Must see Interview!

[PoliticalChic]

I don't know about that so much...After all, we're talking about Utah here.

I fear that CW has it right.

The old saw 'let not the perfect be the enemy of the good' applies, as we are raising the bar far too high.

The prize is to retake the two branches of government, then 'purify' the brand if possible.
This is a 50-50 nation, and we don't have seats to spare.

The same reason why I feel that that the lack of outreach to minorities is going to sink the campaign.

Defeating the enemy is more important than spanking 'weak' members.

This is pretty much how both the parties have acted over and over. Their strategy has been, 'let's win first, then clean up'. Yet, we still have crap in both parties.

Doing the samething over and over, expecting a different result each time doesn't cut it.

I fully support this different strategy. Clean house, regardless of R or D. Period.

But 'Clean house' won't happen.

The unspoke assumption of your argument is that most folks are like message-boardies, informed and having a position. Most folks are more involved, entangled in their own lives to pay attention, especially if the economy improves.

I think most just go through the motions, and vote by D or R....

We will know after November...but if I had to bet, I would say that the R's will take neither House nor Senate.

Hope I'm wrong.

 

[Si modo]

I fear that CW has it right.

The old saw 'let not the perfect be the enemy of the good' applies, as we are raising the bar far too high.

The prize is to retake the two branches of government, then 'purify' the brand if possible.
This is a 50-50 nation, and we don't have seats to spare.

The same reason why I feel that that the lack of outreach to minorities is going to sink the campaign.

Defeating the enemy is more important than spanking 'weak' members.

This is pretty much how both the parties have acted over and over. Their strategy has been, 'let's win first, then clean up'. Yet, we still have crap in both parties.

Doing the samething over and over, expecting a different result each time doesn't cut it.

I fully support this different strategy. Clean house, regardless of R or D. Period.

But 'Clean house' won't happen.

The unspoke assumption of your argument is that most folks are like message-boardies, informed and having a position. Most folks are more involved, entangled in their own lives to pay attention, especially if the economy improves.

I think most just go through the motions, and vote by D or R....

We will know after November...but if I had to bet, I would say that the R's will take neither House nor Senate.

Hope I'm wrong.

I hope you are, too. Don't get me wrong, I want a change from power of one party. However, it's just one end of that swinging pendulum with neither amplitude being that different.

I'll take change to R as a consolation prize. But the real prize is change from shit.

 

[Oddball]

I don't know about that so much...After all, we're talking about Utah here.

I fear that CW has it right.

The old saw 'let not the perfect be the enemy of the good' applies, as we are raising the bar far too high.

The prize is to retake the two branches of government, then 'purify' the brand if possible.
This is a 50-50 nation, and we don't have seats to spare.

The same reason why I feel that that the lack of outreach to minorities is going to sink the campaign.

Defeating the enemy is more important than spanking 'weak' members.

That's the blame-the-customer mindset that gave us neocon douchebags like McWeasel and Chimpy Shrubola.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I don't know about that so much...After all, we're talking about Utah here.

I fear that CW has it right.

The old saw 'let not the perfect be the enemy of the good' applies, as we are raising the bar far too high.

The prize is to retake the two branches of government, then 'purify' the brand if possible.
This is a 50-50 nation, and we don't have seats to spare.

The same reason why I feel that that the lack of outreach to minorities is going to sink the campaign.

Defeating the enemy is more important than spanking 'weak' members.

That's the blame-the-customer mindset that gave us neocon douchebags like McWeasel and Chimpy Shrubola.

We should not lose sight of the goal and recognize the reality: most citizens are not like us!

You cannot ignore the msm, the fact that this President is an awesome speaker, and how easily most folks are led.

Beware of closing off the tent. Remember the coaliton that RR had behind him... and even then the popular vote was still close.

 

[Si modo]

I fear that CW has it right.

The old saw 'let not the perfect be the enemy of the good' applies, as we are raising the bar far too high.

The prize is to retake the two branches of government, then 'purify' the brand if possible.
This is a 50-50 nation, and we don't have seats to spare.

The same reason why I feel that that the lack of outreach to minorities is going to sink the campaign.

Defeating the enemy is more important than spanking 'weak' members.

That's the blame-the-customer mindset that gave us neocon douchebags like McWeasel and Chimpy Shrubola.

We should not lose sight of the goal and recognize the reality: most citizens are not like us!

You cannot ignore the msm, the fact that this President is an awesome speaker, and how easily most folks are led.

Beware of closing off the tent. Remember the coaliton that RR had behind him... and even then the popular vote was still close.

The only difference between the RR and the Marxists in power now are the bases for their brand of authoritarianism.

Both disgust me. Any form of authoritarianism does. And, because of that, the RR has no place in the tea party, unless they have an ability to separate their beliefs from our government, as the founders did.

 

[Foxfyre]

We aren't going to have a good sense of whether the 'mini revolution' will succeed until after the primaries.

Right now, within the primaries, we are seeing some heroic efforts to replace the old guard with principled visionaries. Will that happen often enough in enough places? Too early to tell.

Unfortunately, since R's and I's won't be voting in most of the Democratic primaries, we don't know if there are enough "tea party" minded Democrats to do major renovations there. But I hope.

And in the end, it doesn't matter all that much whether the majority is R or D IF the people who are there love their country, have their heads on straight, and put principle ahead of party loyalty.

Yes I know it looks impossible. But taking the country away from England no doubt looked impossible too. How hard could it be to take it away from a handful of socialist-minded opportunists?

 

[PoliticalChic]

That's the blame-the-customer mindset that gave us neocon douchebags like McWeasel and Chimpy Shrubola.

We should not lose sight of the goal and recognize the reality: most citizens are not like us!

You cannot ignore the msm, the fact that this President is an awesome speaker, and how easily most folks are led.

Beware of closing off the tent. Remember the coaliton that RR had behind him... and even then the popular vote was still close.

The only difference between the RR and the Marxists in power now are the bases for their brand of authoritarianism.

Both disgust me. Any form of authoritarianism does. And, because of that, the RR has no place in the tea party, unless they have an ability to separate their beliefs from our government, as the founders did.

The RR that I mean is Ronald Reagan.

And you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

We aren't going to have a good sense of whether the 'mini revolution' will succeed until after the primaries.

Right now, within the primaries, we are seeing some heroic efforts to replace the old guard with principled visionaries. Will that happen often enough in enough places? Too early to tell.

Unfortunately, since R's and I's won't be voting in most of the Democratic primaries, we don't know if there are enough "tea party" minded Democrats to do major renovations there. But I hope.

And in the end, it doesn't matter all that much whether the majority is R or D IF the people who are there love their country, have their heads on straight, and put principle ahead of party loyalty.

Yes I know it looks impossible. But taking the country away from England no doubt looked impossible too. How hard could it be to take it away from a handful of socialist-minded opportunists?

I appreciate your optimism.

One can only hope.

 

[Si modo]

We should not lose sight of the goal and recognize the reality: most citizens are not like us!

You cannot ignore the msm, the fact that this President is an awesome speaker, and how easily most folks are led.

Beware of closing off the tent. Remember the coaliton that RR had behind him... and even then the popular vote was still close.

The only difference between the RR and the Marxists in power now are the bases for their brand of authoritarianism.

Both disgust me. Any form of authoritarianism does. And, because of that, the RR has no place in the tea party, unless they have an ability to separate their beliefs from our government, as the founders did.

The RR that I mean is Ronald Reagan.

And you?

Oops on my assumption. I meant Religious Right.

I see your point about closing the tent, but to some (the RR, IMO), the tent needs to be closed. They are anathema to the tea party.

 

[Oddball]

That's the blame-the-customer mindset that gave us neocon douchebags like McWeasel and Chimpy Shrubola.

We should not lose sight of the goal and recognize the reality: most citizens are not like us!

You cannot ignore the msm, the fact that this President is an awesome speaker, and how easily most folks are led.

Beware of closing off the tent. Remember the coaliton that RR had behind him... and even then the popular vote was still close.

Sorry, no sale.

I don't buy into the notion that people are too stupid to recognize someone of principle and character when they see them. Besides that, the 50-odd percent of people who haven't been voting is a much larger prospective pool from which to obtain new voters than the squishy knock-me-over-with-a-feather "moderates".

If you want to keep doing what you've been doing to keep getting what you've been getting, that's your funeral.

 

[Luissa]

My favorite part about the Tea Party is they think their candidate will different. When in reality, they will get to Washington DC, realize they can't get anything done, and then start playing the game. You think all these senators started out this way? If you do, you are naive.

 

[Oddball]

Neither Ron Paul nor Bernie Sanders play that.

Much as Sanders' socialist politics turn my stomach, at least you can count on him to stand by his principles.

 

[Modbert]

Which bit of 'Kick 'em all out' did Bennett not get?

And.... if you have to be on the Appropriations Committee in order to ensure that your state gets 'it's fair share' then I really have to ask why the hell every single one of us isn't screaming about it. Why on earth are we (whether you are dem, repub or indie) tolerating that? If a Senator has to force the Fed Gov to be 'fair', should we not all be pretty fucking pissed?

You forgot to read the small print on that one. It's 'Kick 'em all out (except the ones we agree with.)'

 

[Foxfyre]

My favorite part about the Tea Party is they think their candidate will different. When in reality, they will get to Washington DC, realize they can't get anything done, and then start playing the game. You think all these senators started out this way? If you do, you are naive.

While I appreciate that two or new newbies are unable to make a difference, I disagree that such is impossible.

For a brief period of a few years in 1994, we witnessed a mini revolution of sorts when the GOP and about 50 conservative Democrats took over control of Congress on a "Contract with America" platform. And they DID make a difference and achieved some real reforms including the closest thing we've seen to a balanced budget, real welfare reform though it didn't go far enough, and some other very necessary actions. They saved what would have been a failed Clinton presidency and we run the risk of a similar revolution doing the same for Obama, but I'll take that risk.

Unfortunately, those principled revolutionaries practiced what they preached and they term limited themselves. They were replaced with the old guard which is what President Bush then inherited and went back to business as usual.

But the results of undisciplined and unprincipled government are now so alarming, that I'm hoping enough people have learned the lesson to change it permanently. We can only hope.

 

[Wicked Jester]

And where are all those loony liberal morons who have been claiming the tea partiers have no influence?

Friggin' dipshits!

 

[midcan5]

That was interesting as here we have a genuine, long time conservative, and he too is considered too much a part of the Washington culture! A republican committee person I know well is actually campaigning against the republican wingnuts. There are no conservative values, there are only selfish 'I got mine' values, and the tea party represents that loss of citizenship, and concern for the whole nation and not just their limited entitlements.

I trace this attitude, towards government, from Reagan, it may be in the end Reagan will be the death of the GOP. Reagan's one liners apply to the empty headed R's who post on USMB. Same empty nothingness, same few word jokes, same lack of thought and depth.


"A faceless mass, waiting for handouts." Ronald Reagan, 1965. (Reagan describing Medicaid recipients.)


"The ideas of economists and political philosophers, [and dopes like Ronnie] both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back. I am sure that the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas.. But, soon or late, it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or evil." John Maynard Keynes

 

[Truthmatters]

The CBO credits the 1993 budget reduction act with the lions share of the deficit reductions in the 1990s.


That bill was passed without ONE SINGLE R VOTE.


The republicans fought it tooth an nail and said it would distroy the economy.

They won the midterms on saying this.

They were proven wrong but cons still think they were heros.

Facts never seem to seep into the brains of some.

 

[Si modo]

Which bit of 'Kick 'em all out' did Bennett not get?

And.... if you have to be on the Appropriations Committee in order to ensure that your state gets 'it's fair share' then I really have to ask why the hell every single one of us isn't screaming about it. Why on earth are we (whether you are dem, repub or indie) tolerating that? If a Senator has to force the Fed Gov to be 'fair', should we not all be pretty fucking pissed?

You forgot to read the small print on that one. It's 'Kick 'em all out (except the ones we agree with.)'

And you think you have a point?

 

[Oddball]

While I appreciate that two or new newbies are unable to make a difference, I disagree that such is impossible.

For a brief period of a few years in 1994, we witnessed a mini revolution of sorts when the GOP and about 50 conservative Democrats took over control of Congress on a "Contract with America" platform. And they DID make a difference and achieved some real reforms including the closest thing we've seen to a balanced budget, real welfare reform though it didn't go far enough, and some other very necessary actions. They saved what would have been a failed Clinton presidency and we run the risk of a similar revolution doing the same for Obama, but I'll take that risk.

The bad part about '94 is that the power still ended up in the hands of double-dealing business-as-ususal DC insiders (Gingrich and Dole), who were as much defenders of the status quo as the democratics they replaced.

They made no difference...That's why Dick Armey and Bill Paxon tried to overthrow Gingrich.

 

[Wicked Jester]

The CBO credits the 1993 budget reduction act with the lions share of the deficit reductions in the 1990s.


That bill was passed without ONE SINGLE R VOTE.


The republicans fought it tooth an nail and said it would distroy the economy.

They won the midterms on saying this.

They were proven wrong but cons still think they were heros.

Facts never seem to seep into the brains of some.

The CBO miscalculated the actual cost of this fiasco of a healthcare bill by 1 1/2 billion dollars. They revealed last week that each and every taxpayer is going to get reamed by this socialist Obamanation of a bill. Putting faith in ANYTHING the CBO reports is tantamount to investing in fools gold.