PDA

View Full Version : This was my guy for POTUS...too bad he was shot down by the establishment.



Uncle Bill
02-20-2013, 04:19 PM
But he is still writing 'common sense' articles. Here's another that tells it like it is.

UB

Gingrich: Why Rove and Stevens are plain wrong

http://www.humanevents.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/why-karl-rove-is-just-wrong-gingrich.jpg


By: Newt Gingrich (http://www.humanevents.com/author/newt-gingrich/)
2/20/2013




I am writing this newsletter in a very direct, no baloney, effort to get across how much trouble we Republicans are in and how real the internal party fight is going to be.

I strongly support RNC Chairman Reince Priebus’ effort to think through the lessons of 2012 and develop a better path for the Republican Party.

However there are going to be some very powerful opponents to any serious rethinking of Republican doctrines and strategies.

It is appalling how little some Republican consultants have learned from the 2012 defeat.

It is even more disturbing how arrogant their plans for the future are.

Of course these consultants have made an amazing amount of money asserting an expertise they clearly don’t have.

They have existed in a system in which the candidate was supposed to focus on raising money and the smart consultant would design the strategy, spend the money and do the thinking.

This is a terrible system.

Watch the movie “Lincoln.” This was a politician who thought long and deeply.

Read Craig Shirley’s histories of the 1976 and 1980 campaigns (or watch the documentary Callista and I made, “Ronald Reagan: Rendezvous with Destiny (http://www.gingrichproductions.com/shop/vm-shop/dvds/ronald-reagan-rendezvous-with-destiny.html)”). Reagan knew what he believed, why he was running, and what he wanted to accomplish.

Republicans need to drop the consultant-centric model and go back to a system in which candidates have to think and consultants are adviser and implementers but understand that the elected official is the one who has to represent the voters and make the key decisions.

I feel compelled to write this because of Karl Rove’s recent assertions and my very unsettling round table with Stuart Stevens on ABC’s This Week this past Sunday.

First, Rove.

I am unalterably opposed to a bunch of billionaires financing a boss to pick candidates in 50 states. This is the opposite of the Republican tradition of freedom and grassroots small town conservatism.

RELATED: Dear Karl, Hey, sorry we compared you to Himmler. Sincerely, Tea Party (http://www.humanevents.com/2013/02/19/tea-party-group-compares-karl-rove-to-an-ss-officer-apologizes/)

No one person is smart enough nor do they have the moral right to buy nominations across the country.

That is the system of Tammany Hall and the Chicago machine. It should be repugnant to every conservative and every Republican.

There is a second practical thing wrong with Rove’s proposal.

He was simply wrong last year. He was wrong about the Presidential race (watch a video of his blow up on Fox election night about Fox News calling Ohio for President Obama). He was also wrong about Senate races.

While Rove would like to argue his “national nomination machine” will protect Republicans from candidates like those who failed in Missouri and Indiana, that isn’t the bigger story.

Republicans lost winnable senate races in Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida. So in seven of the nine losing races, the Rove model has no candidate-based explanation for failure. Our problems are deeper and more complex than candidates.

Handing millions to Washington based consultants to destroy the candidates they dislike and nominate the candidates they do like is an invitation to cronyism, favoritism and corruption.

Stuart Stevens represents a very different problem. Based on our time together on This Week on ABC last Sunday, it seems he is indifferent to the facts and has no sense of responsibility for a presidential campaign that he dominated.

Jonathan Karl did a great job drawing out some amazing opinions.

On the disastrous Romney collapse among Latino voters (it was worse, by the way, with Asian Americans), Stuart responded as though the campaign were irrelevant. Here’s the transcript:

“STEVENS: Let me say something, Republican Party had a problem with Hispanic voters before this primary. I don’t think it got better during the primary certainly. And I think that –
“KARL: I mean, it got worse.
“STEVENS: That’s regrettable. But if you look at the numbers, it didn’t get significantly worse.”

That analysis is simply false.

The Romney campaign decision to savage first Governor Perry and then me on immigration destroyed any chance to build a Latino-Asian appeal.

The Romney formula of self-deportation (which must have seemed clever when invented) led to a collapse of acceptability.

The most powerful Obama ad in Spanish language media was Romney talking about self deportation.

The fact that Stevens can’t acknowledge any of this tells you how hard it will be for some in the consultant class to learn anything about winning in the 21st century.

Stevens did underscore the Republican challenge in attracting Latinos when he said:

“The greatest appeal that the Obama campaign had for Hispanic voters turned out to be ObamaCare. And they ran a tremendous amount of their advertising appealing to Hispanic voters. It was the only place in their advertising where they talked about ObamaCare, was into…the Hispanic community, because an extraordinary percentage of Hispanic voters are uninsured. And that was smart politics. They did it well. The party was also known as the party that was against ObamaCare and that hurt us. There’s not one solution here for the problems that Republicans have with Hispanic voters “

His observation is correct but he fails to draw the right conclusion.
Latinos worry about getting health insurance and health care. A Republican candidate who had a better health idea could have had great appeal.

A Republican candidate who was merely anti-Obamacare (and therefore seen as anti-healthcare) would lose that contest. But wasn’t it Stevens’ job as chief consultant to design that before the campaign, not to explain its failure afterwards?

The depth of Republican obsolescence on communications technology was highlighted in this comment:

“STEVENS: Really made — if I had tweeted in this campaign this whole discussion we’ve been having about the second amendment would probably be replaced one about the first amendment and whether it should apply to tweeting.”

Cute but insulting. Republicans will not understand why we are losing younger Americans so badly until we realize how many of our consultants don’t have a clue and don’t intend to change.

Finally, Stevens said something profound but I don’t think he understood how profound it was:

“Listen, I don’t think — it would be a great mistake if we felt that technology in itself is going to save the Republican Party. Technology is something to a large degree you can go out and purchase and if we think there’s an off the shelf solution that you can go out and purchase for the Republican Party it’s wrong.

“You know, we’ve had a lot of chance now since the campaign to spend time with the Obama folks and sometimes they had better technology, some cases we have better technology. We don’t have 140 character problem in the Republican Party. We have a larger problem that we have to look at and be patient about it. And trying to think that there’s one solution like this, I just don’t think…”

I went on to agree with him but I don’t think he understood my agreement. In effect I was repudiating the entire structure, budget and culture of the campaign he dominated:

“GINGRICH: I think the way Stuart just said it is exactly right. The technology problem is a culture problem. I mean the Democrats had 54 data analysts and were hiring Ph.Ds in advanced math because they were using the most advanced decision processes in the country. They were bringing in behavioral scientists. They were trying to figure out how you talk to 311 million people and do so in a way that you can survive 8 percent unemployment and get re-elected and it worked.

“Now, I think it’s actually — he’s right in a sense it’s a cultural problem. None of our consultants would have imagined hiring 54 people in the decision area, none of them would have imagined having 24 people [who] did nothing full time except e-mails and then blind tested the best e-mails to see which ones worked. I mean, this — they are a Super Bowl team that we ought to respect deeply. And we are currently a midlevel college team floundering around and I agree. It’s not just — you can’t just go out and buy this, this is a fundamental rethinking of how you relate to the American people.”

As Reagan biographer Craig Shirley told me, “Commercial radio was a new technology in the early 1930′s and Reagan adapted to it. Talking movies were a new technology in the late 30′s and Reagan adapted to it. Network television was a new technology in the early 1950′s and Reagan adapted to it. If Reagan were alive today, he’d be tweeting.”

Our “Lessons to be Learned (http://gingrichproductions.com/lessonslearned)” project at Gingrich Productions will begin releasing reports on the scale of change we need in the next few weeks.
We will continue to report throughout the spring and summer.

By this fall we will have online courses on 21st century self government and politics.

The debate over Rove-Stevens versus the new 21st century model may be the most important intra-Republican debate since the emergence of Reagan and Kemp to challenge the old order in the 1970s.

Henlee
02-21-2013, 02:38 AM
Oh boy, At least they know they have a problem. Politically I describe myself as a Geroge Bush Democrat. As in George Bush made me start voting for democrats. There is no doubt as the conservatives pushed out centrist thinking republicans, that the republicans would lose votes and ultimitaly elections. That is what happens when you push voters out of your voting block. I know as being a centrist there is no need for me in the republican party. I have not seen a conservative plan to pick up voters that will have traction. immigrants amd females? The dems are going to do it better. Healthcare? What are the republicans going to do if the country does not fall apart next year? They should have put in their own plan in the early 2000's if they wanted to avoid Obamacare. The only saving grace that the republicans have going into the midterms is that Obama tried to ban guns. I will be voting republican for the first time in ten years because of it. Hopefully they will not misinterpet it as a success of their policies and not the failure of the democrats.

huntinman
02-21-2013, 08:30 AM
Oh boy, At least they know they have a problem. Politically I describe myself as a Geroge Bush Democrat. As in George Bush made me start voting for democrats. There is no doubt as the conservatives pushed out centrist thinking republicans, that the republicans would lose votes and ultimitaly elections. That is what happens when you push voters out of your voting block. I know as being a centrist there is no need for me in the republican party. I have not seen a conservative plan to pick up voters that will have traction. immigrants amd females? The dems are going to do it better. Healthcare? What are the republicans going to do if the country does not fall apart next year? They should have put in their own plan in the early 2000's if they wanted to avoid Obamacare. The only saving grace that the republicans have going into the midterms is that Obama tried to ban guns. I will be voting republican for the first time in ten years because of it. Hopefully they will not misinterpet it as a success of their policies and not the failure of the democrats.


You think GW was a conservative?

BonMallari
02-21-2013, 09:06 AM
Good ole Newt conveniently forgets to mention that he took 20 MILLION in contributions from Las Vegas billionaire Sheldon Adelson

The Tea Party also villified Rove by putting out a picture of him in a Nazi uniform and then tried to blame it on the publisher....

You cant put the entire blame on Rove and his Super Pac because they want to eliminate the R Party from running poor unqualified candidates like Christine O'Donnell,Sharron Angle,and Todd Akin...those were all winnable elections..I saw the Angle election up close here in the state of Nevada, she was the least known and least popular of three R candidates, but come primary day the Dems came out and backed her and she won with a whopping 36% of the vote..We could have ousted Harry Reid had the Tea Party not pushed so hard for Angle, she was an absolute kook, and had no business running for a US Senate seat

Ken Bora
02-21-2013, 09:24 AM
I am kinda sorta offended by Rove. (the architect?) who the heck has that for a nickname?
anyways, I say him on Hannity last eve. It is, in my humble mind, Rover and a select few, in a room with cigars and snifters choose who gets to run then I in turn get to choose from by voting. Isnt that kinda, again in my humble mind, just the same as what folk like Kim Jong-Il and Hugo Chaves do?????? "You may Vote.... this is your candidate" ???????
I am kinda sorta offended by Rove.
I was going to start a thread about this.
Good Job Bill!

huntinman
02-21-2013, 09:33 AM
I don't have much use for him either. Seems to think he and his crowd know what's better for us than we do. How is that any different from Obama and his nanny state crowd?

zeus3925
02-21-2013, 09:44 AM
The more GOPpers push out the moderates, more of them will gravitate to the Dems. The big disaster of the GOPs during the past primary season was caused by the politicians pandering to the right extremists of the party. Then it shifted left to appeal to a more moderate electorate. It gave the distinct impression that the party was duplicitous or it was hunting for its navel on the wrong side of its body.

huntinman
02-21-2013, 10:02 AM
The more GOPpers push out the moderates, more of them will gravitate to the Dems. The big disaster of the GOPs during the past primary season was caused by the politicians pandering to the right extremists of the party. Then it shifted left to appeal to a more moderate electorate. It gave the distinct impression that the party was duplicitous or it was hunting for its navel on the wrong side of its body.

Have to disagree Sarge... The R's are trying to be lib lite. You can't out-lib a lib. The voters might as well go with the real deal and vote for the full blooded Lib.

We need more conservatism, not less. Look what this "moderation" has produced for the country.

Marvin S
02-21-2013, 10:09 AM
The more GOPpers push out the moderates, more of them will gravitate to the Dems. The big disaster of the GOPs during the past primary season was caused by the politicians pandering to the right extremists of the party. Then it shifted left to appeal to a more moderate electorate. It gave the distinct impression that the party was duplicitous or it was hunting for its navel on the wrong side of its body.

In your left wing MN loon mind, what is a GOP moderate? & to cement that please provide examples of elected officials that meet your standard :confused:.

road kill
02-21-2013, 10:12 AM
The more GOPpers push out the moderates, more of them will gravitate to the Dems. The big disaster of the GOPs during the past primary season was caused by the politicians pandering to the right extremists of the party. Then it shifted left to appeal to a more moderate electorate. It gave the distinct impression that the party was duplicitous or it was hunting for its navel on the wrong side of its body.



In your left wing MN loon mind, what is a GOP moderate? & to cement that please provide examples of elected officials that meet your standard :confused:.
There is NOTHING the Republicans can do to reach the low information voters.

That's the PC name, what they are is useful idiots and Obama knows it!

These are the people convulsing over sequestration, a bill Obama authored and passed.
It is about federal $$$.
No effect on local Police and Fire and Teachers.

Obama knows that, but tells the useful idiots we will collapse if HIS proposal comes to pass.
And they lap it up!

BonMallari
02-21-2013, 10:16 AM
Have to disagree Sarge... The R's are trying to be lib lite. You can't out-lib a lib. The voters might as well go with the real deal and vote for the full blooded Lib.

We need more conservatism, not less. Look what this "moderation" has produced for the country.

I agree with you Bill, but the R Party has a track record of over playing their hand and snatching sure victory into the hands of defeat...many time when a solid conservative will win a seat, someone gets the bright idea of running an extreme candidate that appeases the base but gets clobbered in the general election

huntinman
02-21-2013, 10:28 AM
I agree with you Bill, but the R Party has a track record of over playing their hand and snatching sure victory into the hands of defeat...many time when a solid conservative will win a seat, someone gets the bright idea of running an extreme candidate that appeases the base but gets clobbered in the general election

For every one of the Angle, Akin etc horror stories.... There were more actual victories if the media cared to report on them. If anyone would look a little deeper the GOP was against Marco Rubio in favor of the "moderate" Charlie Crist. Tea Party Support put Rubio in the Senate and Crist promptly showed his true colors and switched to the Dems.

Rand Paul was opposed by the GOP establishment when he ran in KY... But the Tea Party support carried him to Victory. He still acknowledges that support

Ted Cruz in TX was heavily opposed by the GOP establishment, but again, the Tea party stepped up and helped carry him to victory. He is going to be a very good Senator if he continues to stick to his principles.

The list goes on, but those are the most well known, just like the ones you mentioned are the most vilified. 2010 is not that far off. 2014 will be very interesting.

BonMallari
02-21-2013, 10:38 AM
For every one of the Angle, Akin etc horror stories.... There were more actual victories if the media cared to report on them. If anyone would look a little deeper the GOP was against Marco Rubio in favor of the "moderate" Charlie Crist. Tea Party Support put Rubio in the Senate and Crist promptly showed his true colors and switched to the Dems.

Rand Paul was opposed by the GOP establishment when he ran in KY... But the Tea Party support carried him to Victory. He still acknowledges that support

Ted Cruz in TX was heavily opposed by the GOP establishment, but again, the Tea party stepped up and helped carry him to victory. He is going to be a very good Senator if he continues to stick to his principles.

The list goes on, but those are the most well known, just like the ones you mentioned are the most vilified. 2010 is not that far off. 2014 will be very interesting.

You mean the Libertarian Republicans didnt get him elected :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

huntinman
02-21-2013, 10:49 AM
You mean the Libertarian Republicans didnt get him elected :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Damn... My bad!!

Ken Bora
02-21-2013, 11:00 AM
....... the R Party has a track record of over playing their hand and snatching sure victory into the hands of defeat........


no way, never done that, wouldent be prudent!
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-I7rE8-jZ1OA/UCAfrBkJMRI/AAAAAAAAFMM/w7fnHv3MKCI/s1600/mission-accomplished.jpg

huntinman
02-21-2013, 11:09 AM
no way, never done that, wouldent be prudent!
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-I7rE8-jZ1OA/UCAfrBkJMRI/AAAAAAAAFMM/w7fnHv3MKCI/s1600/mission-accomplished.jpg


That was as much media driven BS as Rubio's drink of water. IMO... But we all have opinions.

Henlee
02-21-2013, 12:40 PM
Ok it was media driven, but who drove the media to the boat?

zeus3925
02-21-2013, 08:33 PM
In your left wing MN loon mind, what is a GOP moderate? & to cement that please provide examples of elected officials that meet your standard :confused:.


I'll try to ignore the fact that your mamma failed miserably in her attempt to instruct you in good manners.

JDogger
02-21-2013, 09:40 PM
For every one of the Angle, Akin etc horror stories.... There were more actual victories if the media cared to report on them. If anyone would look a little deeper the GOP was against Marco Rubio in favor of the "moderate" Charlie Crist. Tea Party Support put Rubio in the Senate and Crist promptly showed his true colors and switched to the Dems.

Rand Paul was opposed by the GOP establishment when he ran in KY... But the Tea Party support carried him to Victory. He still acknowledges that support

Ted Cruz in TX was heavily opposed by the GOP establishment, but again, the Tea party stepped up and helped carry him to victory. He is going to be a very good Senator if he continues to stick to his principles.

The list goes on, but those are the most well known, just like the ones you mentioned are the most vilified. 2010 is not that far off. 2014 will be very interesting.

One more reason not to legalize....JD

zeus3925
02-21-2013, 09:52 PM
Have to disagree Sarge... The R's are trying to be lib lite. You can't out-lib a lib. The voters might as well go with the real deal and vote for the full blooded Lib.

We need more conservatism, not less. Look what this "moderation" has produced for the country.

My post is in response to what is see happening not pushing any ideology. But if Republicans continue to purge the moderate elements of the party they will go either to the democrats or become independent. It will allow the democrats to move more to the middle to capture that vote. Being a far right conservative may feel good but that is not where the country is. It is slightly left of moderate. Any party that looks like it is skewed to an extreme is dead meat. The Dems are not casting out their moderates in case you haven't noticed. The party that can claim the middle ground wins. The Republicans seem hell bent to abandon the center.

There is a rift afoot in the Republican Party. All the kings horse's and all the king's may not be enough to put it back a gain. The battle between the Republican establishment and the Tea Party is becoming more nasty by the day. Any hope of reconciliation is dimming. The party is sewing what it reaped by embracing and glorifying the Tea Party minions. Remember, they are the people that never played well with others. Getting them to make peace with the establishment stands about of chance of them cozying up to Obama.

huntinman
02-21-2013, 10:06 PM
My post is in response to what is see happening not pushing any ideology. But if Republicans continue to purge the moderate elements of the party they will go either to the democrats or become independent. It will allow the democrats to move more to the middle to capture that vote. Being a far right conservative may feel good but that is not where the country is. It is slightly left of moderate. Any party that looks like it is skewed to an extreme is dead meat. The Dems are not casting out their moderates in case you haven't noticed. The party that can claim the middle ground wins. The Republicans seem hell bent to abandon the center.
There is a rift afoot in the Republican Party. All the kings horse's and all the king's may not be enough to put it back a gain. The battle between the Republican establishment and the Tea Party is becoming more nasty by the day. Any hope of reconciliation is dimming. The party is sewing what it reaped by embracing and glorifying the Tea Party minions. Remember, they are the people that never played well with others. Getting them to make peace with the establishment stands about of chance of them cozying up to Obama.

Are you kidding me? The Dems are completely controlled by the loony left. Pelosi, Reid, Obama etc... They are the tip of the iceberg... Slightly left of moderate? Holy smokes!

zeus3925
02-21-2013, 10:42 PM
Read it again, Bill. The Republican purge will give the Dems room to move over and I believe they will like a cowboy to a free porterhouse steak.
As far as speakers of the House, I remember every one of them since Joe Martin. None of them have been on the other party's valentine list. They tend to be party purists that grinds the other side.

Franco
02-21-2013, 10:58 PM
Read it again, Bill. The Republican purge will give the Dems room to move over and I believe they will like a cowboy to a free porterhouse steak.
As far as speakers of the House, I remember every one of them since Joe Martin. None of them have been on the other party's valentine list. They tend to be party purists that grinds the other side.

If the GOP continues to be controlled by the NeoConservative mentality, they will only continue to marginalize thier base. Their whole mindset is continued Deficit spending with some magic in 10 years fixing the deficit/economy! They don't believe in Free Trade, they love to overspend on their causes and are deeply influenced and so are the Dems by lobbyist. Best thing the Repubs could do is to throw out the veterans and bring in the fresh legs. That means destroying the current GOP estbalishment and rebuilding. If they don't, they are done. Which I don't think they ware capable of adapting to, because most are owned and can't.

Marvin S
02-21-2013, 11:43 PM
I'll try to ignore the fact that your mamma failed miserably in her attempt to instruct you in good manners.

The proper word would be someone, momma was only around for the birth - but be that it may - I asked a couple of questions which you are apparently unable to answer :rolleyes:.

zeus3925
02-22-2013, 09:32 AM
The proper word would be someone, momma was only around for the birth - but be that it may - I asked a couple of questions which you are apparently unable to answer :rolleyes:.

Restate your question respectfully and you'll get a respectful answer.

Marvin S
02-22-2013, 09:40 AM
In your mind, what is a GOP moderate? & to cement that please provide examples of elected officials that meet your standard :confused:.

There ya go Sarge :).

zeus3925
02-22-2013, 10:39 AM
There ya go Sarge :).

Thanks, Marv. The Republicans past and present I would consider moderate would be: Dick Lugar, Colin Powell, Bill Milliken (former governor of Michigan), Ev Dirkson, former congressman Jim Ramsted, Chuck Hagel, former congressman Phil Ruppe, Jon Huntsman, Gerald Ford, Mitt Romney (despite saying he was an extreme conservative), Olympia Snow, to mention a few.

Maybes:John McCain (but he dances around a bit), Gov. Rick Snyder, Chris Cristie, Ben Nighthorse Campbell.

road kill
02-22-2013, 11:02 AM
Thanks, Marv. The Republicans past and present I would consider moderate would be: Dick Lugar, Colin Powell, Bill Milliken (former governor of Michigan), Ev Dirkson, former congressman Jim Ramsted, Chuck Hagel, former congressman Phil Ruppe, Jon Huntsman, Gerald Ford, Mitt Romney (despite saying he was an extreme conservative), Olympia Snow, to mention a few.

Maybes:John McCain (but he dances around a bit), Gov. Rick Snyder, Chris Cristie, Ben Nighthorse Campbell.

I would call each of those progressives.
Add Bush and you got it covered.

None of these people are conservatives.

zeus3925
02-22-2013, 11:14 AM
I would call each of those progressives.
Add Bush and you got it covered.

None of these people are conservatives.

I agree none of these guys are "hard" conservatives but they are right of center. They are not of the Nelson Rockefeller/ Jacob Javits liberal stripe. But, then the question called for "moderates" and my answer may not coincide with everyone's definition, but that is mine.

road kill
02-22-2013, 11:28 AM
I agree none of these guys are "hard" conservatives but they are right of center. They are not of the Nelson Rockefeller/ Jacob Javits liberal stripe. But, then the question called for "moderates" and my answer may not coincide with everyone's definition, but that is mine.
Sarge,
When I speak of "progressives" I am not speking of Democrats or liberals.
HHH, JFK, Anne Wright are Democrats.
Mondale, Muskie are liberals.

I am speaking of Harvard progressives who beleive in something I vehemently detest.

Something to do with 1 world!

JMO

zeus3925
02-22-2013, 11:44 AM
Sarge,
When I speak of "progressives" I am not speking of Democrats or liberals.
HHH, JFK, Anne Wright are Demicrats.
Mondale, Muskie are liberals.

I am speaking of Harvard progressives who beleive in something I vehemently detest.

Something to do with 1 world!

JMO

Again Marv's question was "In your mind, what is a GOP moderate?" What is a "progressive" in your definition? Please elaborate on "1 world".

road kill
02-22-2013, 11:55 AM
Again Marv's question was "In your mind, what is a GOP moderate?" What is a "progressive" in your definition? Please elaborate on "1 world".
Give me a couple, I will post something.
I am not given to "Yardleyesque" type manuscripts here.

Brevity
Clariy
Relevance

Let me think of a way to describe it that fits those.

For starters, I beleive wisdom lies in the word of the Lord.
Progressives beleive wisdom lies in the halls of Harvard!




Progressivism is a general political philosophy advocating or favoring gradual social, political, and economic reform.[1] Modern Progressivism emerged as part of a more general response to the vast social changes brought by industrialization.

It is left of center in the political spectrum and is to be contrasted with conservatism on the right and the revolutionary left, the former generally resisting changes it advocates and the latter rejecting its gradualism.



I do beleive that today, it is to the left of left of center.

And I think the movement is towards the "New World Order" & "Social Democracy."
I don't beleive in either.

I beleive in American exceptionalism!!!!!!!:cool:

huntinman
02-22-2013, 11:59 AM
Right of "center" or Left of "center" all depends on where you stand when you are looking.

zeus3925
02-22-2013, 12:39 PM
Right of "center" or Left of "center" all depends on where you stand when you are looking.

For myself I like the center. I just point out the errors in Republican thinking and they think it's liberal. Real liberals don't post here.:)

Marvin S
02-22-2013, 12:40 PM
Thanks, Marv. The Republicans past and present I would consider moderate would be: Dick Lugar, Colin Powell, Bill Milliken (former governor of Michigan), Ev Dirkson, former congressman Jim Ramsted, Chuck Hagel, former congressman Phil Ruppe, Jon Huntsman, Gerald Ford, Mitt Romney (despite saying he was an extreme conservative), Olympia Snow, to mention a few.

Maybes:John McCain (but he dances around a bit), Gov. Rick Snyder, Chris Cristie, Ben Nighthorse Campbell.

Anyone who will compromise from a common sense position is not moderate, IMO.

Those folks had a good gig as long as no one was paying attention, had it worked for their candidacy they would just as easily have run as lefty's.

In SD I am considered a moderate: In WA I am a RWer ;-). It's not hard to be to the right of most folks in this state, but you should know that though you have a different starting point.

I strongly agree in personal responsibility.

I believe in the 10 commandments though I haven't been inside a church for worship in ?? years. I pretty much agree with SD's abortion law after they overturned the zealotry.

I think 8 for 8 is a good motto. No one should enjoy the fruits of someone else's labor unless those folks decide they want to share, but the earner's should determine how much.

That's pretty much it - not real hard to take that test :).

McCain, Dole (who you left out), McGovern (though he is the litmus test for liberal nuts) were all certified war heroes - McCain being different because his line has been on the public teat for generations. Each of these individuals have received a lot of love from the voters but as time has gone by that has gotten old - none should make any HOF for their legislative endeavors, along with the folks you mention.

huntinman
02-22-2013, 12:44 PM
For myself I like the center. I just point out the errors in Republican thinking and they think it's liberal. Real liberals don't post here.:)

Maybe I should have said it depends on where you "think" you are standing;-)

zeus3925
02-22-2013, 01:17 PM
Anyone who will compromise from a common sense position is not moderate, IMO.

Those folks had a good gig as long as no one was paying attention, had it worked for their candidacy they would just as easily have run as lefty's.

In SD I am considered a moderate: In WA I am a RWer ;-). It's not hard to be to the right of most folks in this state, but you should know that though you have a different starting point.

I strongly agree in personal responsibility.

I believe in the 10 commandments though I haven't been inside a church for worship in ?? years. I pretty much agree with SD's abortion law after they overturned the zealotry.

I think 8 for 8 is a good motto. No one should enjoy the fruits of someone else's labor unless those folks decide they want to share, but the earner's should determine how much.

That's pretty much it - not real hard to take that test :).

McCain, Dole (who you left out), McGovern (though he is the litmus test for liberal nuts) were all certified war heroes - McCain being different because his line has been on the public teat for generations. Each of these individuals have received a lot of love from the voters but as time has gone by that has gotten old - none should make any HOF for their legislative endeavors, along with the folks you mention.

I'll go with Dole.

I'm personally don't like abortion. Neither do I like the shrillness on either side of the argument.

I am for background checks on firearm purchases from gun shows but not for the banning and confiscation of firearms.

I am for personal responsibility and that was a good part of my job when I was a social worker. It was largely aimed at getting people to be responsible for raising their children and to take responsibility for the quality of their own lives. I believe marriage is a serious long term commitment. I've been married to the same woman 45 years.

I despise the take over of our government by the monied interests. A 73,000 page tax code is proof the people are not in control.

I dislike filling out reams of paperwork for every little public action that you and I decide to take.

I believe taking up arms against my country is a treasonous act as defined in the Constitution.

I think that is pretty darn conservative, if you ask me.

zeus3925
02-22-2013, 01:54 PM
Marv--I sent you a PM.

caryalsobrook
02-22-2013, 02:04 PM
I'll go with Dole.

I'm personally don't like abortion. Neither do I like the shrillness on either side of the argument.

I am for background checks on firearm purchases from gun shows but not for the banning and confiscation of firearms.

I am for personal responsibility and that was a good part of my job when I was a social worker. It was largely aimed at getting people to be responsible for raising their children and to take responsibility for the quality of their own lives. I believe marriage is a serious long term commitment. I've been married to the same woman 45 years.

I despise the take over of our government by the monied interests. A 73,000 page tax code is proof the people are not in control.

I dislike filling out reams of paperwork for every little public action that you and I decide to take.

I believe taking up arms against my country is a treasonous act as defined in the Constitution.

I think that is pretty darn conservative, if you ask me.

I think you just made Marvin's point.
Take abortion. Nothing is Constitution governing it(I think Franco would agree). The arguement of the "right to privacy", is the most illogical arguement I can imagine. Originially ruled, a child could get an abortion WITHOUT parental knowledge or consent. Yet I could not even so much perform and exam or clean their teeth without parnetal consent. Furthermore try to write a child a percription for anything but birth control pills. As far as the schrillness on the subject, the Constitution does guarantee the right to free speach.

As far as social workers helping someone take responsibility, I have no idea how anyone can make someone take responsibility. Only by there being consequences for action can there be any incentive to take responsibility. Last communiction with a social worker went like this. "Well can you give her JUST ONE MORE CHANCE? My response was HELL WILL FREEZE OVER BEFORE SHE GETS IN THIS CLINIC AGAIN!.

You say you despise the takeover of the gov. by monied interests. I despise the takeover of our gov. by ANY SPECIAL INTEREST, be they black, white, union, I think you get my message. I despise those who would single out any minority be they black, white or the top 1% as if they should not enjoy the same rights and freedoms as any other. You cite the 76,000 pages of the tax code as if it only benefits a certain special interest. On the contrary, it only goes to show that the concept of an income tax is a TOTAL FAILURE and is by its very nature unworkable.

You say that you are for background checks at gun shows. I may be wrong but I have heard that they are already required. If they are in fact not then WHAT GOOD DO YOU THINK THEY WOULD DO? Do you really have any facts to show that such action would reduce illgal use of guns. Just another law that does nothing but push paperwork. Being a conservative, I WANT FEWER LAWS, NOT MORE. I want to repeal laws not make more.

Simply put government is not in, nor has ever been, nor will it ever be in the charity business. IT IS IN THE BUSINESS OF RULES, REGULATIONS, TAXES, DEPENDENCE AND CONTROL!! Reagan was so right when he said that if someone showed up and said the were from the Gov. and there to help you, then you should bend over because you were about to get it!

These are what I call conservative views.

Socks
02-22-2013, 02:06 PM
Give me a couple, I will post something.
I am not given to "Yardleyesque" type manuscripts here.

Brevity
Clariy
Relevance

Let me think of a way to describe it that fits those.

For starters, I beleive wisdom lies in the word of the Lord.
Progressives beleive wisdom lies in the halls of Harvard!


I do beleive that today, it is to the left of left of center.

And I think the movement is towards the "New World Order" & "Social Democracy."
I don't beleive in either.

I beleive in American exceptionalism!!!!!!!:cool:

Almost agree with you. BUT I can't nor will I ever agree with "wisdom lies in the word of the Lord" because in my mind all that stuff was written by man for control of the population. I don't need someone telling me about my God and how I should do this or that. Are there some good ideas in the Bible? Sure. Wisdom, eh not sure about that and I don't want our government and our politicians run this way. To each his though, but I fear that the religious right won't respect that if they ever get their chance at control.

zeus3925
02-22-2013, 03:22 PM
I think you just made Marvin's point.
Take abortion. Nothing is Constitution governing it(I think Franco would agree). The arguement of the "right to privacy", is the most illogical arguement I can imagine. Originially ruled, a child could get an abortion WITHOUT parental knowledge or consent. Yet I could not even so much perform and exam or clean their teeth without parnetal consent. Furthermore try to write a child a percription for anything but birth control pills. As far as the schrillness on the subject, the Constitution does guarantee the right to free speach.

As far as social workers helping someone take responsibility, I have no idea how anyone can make someone take responsibility. Only by there being consequences for action can there be any incentive to take responsibility. Last communiction with a social worker went like this. "Well can you give her JUST ONE MORE CHANCE? My response was HELL WILL FREEZE OVER BEFORE SHE GETS IN THIS CLINIC AGAIN!.

You say you despise the takeover of the gov. by monied interests. I despise the takeover of our gov. by ANY SPECIAL INTEREST, be they black, white, union, I think you get my message. I despise those who would single out any minority be they black, white or the top 1% as if they should not enjoy the same rights and freedoms as any other. You cite the 76,000 pages of the tax code as if it only benefits a certain special interest. On the contrary, it only goes to show that the concept of an income tax is a TOTAL FAILURE and is by its very nature unworkable.

You say that you are for background checks at gun shows. I may be wrong but I have heard that they are already required. If they are in fact not then WHAT GOOD DO YOU THINK THEY WOULD DO? Do you really have any facts to show that such action would reduce illgal use of guns. Just another law that does nothing but push paperwork. Being a conservative, I WANT FEWER LAWS, NOT MORE. I want to repeal laws not make more.

Simply put government is not in, nor has ever been, nor will it ever be in the charity business. IT IS IN THE BUSINESS OF RULES, REGULATIONS, TAXES, DEPENDENCE AND CONTROL!! Reagan was so right when he said that if someone showed up and said the were from the Gov. and there to help you, then you should bend over because you were about to get it!

These are what I call conservative views.

I don't think it is the government's business to enforce religious view points nor should it intrude in the bedroom. That being said I would take the time with my clientele to explore all the alternatives to abortion. In the end, it was their choice whether I personally liked it or not.

As for the legal stance, the country as a rule takes its legal cues from English Common Law. The ECL holds that a person is not a person a person until the child can breath and survive on its own. My religious tradition and belief says otherwise. But, there is a lot that has been written here about government enforcing morality. That I am not for.

As the first amendment right to free speech, it may protect the right to be shrill, but it does not say I have to keep my mouth shut if it hurts my ears.

I would prefer that people would be encouraged to take responsibility without the help of a social worker, but, there is a small minority that drops the ball. Yes, you can make someone do stuff when it is a health and safety issue. I could petition the courts for permission to do some coercive things. I could ask the judge to remove a child, order people to get mental health treatment, or get chemical dependency treatment. I could get orders for parents to pay child support and to reimburse the government for services rendered,. If you think were all warm fuzzies, think again.

Is the income tax system a failure? I think you and I agree.

As for more laws, consider becoming celibate. With increasing population density comes loss of freedom. If you keep generating more spawn, the you are contributing to the problem.

The government has been in the charity business from the outset. In the early days there were the poor farms and local relief. During the depression the New Deal inserted itself when local governments became overwhelmed. The people of the time wished it to be so.

Gun shows are exempt from background checks.

road kill
02-22-2013, 04:03 PM
Almost agree with you. BUT I can't nor will I ever agree with "wisdom lies in the word of the Lord" because in my mind all that stuff was written by man for control of the population. I don't need someone telling me about my God and how I should do this or that. Are there some good ideas in the Bible? Sure. Wisdom, eh not sure about that and I don't want our government and our politicians run this way. To each his though, but I fear that the religious right won't respect that if they ever get their chance at control.
Sarge asked me aquestion, I tried to answer it honestly.

Don't see any where in there or any other post I have ever made, telling anyone what they should beleive.
In fact, I am doubtful you have any clue in the world what I beleive spiritually.

BonMallari
02-22-2013, 04:14 PM
gun shows in my state are NOT exempt from the Brady bill....they always have an area set up to handle all the gun transactions

Socks
02-22-2013, 04:26 PM
Sarge asked me aquestion, I tried to answer it honestly.

Don't see any where in there or any other post I have ever made, telling anyone what they should beleive.
In fact, I am doubtful you have any clue in the world what I beleive spiritually.

I'm afraid I came off as attacking you, but that wasn't my intention. I just really don't like the idea of equating the Bible to higher education. Now as to the people that come both institutions there are good and there are bad, but I will argue that more bad has come from organized religion than universities throughout history.

road kill
02-22-2013, 05:31 PM
I'm afraid I came off as attacking you, but that wasn't my intention. I just really don't like the idea of equating the Bible to higher education. Now as to the people that come both institutions there are good and there are bad, but I will argue that more bad has come from organized religion than universities throughout history.
The old testament is nothing more than a history book.
The 10 commandments are a solid basis by which to live.

I belong to no organized relgion.

My cathedral is the woods or the marsh.
My God lives in my kids laughter, my wifes smile, my dogs love, the wings of a mallard, the sunset/sunrise, a flushed rooster on a fall day etc.!!!

If I have to explain any further, you wouldn't understand.

caryalsobrook
02-22-2013, 05:33 PM
gun shows in my state are NOT exempt from the Brady bill....they always have an area set up to handle all the gun transactions
That is what I have heard also. Never heard of a state exempting itself from federal law but maybe I am wrong.

caryalsobrook
02-22-2013, 06:11 PM
I don't think it is the government's business to enforce religious view points nor should it intrude in the bedroom. That being said I would take the time with my clientele to explore all the alternatives to abortion. In the end, it was their choice whether I personally liked it or not.

As for the legal stance, the country as a rule takes its legal cues from English Common Law. The ECL holds that a person is not a person a person until the child can breath and survive on its own. My religious tradition and belief says otherwise. But, there is a lot that has been written here about government enforcing morality. That I am not for.

As the first amendment right to free speech, it may protect the right to be shrill, but it does not say I have to keep my mouth shut if it hurts my ears.

I would prefer that people would be encouraged to take responsibility without the help of a social worker, but, there is a small minority that drops the ball. Yes, you can make someone do stuff when it is a health and safety issue. I could petition the courts for permission to do some coercive things. I could ask the judge to remove a child, order people to get mental health treatment, or get chemical dependency treatment. I could get orders for parents to pay child support and to reimburse the government for services rendered,. If you think were all warm fuzzies, think again.

Is the income tax system a failure? I think you and I agree.

As for more laws, consider becoming celibate. With increasing population density comes loss of freedom. If you keep generating more spawn, the you are contributing to the problem.

The government has been in the charity business from the outset. In the early days there were the poor farms and local relief. During the depression the New Deal inserted itself when local governments became overwhelmed. The people of the time wished it to be so.

Gun shows are exempt from background checks.No disrespect to gov. bureaucrats but they are to ENFORCE THE RULES AND REGULATIONS. While one may consider them charitable, nevertheless, regardless of how charitble the bureaucrat feels one is deserving, THE RULES AND REGULATIONS MUST BE FOLLOWED. However, individual charity has no rules or regulations to prevent what he or she feels is a generous giving to one they feel justly needs charity. the government has been "helping" the American Indian for over a hundred years and look where it has gotten them. The fact of the matter is those that have avoided the government "help" have been historically far better off. No matter the laack of food, medicine, shelter, the gov. bureaucrat MUST follow the rules and regulations. If one doesn't qualify then none can be provided. On the contrary, an individual follows his own heart. If you can't see that then you will never understand.

Population density has nothing to do with individual freedom. Such a statement is nothing but an excuse to limit another's individual freedom for the convience of another. Take the former Soviet Union, one of thelargest countries. Relatively less populated to many other countries but one that had almost no individual freedom. Always, almost always, excuses to limit individual freedom only is applied to a minority. The former Nazi Party comes to mind. I think anyone would accept the fact that Hitler chose to limit the individual freedom of the Jews using the excuse that they controled the money, and they were an impure race. The phrase "we are the 99%" reminds me of such demigogery. What ever happened to "we are the 100%"?!

As for the depression of 1930, the gov. raised taxes and instituted massive spending as as a result the depression lasted 15 years. The economic downturn(can't call it a depression because it didn't last long enough) of 1920 was far more severe. Unemployment of 35%, GDP drop also of about 35% far worse that 1930 or now. The action of the gov. was to reduce the highest marginal tax rate from 75% to 25% and cut the Fed budget from a little over 6 billion to less than 3 billion in a 2 year timespan. That brought on the roaring 20"s. Again pointing out that history says we never learn from history.

mngundog
02-22-2013, 06:29 PM
That is what I have heard also. Never heard of a state exempting itself from federal law but maybe I am wrong.
Firearms sales among unlicensed private sellers that not in the business of selling guns are exempt from the provisions of the Brady bill.

Socks
02-22-2013, 06:35 PM
The old testament is nothing more than a history book.
The 10 commandments are a solid basis by which to live.

I belong to no organized relgion.

My cathedral is the woods or the marsh.
My God lives in my kids laughter, my wifes smile, my dogs love, the wings of a mallard, the sunset/sunrise, a flushed rooster on a fall day etc.!!!

If I have to explain any further, you wouldn't understand.

I know where you're coming from and agree. The bible to me though will be nothing more than just another book, but the 10 commandments seem to be decent ideas

caryalsobrook
02-22-2013, 07:09 PM
Firearms sales among unlicensed private sellers that not in the business of selling guns are exempt from the provisions of the Brady bill.

If you read Zeus's post you will see that private sales were NOT mentioned. What he said was that he was for a law requiring background checks for GUN SHOW SALES.

mngundog
02-22-2013, 07:12 PM
If you read Zeus's post you will see that private sales were NOT mentioned. What he said was that he was for a law requiring background checks for GUN SHOW SALES.
Yes, but most states allow still allow people who are not authorized dealers to set up a booth and sell their personal firearms at gun shows. I would define this as a "gun show" sale, some states have banned the practice.

caryalsobrook
02-22-2013, 07:35 PM
Yes, but most states allow still allow people who are not authorized dealers to set up a booth and sell their personal firearms at gun shows. I would define this as a "gun show" sale, some states have banned the practice.
It really doesn't matter how you define it does it. It only matters what the law is. On second thoght maybe you are saying that the fed. gov. FU AGAIN! Who wudda guessed?

Ken Bora
02-22-2013, 11:00 PM
Real liberals don't post here.:)

I post here all the time ;-)