A Maryland GOPer criticizes the MD GOP, for good reason

[Statistikhengst]

I didn't say millions and millions.

True, but "millions" alone is enough to be wrong on this one.

millions as in 3-4 million registered voters.

But that has been the case in every election for along time:

United States Elections Project

Voter Turnout 2012: 58.2%

United States Elections Project

Voter Turnout 2008: 61.6%

United States Elections Project

Voter Turnout 2004: 60.1%

United States Elections Project


Voter Turnout 2000: 54.2%

Not much of a difference.... until 2000. So, depressed voter turnout meant a Bush win, right? Hmmmm....

Not 3 or 4 million. Forget. Your facts are still out of order.


Oh, and just one more detail:

Mitt Romney just got the second highest amount of votes that a Republican has ever earned in our history, right after Bush in 2004.

 

[Mertex]

Unfortunately, a handful of Tea Partiers seem to have a lot of "voice" in many of the Republican camps, and their belief is that the majority of people really want more conservatism than what establishment Republicans are willing to fight for.

Unfortunately, when it comes to the general masses, these small groups end up losing out, because the majority of Americans don't feel the same way. Yes, we want the government to rein in spending, but we want it done in a fair and sensible way. And, when it comes to social issues, the majority are way more progressive than these TP'ers seem to be. They (TP'ers) do win in certain areas, where they are heavily concentrated, but when they have to go against the whole country, they come up short. I see what has happened in Md's GOP to reflect what I believe.

 

[mudwhistle]

True, but "millions" alone is enough to be wrong on this one.

millions as in 3-4 million registered voters.

But that has been the case in every election for along time:

United States Elections Project

Voter Turnout 2012: 58.2%

United States Elections Project

Voter Turnout 2008: 61.6%

United States Elections Project

Voter Turnout 2004: 60.1%

United States Elections Project


Voter Turnout 2000: 54.2%

Not much of a difference.... until 2000. So, depressed voter turnout meant a Bush win, right? Hmmmm....

Not 3 or 4 million. Forget. Your facts are still out of order.


Oh, and just one more detail:

Mitt Romney just got the second highest amount of votes that a Republican has ever earned in our history, right after Bush in 2004.

Obama lost 7 million.

We're talking registered voters, not total votes.

 

[mudwhistle]

Unfortunately, a handful of Tea Partiers seem to have a lot of "voice" in many of the Republican camps, and their belief is that the majority of people really want more conservatism than what establishment Republicans are willing to fight for.

Unfortunately, when it comes to the general masses, these small groups end up losing out, because the majority of Americans don't feel the same way. Yes, we want the government to rein in spending, but we want it done in a fair and sensible way. And, when it comes to social issues, the majority are way more progressive than these TP'ers seem to be. They (TP'ers) do win in certain areas, where they are heavily concentrated, but when they have to go against the whole country, they come up short. I see what has happened in Md's GOP to reflect what I believe.

The Tea Party represents average Americans.

Obama and friends have painted them as extremists. Called them ever despicable name in the book.

 

[Mertex]

Unfortunately, a handful of Tea Partiers seem to have a lot of "voice" in many of the Republican camps, and their belief is that the majority of people really want more conservatism than what establishment Republicans are willing to fight for.

Unfortunately, when it comes to the general masses, these small groups end up losing out, because the majority of Americans don't feel the same way. Yes, we want the government to rein in spending, but we want it done in a fair and sensible way. And, when it comes to social issues, the majority are way more progressive than these TP'ers seem to be. They (TP'ers) do win in certain areas, where they are heavily concentrated, but when they have to go against the whole country, they come up short. I see what has happened in Md's GOP to reflect what I believe.

The Tea Party represents average Americans.

Obama and friends have painted them as extremists. Called them ever despicable name in the book.

When the Tea Party first started out, it may have represented average Americans. I believe the more extreme right-wing have taken over the Tea Party, and your average American does not side with them. In fact, even many Republicans no longer agree with their radical policies.

Shutdown:Americans-don-t-agree-tea-party-beliefs

Liberals/leftists and others that call TP'ers despicable names are no more insolent than right wingers that call Obama despicable names. You will always have the extremes in both sides that go to the gutter to make a point, so to try and claim that one side is worse than the other is dishonest.

 

[Statistikhengst]

millions as in 3-4 million registered voters.

But that has been the case in every election for along time:

United States Elections Project

Voter Turnout 2012: 58.2%

United States Elections Project

Voter Turnout 2008: 61.6%

United States Elections Project

Voter Turnout 2004: 60.1%

United States Elections Project


Voter Turnout 2000: 54.2%

Not much of a difference.... until 2000. So, depressed voter turnout meant a Bush win, right? Hmmmm....

Not 3 or 4 million. Forget. Your facts are still out of order.


Oh, and just one more detail:

Mitt Romney just got the second highest amount of votes that a Republican has ever earned in our history, right after Bush in 2004.

Obama lost 7 million.

We're talking registered voters, not total votes.

NO, he did not. Simple math:

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/compare.php?type=national&year=2012&f=1&off=0&elect=0

GE 2008:

69,499,428 votes for Obama

GE 2012:

65,917,258 votes for Obama

Difference: -3,582,170

3.5 million is not the same as 7 million. In fact, 3.5 million is one half of 7 million.


And furthermore, you did not mention Registered Voters before, you were talking about turnout for an election.

care to revise what you said?

 

[Listening]

1.) Yes, I like what John Jay says - but it must also be a matter of balance. However, I do not see a direct relation between that and the two resolutions that were brought forth at the Maryland GOP meeting. For the first resolution, if you will, simply indicates that the Maryland GOP should be more inclusive. Now, how you want to define "inclusion" was the point that I was hoping serious Conservatives here would jump on, which you did to a certain point.

I will be even more specific: inclusion, as far as I am concerned, does not mean that everyone must always be welcome. I sure as heck don't want Neo-Nazis or racists or rapists (no, that is not an opening for RW crazies to mention Bill Clinton, forget it, he was NOT a rapist) in the Democratic Party, but people of diverse backgrounds shiould be welcome. Democrats who are more of the corporate type stood shoulder to shoulder with very Left-Wing Democrats in order to elect Pres. Obama twice. And we just saw that the very same type of "Obama coalition" held in the Virginia Gubernatorial and AG races about 3 weeks ago, and that in an off-year and in a state that has a paradigm of putting the opposition party to the White House into the Governor's mansion in VA. And again, a wild Tea Party type like Cuccinelli killed the GOP's chances of maintaining this type of paradigm. Why? Well, imo, party because Cuccinelli is anything but inclusive.

This gets tricky in some ways.

Where I live, the Far Right feels it has been ignored by the mainstream GOP. In time, what has become apparent is that moderate democrats run as republicans because it is the only way they can get elected. I liked the state rep where I lived (and still do) several years ago. She knew me by name and I talked with her, at length, on a number of topics.

I wasn't really all that diligent in my investigations.

Then I started seeing her yard signs in the same yards touting our democratic member of the federal house.

This woman has since left the legislature, still calls herself a republican, and poo-poos the far right every chance she gets.

Now, that is no reason for the far right to come unhinged and turn their backs on people who can help them in their desires for certain legislative achievements.

But my point is that many of "conservatives" saw our points of view being ignored on one side and simply blown out of proportion on the other side.

What has happened is a sense of frustration and the stormtrooper nut jobs have moved in to take advantage of that frustration. It now takes the form of "my way or the highway" politics.

And the GOP has split into two camps. The moderates may not like democrats, but they openly hate the far right.

Who started it ? Can't really say.

Again, my point is that inclusiveness only happens when people feel they can achieve something together.

One of the issues of the far right is this type of purity mentality.

If a guy is a great fiscal hawk, but isn't a raging bull when it comes to aboriton.....we'll he just isn't a "true" conservative. That really pisses me off.

The example of MD is not something I like to see.

Again, inclusiveness is something that is not an all or nothing deal. You work with those who feel the way you do.

In my estimation, we need to find the blue dog democrats and say lets get after the budget. We'll just have to shout at each other over social issues...but at the end of the day, when the shouting is over, we are collaborating on getting our budget under control.

That is inclusive.

The other thing...is that there is no need to be so "in your face" about things. That I don't get. You can be quiet and strong at the same time.

 

[Listening]

2.) As for Todd Akin - without wanting to step on anyone's toes too much, his views on women and abortion simply killed his campaign, Ditto for Mourdock in Indiana. But the real argument can be made whether these people are true conservatives, or better, whether their extreme views help fiscal conservatives who may be more willing to be moderate on social issues. Were we to talk to each other about the broad spectrum of my views and your views, you would quickly find that I am all over the spectrum en toto. And we can have that conversation, if you like. It would be a big mistake for people to just label me as a pure Liberal.

Stepping on whose toes ???? Akin put his foot in his mouth and he should have quit. His ego and the egging on by the far right cost us a senate seat. I simply can't buy that Clair the moron is a preferable choice over some pretty good folks who I think would have made good senators. Did I agree with them on everything. Not as much as I did with Akin (when he spoke about things important to me)......

But, here again, inclusiveness means working with "less than perfect" folks.

And I agree....I fight with people all the time over what it means to be a true conservative.

 

[Listening]

The GOP seems like it can't go forward without grinding gears.

First off, it seems to me that The Constitution is a document that broadly outlines the rights of the citizen and the limitations of govt...

So, when you try and introduce amendments like "outlawing gay marriage" for example... take away or restrict rights on citizens, you are standing in a precarious place.

Cries of "Freedom, Freedom!" ring hollow in such light and such action. Consider how John Baynor (<might as well spell it as it's pronounced to avoid confusion .) refuses to put ENDA to a vote... what in the heck is he afraid of, "freedom"?

The will of the duly elected legislature?

Is it right when one person, for personal reasons, personal fears of "frivolous lawsuits" alone can usurp the will of a majority of the legislators? And some people refer to the President as "King Obama"... who is being a despot now?

Is he the "fall guy" so the rest can go home in 2014 and claim they supported ENDA? (If pressed on it that is...)

Next, we have the ongoing and recent attempts at voter suppression... how in the world do you expect to be "inclusive" with something like that? And did it ever occur to these that if they did manage to expand their base they would be suppressing their own supporters?

This is the kind of "Bizarroland" "logic" that must somehow be purged from the party and I applaud this gentleman's attempt at enlightening his own party, and if a democrat said the same thing many would write it off: "Meh, that's liberal lunacy!".

It's a little more difficult to schlub off when it comes from a conservative.

And my own advice is for reasonable conservatives to apply peer pressure if they want to have any chance of getting their party back in shape, I repeat: Peer Pressure.

"Irrational", "unreasonable" opposition serves no one including the unreasonable themselves...

You guys have favored the "1%" and that's about the percentage of popular vote you are working towards: 1%.

Thx

Spot-on!

You know it is a problem nationally when even Bob Dole mentions it, on, of all places, FOX NEWS:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cqka0DFRGSk]Bob Dole Lashes Republican Party They Should Put A Sign On The Door That Says 'Closed For Repairs' - - YouTube[/ame]

Just to remind: Bob Dole was the GOP standard bearer in 1996.

I'm sure Bob Dole is considered an old RINO by many.

It seems to me that the middle-right have been using the T-party like an attack dog that they let off the leash, or let's just say let loose unchecked to spew the vile things, "testing" the limits and then if called on it or finding the majority of the public disapprove...

Then they can just write off the Ted Cruz's of the world as their "Drunk Uncle" and you'll have to excuse them, they don't speak for me" etc.

When in the heck are we going to get back to regular, "run of the mill", if you will legislating and governing?

Why does everything we see have to have some "mouse trap", Karl Rovian slant on it?

Everyone apparently wants something like Immigration reform... "but nyooooo" some little hitch like a John Baynor can hold up the entire country for purely personal reasons.

And.. I don't see anyone on the right criticizing him on this...

Is everything going to be held up until we have a virtual "do-over" of the 2012 election?

edit BBL guys.

Thx

O.K. folks......

Dole is great man, but not a great conservative. He is to giving on to many topics.

But that is where the GOP has really gone off the rails. The Constitution was written to allow maximum flexibility in 13 states (now 50). That means you get 50 different options all tailored to the circumstances of the state and the mood of it's people.

I hate that the federal government wants to homogonize the country. Why is that necessary ?

Run of the mill governing should be done at the state level. California can have what it wants while Alabama can have what it wants.

I tend to be more moderate the close to home I get. But at the federal level, I want very little from the fed excpet what was spelled out in the constitution.

That does not mean I hate (nor does it mean that the far right should hate) anyone who wants more from the federal government. That is what elections are for. But, once it is done, it is done...until the next election cycle.

You see...when Teddy Kennedy (a man I loathed while he was alive) stands up and lectures John Roberts on not giving back the "gains" of the last 50 years, I have to ask...just WTF process did Ted think was followed to get those "gains"....and why can't we have the same process available to us if we think those gains should be lost ? It's a process.

 

[Listening]

Unfortunately, a handful of Tea Partiers seem to have a lot of "voice" in many of the Republican camps, and their belief is that the majority of people really want more conservatism than what establishment Republicans are willing to fight for.

Unfortunately, when it comes to the general masses, these small groups end up losing out, because the majority of Americans don't feel the same way. Yes, we want the government to rein in spending, but we want it done in a fair and sensible way. And, when it comes to social issues, the majority are way more progressive than these TP'ers seem to be. They (TP'ers) do win in certain areas, where they are heavily concentrated, but when they have to go against the whole country, they come up short. I see what has happened in Md's GOP to reflect what I believe.

Please support these assertions.

In the state I live in, the far right cleaned out the last of the moderates in the house and finally got rid of enough of them in the senate to have complete control. The primary results were so startling that even the WSJ covered them. That does not sound like a minority to me.

We are finally waking up to local politics in the form of school boards. We grabbed one and the super resigned the next day...he knew what was coming.

Not that this was all rabid, red-meat eating Tea Party folks. Simply a lot of people with similar views on a lot of things finally getting together to assert their power.

 

[Listening]

Unfortunately, a handful of Tea Partiers seem to have a lot of "voice" in many of the Republican camps, and their belief is that the majority of people really want more conservatism than what establishment Republicans are willing to fight for.

Unfortunately, when it comes to the general masses, these small groups end up losing out, because the majority of Americans don't feel the same way. Yes, we want the government to rein in spending, but we want it done in a fair and sensible way. And, when it comes to social issues, the majority are way more progressive than these TP'ers seem to be. They (TP'ers) do win in certain areas, where they are heavily concentrated, but when they have to go against the whole country, they come up short. I see what has happened in Md's GOP to reflect what I believe.

The Tea Party represents average Americans.

Obama and friends have painted them as extremists. Called them ever despicable name in the book.

When the Tea Party first started out, it may have represented average Americans. I believe the more extreme right-wing have taken over the Tea Party, and your average American does not side with them. In fact, even many Republicans no longer agree with their radical policies.

Shutdown:Americans-don-t-agree-tea-party-beliefs

Liberals/leftists and others that call TP'ers despicable names are no more insolent than right wingers that call Obama despicable names. You will always have the extremes in both sides that go to the gutter to make a point, so to try and claim that one side is worse than the other is dishonest.

Mitt Romney was no Tea Party member....but Obama went to great lengths early on to smear him. I am personally connected to two sitatuations that were grossly misrepresented by Whore Stephanie Cutter in the campaign.

What was more annoying was that Romney let it happen. For some reason he didn't feel compelled to fight back.

 

[whitehall]

Where does the left come up with this junk? Media Matters I expect. Would any republican really care if a state elected democrat criticized the party of no family values?

 

[Mertex]

Unfortunately, a handful of Tea Partiers seem to have a lot of "voice" in many of the Republican camps, and their belief is that the majority of people really want more conservatism than what establishment Republicans are willing to fight for.

Unfortunately, when it comes to the general masses, these small groups end up losing out, because the majority of Americans don't feel the same way. Yes, we want the government to rein in spending, but we want it done in a fair and sensible way. And, when it comes to social issues, the majority are way more progressive than these TP'ers seem to be. They (TP'ers) do win in certain areas, where they are heavily concentrated, but when they have to go against the whole country, they come up short. I see what has happened in Md's GOP to reflect what I believe.

Please support these assertions.

In the state I live in, the far right cleaned out the last of the moderates in the house and finally got rid of enough of them in the senate to have complete control. The primary results were so startling that even the WSJ covered them. That does not sound like a minority to me.

Did you miss where I said "where they are heavily concentrated"? Sure, if you have a large number of Tea Partiers in your state, you are going to beat out the candidates that the Tea Party doesn't think are "right" enough. Santorum was able to win in some states, where there happened to be more Tea Partiers, but overall Romney beat him out in spite of the fact that even some establishment Republicans didn't like Romney that much.

We are finally waking up to local politics in the form of school boards. We grabbed one and the super resigned the next day...he knew what was coming.

Yep, you are still going to have victories in areas where there are large concentrations of Tea Partiers, but overall, the Tea Party is in the minority to people who oppose the Tea Party.

The Tea Party is less popular than ever, with even many Republicans now viewing the movement negatively. Overall, nearly half of the public (49%) has an unfavorable opinion of the Tea Party, while 30% have a favorable opinion.
Tea Party's Image Turns More Negative | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

Not that this was all rabid, red-meat eating Tea Party folks. Simply a lot of people with similar views on a lot of things finally getting together to assert their power.

Unfortunately, their views and policies are not accepted by the majority of Americans, and they can get together and win local elections, where there may be large concentration of Tea Partiers, but like I said before, when it comes to the masses, they will continue to lose.

I think the OP's presentation of what happened in Md suggests that like you, many Tea Partiers still want to believe they have super powers overall, when it is obvious from the polls that they don't.

 

[Listening]

Unfortunately, a handful of Tea Partiers seem to have a lot of "voice" in many of the Republican camps, and their belief is that the majority of people really want more conservatism than what establishment Republicans are willing to fight for.

Unfortunately, when it comes to the general masses, these small groups end up losing out, because the majority of Americans don't feel the same way. Yes, we want the government to rein in spending, but we want it done in a fair and sensible way. And, when it comes to social issues, the majority are way more progressive than these TP'ers seem to be. They (TP'ers) do win in certain areas, where they are heavily concentrated, but when they have to go against the whole country, they come up short. I see what has happened in Md's GOP to reflect what I believe.

Please support these assertions.

In the state I live in, the far right cleaned out the last of the moderates in the house and finally got rid of enough of them in the senate to have complete control. The primary results were so startling that even the WSJ covered them. That does not sound like a minority to me.

Did you miss where I said "where they are heavily concentrated"? Sure, if you have a large number of Tea Partiers in your state, you are going to beat out the candidates that the Tea Party doesn't think are "right" enough. Santorum was able to win in some states, where there happened to be more Tea Partiers, but overall Romney beat him out in spite of the fact that even some establishment Republicans didn't like Romney that much.

We are finally waking up to local politics in the form of school boards. We grabbed one and the super resigned the next day...he knew what was coming.

Yep, you are still going to have victories in areas where there are large concentrations of Tea Partiers, but overall, the Tea Party is in the minority to people who oppose the Tea Party.

The Tea Party is less popular than ever, with even many Republicans now viewing the movement negatively. Overall, nearly half of the public (49%) has an unfavorable opinion of the Tea Party, while 30% have a favorable opinion.
Tea Party's Image Turns More Negative | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

Not that this was all rabid, red-meat eating Tea Party folks. Simply a lot of people with similar views on a lot of things finally getting together to assert their power.

Unfortunately, their views and policies are not accepted by the majority of Americans, and they can get together and win local elections, where there may be large concentration of Tea Partiers, but like I said before, when it comes to the masses, they will continue to lose.

I think the OP's presentation of what happened in Md suggests that like you, many Tea Partiers still want to believe they have super powers overall, when it is obvious from the polls that they don't.

MD is a blue state. Most midwest republicans don't understand what an east coast republican is..and vice versa.

I never said this was Tea Party types...but they sure were conservatives.

The GOP currently owns 30 state house...the most for either party in a long time.

 

[Mertex]

The Tea Party represents average Americans.

Obama and friends have painted them as extremists. Called them ever despicable name in the book.

When the Tea Party first started out, it may have represented average Americans. I believe the more extreme right-wing have taken over the Tea Party, and your average American does not side with them. In fact, even many Republicans no longer agree with their radical policies.

Shutdown:Americans-don-t-agree-tea-party-beliefs

Liberals/leftists and others that call TP'ers despicable names are no more insolent than right wingers that call Obama despicable names. You will always have the extremes in both sides that go to the gutter to make a point, so to try and claim that one side is worse than the other is dishonest.

Mitt Romney was no Tea Party member....but Obama went to great lengths early on to smear him. I am personally connected to two sitatuations that were grossly misrepresented by Whore Stephanie Cutter in the campaign.

I believe I said that right-wingers participated in calling Obama despicable names, that wouldn't exclude Romney, who also went to great lengths and spent a lot of money smearing Obama.

What was more annoying was that Romney let it happen. For some reason he didn't feel compelled to fight back.

Oh give me a break. Are you insinuating that Romney did not run any smear ads against Obama, because if you are, you are being dishonest.


What Romney didn't say is that fact checkers also panned his latest ad, about the president's welfare policy.

In it, an announcer says, "Under Obama's plan, you wouldn't have to work, and wouldn't have to train for a job."

Other Romney ads have taken the president's words out of context on issues ranging from small business to the weak economy.

For instance, one ad shows Mr. Obama saying when he was seeking the White House the first time, "If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose."

That was actually him quoting something John McCain, his opponent at the time, had said.


Negative presidential campaign ads going to new extremes - CBS News

 

[Listening]

When the Tea Party first started out, it may have represented average Americans. I believe the more extreme right-wing have taken over the Tea Party, and your average American does not side with them. In fact, even many Republicans no longer agree with their radical policies.

Shutdown:Americans-don-t-agree-tea-party-beliefs

Liberals/leftists and others that call TP'ers despicable names are no more insolent than right wingers that call Obama despicable names. You will always have the extremes in both sides that go to the gutter to make a point, so to try and claim that one side is worse than the other is dishonest.

Mitt Romney was no Tea Party member....but Obama went to great lengths early on to smear him. I am personally connected to two sitatuations that were grossly misrepresented by Whore Stephanie Cutter in the campaign.

I believe I said that right-wingers participated in calling Obama despicable names, that wouldn't exclude Romney, who also went to great lengths and spent a lot of money smearing Obama.

What was more annoying was that Romney let it happen. For some reason he didn't feel compelled to fight back.

Oh give me a break. Are you insinuating that Romney did not run any smear ads against Obama, because if you are, you are being dishonest.


What Romney didn't say is that fact checkers also panned his latest ad, about the president's welfare policy.

In it, an announcer says, "Under Obama's plan, you wouldn't have to work, and wouldn't have to train for a job."

Other Romney ads have taken the president's words out of context on issues ranging from small business to the weak economy.

For instance, one ad shows Mr. Obama saying when he was seeking the White House the first time, "If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose."

That was actually him quoting something John McCain, his opponent at the time, had said.


Negative presidential campaign ads going to new extremes - CBS News

By no means did I mean that Romney didn't eventually get to smearing Obama.

But early on, when Obama was lying his ass off ....it later came out why.

In the spring of 2012, the Obama campaign made a key decision. They decided to spend big money early in an ultimately successful attempt to define Romney to the general election electorate. Without a primary opponent, they spent heavily on developing a top notch field organization. Then Messina and Axelrod made the decision to make a huge ad buy to implant a negative image of Romney into the minds of the electorate at a time when the Romney campaign was low on cash and concentrating on fundraising.

Breaking Down The Obama Win With 2012 Election Campaign Strategists | Progress Illinois

Much of it, was lying bullshyt.

But that pretty much defines Obama in general anymore.

 

[Listening]

3.) I especially like your statement about 'include but not dilute'. That was well-written and thoughtful. May I use that elsewhere in this forum?

I also think it is weird that members of the Maryland GOP invoked Gerald R. Ford's name as somehow being bad and a reason for not being inclusive. Ford was, for my way of thinking, a lucky accident as "accidental" president, have neither been elected to the Vice-Presidency nor the Presidency. He was a decent, kind person and his track record in his short tenure was actually very steady. It was his pardon of Nixon that killed his re-election.

And you would think that the second resolution would be easily passed, I mean, that was a no-brainer. And yes, there are state Democratic parties that also let this stuff get through, and it pisses me off to no end. Crooks have no place in the Democratic or Republican parties, I would want to say.

Feel free to use it all the time.

The one thing you will find is that the etremes at either end tend to be rather vocal. I've seen them driver less intense people away (who also tend to be less strident, even though they can be very conservative or liberal...just not as much). And that is to their benefit as they can control things with fewer voices to deal with. That is what pisses me off.

I've leanred to be pretty mouthy to those who will attack in meetings or assemblies. There are couple of strident, take-no-prisoner types who are want to shout people down if they are not a purist. I've gone at it with them more than once and have pissed more than few people on the far right off.

Ford is not seen as being all that great.

What is funny is that Reagan is god. I liked Ronald Reagan....but he seems to have been, in retrospect, the very thing we are talking about here. Someone who was principled...but pragmatic in his approach to government.

Just his name seems to cause Chris Matthews to come all over himself.

Reagan did more than a few things with which I'd disagree. But, I'd give my right arm to have his clone back in the running in 2016.

 

[Mertex]

Mitt Romney was no Tea Party member....but Obama went to great lengths early on to smear him. I am personally connected to two sitatuations that were grossly misrepresented by Whore Stephanie Cutter in the campaign.

I believe I said that right-wingers participated in calling Obama despicable names, that wouldn't exclude Romney, who also went to great lengths and spent a lot of money smearing Obama.

What was more annoying was that Romney let it happen. For some reason he didn't feel compelled to fight back.

Oh give me a break. Are you insinuating that Romney did not run any smear ads against Obama, because if you are, you are being dishonest.


What Romney didn't say is that fact checkers also panned his latest ad, about the president's welfare policy.

In it, an announcer says, "Under Obama's plan, you wouldn't have to work, and wouldn't have to train for a job."

Other Romney ads have taken the president's words out of context on issues ranging from small business to the weak economy.

For instance, one ad shows Mr. Obama saying when he was seeking the White House the first time, "If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose."

That was actually him quoting something John McCain, his opponent at the time, had said.


Negative presidential campaign ads going to new extremes - CBS News

By no means did I mean that Romney didn't eventually get to smearing Obama.

But early on, when Obama was lying his ass off ....it later came out why.

In the spring of 2012, the Obama campaign made a key decision. They decided to spend big money early in an ultimately successful attempt to define Romney to the general election electorate. Without a primary opponent, they spent heavily on developing a top notch field organization. Then Messina and Axelrod made the decision to make a huge ad buy to implant a negative image of Romney into the minds of the electorate at a time when the Romney campaign was low on cash and concentrating on fundraising.

Breaking Down The Obama Win With 2012 Election Campaign Strategists | Progress Illinois

Much of it, was lying bullshyt.

But that pretty much defines Obama in general anymore.

We were talking about the Tea Party, and now you've switched the conversation over to Romney and Obama. I guess after I respond, you'll report me for going off-topic, no? Isn't that your MO?

But to respond to your off topic comment, it is really funny. Romney lied his ass off, and you give him a pass, but have the audacity to claim that lies define Obama? Your not bias at all, are you?

Wasn't Romney the one that never shared his tax returns? Was he afraid we might find him not to honest? Wasn't Romney the one that demeaned the middle class and poor people and called us all "moochers"? If he hadn't been taped he might have fooled everyone into thinking that he really did care for everyone. Apparently you didn't mind that.

 

[Statistikhengst]

1.) Yes, I like what John Jay says - but it must also be a matter of balance. However, I do not see a direct relation between that and the two resolutions that were brought forth at the Maryland GOP meeting. For the first resolution, if you will, simply indicates that the Maryland GOP should be more inclusive. Now, how you want to define "inclusion" was the point that I was hoping serious Conservatives here would jump on, which you did to a certain point.

I will be even more specific: inclusion, as far as I am concerned, does not mean that everyone must always be welcome. I sure as heck don't want Neo-Nazis or racists or rapists (no, that is not an opening for RW crazies to mention Bill Clinton, forget it, he was NOT a rapist) in the Democratic Party, but people of diverse backgrounds shiould be welcome. Democrats who are more of the corporate type stood shoulder to shoulder with very Left-Wing Democrats in order to elect Pres. Obama twice. And we just saw that the very same type of "Obama coalition" held in the Virginia Gubernatorial and AG races about 3 weeks ago, and that in an off-year and in a state that has a paradigm of putting the opposition party to the White House into the Governor's mansion in VA. And again, a wild Tea Party type like Cuccinelli killed the GOP's chances of maintaining this type of paradigm. Why? Well, imo, party because Cuccinelli is anything but inclusive.

This gets tricky in some ways.

Where I live, the Far Right feels it has been ignored by the mainstream GOP. In time, what has become apparent is that moderate democrats run as republicans because it is the only way they can get elected. I liked the state rep where I lived (and still do) several years ago. She knew me by name and I talked with her, at length, on a number of topics.

I wasn't really all that diligent in my investigations.

Then I started seeing her yard signs in the same yards touting our democratic member of the federal house.

This woman has since left the legislature, still calls herself a republican, and poo-poos the far right every chance she gets.

Now, that is no reason for the far right to come unhinged and turn their backs on people who can help them in their desires for certain legislative achievements.

But my point is that many of "conservatives" saw our points of view being ignored on one side and simply blown out of proportion on the other side.

What has happened is a sense of frustration and the stormtrooper nut jobs have moved in to take advantage of that frustration. It now takes the form of "my way or the highway" politics.

And the GOP has split into two camps. The moderates may not like democrats, but they openly hate the far right.

Who started it ? Can't really say.

Again, my point is that inclusiveness only happens when people feel they can achieve something together.

One of the issues of the far right is this type of purity mentality.

If a guy is a great fiscal hawk, but isn't a raging bull when it comes to aboriton.....we'll he just isn't a "true" conservative. That really pisses me off.

The example of MD is not something I like to see.

Again, inclusiveness is something that is not an all or nothing deal. You work with those who feel the way you do.

In my estimation, we need to find the blue dog democrats and say lets get after the budget. We'll just have to shout at each other over social issues...but at the end of the day, when the shouting is over, we are collaborating on getting our budget under control.

That is inclusive.

The other thing...is that there is no need to be so "in your face" about things. That I don't get. You can be quiet and strong at the same time.

Buddy, you are speaking directly from my heart.

There is a serious disconnect in your party between fiscal conservatives and social conservatives.

But there is also a disconnect between fiscal liberals and social liberals. I am a Democrat, but I am pro-life, I am pro 2nd Amendment (with logical restrictions) and strongly pro-Death Penalty, especially in the case of child murders. I am also strongly pro-Israel.

But I do not support Right-Wing trickle down economics. That makes me neither a pure Liberal, but definitely not a Conservative.

And what you wrote is exactly what the owner of that website called "The Hedgehog Report", is trying to get across to people.

You can either be totally for purity, or you can win elections. Take your pick.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Where does the left come up with this junk? Media Matters I expect. Would any republican really care if a state elected democrat criticized the party of no family values?

The website quoted is a RIGHT WING website. The owner of the website, Dave Wissing, is a Republican. The sentiments he writes are from the perspective of a Republican, not from the Left. I recommend you get out of the bubble some and actually read the content of the OP before commenting like this.