"GOP Civil War? Yeah, right

[Mr. Shaman]

[SIZE=+1]

[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]The GOP's looming (media) civil war[/SIZE]
Link
Excerpt:
It's not easy to flip a congressional district that's been Republican since the late 1800s, but after being willingly hijacked by the right-wing media -- after getting steamrolled by Fox News' embrace of third-party handjob Doug Hoffman -- Republicans managed to hand NY-23 to Democrats last week. And they did it just in time for the newly elected Democrat to help (barely) push health care reform through the House of Representatives during Saturday night's historic vote. Doug Hoffman was, first and foremost, a media creation, which means we are entering a very new and different realm in American politics. We're entering a sort of Fox News Era where media outlets -- where alleged news organizations -- essentially co-sponsor political campaigns. We've moved well beyond the time when Fox News, for instance, leaned right and gave conservative candidates more air-time and tossed them lots of softball questions. We're now watching unfold a political reality where Fox News literally selects candidates and then markets them through Election Day. There's a reason Hoffman described Glenn Beck as his "mentor" and pledged his "sacred honor" to uphold the "9 Principles and 12 Values" of Beck's 9/12 Project. There's a reason Sean Hannity wanted to "declare" Hoffman the election winner, and why Fox News' on-screen graphic read "Conservative Revolution?" when Hoffman was being interviewed (i.e. prematurely crowned) by Hannity on the eve of Election Day. Hoffman's outsider bid, originally opposed by the Republican Party, was a media production, plain and simple, which means his loss was a media loss, as well.

Good Call!!!!!

​

 

[konradv]

Y'know how the media keeps talking about a GOP civil war because Dede Scozzafava wasn't conservative enough and was "forced out", and apparently the GOP only wants far-right voices and no "moderate Republicans", even though you never see a definition for the term "moderate Republican"?

Yeah. I'm curious: how tolerant are liberal Democrats of moderate voices? I ask because it's funny how pro-choice Democrats are attacking the Blue Dogs for supporting the Stupak Amendment in the health care bill, claiming it takes away women's reproductive rights (because as we all know, women not having access to free abortions is just like saying they can't have them at all). Or what about how many congressional Democrats don't support the public option. There hasn't been any gnashing of the teeth over that from Dems about other Dems, has there?

Or, hey, what about that other big social issue, gay marriage? In the past year, not only did they elect a guy who said he doesn't support it? But in the past year, we've seen three states (CA, FL, and ME) vote Democratic and vote against gay marriage. Hmm. How tolerant are the liberal Dems of people opposed to gay marriage, even the ones that are otherwise Democrats?

At least cap and trade has consistent support. Oh wait, my bad.

Yeah, no "civil war" among the Democrats. They're the paragons of ideological purity.

Thanks, you just did a very thorough job describing the diversity that exists in the Democratic Party, tolerance is not about agreement, it's about respect and acceptance...at the end of the day, they are all STILL Democrats...

Unlike the purity party that devours their own, attacks any Republican that doesn't march in ideological lock step on each and every issue...and replaces them with a right wing parrot...

Conformity and marching in lock step is NOT moderation...thus, the moderate Republican NOW calls himself Democrat...

Specter was never a Republican, he just had an 'R' next to his name.

Thanks for proving the point about the Republican ethos. When it comes to ideological purity, they're the "Wahabbis" of American politics.

 

[DaGoose]

......even though you never see a definition for the term "moderate Republican".............

People who Conservative Republicans have intense hatred for. A moderate republican is someone who holds moderate right wing views. Most likely to support same sex unions, pro-choice, pro-fiscal conservatism, pro-privacy, pro-gun and pro-war. Examples of moderate politicans include Olympia Snowe, Rudi Guiliani and John McCain.

Urban Dictionary: moderate Republican

It's interesting that you hear of RINO's a lot but rarely hear of DINO's.

.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Y'know how the media keeps talking about a GOP civil war because Dede Scozzafava wasn't conservative enough and was "forced out", and apparently the GOP only wants far-right voices and no "moderate Republicans", even though you never see a definition for the term "moderate Republican"?

Yeah. I'm curious: how tolerant are liberal Democrats of moderate voices? I ask because it's funny how pro-choice Democrats are attacking the Blue Dogs for supporting the Stupak Amendment in the health care bill, claiming it takes away women's reproductive rights (because as we all know, women not having access to free abortions is just like saying they can't have them at all). Or what about how many congressional Democrats don't support the public option. There hasn't been any gnashing of the teeth over that from Dems about other Dems, has there?

Or, hey, what about that other big social issue, gay marriage? In the past year, not only did they elect a guy who said he doesn't support it? But in the past year, we've seen three states (CA, FL, and ME) vote Democratic and vote against gay marriage. Hmm. How tolerant are the liberal Dems of people opposed to gay marriage, even the ones that are otherwise Democrats?

At least cap and trade has consistent support. Oh wait, my bad.

Yeah, no "civil war" among the Democrats. They're the paragons of ideological purity.

Off hand I'm gonna need multiple links showing that this happens a lot. I have yet to hear "GOP civil war".

Aside from that, you did hit on some good irony there.

 

[Two Thumbs]

......even though you never see a definition for the term "moderate Republican".............

People who Conservative Republicans have intense hatred for. A moderate republican is someone who holds moderate right wing views. Most likely to support same sex unions, pro-choice, pro-fiscal conservatism, pro-privacy, pro-gun and pro-war. Examples of moderate politicans include Olympia Snowe, Rudi Guiliani and John McCain.

Urban Dictionary: moderate Republican

It's interesting that you hear of RINO's a lot but rarely hear of DINO's.

.

That's up to you to do.

but have you ever heard the term "Blue dog"? Seems that would be a DINO.

 

[konradv]

......even though you never see a definition for the term "moderate Republican".............

People who Conservative Republicans have intense hatred for. A moderate republican is someone who holds moderate right wing views. Most likely to support same sex unions, pro-choice, pro-fiscal conservatism, pro-privacy, pro-gun and pro-war. Examples of moderate politicans include Olympia Snowe, Rudi Guiliani and John McCain.

Urban Dictionary: moderate Republican

It's interesting that you hear of RINO's a lot but rarely hear of DINO's.

.

That's up to you to do.

but have you ever heard the term "Blue dog"? Seems that would be a DINO.

They may be moderate to conservative Democrats, but they're still called Democrats. Those who favor the RINO tag are implying that those so named are not really Republicans. Big difference.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Urban Dictionary: moderate Republican

It's interesting that you hear of RINO's a lot but rarely hear of DINO's.

.

That's up to you to do.

but have you ever heard the term "Blue dog"? Seems that would be a DINO.

They may be moderate to conservative Democrats, but they're still called Democrats. Those who favor the RINO tag are implying that those so named are not really Republicans. Big difference.

Dude, that's a lame reply. Seriously

YOU call the Blue Dogs, that seperates them out from the group.

RINO's were far more common for a long time than what the GOP used to be. Currently the TEA is at work picking them off, and maybe, just maybe, we can get the debt under control and the Constitution put back in it's place of honor.

You may note that RINO's and neo-cons are the ones that support obamas war in Lybia. What kind of dems support it? The Blue dogs, the libs, the progs, the socialist?

 

[rightwinger]

Why did we bring back a year and a half old thread?

 

[ClosedCaption]

That's up to you to do.

but have you ever heard the term "Blue dog"? Seems that would be a DINO.

You mean the term blue dog DEMOCRATS. Sure that seems to be the same thing, except it's not at all

 

[kwc57]

Y'know how the media keeps talking about a GOP civil war because Dede Scozzafava wasn't conservative enough and was "forced out", and apparently the GOP only wants far-right voices and no "moderate Republicans", even though you never see a definition for the term "moderate Republican"?

Yeah. I'm curious: how tolerant are liberal Democrats of moderate voices? I ask because it's funny how pro-choice Democrats are attacking the Blue Dogs for supporting the Stupak Amendment in the health care bill, claiming it takes away women's reproductive rights (because as we all know, women not having access to free abortions is just like saying they can't have them at all). Or what about how many congressional Democrats don't support the public option. There hasn't been any gnashing of the teeth over that from Dems about other Dems, has there?

Or, hey, what about that other big social issue, gay marriage? In the past year, not only did they elect a guy who said he doesn't support it? But in the past year, we've seen three states (CA, FL, and ME) vote Democratic and vote against gay marriage. Hmm. How tolerant are the liberal Dems of people opposed to gay marriage, even the ones that are otherwise Democrats?

At least cap and trade has consistent support. Oh wait, my bad.

Yeah, no "civil war" among the Democrats. They're the paragons of ideological purity.

As a conservative, I'll say this. There is far more unity in the Democratic party than the Republican party. Democrats don't have a dozen people run for President with all of them trying to out-Liberal their opponents. When their candidate gets selected thru the primary process, the entire party backs them. Did that happen with McCain? I don't think so. No, the Democrats are far more unified than fractured and the Republicans are far more fractured than unifed. Think of how many monikers the different elements of the Republican party there are and compare it to Democrats.

Another example is libertarian Neal Boortz. He pleads all the time for conservatives to unify. Says that if Palin gets the nod, they can kiss the Presidency goodbye. Says that if they keep beating the abortion drum, they can kiss a lot of things goodbye. There are too many conservative factions with their own litmus test wanting to be appeased and it is killing their chances.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Republicans didnt vote for McCain?

 

[kwc57]

Republicans didnt vote for McCain?

Yes, but many of them bitched all the way to the polling place about the candidate their primary process produced. Look, it doesn't help to have 12 candidates in the race and every freaking talk radio talking head bitching about 11 of them. They will never go out on a limb and endorse one because if they get knocked out, it makes them look like they backed a loser. So instead, they bad mouth everyone in the field except one....who they won't come right out and endorse. An example. Hannity would have blown Rudy Julieanny if given the opportunity, but he would never come right out and endorse him. He had Huckabee on several times and each time he gave him shit over raising taxes in Arkansas while Governor, even though Huckabee thouroughly explained it each time. Talk radio's endorsement/bitching did as much to fracture conservatives during the primaries as did having a dozen candidates promoting their own little niche of conservdom. In short, they all shot each other in the foot. Liberal differences are more nuanced and acceptable to each other as opposed to the litmus tests of the conservative factions.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Ok but you are using examples of media figures. They always bitch because they get paid to do so. Rush, Hannity, Maddow etc.

But when you look at the voting record, the republians are always all in or all out. When one steps out of line he is viciously attacked by those media figures, (R)epublicans, etc as being phoney, fake republicans that must be outed.

Dem reps are always all over the place and most time line up in circular firing squads.

 

[kwc57]

Ok but you are using examples of media figures. They always bitch because they get paid to do so. Rush, Hannity, Maddow etc.

But when you look at the voting record, the republians are always all in or all out. When one steps out of line he is viciously attacked by those media figures, (R)epublicans, etc as being phoney, fake republicans that must be outed.

Dem reps are always all over the place and most time line up in circular firing squads.

No, the media was an aside to my original comments. Having a race with a dozen people who represent small niches of the party who all try to out-conservative each other nad have litmus tests for what makes a real conservative is the biggest issue. You have the socialist conservatives who want to ban abortion, pass marriage amendments, ban flag burning, etc. as opposed to the fiscal conservatives who want to lower taxes and cut spending as opposed to the libertarians who want to legalize things like pot and prostitution as opposed to the neocons who want to use the military to spread emocracy around the globe. Is there overlap between these groups? Yes. Is there also those in these groups who refuse to compromise the main components of their idelogy? Yes. For some, it is all about fiscal policy. For some it is all about abortion and morals. For some it is all about liberty. They won't compromise of what THEY see as the big deals and as a result, they lose more than they win. The Democrats are willing to compromise with one another and back each other no matter what.

 

[candycorn]

Good question...lets look at recent history

Joe Lieberman supported John McCain for president and was still allowed to keep his committee chairmanship

Hillary Clinton attacked Obama in the Dem primaries and was still selected Secretary of State

Over 30 Dems voted against the House healthcare bill. I don't see the Dems rallying against them

However, try running as a republican and supporting healthcare, gay rights or abortion

Lieberman was allowed to keep his seat because the Democrats wanted a majority. It was a tactical decision. Obama picked Clinton to appease the other 50% of his base that initially supported her, though it was met by some derision from his initial supporters. Again, tactical decision. You don't see the Dems rallying against those thirty House Democrats because 1) it passed and 2) it's not campaign season yet.

Have any other examples?

Exactly my point..

When republicans toss electable candidates for breaches of doctrine they are giving away seats. When you have a 40% majority, you can't afford to give away seats like they did in NY23.
Politics is all about being "tactical'. You build alliances with those who may not agree with you.
Meanwhile, republicans clean house of those who do not totally agree on guns, abortion, healthcare and gays. They are unable to distinguish between fiscal conservatives and social conservatives. And they will pay the price

Saw this; liked it: