Neocon Fossil Bob Bennett (Squish-UT) Ditched

[geauxtohell]

And the nation has been dragged left far enough that a good strong yank to the right will center it back where it should be, centered on individual responsibility and ending entitlement junkies and the bribeocracy.

This might make some sense if they country hadn't just survived eight years of George W. Bush. Six of which were also with a GOP congress.

The "conservative" brand has been shoved down the American people's throats enough already.

There was little to nothing "conservative" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean anymore) about Shrubbie Chimpola and his neocon congress....That bunch had far more in common with LBJ than they did with Goldwater, or even Reagan.

That's not how a majority of voters see it.

Like I said, you've got a brand identity problem.

 

[Oddball]

You're no more a republican than am I.

Just give up the façade...Nobody -and I mean nobody- is buying it.

Personally, I don't care. He makes a helluva lot more sense than some of the rabid dingbats who constantly criticize him.

The dingbats to the right, many of them not GOP, critize a moderate centrist Republican for telling it like it is. Too bad and so sad for them. And, yes, I do make much more sense than most of them put together.

Centrist schmentrist....You put the capital "P" in Poseur.

Your posts remind me of what a great time the former Fred Thompson forum was, with the exception that they're not anywhere near as funny or creative.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Personally, I don't care. He makes a helluva lot more sense than some of the rabid dingbats who constantly criticize him.

The dingbats to the right, many of them not GOP, critize a moderate centrist Republican for telling it like it is. Too bad and so sad for them. And, yes, I do make much more sense than most of them put together.

Centrist schmentrist....You put the capital "P" in Poseur.

Your posts remind me of what a great time the former Fred Thompson forum was, with the exception that they're not anywhere near as funny or creative.

Dude I can't help it if you are so far right that The Rabbi and DiamondDave look like centrists. Someone hit it right on the head: your creepy whinge fringers have a brand identity issue. Work on it.

 

[Oddball]

This might make some sense if they country hadn't just survived eight years of George W. Bush. Six of which were also with a GOP congress.

The "conservative" brand has been shoved down the American people's throats enough already.

There was little to nothing "conservative" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean anymore) about Shrubbie Chimpola and his neocon congress....That bunch had far more in common with LBJ than they did with Goldwater, or even Reagan.

That's not how a majority of voters see it.

Like I said, you've got a brand identity problem.

The GOP isn't my party...It's not my brand's identity problem.

And people who abstain from voting say as much as anyone who show up to the polls....The GOP has been steadily losing voters to antipathy, not to democratics.

 

[Oddball]

The dingbats to the right, many of them not GOP, critize a moderate centrist Republican for telling it like it is. Too bad and so sad for them. And, yes, I do make much more sense than most of them put together.

Centrist schmentrist....You put the capital "P" in Poseur.

Your posts remind me of what a great time the former Fred Thompson forum was, with the exception that they're not anywhere near as funny or creative.

Dude I can't help it if you are so far right that The Rabbi and DiamondDave look like centrists. Someone hit it right on the head: your creepy whinge fringers have a brand identity issue. Work on it.

Speaking of identity problems.

 

[MaggieMae]

Them moving right in the first place would be a good start.

Not if they want to win in the general. This is a center-right country. Not a far right country.

And the nation has been dragged left far enough that a good strong yank to the right will center it back where it should be, centered on individual responsibility and ending entitlement junkies and the bribeocracy.

And you honestly believe that newbies under the banner of the Tea Party will be able to actually accomplish that when it's been attempted in good faith for at least four decades? We might be able to punch a few holes in the system to make it more financially viable, but you will never end entitlement programs nor the bureaucracy until lobbyists are run out of Dodge.

 

[MaggieMae]

That he makes sense to you 'splains a lot.

Thank you. I feel better by your confirmation that you actually don't get it.

 

[MaggieMae]

Bennett broke faith with his constituents on several important issues.

You break a promise, you have to face the consequences.

And one of the promises was term limits. And the other was no government bailouts. He had to go.
This is not a left/ right issue. This is an issue of truth and lies. If the pol keeps lying to you, do you keep voting him in?

Next year there will be a new face from Utah. That is a good thing in itself.

And he will know that the voters want him to keep his promises. Or else. That is another good thing, irrespective of party.

I see nothing wrong with a person, especially a lawmaker, changing his mind on an issue as events dictate. There are all sorts of promises made during campaigns that are unable to be kept because shit happens. (And I'm not specifically referring to Obama here.) Why would I want someone representing me who refused to change his mind, ever? Hell I wouldn't even want to be married to someone like that.

As for promising term limits, now that's one that shouldn't have been made AND shouldn't have been believed by Bennett's constituents in the first place. Anyone who knows the process realizes it's easier said than done.

 

[geauxtohell]

There was little to nothing "conservative" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean anymore) about Shrubbie Chimpola and his neocon congress....That bunch had far more in common with LBJ than they did with Goldwater, or even Reagan.

That's not how a majority of voters see it.

Like I said, you've got a brand identity problem.

The GOP isn't my party...It's not my brand's identity problem.

And people who abstain from voting say as much as anyone who show up to the polls....The GOP has been steadily losing voters to antipathy, not to democratics.

The GOP might not be your problem, but the fact that Americans identify your "brand" which is conservatism with them is certainly your problem.

I would buy your last statement, except for the fact that there were high turnouts in the last presidential election.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

circumstances change, but basic principles do not.

If a promise is made to be broken, then more fool you if you believe it. But he made statements of principle, and did not abide by them. And if you aren't going to follow through on principles, then you should make promises about them.

I mean, in terms of a marriage, "I will love you till next thursday, when I turn my affections to the pole dancer at the local bar" won't get you married. for very good reasons.

 

[MaggieMae]

circumstances change, but basic principles do not.

If a promise is made to be broken, then more fool you if you believe it. But he made statements of principle, and did not abide by them. And if you aren't going to follow through on principles, then you should make promises about them.

I mean, in terms of a marriage, "I will love you till next thursday, when I turn my affections to the pole dancer at the local bar" won't get you married. for very good reasons.

I didn't exactly follow Bob Bennett around, so I really don't know what he promised. I was making a general statement. Usually during campaigns, "promises" are pretty much generalized as sloganeering or very broad statements.

 

[Claudette]

Its supposed to be a bad year for incumbents. Its about time we got rid of the whores and put in someone who can run the country like its supposed to be run.

Yep--even the dinasore Republicans are quite nervous. We saw Crist in Florida--that was a supposedly "shoe-in" for senate (who has now turned to independent) because he was getting rear kicked in the primary. John McCain looks to be in trouble in Arizona--so I suspect he's out in the primary. It's going on all over the country.

We want "conseratives"--not a bunch of whimpy so-called "moderate" "Republicans" who might as well be called "Democrats."

Totally agree.

All encumbants are in trouble and it won't matter which party they represent.

We need to get rid of these entrenched clowns and get some new blood with new ideas into DC. We also need to hope and pray that the new folks are way better than whats in there now. Jeeze.

 

[geauxtohell]

circumstances change, but basic principles do not.

If a promise is made to be broken, then more fool you if you believe it. But he made statements of principle, and did not abide by them. And if you aren't going to follow through on principles, then you should make promises about them.

I mean, in terms of a marriage, "I will love you till next thursday, when I turn my affections to the pole dancer at the local bar" won't get you married. for very good reasons.

I didn't exactly follow Bob Bennett around, so I really don't know what he promised. I was making a general statement. Usually during campaigns, "promises" are pretty much generalized as sloganeering or very broad statements.

He promised to only serve a couple of terms. Like most people that make that promise, he didn't keep it. I think that hurt him as much as anything.

 

[Oddball]

He promised to only serve a couple of terms. Like most people that make that promise, he didn't keep it. I think that hurt him as much as anything.

I was working in SLC when amnesty was being pushed...Bennett was on board with the bill...A lot of people I talked to went nuts about it and made it clear that they weren't going to forget when his next election rolled around.

I also remember a news report about him showing up in St. George to pimp for the bil, and he was received about well as Farrakhan at a Klan rally.

 

[Big Fitz]

the country had eight years of "conservatism".

No it didn't. Actions matter, labels don't. You can label a bucket of piss 'rosewater' but that doesn't make it so. W was NOT conservative. Republican yes... which is to say big government, big spending, socially more conservative.

But don't try to say that's the same as small government, small spending, strict constructionist rule of law.

 

[Bfgrn]

Them moving right in the first place would be a good start.

Finally, the DUD admits he is a right wing pea brain... you can put that 'libertarian' bullshit in the cylindrical filing cabinet.

 

[Oddball]

Stalk much?

 

[geauxtohell]

the country had eight years of "conservatism".

No it didn't. Actions matter, labels don't. You can label a bucket of piss 'rosewater' but that doesn't make it so. W was NOT conservative. Republican yes... which is to say big government, big spending, socially more conservative.

But don't try to say that's the same as small government, small spending, strict constructionist rule of law.

The problem with the "no true scotsman" argument that you righties like to make in regards to the exact meaning of "conservative" is that it's entirely un-pragmatic (and thus lame) to the larger issue.

The point isn't what a few random individuals deem conservatism to be. The point is what the country as a whole deems it to be and that is the "compassionate conservatism" that the Bush Administration espoused.

Like I said, you guys are suffering from a brand identity problem of your own making.

 

[Big Fitz]

the country had eight years of "conservatism".

No it didn't. Actions matter, labels don't. You can label a bucket of piss 'rosewater' but that doesn't make it so. W was NOT conservative. Republican yes... which is to say big government, big spending, socially more conservative.

But don't try to say that's the same as small government, small spending, strict constructionist rule of law.

The problem with the "no true scotsman" argument that you righties like to make in regards to the exact meaning of "conservative" is that it's entirely un-pragmatic (and thus lame) to the larger issue.

The point isn't what a few random individuals deem conservatism to be. The point is what the country as a whole deems it to be and that is the "compassionate conservatism" that the Bush Administration espoused.

Like I said, you guys are suffering from a brand identity problem of your own making.

No... it's called looking at the actions of someone rather than the labels. If you call yourself a liberal, then act as a conservative, are you a liberal?

This is not a definition pissing match as you want to falsely define the issue. It's about a rational look at what really is the case. You want to pawn this off on the simplistic joke of "No True Scotsman" because the leftists want everyone to think it's legitimately 'your turn' as a basis for you to push through their agenda as a political force. The left so desperately can taste your endgame, they'll make up anything to justify it.

The good news is, they very well may have pushed too far and fail ultimately inches short of completion.

 

[MaggieMae]

the country had eight years of "conservatism".

No it didn't. Actions matter, labels don't. You can label a bucket of piss 'rosewater' but that doesn't make it so. W was NOT conservative. Republican yes... which is to say big government, big spending, socially more conservative.

But don't try to say that's the same as small government, small spending, strict constructionist rule of law.

What I don't understand is if there are so many of you non-Republican conservatives, then why hasn't the Libertarian Party been winning elections?