Hostile Takeover of the Republican Party? What Should Happen Now?

[Foxfyre]

Yeah that was my initial reaction too and I read Eric's post several times to decide what I thought about it.

But then i realized that the Republican gains in the House will indeed be largely ineffective for any long term benefit if the Tea Partiers, of whom Boehnor has become one, if the RINOs now in power in the House are not replaced with Tea Party minded Republicans. And to replace the big guns like Joe Barton and Lindsay Graham with Tea Partiers will indeed be a hostile takeover.

You can't blame the RINOs forever, especially when they are a endangered species in the GOP. Eventually, you will be forced to blame the failures of the GOP where they belonged all along, those who are pushing radical ideas that are nothing but big government.

Oh yeah? Well those RINOs are what drove the party into the ditch and got them thrown out of power in 2006. If we want to embrace left wingnut policies, we can vote Democrat. And that's where the RINOs would go if the Democrats tolerated any conservative principles which of late they don't. It is the RINOs however who have embraced and pushed big government.

If the GOP continues to do that, they will be toast by 2012 and there will be a third party responsive to the majority of voting Americans which neither the Democrats are or the GOP has been.

It is no longer acceptable to just not suck as bad as the other side sucks.

 

[edthecynic]

Those who barenakedislam call RINOS are going nowhere but are committed to eliminating neo-conservatism, corporatism, and social values ideology in the party. If the Tea Party right are willing to do that, then the center and left in the party will join them.

Social values - like what? Is corporatism another word for capitalism? But seriously, get rid of all that and the RINOS should just become Democrats. The RINOS have ruined the GOP and now they are on their way out. Just as the left is getting rid of their blue dogs, we will get rid of the RINOS.

The difference being that the RINOS are simply liberal light and therefore diluted and distorted and diverted opportunity for real reform as the Tea Party promotes. Social values for the Tea Partiers are respect and adherance to Constiuttional principles, personal liberties, fiscal integrity, balanced budgets, and government no larger or more expensive than it has to be to function. Many of those Tea Party principles have been and will be resisted by the RINOs.

The Blue Dogs on the other hand are what the Democratic Party used to be all about--center to slightly right of center on all important issues including strong defense, balanced budgets, and fiscal responsibility. We should be endorsing and embracing the Blue Dogs.

But you're right that they are being replaced by radical leftwing Marxist types so that the Party is becoming more and more extreme left despite being fragmented by so many competing self serving interests.

RINOs are not even remotely Liberal, and you know it. The Democratic Party is by far more CON$ervative than the GOP is even Moderate, let alone Liberal. The very few Moderates in the GOP have been replaced by radical Right wing Fascist types so that the Party is solidly extreme Right.

 

[Modbert]

You're right, I forgot about that. I was thinking more about his foreign policy, I guess.

Not even on foreign policy. The problem for Eisenhower and JFK were the CIA in their administration and that problem continued up to today. If you notice with most of JFK's foreign policy blunders, they involve the CIA. Iraq, Bay of Pigs, Latin America, etc.

I'm reading a book about the CIA currently, I'm only up to Eisenhower in 1953 right after Operation Ajax and I have to say that the CIA has done more damage to our nation's security than who was suppose to be their target, the Soviet Union. Considering the way the book is going, I don't suspect it getting any better.

Though to be fair to Eisenhower and JFK, the CIA lied to the both of them, whitewashed everything that went wrong including their budget. If JFK had lived, he would of also had withdrawn from Vietnam.

 

[B. Kidd]

You might want to Wikipedia Hal Rogers, Kentucky congressman, who might become chair of the powerful House Appropriations and Revenue Committee. He has also been nicknamed the 'Prince of Pork' by some.
If he becomes chair, could be 'adios' to fiscal integrity.

 

[Modbert]

Oh yeah? Well those RINOs are what drove the party into the ditch and got them thrown out of power in 2006. If we want to embrace left wingnut policies, we can vote Democrat. And that's where the RINOs would go if the Democrats tolerated any conservative principles which of late they don't. It is the RINOs however who have embraced and pushed big government.

If the GOP continues to do that, they will be toast by 2012 and there will be a third party responsive to the majority of voting Americans which neither the Democrats are or the GOP has been.

It is no longer acceptable to just not suck as bad as the other side sucks.

Really, you blame the RINOs for getting them thrown out of power in 2006? You really are not connected to reality, are you?

 

[edthecynic]

Yeah that was my initial reaction too and I read Eric's post several times to decide what I thought about it.

But then i realized that the Republican gains in the House will indeed be largely ineffective for any long term benefit if the Tea Partiers, of whom Boehnor has become one, if the RINOs now in power in the House are not replaced with Tea Party minded Republicans. And to replace the big guns like Joe Barton and Lindsay Graham with Tea Partiers will indeed be a hostile takeover.

You can't blame the RINOs forever, especially when they are a endangered species in the GOP. Eventually, you will be forced to blame the failures of the GOP where they belonged all along, those who are pushing radical ideas that are nothing but big government.

Oh yeah? Well those RINOs are what drove the party into the ditch and got them thrown out of power in 2006. If we want to embrace left wingnut policies, we can vote Democrat. And that's where the RINOs would go if the Democrats tolerated any conservative principles which of late they don't. It is the RINOs however who have embraced and pushed big government.

If the GOP continues to do that, they will be toast by 2012 and there will be a third party responsive to the majority of voting Americans which neither the Democrats are or the GOP has been.

It is no longer acceptable to just not suck as bad as the other side sucks.

Again a complete load of CON$ervative crap. In 2006 CON$ claimed the Dems won because they recruited a bunch of CON$ervative Blue Dog Democrats. Dems are by far more tolerant of the Blue Dogs than the GOP are tolerant of even moderates.

November 8, 2006
RUSH: Republicans lost last night but conservatism did not, and that is, to me, one of the fundamental elements of last night's results. Conservatism did not lose; Republicans lost last night. In fact, Republicanism, being a political party first rather than an ideological movement, is what lost.

There was conservatism yesterday in the election, and it was to be found on the Democratic side of the aisle.
But conservatism won when it was tried yesterday. Conservatism won fairly big when it was tried
Thomas Sowell put this very well. He said the latest example of "election fraud" is actually what the Democrats did. They nominated a bunch of moderate and conservative Democrats

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh yeah? Well those RINOs are what drove the party into the ditch and got them thrown out of power in 2006. If we want to embrace left wingnut policies, we can vote Democrat. And that's where the RINOs would go if the Democrats tolerated any conservative principles which of late they don't. It is the RINOs however who have embraced and pushed big government.

If the GOP continues to do that, they will be toast by 2012 and there will be a third party responsive to the majority of voting Americans which neither the Democrats are or the GOP has been.

It is no longer acceptable to just not suck as bad as the other side sucks.

Really, you blame the RINOs for getting them thrown out of power in 2006? You really are not connected to reality, are you?

Apparently better connected than you are if you think it was not liberal policies embraced by the GOP in power that got them booted.

 

[Truthmatters]

Go guys go, push all but the most conservative nutbags out of your party.


I love the smell of bickering cons in the morning , it smells like victory.

 

[Modbert]

Apparently better connected than you are if you think it was not liberal policies embraced by the GOP in power that got them booted.

Care to name some of those Liberal policies?

 

[Foxfyre]

Apparently better connected than you are if you think it was not liberal policies embraced by the GOP in power that got them booted.

Care to name some of those Liberal policies?

Oh geez where to start. Earmarks off the charts. Support by many for cap & tax. Voting for Bush's senior prescription bill. Supporting and/or voting for TARP. Making no serious effort to rein in irresponsible spending. Making no serious effort to make the Bush tax cuts permanent when they had the chance. I could go on and on, but that's pretty much illustrative of how they got sideways with the majority of voting Americans.

 

[Truthmatters]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAGH


You just dont really get it do you?

It was deregulation that caused this mess, allowing the lenders to do whatever teh fuck they wanted.


Deregulation is a con stance all the way.

 

[Modbert]

Oh geez where to start. Earmarks off the charts. Support by many for cap & tax. Voting for Bush's senior prescription bill. Supporting and/or voting for TARP. Making no serious effort to rein in irresponsible spending. Making no serious effort to make the Bush tax cuts permanent when they had the chance. I could go on and on, but that's pretty much illustrative of how they got sideways with the majority of voting Americans.

Wait, TARP was 2006? This alone shows just how disconnected from historical facts you are. Never mind everything else you listed as supposedly being Liberal or Conservative. And you missed plenty of the actual key reasons as well.

 

[elvis]

If Tarp hadn't passed, the banks wouldn't have been bailed out... Is that correct?

 

[Truthmatters]

Yeap and we would have had 25% unemployement

 

[Truthmatters]

Bailout administrator: TARP prevented 25% unemployment - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

 

[Modbert]

If Tarp hadn't passed, the banks wouldn't have been bailed out... Is that correct?

If TARP happened in 2006, I must of found myself in an alternate reality. Foxfyre was pretty much throwing everything she could think of against the wall and hoped something stuck. Bad part for her, she's shooting blanks.

 

[elvis]

Bailout administrator: TARP prevented 25% unemployment - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

that is the information Bush was provided with and he acted on it. I'm not a fan of Bush, but this had to be done.

 

[elvis]

If Tarp hadn't passed, the banks wouldn't have been bailed out... Is that correct?

If TARP happened in 2006, I must of found myself in an alternate reality. Foxfyre was pretty much throwing everything she could think of against the wall and hoped something stuck. Bad part for her, she's shooting blanks.

Oh I know it happened in 2008....

"shooting blanks" is a male problem.

 

[Foxfyre]

If Tarp hadn't passed, the banks wouldn't have been bailed out... Is that correct?

That is correct.

Modbert is right that TARP was not 2006, but it was similar kinds of policies supported or tolerated by the RINOs that grated away at a significant group within the electorate who knew what they were doing was just wrong. And it cost the Republicans more seats in 2008.

It is always amusing to watch the wingnuts assume supernatural psychic abilities to know why a Republican would be upset with or disatisfied with their elected Republican representatives and that their reasons for being disatisfied are something most Democrats can't see or understand. They seem to disconnect from the fact that most Democrats don't vote Republican no matter what they do or don't do.

And many are now doing their damndest to deflect from the thread topic and I've been guilty of getting sucked into that.

So back on topic. What SHOULD the newly elected Tea Partiers push for now?

 

[elvis]

If Tarp hadn't passed, the banks wouldn't have been bailed out... Is that correct?

That is correct.

Modbert is right that TARP was not 2006, but it was similar kinds of policies supported or tolerated by the RINOs that grated away at a significant group within the electorate who knew what they were doing was just wrong. And it cost the Republicans more seats in 2008.

It is always amusing to watch the wingnuts assume supernatural psychic abilities to know why a Republican would be upset with or disatisfied with their elected Republican representatives and that their reasons for being disatisfied are something most Democrats can't see or understand. They seem to disconnect from the fact that most Democrats don't vote Republican no matter what they do or don't do.

And many are now doing their damndest to deflect from the thread topic and I've been guilty of getting sucked into that.

So back on topic. What SHOULD the newly elected Tea Partiers push for now?

which tea partiers were elected?