Callous Conservatism?

[Nosmo King]

Calling Republicans "fascists" and "nazis" really loses it effectiveness when the current Democrat President is a Black Liberation Theologist Communist.

Reading comprehension problem or are you building a straw man Mad?
There was no mention of "Nazis" in my post or even of German Fascism. I suggested a neo, as in new iteration of fascism, characterized by militarism, hyper-nationalism, one-party rule and authoriarianism; a lack of empathy and even hate for those whose race, creed, religion or culture differs from the 'approved'.
To deny the Republican Party is in disarray and has not moved far right is to ignore reality. ......

Evidence of the Republican Party moving to the "Far Right" would be......what?

Frankly, I agree that the GOP is in disarray, but this would make moving in any direction not just improbable, but impossible. Certainly, a move to the "FAR" right is more phobia than reality.

A shift in political philosophy is actually easier done when disarray exists. Let's look at eh Democrats as our paradigm of change. They ran Hubert Humphrey in 1968 much to the consternation of anti-war Democrats who supported Scoop Jackson and Bobby Kennedy.

Look who ran in 1972. George McGovern. Waaay more Liberal than Humphrey. And the party moved farther to the left than ever. It took Bill Clinton and his DLC (a Centrist organization) to win another national election (I omit Carter as he was the result of Watergate blow back)

The Tea Baggers are co-opting the GOP, not the other way around. As they move the party farther to the right, we can expect:

1) a call for ideological purity by the GOP which will weed out viable candidates in favor of hard liners and

2) no national wins for the GOP as long as the Tea Baggers hold sway.

Elections are won by the moderates, the Centrists, the pragmatic. Not the ideologues.

 

[DiamondDave]

Elections are won by the moderates, the Centrists, the pragmatic. Not the ideologues.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Did you even watch the last Presidential election?? The very moderate McCain was defeated by the ideologue winger Obama

You are a delusional tool

 

[Nosmo King]

Elections are won by the moderates, the Centrists, the pragmatic. Not the ideologues.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Did you even watch the last Presidential election?? The very moderate McCain was defeated by the ideologue winger Obama

You are a delusional tool

The last election in many ways had the same volatility as the 1976 election. Bush blow back was going to defeat any ANY Republican candidate. So, the GOP decided to pull another 1996. Then, they ran Bob Dole. A genial, likable man of advanced years.

The equivalent of a punt in politics.

 

[DiamondDave]

Elections are won by the moderates, the Centrists, the pragmatic. Not the ideologues.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Did you even watch the last Presidential election?? The very moderate McCain was defeated by the ideologue winger Obama

You are a delusional tool

The last election in many ways had the same volatility as the 1976 election. Bush blow back was going to defeat any ANY Republican candidate. So, the GOP decided to pull another 1996. Then, they ran Bob Dole. A genial, likable man of advanced years.

The equivalent of a punt in politics.

But the ideologue was indeed elected... against your original posted assertion

 

[LuckyDan]

Reading comprehension problem or are you building a straw man Mad?
There was no mention of "Nazis" in my post or even of German Fascism. I suggested a neo, as in new iteration of fascism, characterized by militarism, hyper-nationalism, one-party rule and authoriarianism; a lack of empathy and even hate for those whose race, creed, religion or culture differs from the 'approved'.
To deny the Republican Party is in disarray and has not moved far right is to ignore reality. ......

Evidence of the Republican Party moving to the "Far Right" would be......what?

Frankly, I agree that the GOP is in disarray, but this would make moving in any direction not just improbable, but impossible. Certainly, a move to the "FAR" right is more phobia than reality.

A shift in political philosophy is actually easier done when disarray exists. Let's look at eh Democrats as our paradigm of change. They ran Hubert Humphrey in 1968 much to the consternation of anti-war Democrats who supported Scoop Jackson and Bobby Kennedy.

Look who ran in 1972. George McGovern. Waaay more Liberal than Humphrey. And the party moved farther to the left than ever. It took Bill Clinton and his DLC (a Centrist organization) to win another national election (I omit Carter as he was the result of Watergate blow back)

The Tea Baggers are co-opting the GOP, not the other way around. As they move the party farther to the right, we can expect:

1) a call for ideological purity by the GOP which will weed out viable candidates in favor of hard liners and

2) no national wins for the GOP as long as the Tea Baggers hold sway.

Elections are won by the moderates, the Centrists, the pragmatic. Not the ideologues.

BO ran as a sweet-talking moderate but was known by anyone who cared to read 500 words about him as an idealogue.

If "Bush blowback" (interesting little term, that) elected him, BO blowback can de-elect him.

All but the hardcrore I'd-vote-for-Satan-if-he-ran-as-a-Dem dems are catching on that he is not what he seemed.

 

[hipeter924]

Reading comprehension problem or are you building a straw man Mad?
There was no mention of "Nazis" in my post or even of German Fascism. I suggested a neo, as in new iteration of fascism, characterized by militarism, hyper-nationalism, one-party rule and authoriarianism; a lack of empathy and even hate for those whose race, creed, religion or culture differs from the 'approved'.
To deny the Republican Party is in disarray and has not moved far right is to ignore reality. ......

Evidence of the Republican Party moving to the "Far Right" would be......what?

Frankly, I agree that the GOP is in disarray, but this would make moving in any direction not just improbable, but impossible. Certainly, a move to the "FAR" right is more phobia than reality.

In your opinion. At least this post provides some substance, and for that I give you credit (not tht your likely give a shit). To deny the R's have moved to the right (in some cases the far right) is to deny reality. Of course, one must first define left and right in terms of contempory meaning, and that may be more difficult then in the past.
Are Libertarians left or right"? Those who self-define as Tea Party members, moderates, right or far right?
Is the current administration left? Not likely if one considers recent WTO riots.
The one sure thing from the R's - if one pays attention to McConnell/Boehner/et al - is the current leadership of the GOP puts party first, not the American people.

Libertarianism entails an ideological belief in freedom of thought and speech.[1] The term libertarianism has come to encompass a range of beliefs about social structures with some libertarians striving for minimization of the state,[2] and others desiring to achieve complete elimination of any hierarchical imposition of authority to include an opposition to capitalism and other institutions viewed as coercive.[3] Libertarians have a variety of views on natural resources (among other means of production) and the size of the State[not in citation given], ranging from pro-property to anti-property (sometimes distinguished as right versus left libertarianism), and from minarchist to anarchist.[clarification needed][4][5][6][7][8]
Left-libertarianism is rooted in nineteenth century socialism.[9] Left-libertarians believe in protecting the freedom of action of individuals from interference by state or other actors but are against unfettered individual ownership of natural resources and the means of production.[5] Right-libertarianism is rooted in nineteenth century classical liberalism and right-libertarians believe liberty and property ownership are inviolable natural rights.[5] However right-libertarians are difficult to place in the conventional left/right political spectrum as they also support traditionally left-wing issues, such as broad freedom from search and seizure, freedom of the press, and other civil liberties.[5] Consequently some libertarians reject being described as "left" or "right"[10] or as "anarchists."[citation needed]
Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Libertarians can go both ways.
Left-libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Noam Chomsky)
Libertarian conservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Tea Party)
Right-libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
^Personally I am here.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Reading comprehension problem or are you building a straw man Mad?
There was no mention of "Nazis" in my post or even of German Fascism. I suggested a neo, as in new iteration of fascism, characterized by militarism, hyper-nationalism, one-party rule and authoriarianism; a lack of empathy and even hate for those whose race, creed, religion or culture differs from the 'approved'.
To deny the Republican Party is in disarray and has not moved far right is to ignore reality. ......

Evidence of the Republican Party moving to the "Far Right" would be......what?

Frankly, I agree that the GOP is in disarray, but this would make moving in any direction not just improbable, but impossible. Certainly, a move to the "FAR" right is more phobia than reality.

A shift in political philosophy is actually easier done when disarray exists. Let's look at eh Democrats as our paradigm of change. They ran Hubert Humphrey in 1968 much to the consternation of anti-war Democrats who supported Scoop Jackson and Bobby Kennedy.

Look who ran in 1972. George McGovern. Waaay more Liberal than Humphrey. And the party moved farther to the left than ever. It took Bill Clinton and his DLC (a Centrist organization) to win another national election (I omit Carter as he was the result of Watergate blow back)

The Tea Baggers are co-opting the GOP, not the other way around. As they move the party farther to the right, we can expect:

1) a call for ideological purity by the GOP which will weed out viable candidates in favor of hard liners and

2) no national wins for the GOP as long as the Tea Baggers hold sway.

Elections are won by the moderates, the Centrists, the pragmatic. Not the ideologues.

I hope your correct. Cornyn and Session and the rest of the leaders in the R Party seem stuck on ideological talking points, when pressed by Gregory on "Meet the Press" & Matthews on "Hardball":

(Hardball with Chris Matthews)

Cornyn and Session could only repeat the same talking points over and over and over. Not one of the 'leaders' was able (or willing) to name one thing they personally would cut from the budget; yet, over and over they said spending must be cut, waste, entitlements and Pork eliminated.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Elections are won by the moderates, the Centrists, the pragmatic. Not the ideologues.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Did you even watch the last Presidential election?? The very moderate McCain was defeated by the ideologue winger Obama

You are a delusional tool

The last election in many ways had the same volatility as the 1976 election. Bush blow back was going to defeat any ANY Republican candidate. So, the GOP decided to pull another 1996. Then, they ran Bob Dole. A genial, likable man of advanced years.

The equivalent of a punt in politics.

The GOP had no say which candidate would run for POTUS, the primaries decided that.

 

[Nosmo King]

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Did you even watch the last Presidential election?? The very moderate McCain was defeated by the ideologue winger Obama

You are a delusional tool

The last election in many ways had the same volatility as the 1976 election. Bush blow back was going to defeat any ANY Republican candidate. So, the GOP decided to pull another 1996. Then, they ran Bob Dole. A genial, likable man of advanced years.

The equivalent of a punt in politics.

The GOP had no say which candidate would run for POTUS, the primaries decided that.

Follow the money. fund raising is the key to winning. The most electable candidates don't always enjoy the greatest fund raising. The national committee can steer a lot of whales to a campaign.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The last election in many ways had the same volatility as the 1976 election. Bush blow back was going to defeat any ANY Republican candidate. So, the GOP decided to pull another 1996. Then, they ran Bob Dole. A genial, likable man of advanced years.

The equivalent of a punt in politics.

The GOP had no say which candidate would run for POTUS, the primaries decided that.

Follow the money. fund raising is the key to winning. The most electable candidates don't always enjoy the greatest fund raising. The national committee can steer a lot of whales to a campaign.

Unfortunately, ideas count not, it's the money that wins the day. The five conservative justices of the Supreme Court know this, and that is why they ruled the way they did in Citizens United v. FEC.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So, the evidence is in, the Callous Conservative Movement, aka, the Tea Party is a RW, neo-fascist, elitist movement based on emotion, avarice and bigotry.
Matter settled.

 

[Samson]

The Tea Baggers are co-opting the GOP, not the other way around. As they move the party farther to the right, we can expect:

1) a call for ideological purity by the GOP which will weed out viable candidates in favor of hard liners and

2) no national wins for the GOP as long as the Tea Baggers hold sway.

Elections are won by the moderates, the Centrists, the pragmatic. Not the ideologues.

So, there's no evidence that anything has happened, moving the GOP to the right, let alone the hysterical "FAR RIGHT!!!"

And, really, all you have is what "we can expect"......extrapolations without basis.

Opionions rooted in fantacy: You must either be desperate or paranoid.

I'm betting desperate.

 

[The T]

The GOP leadership seems to have foresaken even the pretext as the party of compassionate conservatism as they seek power lost. The Republican Party has adopted the 'values' of the various Tea Parties, those ad hoc groups whose leaders guise populist rhetoric while appealing to the avarice and bigotry of their flock.
Personal ambition, lust for power and callous disregard for anyone but themselves seems to define this movement quite well. Hate and fear of the aged, infirm, unemployed or "colored", as one of their leaders is want to say, is not the basis for a Grand Old Party, it is the basis for a neo-fascist iteration Americans need to reject.

And ODD isn't it that over the past couple decades they've tried to make themselves look alot like the Democrats to garner power while abandoning principles they were elected to uphold?

Is it a mystery to you why they LOST for their utter abandonment of the 1994 "Contract With America"...and they were rejected in '06 by the very folks that sent them there?

Some of you really need to take off your partisan blinders. 'Compassionate Conservatism' was another way of mildly capitulating to the powerlust that is the District Of Criminals...

And that little convenient phrase didn't last long. Again? Rejected.

This is MORE than R vs. D...

Is it any wonder that the Tea Party...Just ordinary folks speaking out is under assault for just becoming VOCAL...to tell the Minority power brokers in the District Of Criminals that they want their Government back...and they want their electeds to adhere to the very Document that brought them there in the first place...and to get an out of control government back in control...of those that sent them in the first place?

Why do so many of you find it crazy for the employer to wrest back control over the employed?

Sorry bud.

I don't buy what yer sellin'.

 

[Political Junky]

Elections are won by the moderates, the Centrists, the pragmatic. Not the ideologues.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Did you even watch the last Presidential election?? The very moderate McCain was defeated by the ideologue winger Obama

You are a delusional tool

Yes, now watch McCain move as far right as he can go.

 

[Cuyo]

Hate and fear of the aged, infirm, unemployed or "colored", as one of their leaders is want to say, is not the basis for a Grand Old Party, it is the basis for a neo-fascist iteration Americans need to reject.

Calling Republicans "fascists" and "nazis" really loses it effectiveness when the current Democrat President is a Black Liberation Theologist Communist.

Wow... Profound! Here I spent all this time thinking he was actually a fairly moderate Democrat, but now that you point it out, shit he must be a "Black Liberation Theologist Communist!"

Who's in your ear with all this noise?

 

[Nosmo King]

The Tea Baggers are co-opting the GOP, not the other way around. As they move the party farther to the right, we can expect:

1) a call for ideological purity by the GOP which will weed out viable candidates in favor of hard liners and

2) no national wins for the GOP as long as the Tea Baggers hold sway.

Elections are won by the moderates, the Centrists, the pragmatic. Not the ideologues.

So, there's no evidence that anything has happened, moving the GOP to the right, let alone the hysterical "FAR RIGHT!!!"

And, really, all you have is what "we can expect"......extrapolations without basis.

Opionions rooted in fantacy: You must either be desperate or paranoid.

I'm betting desperate.

As the Democrats moved farther to the left after 1968, we saw Democrat candidates reflect that change. And we saw Democrat candidates lose.

The 2006 and 2008 elections were the catalyst for the Republicans to move farther to the right.

The basis for my extrapolations.

 

[editec]

When the term "compassionate conservatism" was first foisted into our consciousness, my very first thought was how similar it was to the Czech Communist Alexander Dubcek's claim that he were going to create a Czech version of a socialist society that he described as: "Socialism with a human face".

 

[Nosmo King]

When the term "compassionate conservatism" was first foisted into our consciousness, my very first thought was how similar it was to the Czech Communist Alexander Dubcek's claim that he were going to create a Czech version of a socialist society that he described as: "Socialism with a human face".

Remember it was George H.W. Bush who brought us "compassionate conservatism". It was Reagan blow back.

 

[georgephillip]

The GOP leadership seems to have foresaken even the pretext as the party of compassionate conservatism as they seek power lost. The Republican Party has adopted the 'values' of the various Tea Parties, those ad hoc groups whose leaders guise populist rhetoric while appealing to the avarice and bigotry of their flock.
Personal ambition, lust for power and callous disregard for anyone but themselves seems to define this movement quite well. Hate and fear of the aged, infirm, unemployed or "colored", as one of their leaders is want to say, is not the basis for a Grand Old Party, it is the basis for a neo-fascist iteration Americans need to reject.

And ODD isn't it that over the past couple decades they've tried to make themselves look alot like the Democrats to garner power while abandoning principles they were elected to uphold?

Is it a mystery to you why they LOST for their utter abandonment of the 1994 "Contract With America"...and they were rejected in '06 by the very folks that sent them there?

Some of you really need to take off your partisan blinders. 'Compassionate Conservatism' was another way of mildly capitulating to the powerlust that is the District Of Criminals...

And that little convenient phrase didn't last long. Again? Rejected.

This is MORE than R vs. D...

Is it any wonder that the Tea Party...Just ordinary folks speaking out is under assault for just becoming VOCAL...to tell the Minority power brokers in the District Of Criminals that they want their Government back...and they want their electeds to adhere to the very Document that brought them there in the first place...and to get an out of control government back in control...of those that sent them in the first place?

Why do so many of you find it crazy for the employer to wrest back control over the employed?

Sorry bud.

I don't buy what yer sellin'.

Do you buy what David Koch Think Progress TIMELINE: From Promoting Acid Rain To Climate Denial, Over 20 Years Of David Koch’s Polluter Front Groupsis selling?

If it's true that Americans for Prosperity has been instrumental in orchestrating tea party protests and "(t)he founder and chairman of Americans for Prosperity is oil baron David Koch, who is one of the richest men in the world because of his oil, chemicals, and manufacturing conglomerate Koch Industries", then perhaps the tea party blinders also need to come off?

 

[Samson]

The Tea Baggers are co-opting the GOP, not the other way around. As they move the party farther to the right, we can expect:

1) a call for ideological purity by the GOP which will weed out viable candidates in favor of hard liners and

2) no national wins for the GOP as long as the Tea Baggers hold sway.

Elections are won by the moderates, the Centrists, the pragmatic. Not the ideologues.

So, there's no evidence that anything has happened, moving the GOP to the right, let alone the hysterical "FAR RIGHT!!!"

And, really, all you have is what "we can expect"......extrapolations without basis.

Opionions rooted in fantacy: You must either be desperate or paranoid.

I'm betting desperate.

As the Democrats moved farther to the left after 1968, we saw Democrat candidates reflect that change. And we saw Democrat candidates lose.

The 2006 and 2008 elections were the catalyst for the Republicans to move farther to the right.

The basis for my extrapolations.

What a weird basis: 40 years ago, in a different party, in a different direction.

Yet, we are not seeing "Republicans move further to the right."

Unless you're hallucinating.