Save the Republicans!

[Kimball O'Hara]

The continuing dominance of the neoconservatives, and their policies of invading Iraq in 2003 and serving Likud:

1) Does not serve American interests.

The threat from the USSR is not the same as the threat from radical Islam. Our response should not be the same.

USSR: awesome military threat
Radical Islam: puny military threat, must rely on terrorism

USSR: puny cultural threat - love for Communism extremely shallow
Radical Islam: awesome cultural threat - devotion to islam often profound

It was necessary for us to engage the USSR militarily, something that Reagan did with such magnificent success.

We must annihilate anti-American terrorists, but it is equally important that we go on the offensive culturally. To win them over we must erase our negative image. Gulf War II and obedience to Likud serve neither goal.

2) Will tear apart the Republican party.

The Republican coalition can not stand the strain of neocon dominance.

What do businessmen gain from neocon policies? Markets? No, only boycotts and sanctions. Security for their investments? No, only instability. Morever, Islam is not opposed to free enterprise.

What do religious groups gain? Religious people - Jews, Catholics, and Protestant - only accept war when it is absolutely necessary. Christians desire to aid their fellow Christians in the Mideast. This is best achieved when America is not perceived as an enemy. Most Jews do not support the neocons.

What do American taxpayers gain? Only a greater tax burden.

Also we can't afford the neoconservative/paleoconservative split.


Neocons must remain part of the Republican party, but they can't dominate the party.

Remember stalwart Republicans like Scowcroft and Senator Hagel who have been critical of GWB's foreign policy.

 

[Gunny]

The continuing dominance of the neoconservatives, and their policies of invading Iraq in 2003 and serving Likud:

1) Does not serve American interests.

The threat from the USSR is not the same as the threat from radical Islam. Our response should not be the same.

USSR: awesome military threat
Radical Islam: puny military threat, must rely on terrorism

USSR: puny cultural threat - love for Communism extremely shallow
Radical Islam: awesome cultural threat - devotion to islam often profound

It was necessary for us to engage the USSR militarily, something that Reagan did with such magnificent success.

We must annihilate anti-American terrorists, but it is equally important that we go on the offensive culturally. To win them over we must erase our negative image. Gulf War II and obedience to Likud serve neither goal.

2) Will tear apart the Republican party.

The Republican coalition can not stand the strain of neocon dominance.

What do businessmen gain from neocon policies? Markets? No, only boycotts and sanctions. Security for their investments? No, only instability. Morever, Islam is not opposed to free enterprise.

What do religious groups gain? Religious people - Jews, Catholics, and Protestant - only accept war when it is absolutely necessary. Christians desire to aid their fellow Christians in the Mideast. This is best achieved when America is not perceived as an enemy. Most Jews do not support the neocons.

What do American taxpayers gain? Only a greater tax burden.

Also we can't afford the neoconservative/paleoconservative split.


Neocons must remain part of the Republican party, but they can't dominate the party.

Remember stalwart Republicans like Scowcroft and Senator Hagel who have been critical of GWB's foreign policy.

*yawn* Better save the Dum-o-craps. While you're so busy minding somone else's business, they're committing hara kiri right under your nose.

 

[Otter_Creek]

Damn! Could've had a V-8

 

[editec]

I have long thought that the Neo-Cons were nothing like Republicans.

Now, if only more Republicans felt that way.

 

[DamnYankee]

The continuing dominance of the neoconservatives, and their policies of invading Iraq in 2003 and serving Likud:

1) Does not serve American interests.


2) Will tear apart the Republican party.


Neocons must remain part of the Republican party, but they can't dominate the party.

So who, exactly, IYO, is "continuing dominance"?

 

[Kimball O'Hara]

Editec, the neocons were originally Trotskyites. I know they have rejected most of their past belief system, but they can't be trusted to lead the Republican Party.

AllBiz, neocons: Feith, Kristol, Wolfowitz, Perle, Podhoretz. Cheney and Bush are their enablers.

 

[JimCo]

*yawn* Better save the Dum-o-craps. While you're so busy minding somone else's business, they're committing hara kiri right under your nose.

And yet is the Repubs that continue to do all the bleeding Gunny!


Thursday, April 02, 2009
Republican Approval Numbers Plummet
Posted by CitizenSteve at 12:21 PM
→

It's no wonder the Whatcom County Republican Party Chairwoman is advertising her next political stunt as a non-partisan event. This tax-day stunt is part of an astro-turf PR campaign Planned Months Ago by GOP Billionaires that's supposed to convince people that President Obama's economic stimulus plan isn't popular.

Republicans have been glad to give handouts to Wall Street but hysterically opposed to helping Main Street. Now that Americans understand that, Republicans approval numbers are plummeting.



April 1, 2009 - Quinnipiac University National Poll
Who do you trust to do a better job handling the economy - President Obama or the Republicans in Congress?

President Obama ______ 55%
Republicans in Con ____ 27%
DK/NA _____________ 18%


Even Republicans aren't very happy with Republicans
Pew Research Center - The Databank:


Public approval of the job Republican leaders in Congress are doing has fallen to just 28%, down from 34% a month ago and the lowest level in Pew Research surveys going back 15 years. Slightly more than half (51%) say they disapprove. With the drop in GOP approval, the gap between public evaluations of Democratic and Republican congressional leaders is the largest Pew Research has recorded over the past eight years in which both party's leaders have been evaluated. Currently, 47% of Americans approve of the job Democratic leaders in Congress are doing -- virtually unchanged from a month ago and 19 points higher than the approval rating for Republicans. For most of the past decade, approval of Republicans and Democrats in Congress have tracked very closely together. Since February, the drop in GOP approval has been the steepest among Republicans themselves. Just 43% of Republicans say they approve of the job their party's leaders in Congress are doing -- nearly as many (37%) say they disapprove. ...

 

[eots]

best to just let the whole shit-house go up in flames and build a new one...

 

[WorldAHope]

The GOP hasn't figured out how to throw a good Tea Party yet.
No strippers, no alcohol, no fat drunk men dressed up as Indians climbing into boats.....
Come on, you people gonna PARTY
or just march around with stupid signs and yell obscenities at the TV cameras ?
At least scream and dance around a bonfire. Hang somebody in effigy.
Play some disco.

 

[eots]

The GOP hasn't figured out how to throw a good Tea Party yet.
No strippers, no alcohol, no fat drunk men dressed up as Indians climbing into boats.....
Come on, you people gonna PARTY
or just march around with stupid signs and yell obscenities at the TV cameras ?
At least scream and dance around a bonfire. Hang somebody in effigy.
Play some disco.

I have a dream...

 

[DamnYankee]

Editec, the neocons were originally Trotskyites. I know they have rejected most of their past belief system, but they can't be trusted to lead the Republican Party.

AllBiz, neocons: Feith, Kristol, Wolfowitz, Perle, Podhoretz. Cheney and Bush are their enablers.

I would comment on your need to educate me, but I won't.... <sg>

The question was: So who, exactly, IYO, is "continuing dominance"? So, judging from your response, it's your opinion that the "neocons" are continuing dominance. First, I'm rather surprised that you characterized Cheney as an enabler rather than a neocon, since Cheney was the shadow President, given what you obviously consider a neocon.

"Neoconservative: An intellectual and political movement in favor of political, economic, and social conservatism that arose in opposition to the perceived liberalism of the 1960s: “The neo-conservatism of the 1980s is a replay of the New Conservatism of the 1950s, which was itself a replay of the New Era philosophy of the 1920s” (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.)."

neoconservatism: Definition from Answers.com

Now you, and others, can rant and rave all you like about how the "Bush neocons" did this or that, but the fact of the matter is, the people you have identified represent a group of neoconservatives who added to the above definition and, obviously (from the results of the Presidential election), are not "continuing dominance".

For true neocons and dominance, you might look at the Republican Leadership Council and it's Strategic Partners. These would be the neocons who helped put a Democrat in the WH -- not that I'm thrilled with WHO the Democrats chose to put there.

 

[DamnYankee]

The GOP hasn't figured out how to throw a good Tea Party yet.
No strippers, no alcohol, no fat drunk men dressed up as Indians climbing into boats.....
Come on, you people gonna PARTY
or just march around with stupid signs and yell obscenities at the TV cameras ?
At least scream and dance around a bonfire. Hang somebody in effigy.
Play some disco.

<chuckle> And when the Repubs are "caught" partying, the partying Dems are right there to criticize them for it.... As if one party is so much more justifiable than another.

What's the matter? You don't like TEA?
Taxed Enough Already

 

[WorldAHope]

The GOP hasn't figured out how to throw a good Tea Party yet.
No strippers, no alcohol, no fat drunk men dressed up as Indians climbing into boats.....
Come on, you people gonna PARTY
or just march around with stupid signs and yell obscenities at the TV cameras ?
At least scream and dance around a bonfire. Hang somebody in effigy.
Play some disco.

<chuckle> And when the Repubs are "caught" partying, the partying Dems are right there to criticize them for it.... As if one party is so much more justifiable than another.

What's the matter? You don't like TEA?
Taxed Enough Already

Parties are supposed to be fun, not to be miserable. Or for celebrating or spreading misery.
Using the word 'Party' to name what are mainly Protests is bad psychology, from a marketting standpoint.
Like calling adult diapers Leakers, , or Erectile Dysfunction 'meds' SOFTIES.
Puts a conflicting image in peoples' heads.

 

[DamnYankee]

The GOP hasn't figured out how to throw a good Tea Party yet.
No strippers, no alcohol, no fat drunk men dressed up as Indians climbing into boats.....
Come on, you people gonna PARTY
or just march around with stupid signs and yell obscenities at the TV cameras ?
At least scream and dance around a bonfire. Hang somebody in effigy.
Play some disco.

<chuckle> And when the Repubs are "caught" partying, the partying Dems are right there to criticize them for it.... As if one party is so much more justifiable than another.

What's the matter? You don't like TEA?
Taxed Enough Already

Parties are supposed to be fun, not to be miserable. Or for celebrating or spreading misery.
Using the word 'Party' to name what are mainly Protests is bad psychology, from a marketting standpoint.
Like calling adult diapers Leakers, , or Erectile Dysfunction 'meds' SOFTIES.
Puts a conflicting image in peoples' heads.

Feel free to point out the "misery"

Boston Tea Party - Eyewitness Account

Looks like it was one helluva party....