Karl Rove Focuses On Defeating The Tea Party

[fskimospy]

Considering that Romney's biggest hindrance was his stance on social issue and his attempts to out democrat Obama on being a democrat when it came to the use of government on spending and economic issues that leads me to firmly believe by a large margin it would of been better to have either Ron Paul or Gary Johnson. Both men would of nullified the Obama's stances on social issues and provided actual real contrast on economic policies and furthered the debate on the role of government in our society along with provided greater debate on the what the role of our military should be overseas, etc.

When they stopped polling Ron Paul v. Obama, Paul was losing on average by somewhere around 8-10 points... and that was with nobody attacking Paul and Obama at one of his weakest points. Not only that but Ron Paul's economic policies that you wish to highlight are in fact enormously unpopular in the electorate at large. (same with Johnson)

While I can appreciate your desire to have a larger debate on your important issues all the available evidence points to Paul losing in an epic blowout. I find it extraordinarily unlikely that Ron Paul would have even come particularly close to Romney's finish, much less actually done better.

 

[88keys]

When they stopped polling Ron Paul v. Obama, Paul was losing on average by somewhere around 8-10 points... and that was with nobody attacking Paul and Obama at one of his weakest points. Not only that but Ron Paul's economic policies that you wish to highlight are in fact enormously unpopular in the electorate at large. (same with Johnson)

While I can appreciate your desire to have a larger debate on your important issues all the available evidence points to Paul losing in an epic blowout. I find it extraordinarily unlikely that Ron Paul would have even come particularly close to Romney's finish, much less actually done better.

This.

I highly doubt that you'd find alot of people to support dismantling the dept of education.....

 

[Ryan]

Fool me once - shame on you. Fool me twice....can't...can't fool me again!

Anyone who gives this moron a dollar is a fool.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

When they stopped polling Ron Paul v. Obama, Paul was losing on average by somewhere around 8-10 points... and that was with nobody attacking Paul and Obama at one of his weakest points. Not only that but Ron Paul's economic policies that you wish to highlight are in fact enormously unpopular in the electorate at large. (same with Johnson)

While I can appreciate your desire to have a larger debate on your important issues all the available evidence points to Paul losing in an epic blowout. I find it extraordinarily unlikely that Ron Paul would have even come particularly close to Romney's finish, much less actually done better.

You're right that Paul on average polled 8 points down from Obama but he did so with a campaign which was grass roots and did not receive the full support or endorsement of GOP power brokers. Of whom long ago had already chosen Romney as their main man.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

This.

I highly doubt that you'd find alot of people to support dismantling the dept of education.....

Funny we didn't need a federal department of education up until someone decide on a reason to create this agency at the federal level in the 70's. Prior to that time we managed to educate students just as well, if not better then we do today without this federal agency mandating educational priorities from high on the federal mountain top.

 

[Incorruptible]

You'd better take it up with Turd Blossom as he's about to put a knife to the throat of the Tea Bag Party.....

"Tea bag"? Congrats on hitting a new low, Go back to being a lapdog for obama

 

[UberNeuman]

"Tea bag"? Congrats on hitting a new low, Go back to being a lapdog for obama

? I thought that's what they wished to be called.... oh, well....

\better worry more about Hot Karl and his friends readying themselves to take you and your cohorts down...
\\under the bus, under the bus - it's fun to throw our fair weather friends under the bus.....:biggrin:

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

"Tea bag"? Congrats on hitting a new low, Go back to being a lapdog for obama

Yeah, what kind of maniac would use tea bags in reference to the Tea Party?

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Why should they be allowed to use union dues to fund and support the political campaigns of Democrats and not likewise corporations? Of which corporations more often then not contributors of both parties, a heck of lot more so than unions who by very large margin are in the pocket of Democrat politicians.

I'm against all forms of corporate personhood. But i don't recall it ever being ruled that unions are people.[/QUOTE]

The ruling for granting corporations, more specifically Super Pacs the ability to lobby came about because other organizations such as unions already had the ability to do so and were not being challenged.

Thus the court looked at the current scene of who was being allowed to on behalf of groups of people and stated that other groups (such as unions) being allowed to lobby the political scene while corporations were being denied the same right to use their own money as a form of free speech was wholly unconstitutionally.

[qoute]Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

But let me explain some politics to you.

You don't have to explain anything because I understand that your perspective is one sided.

You see, corporation donate to both parties in hopes of a return via favorable legislation.

Of course they do unlike unions who specifically are in the pocket of Democrats who they lobby for favors often at the expense of tax payers, non-union workers and private businesses.

And favorable legislation often includes removing rights to collective bargaining so the only way for unions to defend themselves is to play the same game and donate union dues to the only party that might be willing to put up a half ased fight for them....

Now that's a pretty one sided assessment. Collective barging is not right. Especially when there are people who rather not be in a union or who don't want to be forced into accepting what a union may want them to accept or not want them to accept when they negotiate with their employer.

Furthermore you're trying to paint unions as purely victims as if they do not lobbying government to infringe upon the rights of individuals. Especially in regard being able to coerce non-union workers into joining their ranks prior to being given the oppurtunity to be hired for position or accepting deals which they may not be inclined to support. All of which is done so in order for unions to force those who would more then likely rather not be unionized into their organization which impose due collections to the benefit of the union and those the union supports politically.

 

[1prophet]

Why should they be allowed to use union dues to fund and support the political campaigns of Democrats and not likewise corporations? Of which corporations more often then not contributors of both parties, a heck of lot more so than unions who by very large margin are in the pocket of Democrat politicians.

I'm against all forms of corporate personhood. But i don't recall it ever being ruled that unions are people.

But let me explain some politics to you.

You see, corporation donate to both parties in hopes of a return via favorable legislation. And favorable legislation often includes removing rights to collective bargaining so the only way for unions to defend themselves is to play the same game and donate union dues to the only party that might be willing to put up a half ased fight for them....

Unions have had another option, form their own party instead of being tethered to the Democratic party that has continually back stabbed them and severely weakened them through illegal immigration and outsourcing.

 

[Incorruptible]

Unions have had another option, form their own party instead of being tethered to the Democratic party that has continually back stabbed them and severely weakened them through illegal immigration and outsourcing.

This is something I have never understood, Why do unions continue to support a party that supports policies which directly hurt unions?

 

[irishScott]

Yeah, what kind of maniac would use tea bags in reference to the Tea Party?

I love how it's all old people in those pics. They must not know the modern definition of "tea bagging".

 

[Thegonagle]

I love how it's all old people in those pics. They must not know the modern definition of "tea bagging".

I think Greybeard in the tri-corner hat has some idea...

 

[Incorruptible]

Yeah, what kind of maniac would use tea bags in reference to the Tea Party?

Ok, I want to play

 

[UberNeuman]

I think Greybeard in the tri-corner hat has some idea...

Hey, he just wants Earl Grey... hot....

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Ok, I want to play

As usual I don't see your point, unless your point is that you suck at linking.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

I love how it's all old people in those pics. They must not know the modern definition of "tea bagging".

Pretty sure they understand the modern context of the word. In fact there is a rather large difference between who is the tea baggER politically and figuratively versus who is the tea baggIE even with its modern political usage.


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tea bagger

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tea baggie

 

[Howard]

Ok, I want to play

Holy dear Lord. After quoting this post I now see why DVC said you suck at linking.

Also, man, you're still crazy.

 

[Incorruptible]

As usual I don't see your point, unless your point is that you suck at linking.

That says a lot more about you

You didn't say it but from the pictures its implied that the Tea Party is racist because you posted a bunch of them with old white people. My post shows that the Tea Party is not racist

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

That says a lot more about you

You didn't say it but from the pictures its implied that the Tea Party is racist because you posted a bunch of them with old white people. My post shows that the Tea Party is not racist

I didn't imply any such thing - I just picked pictures with tea bags. Certainly the overwhelming, disproportionate majority of the Tea Party membership is white, and while I don't think the movement itself is racist, I also don't think it would ever have achieved meaningful popularity under a white President. Nice job including the "send him back to Kenya" poster, which pretty well undermines the rest of your point, as well as including two pictures of what appears to be the same person (the guy with the cowboy hat).

As I have said before, you are either a parody troll or a bigoted moron. If I were you I'd rather just admit to the former.

 

[Incorruptible]

I didn't imply any such thing - I just picked pictures with tea bags. Certainly the overwhelming, disproportionate majority of the Tea Party membership is white, and while I don't think the movement itself is racist, I also don't think it would ever have achieved meaningful popularity under a white President. Nice job including the "send him back to Kenya" poster, which pretty well undermines the rest of your point.

As I have said before, you are either a parody troll or a bigoted moron. If I were you I'd rather just admit to the former.

I would say there are a lot of white people in the Tea Party but there are black people who are proud patriots and members of the Tea Party. The Tea Party started before obama, people fed up with "conservative" george bush. They are critical of both the democrats and gop

I think all the corrupt politicians should be kicked out of the country and I have stated this before.

 

[BoberFett]

I don't think anyone thinks the Tea Party are "corporate stooges" - it's obviously a grass roots movement that consists largely of rural individuals, rather than corporate types. I'm not sure why you think this thread "will likely cause a few mental breakdowns among Democrats" - sounds like you may already have had your own.

It's a common theme around here that the Tea Party wants to hand the US government over to corporations.

 

[soundforbjt]

If corporations are people, than why don't the republicans just cut to the chase and actually nominate a corporation to run for president?

I wouldn't be surprised if they did try. :biggrin:

 

[88keys]

The ruling for granting corporations, more specifically Super Pacs the ability to lobby came about because other organizations such as unions already had the ability to do so and were not being challenged.


Thus the court looked at the current scene of who was being allowed to on behalf of groups of people and stated that other groups (such as unions) being allowed to lobby the political scene while corporations were being denied the same right to use their own money as a form of free speech was wholly unconstitutionally.

Not exactly. Prior to Citizens United Unions were not allowed to spend from their treauries and had regulated PACs which took voluntary donations from employees which they were required to report. Citizens United now allows Unions to spend union dues on what would now be called Super PACs.


[qoute]Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

You don't have to explain anything because I understand that your perspective is one sided.

Which is obviously the side that you do not wish to hear

Of course they do unlike unions who specifically are in the pocket of Democrats who they lobby for favors often at the expense of tax payers, non-union workers and private businesses.

What do you expect? They're forced to play the same game to financially support the campaigns politicians to do their bidding

Now that's a pretty one sided assessment. Collective barging is not right. Especially when there are people who rather not be in a union or who don't want to be forced into accepting what a union may want them to accept or not want them to accept when they negotiate with their employer.

Collective bargaining is not a constitutional right, but it may or may not be a right depending on where you live.
And you're not forced to join a union any more than you are forced to pass physical. if you don't want the job, don't take the physical, and don't join the union. Employers have requirements upon hiring that must be met.

Furthermore you're trying to paint unions as purely victims as if they do not lobbying government to infringe upon the rights of individuals. Especially in regard being able to coerce non-union workers into joining their ranks prior to being given the oppurtunity to be hired for position or accepting deals which they may not be inclined to support. All of which is done so in order for unions to force those who would more then likely rather not be unionized into their organization which impose due collections to the benefit of the union and those the union supports politically.

And you can't be forced to take a deal that you may or may not support without a union. The difference is that in a union, new deals are voted on by the bargaining unit. And I'm not too clear on the part about coercing non union workers into joining the union prior to being given an oppurtunity to be hired for the job. I can only presume that you don't know much about unions. I was in a union and was an officer in that union and I can tell you that while each bargaining unit has it's own set of rules, it is however very standard to not allow non union employees to perform any duties on the premises on a permanent basis. And the bargaining unit is required to follow very strict rules as to allow temporary employees membership in the union, and there is often a probationary period that one must complete prior to being eligible to join the union.

Funny we didn't need a federal department of education up until someone decide on a reason to create this agency at the federal level in the 70's. Prior to that time we managed to educate students just as well, if not better then we do today without this federal agency mandating educational priorities from high on the federal mountain top.

Annnnnddd you're still not gonna find a majority of Americas who would support dismantiling it

It's a common theme around here that the Tea Party wants to hand the US government over to corporations.

 

[5to1baby1in5]

Maybe it will take a third loss for the Republican Party to figure it out.
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_new...ing-tone-not-principles?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1

After their electoral drubbing last November — their second straight in a presidential contest — Republicans have faced a choice. Do they change their policies or their tone?

"People focus on the 2012 elections, but it's deeper than that," said former Ohio Rep. Steve LaTourette, a Republican who leads the moderate "Main Street Partnership."

"It can't just be tone," LaTourette argued. "Because just changing the tone is going to be like putting a lipstick on a pig — it pretties things up, but doesn't really change the fact that it's a pig."

It appears that Rove wants to push for 'better' canidates that can win elections (sacrificing core values of terminally low taxes, hawkish foreign policy, largely unfettered gun rights and opposition to abortion and gay rights for electability), but the conservative base is is fighting for the lipstick approach.