David Brooks calling for a new group within the Republican Party

[EVAY]

This morning's NYT has an article in which David Brooks says that the necessary reform of the Republican Party
should basically start a new 'party-within-a-party' that is made up of folks who don't like big government but recognize
the occasional usefulness of a central government that actually functions, but is not the far-right wing
extremists who seem to constitute the Republican base today.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/opinion/brooks-a-second-g-o-p.html?hp&_r=0

It seems to me that what he is describing is actually the moderate Independent, which is what a lot of us
who gave up on the Republican Party after years of watching it move increasingly rightward on
social issues have become.

I don't see any chance of what he is wanting becoming a reality anytime soon. Anyone else?

[TeyshaBlue]

This morning's NYT has an article in which David Brooks says that the necessary reform of the Republican Party
should basically start a new 'party-within-a-party' that is made up of folks who don't like big government but recognize
the occasional usefulness of a central government that actually functions, but is not the far-right wing
extremists who seem to constitute the Republican base today.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/opinion/brooks-a-second-g-o-p.html?hp&_r=0

It seems to me that what he is describing is actually the moderate Independent, which is what a lot of us
who gave up on the Republican Party after years of watching it move increasingly rightward on
social issues have become.

I don't see any chance of what he is wanting becoming a reality anytime soon. Anyone else?

Pretty much the definition of a classical conservative and yes, I see this as achievable. Just a few more years of the Tea Party marginalizing the current GOP should provide the impetus to swing that pendulum the other direction for a spell.

[boutons_deux]

David Brooks! :lol

how BIG is "big" government?

Brooks' fantasy will remain a fantasy

The only meaningful item is who sits in Congress.

Repugs have gerrymandered so viciously and anti-democratically that many Repugs have extremely safe seats that allow the reps to vote extremism and God, Guns, Gays, protect/enrich the 1%, screw their own 99%, obstruct everything else and still get elected reliably.

As a result of Repug gerrymandering, and now also by electoral vote rigging, blacks and browns in Repug states have "3/5 of a vote"

Repug "purity" and extremism now dominate the Repug party, and will for the forseeable future. Brooks is a flabby brained jerk.

[TeyshaBlue]

http://homerecording.com/bbs/images/smilies/facepalm.gif

[DarrinS]

This morning's NYT has an article in which David Brooks says that the necessary reform of the Republican Party
should basically start a new 'party-within-a-party' that is made up of folks who don't like big government but recognize
the occasional usefulness of a central government that actually functions, but is not the far-right wing
extremists who seem to constitute the Republican base today.




Out of curiosity, what is "extreme" about the Republican base today?

[TeyshaBlue]

Out of curiosity, what is "extreme" about the Republican base today?

I think their social views are now fairly extreme. They weren't extreme 70 years ago, but society continues it's march towards secular humanism. The GOP...not so much.

[DarkReign]

Out of curiosity, what is "extreme" about the Republican base today?

Basically every social issue the Republican party has a position on (abortion, gay marriage/rights, stem cell R&D, religion, prayer, etc).

You know, all the issues no one but themselves give a flying fuck about.

[ElNono]

I would probably add aversion to govern...

[boutons_deux]

I think their social views are now fairly extreme. They weren't extreme 70 years ago, but society continues it's march towards secular humanism. The GOP...not so much.

TB! :lol

the Repugs have, since the early 1970s when the VRWC got organized, have cynically exploited social issues like God, gays, racism, xenophobia, unions, abortion, "Christian" fantasies, etc, etc, to sucker in people who vote for the social issues not matter how badly the Repugs fuck up the suckers and misgovern the country. Repugs actually don't give a shit about governing, only about misgoverning to enrich themselves and the 1%.

"secular humanism" :lol is that pejorative in your mouth?

[baseline bum]

Voter suppresion

[baseline bum]

Wiping out Medicare for younger generations but still making them pay for the Boomers to get theirs, since boomers vote red

[baseline bum]

Sucking Israel's dick and praying for war with Iran

[baseline bum]

Wiping the capital gains tax to zero to benefit Romney and his criminal friends on Wall Street

[baseline bum]

Republicans apologizing to BP after they trashed the Gulf

[boutons_deux]

Basically every social issue the Republican party has a position on (abortion, gay marriage/rights, stem cell R&D, religion, prayer, etc).

You know, all the issues no one but themselves give a flying fuck about.

10Ms of people give a huge flying fuck about those fabricated, demagogue'd social issues, and vote Repug on any one of those issues and always against their own best interest.

[baseline bum]

Gotta agree with bot here; Bush basically got reelected on defining marriage between a man and a woman.

[baseline bum]

"secular humanism" :lol is that pejorative in your mouth?


Pretty sure TB's an atheist

GFY

[TeyshaBlue]

TB! :lol

the Repugs have, since the early 1970s when the VRWC got organized, have cynically exploited social issues like God, gays, racism, xenophobia, unions, abortion, "Christian" fantasies, etc, etc, to sucker in people who vote for the social issues not matter how badly the Repugs fuck up the suckers and misgovern the country. Repugs actually don't give a shit about governing, only about misgoverning to enrich themselves and the 1%.

"secular humanism" :lol is that pejorative in your mouth?


Stop thinking about my mouth.

You're weird, dude.

And no, that is not a pejorative in my books, stupid fucking bot.

[101A]

Gotta agree with bot here; Bush basically got reelected on defining marriage between a man and a woman.


Nope - this right here is the defining moment of Bush's reelection:

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2004/07/30_ap_dnckerry/images/gettykerrysalute_large.jpg

"Reporting for Duty!"

[EVAY]

Out of curiosity, what is "extreme" about the Republican base today?

I consider the positions extreme on climate control, on abortion, on contraception, on teaching creationism in schools, on the whole separation of church and state issue (essentially that we become an 'Evangelical Nation'), on immigration reform, on same-sex marriage, etc. etc. etc.

And largely on intolerance of anyone who disagrees with them on any of the above issues.

[boutons_deux]

Nope - this right here is the defining moment of Bush's reelection:

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2004/07/30_ap_dnckerry/images/gettykerrysalute_large.jpg

"Reporting for Duty!"

Kerry was weak candidate, but TX Bob Perry and his Swift Boat slanderers, liars sealed the deal

[EVAY]

Pretty much the definition of a classical conservative and yes, I see this as achievable. Just a few more years of the Tea Party marginalizing the current GOP should provide the impetus to swing that pendulum the other direction for a spell.

I think that is one of the points that Brooks makes, IIRC. He says something to the effect that it will at least be easier to effect the kind of change he's talking about after one or two more electoral losses like they have made recently.

Brooks often points out that the Republican party has lost the popular vote in 5 out of the last 6 presidential elections, and that they will continue to lose that vote if they don't stop doing what they are doing.

[EVAY]

10Ms of people give a huge flying fuck about those fabricated, demagogue'd social issues, and vote Repug on any one of those issues and always against their own best interest.

Well, they vote against their economic interest when they do that, for sure.

[EVAY]

Gotta agree with bot here; Bush basically got reelected on defining marriage between a man and a woman.

Well, that and the Fear of Al Quaeda card. I remember Cheney running around telling everyone who would listen that there would be another terrorist attack on our shores if he and W. didn't get reelected.

[spursncowboys]

Obama was for marriage between a man and a woman.

It is interesting to see what some people think of as extreme.

Thanks Brooks for doing what you always do.

I personally don't see anything wrong with having a tea party caucus, libertarian caucus, and rhinos. There is so much they can all agree on.

I have no problem with the tea party or Republicans going local and just trying to get more house seats and a few senate seats. there is no reason why as Republicans they should become dem-lite and expect different results. The "extremists" are the ones who if given a true candidate will show up to vote. If not, The Hillary will have to deal with them in the House and Senate.

[spursncowboys]

response to Brooks: If you agree with the Dems more and spend most of your time disagreeing with the Republicans- Are you a republican?

[EVAY]

response to Brooks: If you agree with the Dems more and spend most of your time disagreeing with the Republicans- Are you a republican?

See, this response is, in my estimation, exactly the kind of thing that Brooks is talking about, and that some of us who used to consider ourselves Republican find offensive. It basically says that if you do not take my position on every position then you are out of my party.

So a fair number of us have said...ya know what? You're right. I am out of here.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I think the conflict/frustration in the GOP is with the tiny fraction of obstructionists mostly made up of Tea Party candidates. The GOP should remain their own party, but stop catering to and nominating Tea Partiers. If the Tea Party doesn't like it, they can make up their own smaller, independent party.

[boutons_deux]

"you do not take my position on every position then you are out of my party."

aka, extremist purity. No compromise EVER because I'm 100% right and you're always wrong.

[ElNono]

As Teysha said, there seems to be a disconnect with the current fabric of society, which is made up of a lot of different kind of people.

At the end of the day, I think the brighter minds on the GOP will prevail. It's not that complicated: you need power to impose your will or you become irrelevant.

[EVAY]

I think the conflict/frustration in the GOP is with the tiny fraction of obstructionists mostly made up of Tea Party candidates. The GOP should remain their own party, but stop catering to and nominating Tea Partiers. If the Tea Party doesn't like it, they can make up their own smaller, independent party.

This is what I am hoping will actually happen one day. They could constitute their own third party, run whoever they want to run, try to get their slate of candidates elected, but leave the mainstream to the centrists of both major parties. I have no more use for the extremists of the democratic party than I do the tea partiers of the Republican party.

[ElNono]

See, this response is, in my estimation, exactly the kind of thing that Brooks is talking about, and that some of us who used to consider ourselves Republican find offensive. It basically says that if you do not take my position on every position then you are out of my party.

So a fair number of us have said...ya know what? You're right. I am out of here.

Well, I think partisanship is at an all time high... the "you're with us or against us" is really a disservice to their party, since it alienates all sort of centrist people that might actually vote for the GOP. Tea Potties are apparently especially demanding about your loyalties...

[EVAY]

The extremists seem to spend so much time talking only to each other that they imagine that most people think as they think. And among the people with whom they share ideas, that it true.

The American electorate has, until recently at least, been characterized as a 'center-right' group of people. Democrats seem to forget, when running for office, that 'right' is a part of that characteristic, and the Tea Partiers forget that 'center' is any part of it.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Conservatives were also known for being intelletuals, educated, etc. They still are for the most part (minus Tea Partiers of course), but you'd never catch one admitting it today.

[spursncowboys]

See, this response is, in my estimation, exactly the kind of thing that Brooks is talking about, and that some of us who used to consider ourselves Republican find offensive. It basically says that if you do not take my position on every position then you are out of my party.

So a fair number of us have said...ya know what? You're right. I am out of here.

Not that at all. But with eight years of Bush, Brooks was always on MTP with an anti Bush comment. Four years later with Obama president, Dems controlled Congress and at one time the house- Brooks has maintained his anti Repub comments. The only time he talks about Obama is when he is praising him. The Dems are ran by their extreme wing of their party and he instead wants to speak against Republicans. Call yourself whatever you want. I don't care or try and bracket people. But with everything the Dems are doing, you would think he would find something to gripe about. From any view of Republicans, the Dems and Obama are going against it. Spending, Social, Civil Liberties. Yet he wants to spend his time on the smallest and newest bloc of the Republican party.

[spursncowboys]

Conservatives were also known for being intelletuals, educated, etc. They still are for the most part (minus Tea Partiers of course), but you'd never catch one admitting it today.
Hate to pull a CD but you have anything to back up that statement?

[baseline bum]

The extremists seem to spend so much time talking only to each other that they imagine that most people think as they think. And among the people with whom they share ideas, that it true.

The American electorate has, until recently at least, been characterized as a 'center-right' group of people. Democrats seem to forget, when running for office, that 'right' is a part of that characteristic, and the Tea Partiers forget that 'center' is any part of it.

Not really sure about that characterization, since the Democrats have moved to the center-right ever since Clinton. I mean Obama's signature achievement is enacting the Republicans' healthcare plan.

[spursncowboys]

This is what I am hoping will actually happen one day. They could constitute their own third party, run whoever they want to run, try to get their slate of candidates elected, but leave the mainstream to the centrists of both major parties. I have no more use for the extremists of the democratic party than I do the tea partiers of the Republican party.

So Rinos, since they agree with you, should be included...But Tea Partiers should get their own Party?

It would make more sense for the NDP and Blue dogs to join with RINOs and New England Conservatives

[ElNono]

Not really sure about that characterization, since the Democrats have moved to the center-right ever since Clinton. I mean Obama's signature achievement is enacting the Republican's healthcare plan.

Pretty much, add perpetual warmongering as another signature achievement... that's why when I read stuff like "The Dems are ran by their extreme wing of their party" I can only smile at the complete disconnect...

[EVAY]

Not that at all. But with eight years of Bush, Brooks was always on MTP with an anti Bush comment. Four years later with Obama president, Dems controlled Congress and at one time the house- Brooks has maintained his anti Repub comments. The only time he talks about Obama is when he is praising him. The Dems are ran by their extreme wing of their party and he instead wants to speak against Republicans. Call yourself whatever you want. I don't care or try and bracket people. But with everything the Dems are doing, you would think he would find something to gripe about. From any view of Republicans, the Dems and Obama are going against it. Spending, Social, Civil Liberties. Yet he wants to spend his time on the smallest and newest bloc of the Republican party.

To be fair, SnC, a LOT of republicans were complaining about the Bush presidency, especially talk show pundits and columnists like Brooks and George Will. They had specific complaints at the time. Brooks' mainly were about the Iraq war, and Will's (and mine) had mostly to do with the outrageous spending that was occurring during the only time in this century that Republicans controlled all three branches of government. Remember that the republican candidates ran away from Bush in the 2008 election, and the 2010 election brought in the Tea Partiers.

[baseline bum]

Yeah, they've been center right ever since the slaughtering Dukakis took.

[spursncowboys]

Pretty much, add warmongering as another signature... that's why when I read stuff like "The Dems are ran by their extreme wing of their party" I can only smile at the complete disconnect...

Maybe that's because when someone who sees the type of information we can't see daily, they turn into pragmatists.

Then again it's probably me who's disconnected.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Hate to pull a CD but you have anything to back up that statement?

Read up on Bobby Jindal and Newt Gingrich calling out GOP for being the Party of Studid people. I think the voices are coming out now from leaders of the GOP to gain back that reputation as "the smart guys in the room" after this embarrassing election.

[EVAY]

So Rinos, since they agree with you, should be included...But Tea Partiers should get their own Party?

It would make more sense for the NDP and Blue dogs to join with RINOs and New England Conservatives

I don't really accept the assertion that I am a Rino since I no longer consider myself a Republican. Moreover, although YOU may accept those that you consider 'rinos', the tea party runs against them in the republican primaries to purge the party of those who are not pure enough. So it appears to me that the Tea Party is going to either rule the Republican Party or die trying, and they may kill the party if they are not successful in enough elections.

[ElNono]

Maybe that's because when someone who sees the type of information we can't see daily, they turn into pragmatists.

Then again it's probably me who's disconnected.

I'm certainly glad the extreme left isn't in charge... they're not electable... as the GOP is finding out that extreme right positions are not electable either...

[admiralsnackbar]

Hate to pull a CD but you have anything to back up that statement?

http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/ll320/snackbar50/Michele-Bachmann-20601017-2-402_zps991d998e.jpg

[spursncowboys]

To be fair, SnC, a LOT of republicans were complaining about the Bush presidency, especially talk show pundits and columnists like Brooks and George Will. They had specific complaints at the time. Brooks' mainly were about the Iraq war, and Will's (and mine) had mostly to do with the outrageous spending that was occurring during the only time in this century that Republicans controlled all three branches of government. Remember that the republican candidates ran away from Bush in the 2008 election, and the 2010 election brought in the Tea Partiers.

Yeah. Will was and still is one of my fav commentators on TV. But he is consistent with his complaining. Same with Scarborough. But not Brooks. You do make a good point except he has tons of ammo for Obama's foreign policies.

In my experience the Tea Party guys were annoyed at Bush's spending and then when Obama came in after all his campaigning of his promises which was alot of spending. Those are the people in my life who call themselves tea party members.

[ElNono]

I posted this back in 2010...


Maybe the Tea Baggers will succeed where Paul failed: fracturing the Republican party enough to be noticed...

I thought the last election reflected that...

[spursncowboys]

Read up on Bobby Jindal and Newt Gingrich calling out GOP for being the Party of Studid people. I think the voices are coming out now from leaders of the GOP to gain back that reputation as "the smart guys in the room" after this embarrassing election.
I read that. I doubt they were talking about them as a whole or the tea party caucas. Although you made a point that it was a 'common knowledge' kind of thing. I agree that they have become marginalized and characterized as the new Ross Perot party but I doubt they are less intelligent than the rest. With their biggest beef being taxes, they probably are apart of the higher tax brackets. So they atleast have a skill, education for that skill or both.

They have a view point that has validity

[spursncowboys]

I posted this back in 2010...



I thought the last election reflected that...

Tea baggers huh...mature

[EVAY]

I'm certainly glad the extreme left isn't in charge... they're not electable... as the GOP is finding out that extreme right positions are not electable either...

Yeah, the democrats figured out that the far left was unelectable during the late 60's - '70's, when they got so far to the left the country left them for the more moderate (at that time) party, the Republicans. Then when Nixon began running to the South after the Civil Rights movement of the 60's, the Republicans started touting the 'values' that Southerners wanted to hear about, including mostly white evangelical social and religious positions. It has worked for them for a long time, but the newer electorate (if it lasts longer than the Obama presidential terms) is younger and cares far less about all of those social values.

That is what I am wondering about for the future. If the coalition that elected Obama twice is a new electorate or if it will go back to the way it was in the 80's and 90's.

Whenever either extreme takes over a party, the American electorate has always brought them around. Current gerrymandering may have us in a persistently polarized position nationally for quite a while, though. That is why the independent vote has been so important in the last three election cycles. We will see if it continues.

[DarrinS]

Wiping out Medicare for younger generations but still making them pay for the Boomers to get theirs, since boomers vote red


That's pretty much the status quo

[EVAY]

http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/ll320/snackbar50/Michele-Bachmann-20601017-2-402_zps991d998e.jpg

:lol

[boutons_deux]

Not that at all. But with eight years of Bush, Brooks was always on MTP with an anti Bush comment. Four years later with Obama president, Dems controlled Congress and at one time the house- Brooks has maintained his anti Repub comments. The only time he talks about Obama is when he is praising him. The Dems are ran by their extreme wing of their party and he instead wants to speak against Republicans. Call yourself whatever you want. I don't care or try and bracket people. But with everything the Dems are doing, you would think he would find something to gripe about. From any view of Republicans, the Dems and Obama are going against it. Spending, Social, Civil Liberties. Yet he wants to spend his time on the smallest and newest bloc of the Republican party.

who these extremists running the Dems? and what are the extremisms?

everything the Dems are doing?

fucking right-wingers, black is white, up is down, out is in

[ElNono]

Tea baggers huh...mature

What can I say... they're destroying the only party that can bring a semblance of balance in washington, and doing a great job at it. Yeah, I'm not a fan.

[boutons_deux]

That's pretty much the status quo

no. the juniors pay in to get coverage when they're seniors.

the demographic boomer bump is due to Hitler's War and The Greatest Generation.

[DarrinS]

I remember distinctly an image of–we were sitting on his couches, and I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant (:lol), and I’m thinking, a) he’s going to be president and b) he’ll be a very good president.

[DarrinS]

no. the juniors pay in to get coverage when they're seniors.

the demographic boomer bump is due to Hitler's War and The Greatest Generation.

That's all fine, but people are living longer and getting more than they paid in.

[Spurminator]

Extreme? How about the fact that they have an entire news network dedicated to spouting the party's talking points, which pulls very high viewership because of how many Americans apparently don't know how to tell when their intelligence is being insulted? I don't think it's hyperbole to say that it's dangerous to have such a large percentage of the population at the ready to get really angry about whatever they're told to get angry about.

[DarrinS]

Extreme? How about the fact that they have an entire news network dedicated to spouting the party's talking points, which pulls very high viewership because of how many Americans apparently don't know how to tell when their intelligence is being insulted? I don't think it's hyperbole to say that it's dangerous to have such a large percentage of the population at the ready to get really angry about whatever they're told to get angry about.

The Dems have all the other channels for this purpose.

[Spurminator]

The Dems have all the other channels for this purpose.

Case in point.

[boutons_deux]

That's all fine, but people are living longer and getting more than they paid in.

maybe, but US longevity is declining, and is well below other industrial countries.

the real problem is that right-wingers refuse to address is the multi-decade sky rocketing cost of health care, that outpaces the actual rate of disease, inflation, and increase in longevity.

The Repug "solution" is to deny care to seniors by making them pay more (they can't) to the exorbitant health care scam while not touching the extractive PRICES the health insurance and providers charge.

Class Warring Repugs ALWAYS fuck the 99% and protect/enrich the 1%.

[DarrinS]

maybe, but US longevity is declining

Not true

[Oh, Gee!!]

I read that. I doubt they were talking about them as a whole or the tea party caucas. Although you made a point that it was a 'common knowledge' kind of thing. I agree that they have become marginalized and characterized as the new Ross Perot party but I doubt they are less intelligent than the rest. With their biggest beef being taxes, they probably are apart of the higher tax brackets. So they atleast have a skill, education for that skill or both.

They have a view point that has validity

Not if the viewpoint is to bring government to a screeching halt by obstructing compromise at all costs. That is not a valid viewpoint. That doesn't work at all, and they are being called out on it now by Republicans (like Karl Rove) who want to govern.

edit: I read these criticisms by Jindal, Gingrich, Rove, etc. as being directed at the Tea Party candidates,

[EVAY]

That's all fine, but people are living longer and getting more than they paid in.

I think that is true (that people are getting more than they paid in because they live so long past their retirement age). It seems totally reasonable to me, therefore, to means-test social security and medicare payments. I think that eventually that will happen, but there will be political hell to pay for whoever gets it done. If Obama wanted to be a really good statesman he would step up and champion this sort of thing. Of course the Democrats in Congress wouldn't go along with it or they would face getting thrown out in the next primary. But even if a lot of Dems balked, it could pass if the Republicans could make themselves agree with something that Obama actually came up with. So far it appears to be "If he is for it, I am against it, even if I used to be for it in the past'"

[EVAY]

Not if the viewpoint is to bring government to a screeching halt by obstructing compromise at all costs.

edit: I read these criticisms by Jindal, Gingrich, Rove, etc. as being directed at the Tea Party candidates,

That is how I read them as well.

[spursncowboys]

Not if the viewpoint is to bring government to a screeching halt by obstructing compromise at all costs. That is not a valid viewpoint. That doesn't work at all, and they are being called out on it now by Republicans (like Karl Rove) who want to govern.

edit: I read these criticisms by Jindal, Gingrich, Rove, etc. as being directed at the Tea Party candidates,

I thought Jindal was talking about the social conservatives. Global warming, evolution, and things like that. Compromise which means more spending without any cuts isn't compromise to them.

[spursncowboys]

Coburn makes a good point:
8ZxV9gncJ_g
@1:56

[DarrinS]

Coburn makes a good point:
8ZxV9gncJ_g
@1:56

Extremist

[boutons_deux]

did somebody say Jindal, aka known as macaca by Virginia Repugs? :lol

Five Reasons Bobby Jindal Is Responsible For Transforming The GOP Into ‘The Stupid Party’ (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/01/25/1495721/jindal-stupid-party/)


1. He permits Louisiana schools to teach creationism. Thanks to Jindal’s educational voucher system in Louisiana, students will be attending private or parochial schools on the taxpayer’s dime (http://thinkprogress.org/education/2013/01/16/1460571/how-your-school-vouchers-fund-schools-that-teach-creationism/). But those schools don’t necessarily meet the standards of the state’s public schools, and may teach students creationism instead of standard science curricula.

2. He allows state employees to be fired for being gay. During his first few months as governor, Jindal decided not to renew an anti-discrimination executive order (http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/05/03/476058/jindal-claims-openly-gay-employees-fine-with-him-despite-rescinding-state-non-discrimination-protections/) protecting LGBT employees who work for the state. Jindal has also said that same sex marriage opens up a path (http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/bobby-jindal-gay-marriage-slippery-slope-to-overturning-second-amendment/politics/2012/09/28/49929) for courts to overturn the Second Amendment.

3. He has signed bills to intimidate women seeking abortions. Jindal compared (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/07/07/262314/jindal-signs-anti-choice-bill-compares-women-who-receive-abortions-to-criminals/) women who have gotten abortions to criminals. But that unpalatable sentiment also came with a policy change — he signed a bill that requires all abortion clinics to post intimidating messages in their waiting rooms, and establishes a website that points women to crisis pregnancy centers (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/07/07/262314/jindal-signs-anti-choice-bill-compares-women-who-receive-abortions-to-criminals/) instead of abortion-providing facilities. Jindal also signed a measure creating a 24-hour waiting period (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/06/08/496659/louisiana-adds-more-restrictions-to-abortion-access/) between a woman’s mandatory ultrasound and the date of her abortion.

4. He seeks to dramatically cut taxes for the wealthy, increase taxes for everyone else. Jindal’s latest tax proposal would raise taxes for 80 percent of Louisianians. The poorest 20 percent — with an average income of $12,000 — would face substantial tax increases (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/01/15/1449001/jindal-tax-80-percent/), while those in the top one percent would on average get a tax cut of $25,423.

5. He refuses to provide health care for Louisiana’s poorest. Louisiana has the third highest uninsured rate in the country. Twenty percent of residents lack insurance of any kind. But as one of the governors vehemently opposed to Obamacare, Jindal turned down the Medicaid expansion (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/09/26/910211/new-orleans-medicaid-expansion/) offered under the law, ignoring the fact that it would drastically lower the numbers of uninsured and ultimately save the state money on emergency care.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/01/25/1495721/jindal-stupid-party/

Since the summary, above Jindal "STUPIDLY" proposed cutting state support for hospice care, but even red-state LA kicked him in the teeth for it.

[baseline bum]

Case in point.


Lol, exactly. Cracks me up hearing Hannity whine this media bias shit basically every time I have heard him speak 5 minutes or more.

[boutons_deux]

Not true

If you're poor, it's like down 4 years vs non-poor.

[boutons_deux]

Coburn makes a good point:
8ZxV9gncJ_g
@1:56

Typical OK ingorant redneck, in BigOil's deep pockets.

Medicare Part A would be out of money because assholes like Coburn refuse to reduce payments to the greedy, extractive health care leeches.

[DarrinS]

Lol, exactly. Cracks me up hearing Hannity whine this media bias shit basically every time I have heard him speak 5 minutes or more.

Yep, no media bias. :rolleyes

[spursncowboys]

First Powell, then Brooks. Scarborough every day. I wonder if the RINO's are setting up coup d'etat against the conservatives.
Oh, Gee!! & EVAY (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=4443) Who, in your opinion was the last President to look back on the Republican leader you knew?

[spursncowboys]

Powell was on Oreilly. Good interview

[baseline bum]

:cry :cry :cry

[EVAY]

First Powell, then Brooks. Scarborough every day. I wonder if the RINO's are setting up coup d'etat against the conservatives.
Oh, Gee!! & EVAY (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=4443) Who, in your opinion was the last President to look back on the Republican leader you knew?

I am literally unsure of the question here. I don't think I understand it.

If you are asking which Republican president was the last one I respected as a true conservative it would have to GHW Bush, who did the right thing by increasing taxes (even though he had foolishly promised not to do it) and then the Republican base failed to support him. I always thought that was one of the reasons that W. was so willing to raise the deficits regardless of anything else, because he was so afraid that he would make the same mistake as his dad.

Other than that, I don't know what you are asking, really.

[spursncowboys]

I am literally unsure of the question here. I don't think I understand it.

If you are asking which Republican president was the last one I respected as a true conservative it would have to GHW Bush, who did the right thing by increasing taxes (even though he had foolishly promised not to do it) and then the Republican base failed to support him. I always thought that was one of the reasons that W. was so willing to raise the deficits regardless of anything else, because he was so afraid that he would make the same mistake as his dad.

Other than that, I don't know what you are asking, really.
Yeah that was pretty much what I was asking. I don't think the base left him as much as Perot took the Tea Party from him.

[spursncowboys]

It was funny to see the HBO doc of GHB and how to this day he dislikes Perot and has nothing good to say about him.

[EVAY]

It was funny to see the HBO doc of GHB and how to this day he dislikes Perot and has nothing good to say about him.

I thought he was a terrific president but a lousy politician. Had the best resume for president than anyone else in my lifetime. Really lousy politician, though, and poor public speaker. And he was very reasoned.

[spursncowboys]

I thought he was a terrific president but a lousy politician. Had the best resume for president than anyone else in my lifetime. Really lousy politician, though, and poor public speaker. And he was very reasoned.
I think he was more a victim of the times. People didn't want a WW2 era President. Plus Bill could sell water to a drowning man.

[Clipper Nation]

All the GOP needs to do is stop pandering to old fossils, talk-radio zombies and the neocon Tea Party, and start embracing younger conservatives, who prefer Ron Paul and his movement...

The GOP has really shot themselves in the foot by alienating their most active, informed, and passionate supporters, tbh...

[mavs>spurs]

i'm sick of hearing that the only way for the republicans to win is to legalize all the illegals and basically become the democratic party. romney lost because he was a rich mormon and people just didn't really like him or feel like he could relate to them, conservatism is actually on the rise calm down guys.

[exstatic]

Tea baggers huh...mature

Probably on the same level of maturity as RINO

[baseline bum]

i'm sick of hearing that the only way for the republicans to win is to legalize all the illegals and basically become the democratic party. romney lost because he was a rich mormon and people just didn't really like him or feel like he could relate to them, conservatism is actually on the rise calm down guys.

They could probably win if they'd stop sucking up to Wall Street and also end the drug war.

[ElNono]

They could probably win if they'd stop sucking up to Wall Street and also end the drug war.

Well, it's not like the dems don't suck up to WS too... the problem is when they roll with the "47% takers" talk and alienate half of the electorate.

But as Teysha said, probably 70% of it comes from the rigid social conservative dinosaur rhetoric. When the party of 'individual liberty' wants to mandate who people should marry, what mothers have to do with their own body, etc.

[baseline bum]

Well, it's not like the dems don't suck up to WS too...

Which is why there would be a reason to vote for them in that case. Instead they nominate some asshole who wants to zero the capital gains tax.



But as Teysha said, probably 70% of it comes from the rigid social conservative dinosaur rhetoric. When the party of 'individual liberty' wants to mandate who people should marry, what mothers have to do with their own body, etc.

You're underestimating how much damage their idea to completely dismantle Medicare did to their campaign. Ryan and his retarded plan were proof that the Republicans had become every bit the extremists Obama painted them as. How the hell could they have thought it was a good idea to cede the under 55 vote?

[spursncowboys]

Probably on the same level of maturity as RINO

Probably not. Since RINO's call themselves RINOs and I've never heard of anyone refer to themselves as a teabagger.

[spursncowboys]

Well, it's not like the dems don't suck up to WS too... the problem is when they roll with the "47% takers" talk and alienate half of the electorate.

But as Teysha said, probably 70% of it comes from the rigid social conservative dinosaur rhetoric. When the party of 'individual liberty' wants to mandate who people should marry, what mothers have to do with their own body, etc.

I kind of agree with that. However, Karl Rove's strategy of energizing the core party worked. It worked for Obama too.

If GOP had revolving state Primary rules, I believe alot could be changed. Or if they just had a two week primary. It would allow candidates to work towards their right wing base. There by allowing a pro choice fiscal conservative to get a nomination and not lock themselves in on guarantees and promises

[EVAY]

Well, it's not like the dems don't suck up to WS too... the problem is when they roll with the "47% takers" talk and alienate half of the electorate.

But as Teysha said, probably 70% of it comes from the rigid social conservative dinosaur rhetoric. When the party of 'individual liberty' wants to mandate who people should marry, what mothers have to do with their own body, etc.

This.

[ElNono]

You're underestimating how much damage their idea to completely dismantle Medicare did to their campaign. Ryan and his retarded plan were proof that the Republicans had become every bit the extremists Obama painted them as. How the hell could they have thought it was a good idea to cede the under 55 vote?

I would tack that on the other 30%, along with their lack of attention/understanding toward minorities (esp hispanics). While it's likely that 30% cost them more votes than the 70%, they need to work on both, IMO.

[DarrinS]

They could probably win if they'd stop sucking up to Wall Street and also end the drug war.

This hasn't hurt Obama.

[TeyshaBlue]

This hasn't hurt Obama.

Obama is not pandering to the far right in concert with sucking off Wall Street.

[DarrinS]

So, is this the list of uber-extremist VRWC positions?

Anti Obamacare
Pro reduced spending
Pro low taxes
Pro traditional marriage (Obama's same position until recently)
Pro life
Pro voter id
Pro entitlement reform
Pro Israel
Pro business
Pro border security and enforcement of existing immigration laws


Just want to get it straight

[baseline bum]

This hasn't hurt Obama.

Why is everyone's response to that statement akin to "The Democrats are fucked up, so the Republicans can be too"??? The Republicans share all of Obama's faults and then add a heap of jeebotard on top of it.

[baseline bum]

So, is this the list of uber-extremist VRWC positions?

Anti Obamacare
Pro reduced spending
Pro low taxes
Pro traditional marriage (Obama's same position until recently)
Pro life
Pro voter id
Pro entitlement reform
Pro Israel
Pro business
Pro border security and enforcement of existing immigration laws


Just want to get it straight

LOL, traditional marriage is treating your daughter as property and selling her off to the highest bidder.

[DarrinS]

Why is everyone's response to that statement akin to "The Democrats are fucked up, so the Republicans can be too"??? The Republicans share all of Obama's faults and then add a heap of jeebotard on top of it.

Obama believes in jeebus too

DBhM4L-wiI0

[DarrinS]

Why is everyone's response to that statement akin to "The Democrats are fucked up, so the Republicans can be too"??? The Republicans share all of Obama's faults and then add a heap of jeebotard on top of it.


Me wonders if there will ever be a rift between African-American and Latino "jeebotards" and their white athiest comrades in the Democratic party?

[ElNono]

So, is this the list of uber-extremist VRWC positions?

Anti Obamacare
Pro reduced spending
Pro low taxes
Pro traditional marriage (Obama's same position until recently)
Pro life
Pro voter id
Pro entitlement reform
Pro Israel
Pro business
Pro border security and enforcement of existing immigration laws

Just want to get it straight

Disagree.

First of all, a lot of those don't tell the real story. It's not 'Pro reduced spending' that's extreme, it's how they think they have to execute that (with 'Pro obstruction').
Another one is 'traditional marriage'... nobody is against a man and a woman marrying... it's the outright religious anti-gay agenda that doesn't pass muster.
'Pro voter id' isn't extreme. What's extreme is to remember about 'Pro voter id' 6 months before the election, which makes it 'Pro disenfranchise'.

And so on and so forth...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's too bad that this schism will probably not manifest itself as an independent political party.

[TeyshaBlue]

The Republicans share all of Obama's faults and then add a heap of jeebotard on top of it.

:lol:lol:lol