Right wing blowhards are hurting a GOP comback?

[Ausm]

I personally hope they keep spewing their hate rhetoric myself

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28589.html

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Yes. Clearly, the gov't run by one party is a good thing.

 

[EagleKeeper]

They have another 2 years to spew their rhetoric and attempt to muddy Obama.
Come the middle of 2001, they will have realized (or have been told to) that they need to tone it down or it will affect the candidates.

 

[Siddhartha]

I do not watch or listen to the GOP mouthpieces like Mr Beck. Are these spokesmen attacking Republicans who do not 100% agree with them or are they mostly attacking Mr Obama?

Earlier this year there was talk of "moderate" Republicans being the cause of the GOP's loses in the last two federal elections.

If they are still attacking mainstream voters, they are not helping the GOP.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
They have another 2 years to spew their rhetoric and attempt to muddy Obama.
Come the middle of 2001, they will have realized (or have been told to) that they need to tone it down or it will affect the candidates.

I think it's more of republicans being ticked at republicans for not being republican enough.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
I do not watch or listen to the GOP mouthpieces like Mr Beck. Are these spokesmen attacking Republicans who do not 100% agree with them or are they mostly attacking Mr Obama?

Earlier this year there was talk of "moderate" Republicans being the cause of the GOP's loses in the last two federal elections.

If they are still attacking mainstream voters, they are not helping the GOP.

If by "Republicans who do not agree with them 100% of the time" you mean Olympia Snowe, whom votes with Democrats 100% of the time and is often the sole Republican to vote for their crap, then yes.

 

[shira]

There's a slight credibility problem when a party that can't even heal itself claims to have viable solutions for America's problems.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: shira
There's a slight credibility problem when a party that can't even heal itself claims to have viable solutions for America's problems.

The same could have been said about the Democrats just a few years ago.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
They have another 2 years to spew their rhetoric and attempt to muddy Obama.
Come the middle of 2001, they will have realized (or have been told to) that they need to tone it down or it will affect the candidates.

I think you meant 2010.

I agree :shocked:

They will probably tone their shit down, they are clearly looking like the nuts they really are.

I too like the OP wish they kept this up.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
I do not watch or listen to the GOP mouthpieces like Mr Beck. Are these spokesmen attacking Republicans who do not 100% agree with them or are they mostly attacking Mr Obama?

Earlier this year there was talk of "moderate" Republicans being the cause of the GOP's loses in the last two federal elections.

If they are still attacking mainstream voters, they are not helping the GOP.

If by "Republicans who do not agree with them 100% of the time" you mean Olympia Snowe, whom votes with Democrats 100% of the time and is often the sole Republican to vote for their crap, then yes.

If by 100% you meant 58.4% that is http://projects.washingtonpost...gress/members/s000663/

And nobody wants to be a called a republican these days http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/party-id.php#

The Big Tent is bullshit. The left doesn't even have an equivalent of RINO. We have Blue Dog Democrats who are still Democrats. But depart from the party line on the right and you're a "fake" republican to the rest of them.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
I do not watch or listen to the GOP mouthpieces like Mr Beck. Are these spokesmen attacking Republicans who do not 100% agree with them or are they mostly attacking Mr Obama?

Earlier this year there was talk of "moderate" Republicans being the cause of the GOP's loses in the last two federal elections.

If they are still attacking mainstream voters, they are not helping the GOP.

If by "Republicans who do not agree with them 100% of the time" you mean Olympia Snowe, whom votes with Democrats 100% of the time and is often the sole Republican to vote for their crap, then yes.

If by 100% you meant 58.4% that is http://projects.washingtonpost...gress/members/s000663/

And nobody wants to be a called a republican these days http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/party-id.php#

The Big Tent is bullshit. The left doesn't even have an equivalent of RINO. We have Blue Dog Democrats who are still Democrats. But depart from the party line on the right and you're a "fake" republican to the rest of them.

60% might as well be 100%. She's more Democrat than Republican.

Anyways I'd like to see a statistic of how many Democrats vote for Republican initiatives versus the other way around. There are the Blue Dog Democrats but my impression was they rarely back up their words with their vote. While on the right side of the aisle, McCain et. al. just fall over themselves to vote with Democrats to prove how "compassionate" they are.

Anyways the GOP has been completely worthless for the last several years. They forgot that being a conservative means standing up for lower taxes, smaller government, and more freedom. Instead they think the key to winning is to be Democrats-lite. They don't realize that people whom like the ideas of Democrats will just vote for a real Democrat, and by being moderate they send their conservative base home.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
If by "Republicans who do not agree with them 100% of the time" you mean Olympia Snowe, whom votes with Democrats 100% of the time and is often the sole Republican to vote for their crap, then yes.

If by 100% you meant 58.4% that is http://projects.washingtonpost...gress/members/s000663/

60% might as well be 100%. She's more Democrat than Republican.

My math, she's a not so good, but how is 60% Republican/40% Democrat = more democrat than republican?

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
They have another 2 years to spew their rhetoric and attempt to muddy Obama.
Come the middle of 2001, they will have realized (or have been told to) that they need to tone it down or it will affect the candidates.

I think it's more of republicans being ticked at republicans for not being republican enough.

God forbid they try being a little open-minded. Am I the only one who like the fact the Democrats have so many different caucuses? Sure, it makes legislation harder to pass, but at least there is some evidence of independence and not being a sheep.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
If by "Republicans who do not agree with them 100% of the time" you mean Olympia Snowe, whom votes with Democrats 100% of the time and is often the sole Republican to vote for their crap, then yes.

If by 100% you meant 58.4% that is http://projects.washingtonpost...gress/members/s000663/

60% might as well be 100%. She's more Democrat than Republican.

My math, she's a not so good, but how is 60% Republican/40% Democrat = more democrat than republican?

I didn't open the link but from the context of the OP that she voted with Democrats 60% of the time.

If it was 40% that is still bad, especially when that 40% includes the "Re-elect Democrasts in 2012" bill (aka the stimulus bill), cap & tax, etc.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
They have another 2 years to spew their rhetoric and attempt to muddy Obama.
Come the middle of 2001, they will have realized (or have been told to) that they need to tone it down or it will affect the candidates.

I think it's more of republicans being ticked at republicans for not being republican enough.

God forbid they try being a little open-minded. Am I the only one who like the fact the Democrats have so many different caucuses? Sure, it makes legislation harder to pass, but at least there is some evidence of independence and not being a sheep.

So when Republicans don't vote for Democrats, they are close-minded racist bigots. But when Democrats do not vote with Republicans, that's perfectly OK because everyone knows Republicans are close-minded racist bigots.

 

[OCGuy]

Nothin' like a good troll thread title.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: OCguy
Nothin' like a good troll thread title.

LOL, truth hurts?

Asum has quite the knack for thread titles.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: OCguy
Nothin' like a good troll thread title.

But you do have to give Ausm some credibility here...after all...he's clearly an expert on blowhards.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: shira
There's a slight credibility problem when a party that can't even heal itself claims to have viable solutions for America's problems.

The same could have been said about the Democrats just a few years ago.

Excellent point. So of course you agree with me that just as the Dems were frozen out while they struggled to heal themselves, it's entirely fitting that the Repugs continue to be frozen out now.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: OCguy
Nothin' like a good troll thread title.

But you do have to give Ausm some credibility here...after all...he's clearly an expert on blowhards.

The actual article title isn't really much better if you disagree with the thesis.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: OCguy
Nothin' like a good troll thread title.

LOL, truth hurts?

Asum has quite the knack for thread titles.

Really? I'm still trying to find out what the hell a "comback" is.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Mean MrMustard
Yes. Clearly, the gov't run by one party is a good thing.

Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the nature of the parties vying for power.

The Repubs these days are the party of stale slogans and obstructionism, and the country is better of without them. Once they re-invent themselves and actually have something constructive to offer, the country will again benefit from their participation.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: OCguy
Nothin' like a good troll thread title.

LOL, truth hurts?

Asum has quite the knack for thread titles.

Glad to see someone is still allowed to post Original Posts and learned well from when I used to be able to post.

Nice job Ausy :thumbsup:

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
They have another 2 years to spew their rhetoric and attempt to muddy Obama.
Come the middle of 2001, they will have realized (or have been told to) that they need to tone it down or it will affect the candidates.

I think it's more of republicans being ticked at republicans for not being republican enough.

God forbid they try being a little open-minded. Am I the only one who like the fact the Democrats have so many different caucuses? Sure, it makes legislation harder to pass, but at least there is some evidence of independence and not being a sheep.

So when Republicans don't vote for Democrats, they are close-minded racist bigots. But when Democrats do not vote with Republicans, that's perfectly OK because everyone knows Republicans are close-minded racist bigots.

Pretty much. Didn't you get the memo? If you disagree with Obama, or any democrat you are a close-minded, racist bigot.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Mean MrMustard
Yes. Clearly, the gov't run by one party is a good thing.

Not a problem as long the party in control is the one I agree with.

Fixed for clarity.