I just don't understand the GOP

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Republicans afraid their girlfriends will abort her date rape baby? Can it be more basic than that??

Always someone willing to take trolling up to the next level.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: HomerJS
The GOP consistently barks on things like "faimily values", abstinence only education". Problem is their personal lives don't match the rhetoric. More and more people are getting a clue.

And the Democrats talk about how the rich must pay their fair share and then turnout to be tax cheats.

Take ANY argument about one party and you can find a counter balance in the other party. Both are highly flawed.

I don't vote Republican because they are perfect, I vote Republican because it is the party that comes closest to my views.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Since FDR, the GOP has been a small tent political party and damn proud of it too. They regained power because the Democrats' Viet Nam war (and its economic and social consequences) and support for the rights of Afro-Americans in the sixties.

GWB's adminstration was the culmination of the US conservative movement since Goldwater and Reagan.

Might as well stop there since you have shown that you have NO understand of the conservative movement.

Bush was NOT a conservative. Not even close.

No Child Left Behind was WRITTEN by Ted Kennedy, look it up.

His prescription drug plan was the largest government social program since the 1960s.

Non-defense spending during his term exploded.

The only thing conservative about Bush was his tax cuts, his stance on moral issues and the war on terror. On a lot of other topics and issue he was near the middle.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Might as well stop there since you have shown that you have NO understand of the conservative movement.

Bush was NOT a conservative. Not even close.

No Child Left Behind was WRITTEN by Ted Kennedy, look it up.

His prescription drug plan was the largest government social program since the 1960s.

Non-defense spending during his term exploded.

The only thing conservative about Bush was his tax cuts, his stance on moral issues and the war on terror. On a lot of other topics and issue he was near the middle.

I'm so sick of hearing this. Bush was very much a conservative. Sure he did some things that weren't conservative but that's because he's a human being and not an ideological automaton. Just because Ted Kennedy is involved with something doesn't mean that it's not conservative. NCLB was most certainly conservative legislation. Bush's tax cuts were extremely conservative. Bush's stance towards regulation was ULTRA conservative.

This is just the same old 'conservatism never fails, it is only failed' thing that gets pulled out all the time. When someone is doing well, they are a proud conservative and a sign that conservatism works. When they fail, they are jettisoned as not being conservative enough. There is simply never an admission that conservative principles have failed sometimes.

I would love to know who you thought was the last 'conservative' president. If you say Reagan, you're in for a rude surprise as I could paint him with much the same brush as GWB.

 

[First]

The war on terror was being conservative? That's rich.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Bush was NOT a conservative. Not even close.

I love how you all think. You cant possibly admit that being conservative is anything but succesful. When you get the positions of power and then fail miserably (ala Bush and the 2000-2006 congress), you simply blame it on the fact that your guys weren't conservative.

Its perfect, you can never fail that way. Anything good that happens you claim it was because of conservative principles... Anything bad that happens is because it wasn't "really" conservative. What a perfect little fantasy you live in.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Bush was NOT a conservative. Not even close.

I love how you all think. You cant possibly admit that being conservative is anything but succesful. When you get the positions of power and then fail miserably (ala Bush and the 2000-2006 congress), you simply blame it on the fact that your guys weren't conservative.

Its perfect, you can never fail that way. Anything good that happens you claim it was because of conservative principles... Anything bad that happens is because it wasn't "really" conservative. What a perfect little fantasy you live in.

(technically the Democrats controlled Congress for 2 of those years)

Conservatism never fails! It is only failed!

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Bush was NOT a conservative. Not even close.

I love how you all think. You cant possibly admit that being conservative is anything but succesful. When you get the positions of power and then fail miserably (ala Bush and the 2000-2006 congress), you simply blame it on the fact that your guys weren't conservative.

Its perfect, you can never fail that way. Anything good that happens you claim it was because of conservative principles... Anything bad that happens is because it wasn't "really" conservative. What a perfect little fantasy you live in.

(technically the Democrats controlled Congress for 2 of those years)

Conservatism never fails! It is only failed!

Not from 2000-2006. Reps had total control from 1994 to 2006.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Not from 2000-2006. Reps had total control from 1994 to 2006.

The Democrats controlled the senate in 2001-2002 when Jeffords switched from Republican to independent.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

"Michael Steele has just walked away from the Reaganesque position of strong moral clarity on abortion to personify why the Republican Party continues to be in a 'free fall',?

The free fall is because of things like the so-called "moral" position on abortion. They're completely out of touch with the majority of the electorate.

Fixed.

 

[wirelessenabled]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Republicans have owned the whitehouse 20 of the past 30 years. Because they have lost 2 major elections in the past 2 years I don't see how the whole party is falling apart. They will regroup and win again. It will likely start in 2 years from now as people get sick of what Obama and President Pelosi are doing.

I'm not sure how what Obama and Pelosi are doing is different from what Bush and Reagan did, spend money we don't have. The only difference is Reagan and Bush spent on WAR while Obama is spending it on social care.

Fixed for you:thumbsup:

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: polarmystery
Topic Title: "I just don't understand the GOP"

Answer: Nobody does.

I think I largely do. It's a composite of groups I've written long posts describing, that I won't spend the next hour re-writing in this post, though.

:laugh: You, Michael Moore, and Hugo Chavez really have a deep understanding of the right wing :laugh:

No accounting for imbeciles.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Bush was NOT a conservative. Not even close.

I love how you all think. You cant possibly admit that being conservative is anything but succesful. When you get the positions of power and then fail miserably (ala Bush and the 2000-2006 congress), you simply blame it on the fact that your guys weren't conservative.

Its perfect, you can never fail that way. Anything good that happens you claim it was because of conservative principles... Anything bad that happens is because it wasn't "really" conservative. What a perfect little fantasy you live in.

What's funny is that that's exactly what I predicted in 2001 would happen. It'd be like Dems in 1980 saying "Carter wasn't a liberal, vote Democrat".

(The sizable Democratic minority opposition did say he wasn't a very effective leader, vote for another Democrat, which was a lot more honest of them).

Occassionally, there are candidates that argument might be credible about, but Bush wasn't one, because the 'conservatives' claimed him big time in 2000 and 2004.

They could have reasonable argued that his spending and perhaps some few other policies weren't really conservative, but when they claimed him as a dream candidate, and backed him solidly, in part based on his borrowed tax cuts and his militarism (that required deficit spending) and his other 'conservative' policies like sending a UN hater as UN Ambassador and his appointment of radical right-wing Federalist Society people to the Supreme Court, they don't get to have it both ways and deny him now. If they had said it before, ok.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Bush was NOT a conservative. Not even close.

I love how you all think. You cant possibly admit that being conservative is anything but succesful. When you get the positions of power and then fail miserably (ala Bush and the 2000-2006 congress), you simply blame it on the fact that your guys weren't conservative.

Its perfect, you can never fail that way. Anything good that happens you claim it was because of conservative principles... Anything bad that happens is because it wasn't "really" conservative. What a perfect little fantasy you live in.

What's funny is that that's exactly what I predicted in 2001 would happen. It'd be like Dems in 1980 saying "Carter wasn't a liberal, vote Democrat".

(The sizable Democratic minority opposition did say he wasn't a very effective leader, vote for another Democrat, which was a lot more honest of them).

Occassionally, there are candidates that argument might be credible about, but Bush wasn't one, because the 'conservatives' claimed him big time in 2000 and 2004.

They could have reasonable argued that his spending and perhaps some few other policies weren't really conservative, but when they claimed him as a dream candidate, and backed him solidly, in part based on his borrowed tax cuts and his militarism (that required deficit spending) and his other 'conservative' policies like sending a UN hater as UN Ambassador and his appointment of radical right-wing Federalist Society people to the Supreme Court, they don't get to have it both ways and deny him now. If they had said it before, ok.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Since FDR, the GOP has been a small tent political party and damn proud of it too. They regained power because the Democrats' Viet Nam war (and its economic and social consequences) and support for the rights of Afro-Americans in the sixties.

GWB's adminstration was the culmination of the US conservative movement since Goldwater and Reagan.

Might as well stop there since you have shown that you have NO understand of the conservative movement.

Bush was NOT a conservative. Not even close.

No Child Left Behind was WRITTEN by Ted Kennedy, look it up.

His prescription drug plan was the largest government social program since the 1960s.

Non-defense spending during his term exploded.

The only thing conservative about Bush was his tax cuts, his stance on moral issues and the war on terror. On a lot of other topics and issue he was near the middle.

The problem Mr Bush and the Republicans had is that the conservative governing model works well when you are not in power. There are problems when you are in power and have to run a government:

It is okay for conservatives to wage war and spend resources on defense programs. But they have trouble with taking care of veterans.

Conservatives have trouble with responding to emergencies, for example Katrina and national scale problems.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Since FDR, the GOP has been a small tent political party and damn proud of it too. They regained power because the Democrats' Viet Nam war (and its economic and social consequences) and support for the rights of Afro-Americans in the sixties.

GWB's adminstration was the culmination of the US conservative movement since Goldwater and Reagan.

Might as well stop there since you have shown that you have NO understand of the conservative movement.

Bush was NOT a conservative. Not even close.

No Child Left Behind was WRITTEN by Ted Kennedy, look it up.

His prescription drug plan was the largest government social program since the 1960s.

Non-defense spending during his term exploded.

The only thing conservative about Bush was his tax cuts, his stance on moral issues and the war on terror. On a lot of other topics and issue he was near the middle.

LOL, now that he's out of office you throw him under the bus (deservedly) but while he was in office he were one of his most ardent defenders.

I can understand why a conservative would take umbrage with Bush being compared to Goldwater but you should also take umbrage with Reagan being compared with Goldwater if you were honest.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Since FDR, the GOP has been a small tent political party and damn proud of it too. They regained power because the Democrats' Viet Nam war (and its economic and social consequences) and support for the rights of Afro-Americans in the sixties.

GWB's adminstration was the culmination of the US conservative movement since Goldwater and Reagan.

Might as well stop there since you have shown that you have NO understand of the conservative movement.

Bush was NOT a conservative. Not even close.

No Child Left Behind was WRITTEN by Ted Kennedy, look it up. <-- you are wrong 75% wrong....The legislation was coauthored by Representatives John Boehner (R-OH) and George Miller (D-CA) and Senators Judd Gregg (R-NH) and Edward Kennedy (D-MA), and signed by President Bush.
His prescription drug plan was the largest government social program since the 1960s.

Non-defense spending during his term exploded.

The only thing conservative about Bush was his tax cuts, his stance on moral issues and the war on terror. On a lot of other topics and issue he was near the middle.

LOL, now that he's out of office you throw him under the bus (deservedly) but while he was in office he were one of his most ardent defenders.

I can understand why a conservative would take umbrage with Bush being compared to Goldwater but you should also take umbrage with Reagan being compared with Goldwater if you were honest.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: Craig234
[ radical right-wing Federalist Society people to the Supreme Court

You are not aware apparently that there is a radical revolution going on in the judiciary with the Federalist Society agenda; they now have 4 of 9 Supreme Court seats.

Look back over the last several years at all the 5-4 decisions with those same 4 pushing their agenda. We're one vote away from big changes to our legal framework.

I felt this was one of the very top issues in the Presidential election, as McCain was going to appoint more Federalists the first time he could.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Bush was NOT a conservative. Not even close.

I love how you all think. You cant possibly admit that being conservative is anything but succesful. When you get the positions of power and then fail miserably (ala Bush and the 2000-2006 congress), you simply blame it on the fact that your guys weren't conservative.

Its perfect, you can never fail that way. Anything good that happens you claim it was because of conservative principles... Anything bad that happens is because it wasn't "really" conservative. What a perfect little fantasy you live in.

What's funny is that that's exactly what I predicted in 2001 would happen. It'd be like Dems in 1980 saying "Carter wasn't a liberal, vote Democrat".

(The sizable Democratic minority opposition did say he wasn't a very effective leader, vote for another Democrat, which was a lot more honest of them).

Occassionally, there are candidates that argument might be credible about, but Bush wasn't one, because the 'conservatives' claimed him big time in 2000 and 2004.

They could have reasonable argued that his spending and perhaps some few other policies weren't really conservative, but when they claimed him as a dream candidate, and backed him solidly, in part based on his borrowed tax cuts and his militarism (that required deficit spending) and his other 'conservative' policies like sending a UN hater as UN Ambassador and his appointment of radical right-wing Federalist Society people to the Supreme Court, they don't get to have it both ways and deny him now. If they had said it before, ok.

Thats exactly what I thought... Maybe too much booze on a Friday night left him feelin extra good? =)

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: Craig234
[ radical right-wing Federalist Society people to the Supreme Court

You are not aware apparently that there is a radical revolution going on in the judiciary with the Federalist Society agenda; they now have 4 of 9 Supreme Court seats.

Look back over the last several years at all the 5-4 decisions with those same 4 pushing their agenda. We're one vote away from big changes to our legal framework.

I felt this was one of the very top issues in the Presidential election, as McCain was going to appoint more Federalists the first time he could.

This was a key issue for me this election, more than any other. I'm not impressed with Scalia / Alito /Roberts.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: Craig234
[ radical right-wing Federalist Society people to the Supreme Court

You are not aware apparently that there is a radical revolution going on in the judiciary with the Federalist Society agenda; they now have 4 of 9 Supreme Court seats.

Look back over the last several years at all the 5-4 decisions with those same 4 pushing their agenda. We're one vote away from big changes to our legal framework.

I felt this was one of the very top issues in the Presidential election, as McCain was going to appoint more Federalists the first time he could.

What is radical about them? Per their site, they purport to be conservatives/libertarians with a constructionist view of the Constitution.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: Craig234
[ radical right-wing Federalist Society people to the Supreme Court

You are not aware apparently that there is a radical revolution going on in the judiciary with the Federalist Society agenda; they now have 4 of 9 Supreme Court seats.

Look back over the last several years at all the 5-4 decisions with those same 4 pushing their agenda. We're one vote away from big changes to our legal framework.

I felt this was one of the very top issues in the Presidential election, as McCain was going to appoint more Federalists the first time he could.

This was a key issue for me this election, more than any other. I'm not impressed with Scalia / Alito /Roberts.

You make my day to see others recognizing the issue But I get to tease you as a Thomas fan for leaving him off the list.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane
What is radical about them? Per their site, they purport to be conservatives/libertarians with a constructionist view of the Constitution.

Of course they say benign things about themselves. Try reading others.

Here's what lifelong Republican and former Federal Judge Lawrence Walsh, who helped select judicial nominees for Eisenhower, was president of the ABA, was involved in the evaluation of Nixon's nominees, and was the respected independant prosecutor for Iran-Contra has to say about the Federalist Society:

"The impression I have is they are trying to return to the 18th century and undo the work of the Supreme Court since the New Deal," Walsh says. "And I think it is wrong to put someone on the court who has a pre-commitment with a political dogma, whether it's the Ku Klux Klan or the Federalist Society."

You can google for various info, but here are some quick links:

Book on right-wing judges

Link

Link

Link

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: Craig234
[ radical right-wing Federalist Society people to the Supreme Court

You are not aware apparently that there is a radical revolution going on in the judiciary with the Federalist Society agenda; they now have 4 of 9 Supreme Court seats.

Look back over the last several years at all the 5-4 decisions with those same 4 pushing their agenda. We're one vote away from big changes to our legal framework.

I felt this was one of the very top issues in the Presidential election, as McCain was going to appoint more Federalists the first time he could.

This was a key issue for me this election, more than any other. I'm not impressed with Scalia / Alito /Roberts.

You make my day to see others recognizing the issue But I get to tease you as a Thomas fan for leaving him off the list.

If only he would open his mouth once in a while and say something he would get noticed!

But yes, he's not on my favorite list.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: MotF Bane
What is radical about them? Per their site, they purport to be conservatives/libertarians with a constructionist view of the Constitution.

Of course they say benign things about themselves. Try reading others.

Here's what lifelong Republican and former Federal Judge Lawrence Walsh, who helped select judicial nominees for Eisenhower, was president of the ABA, was involved in the evaluation of Nixon's nominees, and was the respected independant prosecutor for Iran-Contra has to say about the Federalist Society:

"The impression I have is they are trying to return to the 18th century and undo the work of the Supreme Court since the New Deal," Walsh says. "And I think it is wrong to put someone on the court who has a pre-commitment with a political dogma, whether it's the Ku Klux Klan or the Federalist Society."

You can google for various info, but here are some quick links:

Book on right-wing judges

Link

Link

Link

At the risk of getting into an debate I don't want and lack information on...

Walsh, president of the ABA, an organization attacked by the Federalist Society as having a liberal bias. I wouldn't expect him to say anything complimentary about Federalist Society after that, and I also think that saying a pre-commitment to a political dogma may be hypocritical of him. It is reasonable to expect the ABA has its own interests, as would judges it "recommends".

As for ratical.org, looking at the homepage for that site gives me the same impression of some of the truly crazy sites for either side. "International Nuclear Mafia" or "gaia's children", et cetera. It's not going to be a good place to get a balanced view. The other site's homepage is just as much a Democrat mouthpiece as Fox News is a Republican mouthpiece. So again, you can't get a balanced view. Also, with Washington Monthly, there is a mention about a possible Supreme Court opening, and advocated a "progressive worldview" - making their distaste for the Federalist Society even more evident.

Going with the information from Washington Monthly, there are inevitably some issues with where funding is received from, such as with Boyden Gray. If I wanted, I'm willing to bet I could find similar problems with other judges that don't belong to the Federalist Society. Several of the other judges are doing the right thing though, such as Klausner's work against affirmative action and against benefits to illegal immigrants.

There is nothing to show the Federalist Society is entirely bad, only that certain members are bad. If we want to pick out certain members of groups that are bad, that's not hard, all groups have bad members.