.com/profile/robert-e-rubin/19713
But I'm very curious if you have a source. That's a ludicrous amount of money. At this point, it's entirely possibly that all the directors of Citi will be headed elsewhere in the immediate future.
"Excuse me sir, but most of the time when Obama was in the Senate all he did was vote "present" Not what I would call much of a leader."
This is factually untrue. Verify Obama's voting record for yourself.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes.xpd?year=2006&person=400629
Until he began campaigning for President, he missed fewer votes than most Senators and his record does not show a pattern of repeatedly voting present. His voting record is that of a consistent, centrist liberal. Like I've been saying.
Posted by: Icarus on November 26, 2008 10:33 AMWhere have you been for the last 10 years? I mean the Dem's only took power 2 years ago, seems hard to blame this current debacle on them. Of course that doesn't stop you from taking the blame away from the real culprits who held the House from 1994 to 2006 and the Senate for the the majority of the last decade.
Of course you blame the supposed liberal media for creating a grand conspiracy against the "we did nothing wrong" Conservative politicians who went on a huge uncontrolled spending binge once they took power. The proof is clear just take a glance over at Bush's veto record, he never met a spending bill he didn't like till the Dem's took power.
Hurricane Bush has been several years in the making, now we're all paying the price for the gross incompetence of the GOP leadership.
Meanwhile you keep praying that that Caribou Barbie and her windfall tax, and nationalist tendencies can sweep down south from the great Alaskan Tundra and save the party.
As for your purported asinine Freudian slip comment from last night, it is you that seems to have a problem with Obama's skin tone. I didn't bring it up. You did.
When I say pigment of imagination, I use it all the time and seldom do I use figment. I can give you my reasons why I use it, but it has no relation to skin color. Why are you so afraid of Obama's skin color?
Posted by: swatter on November 26, 2008 11:21 AMOne would think someone somewhere on this fancy internet sounding board thing would be able to list some good hard facts about her many accomplishments like the kind you can rely on to make good judgments with ya know.
As for your purported asinine Freudian slip comment from last night, it is you that seems to have a problem with Obama's skin tone
I never mentioned anything about Obama's pigmentation, you did. Pigment and Figment mean two very different things.
The kiddies are still angry because we didn't provide enough votes for us to save them from themselves. For the first time in a very long time, they are unable to avoid the consequences of their actions.
The show is about to start!
It is distinctly unhealthy, however, for disagreement in policy to become vitriolic hatred, for a different perspective to be condemned simply for expression.Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 26, 2008 11:56 AM
Why should anyone talk about Palin? You people have completely ignored Obama's lack of executive experience. Ergo, there will be nothing, nohow and nowhere that would quench your thirst for the absurd. So, why should anyone bother? You are just doing this for trollop reasons. And, FYI, the last sentence was intended.
Posted by: swatter on November 26, 2008 12:14 PMNothing like a good purge of dissenters within the party to make everyone feel welcome in the big GOP Re-Org.
Can you liberals guess what that might be?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 26, 2008 12:36 PMPigment usually refers ones skin color, common sense would indicate that when someone is referring to pigment it's in reference to ones melanin level. Maybe you should use the proper word next time to convey the proper meaning of your sentence.
Why should anyone talk about Palin?
Because Bill brought up her numerous qualifications for POTUS but when called to name any of them he draws a blank. Typical.
Ergo, there will be nothing, nohow and nowhere that would quench your thirst for the absurd
I see, so now asking someone to list some qualifications of a candidate is an absurd question?
My how the mighty have fallen, even the asking the most basic of questions is now cause for alarm within the party ranks. I guess the GOP has descended even farther into anti-intellectualism than I had feared. I mean god forbid the people of the United States ask even the most basic of questions about their chosen leaders.
obfusCATOr link 1: I have no problem denouncing those who pretend to be supporters then who work to vilify. They remind me a bit too much of typical liberals.
obfusCATOr link 2: Unlike liberals we encourage and accept those that think for themselves, even when what they think is different than what WE think ... and even when they are just wrong.
obfusCATOr link 3: So? Ditto above. Just becasue daddy was, doesn't mean the child is: look at that nutburger little Ronnie Reagan. WE expect our kids to think for themselves. They both owe their careers to their daddies and they both know it when they look in the mirror and reflect upon denouncing everything daddy stood for. I'm OK with that.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 26, 2008 12:40 PMGo to law school? Raise taxes? Nationalize a private company?
Do share, then name a couple more qualifications (aka answering the question) and I'll shut up about Palin. =)
Now, wasn't he heralded your VP candidate not long ago?
And after that election cycle didn't YOUR party denounce him and actively work against him?
And after he overcame that by winning as an independent and STILL caucusing with the liberals did YOUR party just not try to strip him AGAIN of his leadership roles?
But of course while they hate him they need him and will use him accordingly. The poor sucker.
I think you missed the color of your own black kettle when you looked in the mirror.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 26, 2008 12:54 PMYour constant neener-neenering is exactly the behavior I expect from you lefties. Thank goodness you people won so at least we've been spared endless whining about how racist the country is and that the election was stolen.
What is it Palin has done that those Ivy League lawyers you love to vote for haven't?
Come on Cato, this isn't a hard question.
The thought has also occurred to me in wading through all of the Palin bashing cranked out by the left..."Caribou Barbie" and her husband are the same sort of folks that always are called upon to rescue idiot liberals who routinely find themselves lost in the wilderness around these parts.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 26, 2008 12:56 PMPersonally, I wasn't a big fan of Kerry or Lieberman. I have a feeling he will be voted out of office come 2012, of course that's for the voters of Conn. to decide.
And after he overcame that by winning as an independent and STILL caucusing with the liberals did YOUR party just not try to strip him AGAIN of his leadership roles?
They stripped him of two minor roles but let him keep his most prominent chairmanships. Seems that the Dem leadership feels he's a good senator and want to work with him in the future. Lieberman backed his friend over the party line, that's his choice.
But of course while they hate him they need him and will use him accordingly.
I would imagine if a GOP senator like Hagel did the same thing he would be tarred and feathered by the party, not to mention Fox News would be running daily specials highlighting the traitor within the party.
I think you missed the color of your own black kettle when you looked in the mirror.
I would like to see you point to something like Operation Lepper within the Dem ranks.
Personally, I'm fine with having dissenting voices speak their mind with no fear of retaliation. Too bad the GOP feels the need to create 1930-esque black lists in order to ruin the careers of prominent dissenters.
I seem to recall a lot of neener-neenering on here when Sen. Obama won Iowa, and then a whole lot more when the MI/FL debacle came up, and well into the election season there was plenty of dismissal up until it was pretty clear Sen. Obama was going to win over Sen. McCain. You should be one to talk.
What is it Palin has done that those Ivy League lawyers you love to vote for haven't?
Why don't you just answer the original question instead of trying to change the subject. You having problems finding some quality qualifications? Is that why you've spent the better part of the day avoiding the question?
"Caribou Barbie" and her husband are the same sort of folks that always are called upon to rescue idiot liberals who routinely find themselves lost in the wilderness around these parts.
That's very nice of them, what does that have to do with my original question?
Again, Palin has experience doing something that few Democrat politicians have done.
I know full well that you wouldn't give Palin credit if she were able to turn water into wine. You simply disagree with her politics, which is never enough for leftists who have to characterize her as "Caribou Barbie", which probably would earn you a punch in the nose from many Alaskans.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 26, 2008 02:44 PMHave I given any reason for you to doubt that I'm asking about what you believe are Palin's major accomplishments in anything other than good faith? I believe Cato will similarly give honest consideration to the answer.
I wrote "Her being governor means that she has the basis as consideration for what she was seeking, not that she has automatically made it."
If you're referring to the fact that she has been a governor and mayor, I don't see where this alone settles the question. I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask what she has done during her time in these roles that demonstrates her capacity. Similarly, I can think of many things she's done that Obama hasn't, but none that seem to make her drastically more qualified in a way he isn't. Earlier in this thread, specific questions about Obama's actions on the financial crisis and his voting record were raised and I believe I answered them adequately. All I'm asking is that you do the same. You're right that it probably won't change my mind about her politics, but I gave three reasons I don't believe Palin makes a good candidate (judgment, knowledge, and experience), and additional insights into her accomplishments could sway me in other areas.
It's easy to lash out with counter-insults when some level of vitriol is already present. I don't know how far back we'd have to go to see who has been doing it more for longer on SP, but there's plenty of it from both sides. Why not rise above it and answer the content?
Posted by: Icarus on November 26, 2008 03:04 PMThe answer of course is that no matter what Palin's experience or accomplishments you would still bash her because she is a conservative.
And yes I'm answering the question by posing another one that so far is only exposing deep ignorance about the woman. More popcorn, please.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 26, 2008 03:11 PMI think the irony of kicking out the Ron Paul fans, and then looking for new people to become party members is hilarious!
The "Paulistas" were young, religious, fiscally conservative, pro-life and active. They were willing to donate millions to a GOP candidate. But the GOP pushed them away in the rudest manner they could.
I think the GOP has met it's enemy.
It is looking out at them from a mirror.
However he came across as an eyeball bulging angry demented grandfather rather than a reasonable alternative to Republican politics as interpreted by RINOS.
Better luck next time, Bruce.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 26, 2008 04:04 PMYou never throw people out of the party, you just do not let them be center stage if they would hurt the party image. Paul could not have been the nominee because he opposed the war a majority of the GOP supported. He also had a "Truther" element that could not be the front and center image of the party. His followers will be back in the fold in 2012 if Obama runs into a military disaster in Afghanistan and/or Obama breaks the bank with too much spending or drives out business with too much regulation like cap and trade and uncompetitive taxes.
The people who will unite the GOP are the Democrats, particularly Obama, Pelosi and Reid. After a 52 to 46 election, They only need to drive away 3% of the vote to the GOP side. I have little doubt that they will have ample opportunity to do so.
Posted by: KW64 on November 26, 2008 07:36 PMDream on. Obama's approval rating is already at 65% and Bush - lower than Nixon AFTER he resigned.
And get your numbers straight. Obama's margin of victory is now at 7% and the actual vote margin is over 9 million votes and still rising. That is the largest margin of victory by a non-incumbent in history and the largest margin in 24 years.
This is a landslide election and coupled with the democratic gains in the Senate and House it is a total rejection of trickle down, republican corruption and incompetence. Why would anyone vote for republicans now after they cuased the largest deficit in history and the worst economy since the great depression. The republican party HAS NO new ideas - name a single NEW idea instead of rehashing all the old FAILED policies.
Posted by: correctnotright on November 26, 2008 09:06 PMTurns out he had a winning idea on the whole war in Iraq thing too. It is just too bad we let Obama win with it instead.
Kw64:
Pauls element of truthers was PART of the GOP's attempt to throw Ron Paul and his followers out of the party. He however despite the smear attempts and ridicule from fellow candidates maintained his cool. I am in fact surprised at how well he kept his cool in the face of what crap he took from the other candidates and the party as a whole. That he can still just politely explain his view both in congress and in the media rather than just blowing up with a big fat giant 'I TOLD YOU ALL 100 F*C*N%G times that this would happen if you would not pay attention to the economic realities of your big gvoernment policies!!!' is simply amazing and shows that he is a true statesman rather than a 'eyball bulging angry demented grandfather' that Bill Cruchon is characterizing him as.
He is a quiet gentle polite statesman that just repeats the truth over and over hoping that someone will listen. Millions did this year but unfortunately not enough to overcome a party machine bent on leading the GOP to be the Big Government Party at ALL COSTS!
You guys did not support him for whatever reason, but please do not continue to push him and his supporters out, you have no chance of success without accepting at least some of the ideas he tells as your own again.
Posted by: Lysander on November 26, 2008 09:12 PMI'm quite sure you imagine many strange things, but like THIS particular example that doesn't/won't make them so.
Too bad the GOP feels the need to create 1930-esque black lists in order to ruin the careers of prominent dissenters.
Haven't been following those oh so tolerant homosexuals in Cali, have you obfusCATOr? More likely you choose to ignore yet another something that doesn't fit your narrative.
And no, there would never be an "Operation Lepper" (sic) in the Dem ranks: you folks protect, defend and lie for your fellow liberals. It has nothing to do with loyalty and everything to do with power. Except of course, in the case of Joe Lieberman. Whether YOU liked him or not is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is that one minute he was their favorite son and the next they they turned on him like the vicious power hungry dogs they are. That he kept his chair (so far) has little to do with him and more to do with that crazy jerk Harry Reid lusting for 60 votes with SanFranGranNan screeching in his ear that he better damned well get them.
The answer of course is that no matter what Palin's experience or accomplishments you would still bash her because she is a conservative.
And yes I'm answering the question by posing another one that so far is only exposing deep ignorance about the woman. More popcorn, please."
I haven't bashed Palin. I have said that I disagree with her politics and have concerns about her preparation to be President of the United States. That's not bashing. If she had more experience, I would still disagree with many of her political stances, but believing someone shouldn't be elected because they hold different views is qualitatively different from believing they shouldn't hold that office because they aren't qualified.
As far as what experience would be enough, it has more to do with what has been accomplished than an amount of time. It's possible that she has adequate experience from being governor and mayor. However, as I said before, I'm not aware of major accomplishments of hers in those posts and the fact that she had them is not in itself sufficient.
I've already admitted that I don't know everything there is to know about Palin. I'm asking you to correct that. I'm promising to give fair consideration to anything you say. What's the problem?
Posted by: Icarus on November 27, 2008 12:01 AMRemember George Bush 41 had a 90% approval rating in 1991 right after Desert Storm but he lost the next year. Things can change fast and 2012 is four years away; so I expect Obama's post election honeymoon won't last until then.
Also consider that the Main Stream Media may have trouble holding viewers if they try to continue their uncritical worship of his every word and deed for 4 years. Someday, they will offer some criticism and his ratings will decline.
Posted by: KW64 on November 27, 2008 05:45 AMI haven't heard much since the election from those who claimed Bush plotted 911 and the Iraq war so he could become dictator for life. They all must be hiding under the same rocks with the goofballs that predicted worldwide chaos on Y2K.
Oh and for the record I didn't say Paul actually was a demented grandfather...it just seemed to me that's how he came across, like a grim predictor of doom. People don't exactly like that quality in a leader, right or wrong.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 27, 2008 08:45 AM"Change",
***
Over the last few days I've been reading a lot about the report from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) on the nation's civic literacy which found that of their sample of voters and elected officials most were too dumb to vote.
I humbly suggest to the House and Senate Republicans that they loudly and publicly introduce a bill that requires a voter/candidate civics test prior to registration for either. It's a win/win situation no matter what happens. We KNOW the liberals will want to object. but when they do we can all accuse them of what we've known all along: they WANT and need a stupid electorate.
***
Question for all you rabid pro-borts: how many of you are putting a dead baby under your Christmas tree?
"Looking for an unusual, yet practical gift this holiday season? Planned Parenthood of Indiana (PPIN) is now offering gift certificates for services or the recipient's choice of birth control method," the abortion business says.
The gift certificates can be purchased in increments of $25 online at the group's web site or for any amount at some of PPIN's 35 statewide facilities.
Yep, nothing quite says "I love you" on Christmas morning like the promise of a dead baby.
***
Speaking of dead baby's and baby bear-y the toddler president, it turns out that it's Not Exactly the Kind of "Hope" They (Obama "Catholics") Had in Mind.
We'll be here to enjoy the show...and pick up the pieces!
-I'd be willing to bet that most of the population under 40 believe that Abraham Lincoln was a Democrat.
-Liberal Palin bashers can't figure out that Palin has experience in something that is basic to this country's greatness.
-On one of my walks this week I saw vehicles with bumper stickers that said "your hummer looks stupid", and "nice truck, too bad about your penis". Hint to liberals. People tend to have trucks for a reason, like to haul stuff.
-This is a day to be thankful for all of our blessings.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 27, 2008 01:05 PM1. Reach out to Ron Paul and the Campaign for Freedom
2. Make room for libertarians
3. Fiscal conservatism, Limited govt, Constitutional rights
I can agree with that!
Posted by: Lysander on November 30, 2008 07:02 AMUnfortunately, it's simply not that kind of political reality. The GOP IS the mainstream. Join us and contribute.
The 'army' can learn to play well with others or continue to be irrelevant.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 30, 2008 05:23 PMAgain, that obstinance will only serve to keep that "army" irrelevant as the mainsteam party plows forward.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 30, 2008 08:38 PMCalling Paul supporters obstanant when all they insisted on were candidates that for the most part supported the party platform is a bit odd. It was party leadership that in my eyes appear to be the obstinant ones. They appear to have feeeeeelt threatened by new blood in the GOP that actually believed in the platform. They on the other hand apppear much more in love with the power they wield and the power they seek to obtain in olympia than they are in olve with the ideas in out platform. The paul supporters zeal for adherence to the principles of liberty I admit might be frightening, but it is something a good party leader would harness, not shun.
Spin it however you want, but in the end no matter what the Paul supporters faults, the party leadership should be trying to bring them into the fold not shunning them.
Posted by: Lysander on November 30, 2008 08:54 PM
