The Republican Party failed in many ways Tuesday night.

[MamaMia]

The Republican Party failed in many ways Tuesday night.

They failed to unseat a vulnerable incumbent president in a sluggish economy with high unemployment. They failed to pick up key seats in the Senate (Missouri) and even lost a few (Massachusetts, Maine, Indiana) seats that were more than winnable. They failed to translate their Tea Party-leanings into a viable electoral strategy that could continue to compete and win on a national level.

While failure inevitably leads to reflection and self-evaluation, there are at least three lessons that the GOP should NOT learn following this year's election.

First, Tuesday was not a repudiation of principle or of the party. Governor Romney was virtually tied with President Obama in the popular vote and lost several key swing states by very tight electoral margins. Republicans maintained their solid majority in the House. The Democratic lead in the Senate is small and virtually meaningless given the ability of Republicans to muster 41 votes to filibuster legislation.

The GOP did not win Tuesday night, but neither did it lose. It failed; insofar as it sought greater electoral success than it otherwise enjoyed before. As far as the result of Tuesday night's election, the nation simply voted for the status quo: a divided government between Democrats in the "higher chambers" and Republicans in the "lower chambers."

Second, and contrary to conventional wisdom, the GOP should not attempt to pivot to the center in the hopes of being rewarded politically. The GOP is the party of limited government, free enterprise, national honor, and traditional values (at least rhetorically). Any attempt to sever any of these pillars will only lead to further and more serious electoral disappointments. Irrespective of tonight's outcome, most Americans still believe the country is on the wrong track, that the government is too big and that it does too much. If the GOP needs to moderate anything, it is their collective tone rather than their philosophical positions.

Third and lastly, the GOP must not allow their electoral disappointments with Hispanic voters to result in a political about face on the issue of illegal immigration. Granting citizenship to illegal aliens would only further exacerbate the GOP's demographic dilemma by increasing the national share of minority voters who are far less receptive to a small government philosophy than is the GOP's largely white base. Capitulation on illegal immigration would lead to one of two long-term scenarios: political irrelevancy or the abandoning of its limited government philosophy. Instead, the GOP should focus on articulating to Hispanics, in a warm, hopeful, and respectful tone, how their governing philosophy would benefit them.

The GOP failed in many ways Tuesday night. Yet its failures were tactical, not substantive. There remains in the United States a deep political appetite for a philosophy of limited government. The GOP neglects this reality at its peril.

[TUSooner]

Mama, I'm afraid you just prescribed more failure by not changing anything. Despite the rhetoric from the far right, Obama is not a "socialist," but is actually being forced by the deficit -- among other factors -- into a more centrist position on the role of Government. It's maybe not really conservative but it's just barely centrist enough that the GOP's position looks like virtual anarchism. The right wing and the religious right need to recognize the simple fact that they are so extreme that they risk never being more than a noisy fringe minority. The GOP needs to tell the anti-science, Bible-thumping, paranoid xenophobes to start their own party. If they succeed, so be it, but right now they are a drag on sensible conservatism.

[landrun]

Mama, I'm afraid you just prescribed more failure by not changing anything. Despite the rhetoric from the far right, Obama is not a "socialist," but is actually being forced by the deficit -- among other factors -- into a more centrist position on the role of Government. It's maybe not really conservative but it's just barely centrist enough that the GOP's position looks like virtual anarchism. The right wing and the religious right need to recognize the simple fact that they are so extreme that they risk never being more than a noisy fringe minority. The GOP needs to tell the anti-science, Bible-thumping, paranoid xenophobes to start their own party. If they succeed, so be it, but right now they are a drag on sensible conservatism.

LOL! Yeah. How many votes would the Repubs have gotten last night without the 'bible-thumpers'?

Libs won by a very small margin. And until Califorinia voted, actually got few votes total than the Repubs had.

The only reason Obama won is because the black population, understandably so, turned out to vote for him more than they would have Hillary, John Kerry, Al Gore etc... Both McCain and Romney would have beat anyone else from the dems primaries - except for Obama. He's a unique figure in American politics.

[rock on sooner]

The GOP lost Senate seats because of chronic foot-in-mouth disease.
If America believes it is on the wrong track then why didn't Romney win?
I suggest that his ideas of the previous GOP approach are even more
unacceptable than the current, wobbly recovery. The GOP doesn't know
how to moderate its tone. So long as the far right of the party has so
influence, the tone and philosophical positions are one and the same.
And, finally, so long as the GOP is seen as non-inclusive, it will remain
the party of angry old white men, which, by the way, is a rapidly shrinking
demographic.

You are right about the idea of limited government. Many people on both
sides see the merit of smaller government but, given the current state of
things, there is still a need for the help for a lot of people.

[rock on sooner]

Landrun, you are correct about the small margin of victory, in terms of
percentage. I would point out that small percentage translates to 2.7
million voters.

[Mjcpr]

Who wrote this article?

[jk the sooner fan]

yeah mama didnt prescribe anything - she just posted an article

you really should give people credit for their writing when you post it on another forum as your own stuff

[jk the sooner fan]

Who wrote this article?

http://www.policymic.com/articles/18736/election-results-3-things-the-republican-party-should-not-do-after-losing-to-barack-obama

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Romney was a bad candidate. The Dems easily labelled him as a rich guy that doesn't care about the middle class and he only did things to bolster that perception.

The Republicans win when they stick to a message of fiscal responsibility, such as in 2010. They got creamed in 2006 because they had become corrupt and spendthrift. This year they couldn't stay on message with idiots like Akin and Mourdock going off the reservation.

[Breadburner]

Women failed badly as well...They voted for Obama.......

[SicEmBaylor]

The Republican Party failed in many ways Tuesday night.

They failed to unseat a vulnerable incumbent president in a sluggish economy with high unemployment. They failed to pick up key seats in the Senate (Missouri) and even lost a few (Massachusetts, Maine, Indiana) seats that were more than winnable. They failed to translate their Tea Party-leanings into a viable electoral strategy that could continue to compete and win on a national level.

While failure inevitably leads to reflection and self-evaluation, there are at least three lessons that the GOP should NOT learn following this year's election.

First, Tuesday was not a repudiation of principle or of the party. Governor Romney was virtually tied with President Obama in the popular vote and lost several key swing states by very tight electoral margins. Republicans maintained their solid majority in the House. The Democratic lead in the Senate is small and virtually meaningless given the ability of Republicans to muster 41 votes to filibuster legislation.

The GOP did not win Tuesday night, but neither did it lose. It failed; insofar as it sought greater electoral success than it otherwise enjoyed before. As far as the result of Tuesday night's election, the nation simply voted for the status quo: a divided government between Democrats in the "higher chambers" and Republicans in the "lower chambers."

Second, and contrary to conventional wisdom, the GOP should not attempt to pivot to the center in the hopes of being rewarded politically. The GOP is the party of limited government, free enterprise, national honor, and traditional values (at least rhetorically). Any attempt to sever any of these pillars will only lead to further and more serious electoral disappointments. Irrespective of tonight's outcome, most Americans still believe the country is on the wrong track, that the government is too big and that it does too much. If the GOP needs to moderate anything, it is their collective tone rather than their philosophical positions.

Third and lastly, the GOP must not allow their electoral disappointments with Hispanic voters to result in a political about face on the issue of illegal immigration. Granting citizenship to illegal aliens would only further exacerbate the GOP's demographic dilemma by increasing the national share of minority voters who are far less receptive to a small government philosophy than is the GOP's largely white base. Capitulation on illegal immigration would lead to one of two long-term scenarios: political irrelevancy or the abandoning of its limited government philosophy. Instead, the GOP should focus on articulating to Hispanics, in a warm, hopeful, and respectful tone, how their governing philosophy would benefit them.

The GOP failed in many ways Tuesday night. Yet its failures were tactical, not substantive. There remains in the United States a deep political appetite for a philosophy of limited government. The GOP neglects this reality at its peril.

You couldn't be more wrong. The results in this election can be attributed to the fact that the Republican party nominated a guy that started out with an enormous "likability" handicap who was never able to connect to the average voter. The convention helped this problem somewhat, but not nearly enough to create the sort of warm and trusting type of candidate they needed to win. There was an enormous disconnect between the feelings and struggles of average Americans and the things coming out of Mitt Romney's mouth and Obama skillfully exploited that disconnect never allowing the American people to fully embrace Romney. The support that Romney did have was mostly anti-Obama sentiment. Sure Romney had some supporter that genuinely liked the guy, but that's hardly enough to win an election or a single swing state.

Furthermore, this is was absolutely a repudiation of current Republican "philosophy" although I reject the notion that either of the two major political parties are ideological or philosophical, but let's just set that point aside for the moment...Neither Mitt Romney nor the Republican Party represented limited government. The list of ways that Romney would have increased the size and scope of government are too numerous to list.
1)Domestic spying
2)Foreign drone attacks
3)Increased military spending
4)Supported the bailout (at one point)
5)Supports a government managed economy
6)Has not proposed a single way he would increase personal liberty
7)Opposes civil unions
etc. etc. etc.

Romney, time and time again, has shown himself to be a friend of government and not an enemy to it. The Republican Party is soon going to die on the vine and it isn't because it isn't courting enough Hispanics by opposing immigration reform. The Republican Party must transform itself into a party that brings together a wide and diverse coalition of anti-government pro-liberty constituencies that clearly set themselves apart from the 'statists' that currently make up much of both the Republican and Democrat parties.

The Republican Party must bring together anti-tax/regulation advocates, pro-small business interests, property rights advocates, 2nd amendment advocates, people in favor of a less-robust foreign policy, civil liberty advocates, legalization advocates, etc. etc. At the same time, it can attract blue collar workers by opposing free trade agreements and doing more to promote (though not direct or manage) an economic environment in which they can thrive. Furthermore, the Republican Party on the state level must take a bigger role in crafting new and innovative social policy that addresses the needs of the people in the various states rather than continue to rely on the Republican Party to promote over-reaching Federal programs.

That would be a start.

[Soonerjeepman]

The GOP lost Senate seats because of chronic foot-in-mouth disease.
If America believes it is on the wrong track then why didn't Romney win?
I suggest that his ideas of the previous GOP approach are even more
unacceptable than the current, wobbly recovery. The GOP doesn't know
how to moderate its tone. So long as the far right of the party has so
influence, the tone and philosophical positions are one and the same.
And, finally, so long as the GOP is seen as non-inclusive, it will remain
the party of angry old white men, which, by the way, is a rapidly shrinking
demographic.

You are right about the idea of limited government. Many people on both
sides see the merit of smaller government but, given the current state of
things, there is still a need for the help for a lot of people.

Most of the people I know that voted for obama was more of "I KNOW what a crapper his is vs I DON'T KNOW what a crapper Romney is"

just saying. Funny, I'm not old or angry...but I am white!!!!! I prefer Euro-American, thank you very much.

[BoomerJack]

Here's a take on things from "Nation of Change"

Dear Republicans, This is Not Your Parents’ White House

By Christopher Petrella and Kim Tran

Dear Republicans,

You needed this defeat, and very badly. Over the last four years—arguably much longer— you seem to have forgotten that white, heterosexual, pro-corporate, god-fearing, married men are not the only people who live and vote in this country. Last night’s election demonstrates in unimpeachable terms that your entire political strategy is obsolete, exclusive, and supremely shortsighted, a fact that we leftists have known for far too long. We’re happy to have confirmation.

According to unofficial exit polls published yesterday night by CNN the white- and male-electorate represented the only two voting blocs that favored your ticket. You won the white vote by 18 percent and the male vote by nearly 10 percent. The Obama/Biden ticket, by contrast, won nearly every other social demographic. With a quickly diminishing white electorate (77 percent in 2000, 72 percent today), you need to be open to coalition building and legitimate political compromise that benefits a far larger swath of the citizenry.

Your opponents won the African American vote by 85 percent, the Latino vote (the fastest growing segment of our population) by 40 percent, the Asian vote by 50 percent, the women’s vote by 10 percent, the under-64 vote by 10 percent, and the “moderate” vote by 14 percent.

Willingness to coalition build means not consigning 51 percent of the U.S. population—women— to three-ring binders. A willingness to coalition build means supporting an organization like Planned Parenthood that performs 750,000 breast exams and 770,000 pap tests annually to women nationwide. Coalition building means repudiating, as a party, the disgraceful and erroneous assumptions pertaining to female anatomy and physiology characterized by comments recently made by Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock. Both Akin and Mourdock prove that you’re not only out of touch, but also largely ignorant of the emotional and economic cost of rape and unwanted pregnancies.

A study by the Guttmacher Institute found that unintended pregnancy costs American taxpayers approximately $11 billion annually. That’s billion, with a ‘B.’ And while these cases are not solely attributable to rape, unintended pregnancies disproportionately affect poor women of color. Is it any surprise that you basically failed to attract any of these voters?

With a quickly diminishing white electorate your party needs to develop a new strategy for meeting the changing needs of a changing population. This isn’t your parents’ “White” House. Don’t say we didn’t warn you.

Love,

The Left

This article was published at NationofChange at: http://www.nationofchange.org/dear-republicans-not-your-parents-white-house-1352304658. All rights are reserved. [/FONT]

[Skysooner]

Most of the people I know that voted for obama was more of "I KNOW what a crapper his is vs I DON'T KNOW what a crapper Romney is"

just saying. Funny, I'm not old or angry...but I am white!!!!! I prefer Euro-American, thank you very much.

That is kind of how I felt. I ended up voting for Romney simply on energy policy as that has a huge effect on my career, but it was how I viewed it for months.

[Mjcpr]

http://www.policymic.com/articles/18736/election-results-3-things-the-republican-party-should-not-do-after-losing-to-barack-obama


You couldn't be more wrong....

Don't blame her!!

[MamaMia]

Mama, I'm afraid you just prescribed more failure by not changing anything. Despite the rhetoric from the far right, Obama is not a "socialist," but is actually being forced by the deficit -- among other factors -- into a more centrist position on the role of Government. It's maybe not really conservative but it's just barely centrist enough that the GOP's position looks like virtual anarchism. The right wing and the religious right need to recognize the simple fact that they are so extreme that they risk never being more than a noisy fringe minority. The GOP needs to tell the anti-science, Bible-thumping, paranoid xenophobes to start their own party. If they succeed, so be it, but right now they are a drag on sensible conservatism.
The article didn't say anything about what we need to do about the things that would have changed if we would have won the election. Like whats going to happen with our taxes? Now that the election is over, thats what I'm worried about. I was hoping that we would win so that our taxes wouldn't be so bad.

Plus, I know nothing about ObamaCare and what thats going to cost us. I suppose we'll have to study all about that, especially being small business owners like we are. Right now we pay 100% of our employees health care package, but since we lost the election, that may change now. I don't know.

[Soonerjeepman]

Here's a take on things from "Nation of Change"

Coalition building means repudiating, as a party, the disgraceful and erroneous assumptions pertaining to female anatomy and physiology characterized by comments recently made by Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock. Both Akin and Mourdock prove that you’re not only out of touch, but also largely ignorant of the emotional and economic cost of rape and unwanted pregnancies.

ge at: http://www.nationofchange.org/dear-republicans-not-your-parents-white-house-1352304658. All rights are reserved. [/FONT]

really? glad to know that those 2 buffoon's represented me, a pro-life person. Both were idiots BUT that doesn't change the fact #1 "unintended" pregnancy...really? you had sex (both folks responsible, not just the woman) and it ended up in a pregnancy...wow...didn't know that would/could happen WITHOUT protective measures. #2 Abortions (how many does planned parenthood do?) less than 5% if that are due to rape/incest. #3 Planned parenthood gets MY TAX dollars THAT is wrong.

PS, I know this wasn't YOU but the arguments made by a leftist for the other side is like the right telling the left the same BS.

[MamaMia]

yeah mama didnt prescribe anything - she just posted an article

you really should give people credit for their writing when you post it on another forum as your own stuff Its just an email from my daughter. It didn't have a link, just some good points to discuss.

[MamaMia]

Okay, I found it. This is the link to the article she sent me.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/18736/election-results-3-things-the-republican-party-should-not-do-after-losing-to-barack-obama

I'm not use to searching on google chrome yet. I just changed from yahoo a couple weeks ago.

[jk the sooner fan]

how are the two different? dont they both have a search bar that you put your search topic in - and both have a "search now" button?

[SicEmBaylor]

Okay, I found it. This is the link to the article she sent me.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/18736/election-results-3-things-the-republican-party-should-not-do-after-losing-to-barack-obama

I'm not use to searching on google chrome yet. I just changed from yahoo a couple weeks ago.
Google Chrome is a browser (and also an OS but we won't get into that lest it turn into a repeat of the old Russ argument at the Posse) which is tied in with Google search -- yahoo is simply a search engine. In any case, they operate and function exactly the same way the only difference being the way each search engine queries and displays its results. In other words, there's little discernible difference.

[jk the sooner fan]

http://www.policymic.com/articles/18736/election-results-3-things-the-republican-party-should-not-do-after-losing-to-barack-obama


Okay, I found it. This is the link to the article she sent me.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/18736/election-results-3-things-the-republican-party-should-not-do-after-losing-to-barack-obama

I'm not use to searching on google chrome yet. I just changed from yahoo a couple weeks ago.

....

[MamaMia]

Google Chrome is a browser (and also an OS but we won't get into that lest it turn into a repeat of the old Russ argument at the Posse) which is tied in with Google search -- yahoo is simply a search engine. In any case, they operate and function exactly the same way the only difference being the way each search engine queries and displays its results. In other words, there's little discernible difference.I think I need to take my computer in. It keeps shutting down on me. I'll drop by there today on my way to the doctor and make an appt. to get it fixed.

Its been acting up a couple of weeks now. I have tried everything. I may need more memory, or at least thats what this Blue screen message keeps saying. Thats why I changed to Google Chrome. I had to just to open various pages that yahoo wouldn't open any longer.

[SicEmBaylor]

I think I need to take my computer in. It keeps shutting down on me. I'll drop by there today on my way to the doctor and make an appt. to get it fixed.

Its been acting up a couple of weeks now. I have tried everything. I may need more memory, or at least thats what this Blue screen message keeps saying. Thats why I changed to Google Chrome. I had to just to open various pages that yahoo wouldn't open any longer.

None of what you said makes the least bit of sense whatsoever and anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of computers knows that. There is no way that changing from Google Chrome (which is a browser not a search engine though the latter is obviously integrated with the former) to yahoo or to Ask Jeeves would have any impact on any kind of memory issue you have that leads to a BSOD.

I think you're getting very very poor computer advice from someone. The other day you said ATT DSL told you to stop using yahoo and, yet, ATT is partnered with and closely integrated with yahoo. In fact, it's hard to tell where yahoo integration stops and ends when it comes to ATT DSL, so the claim that they told you to stop using yahoo when it's integrated with their DSL service is pretty absurd I think.

[MamaMia]

Sorry Jon, I didn't see you found the link. Thank you.


Good grief.

[MamaMia]

None of what you said makes the least bit of sense whatsoever and anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of computers knows that. There is no way that changing from Google Chrome (which is a browser not a search engine though the latter is obviously integrated with the former) to yahoo or to Ask Jeeves would have any impact on any kind of memory issue you have that leads to a BSOD.

I think you're getting very very poor computer advice from someone. The other day you said ATT DSL told you to stop using yahoo and, yet, ATT is partnered with and closely integrated with yahoo. In fact, it's hard to tell where yahoo integration stops and ends when it comes to ATT DSL, so the claim that they told you to stop using yahoo when it's integrated with their DSL service is pretty absurd I think.
Like I said, its probably best to just take it in. I don't feel like messing with it anymore. I took a cell shot of the screen that keeps popping up when it shuts down, which it does a lot. Hopefully that will help the computer shop guy in figuring out whats going on. Its above my skills.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

A study by the Guttmacher Institute found that unintended pregnancy costs American taxpayers approximately $11 billion annually. That’s billion, with a ‘B.’ And while these cases are not solely attributable to rape, unintended pregnancies disproportionately affect poor women of color. Is it any surprise that you basically failed to attract any of these voters?


They're "unintended pregnancies" now, not human beings. That's a very cold calculus from the abortion on demand crowd. What other "unwanted" groups will get such labels from out intellectual superiors. I'm sure once the bills from Obamacare come due, the sick and elderly will become obsolete.

[XingTheRubicon]

Here's a take on things from "Nation of Change"

Dear Republicans, This is Not Your Parents’ White House

By Christopher Petrella and Kim Tran

Dear Republicans,

You needed this defeat, and very badly. Over the last four years—arguably much longer— you seem to have forgotten that white, heterosexual, pro-corporate, god-fearing, married men are not the only people who live and vote in this country. [/FONT]


Dear Liberals,


I'm not going to hire your sorry *ss.


Sincerely,


The Right

[BetterSoonerThanLater]

i need to get out of crazyfornia...anyone want to hire a 13 year Marine reservist that works in the airline industry? :)

[FaninAma]

Mama, I'm afraid you just prescribed more failure by not changing anything. Despite the rhetoric from the far right, Obama is not a "socialist," but is actually being forced by the deficit -- among other factors -- into a more centrist position on the role of Government. It's maybe not really conservative but it's just barely centrist enough that the GOP's position looks like virtual anarchism. The right wing and the religious right need to recognize the simple fact that they are so extreme that they risk never being more than a noisy fringe minority. The GOP needs to tell the anti-science, Bible-thumping, paranoid xenophobes to start their own party. If they succeed, so be it, but right now they are a drag on sensible conservatism.


Again, I will not support a Democrat-lite party. I already consider myself a libertarian but am willing to support the GOP if the offer enough difference on the economy and foreign policy from the Democrats. In addition, if the party in power(that be your boyz, TU) cannot get a handle on the deficit and oncoming fiscal train wreck they will enjoy this election cycle very little. In fact, they may come to rue the fact they won.

[FaninAma]

Dear Liberals,


I'm not going to hire your sorry *ss.


Sincerely,


The Right

I think there is more truth in your post than you realize. Businesses are already announcing cuts. Boeing has sent out a notice to their employess that there will be a significant workforce reduction coming soon.

[SicEmBaylor]

I know a guy in Colorado who owns a small trucking company that has decided to sell everything he has, law off his employees, sell his house, and move to the Cayman Islands to teach scuba lessons which is something he really enjoys doing. He's actually the only person I know of that is actually leaving the country because Obama was re-elected.

[StoopTroup]

People do retire.

[StoopTroup]

I think there is more truth in your post than you realize. Businesses are already announcing cuts. Boeing has sent out a notice to their employess that there will be a significant workforce reduction coming soon.

What's new? It's the Air Transport Business. Employees there are used to it.

[kevpks]

Dear Liberals,


I'm not going to hire your sorry *ss.


Sincerely,


The Right

More earners/moochers false binaries. That 47% and "Republicans sign their checks on the front" talk didn't work too well for Romney. If some Republican business owners want to pout and take their ball and go home, I'm sure there are others (from both parties) with a much less childish outlook willing to help this economy grow.

[FaninAma]

People do retire.

I know several physicians who have decided to retire earlier than they had originally planned because they are tired of the goverenment interference in medicine.

[StoopTroup]

Mama, I'm afraid you just prescribed more failure by not changing anything. Despite the rhetoric from the far right, Obama is not a "socialist," but is actually being forced by the deficit -- among other factors -- into a more centrist position on the role of Government. It's maybe not really conservative but it's just barely centrist enough that the GOP's position looks like virtual anarchism. The right wing and the religious right need to recognize the simple fact that they are so extreme that they risk never being more than a noisy fringe minority. The GOP needs to tell the anti-science, Bible-thumping, paranoid xenophobes to start their own party. If they succeed, so be it, but right now they are a drag on sensible conservatism.

Amen. Obama if anything is and always has been a Moderate.

I'm a moderate. So is Romney on odd numbered calendar days. Other times, he's for what sounds good today.

The Tea Party named themselves The Tea Party. I know the GOP couldn't help but to sign them up and try and appease them but they like you are saying...need to be run off or told to STFU.

[kevpks]

I know several physicians who have decided to retire earlier than they had originally planned because they are tired of the goverenment interference in medicine.

I don't find "I know several..." and "I know a guy who..." posts to be very convincing. Medicine is not my field, so I would be interested to hear more details about what specifically is driving these doctors to retirement.

[StoopTroup]

I know several physicians who have decided to retire earlier than they had originally planned because they are tired of the goverenment interference in medicine.

There will be 10 more to fill their shoes. There comes a time where making good financial decisions should take place. I think it's good that they are retiring as they would have been risking a lot if Romney had been elected. You are crazy if you think Obamacare would have been repealed Day One.

I wish them well in their retirement. My Physician just retired too. Right after he did, he found out he had cancer.

Things happen for a reason.

[olevetonahill]

i need to get out of crazyfornia...anyone want to hire a 13 year Marine reservist that works in the airline industry? :)

I need some yard werk done

[rock on sooner]

There will be 10 more to fill their shoes. There comes a time where making good financial decisions should take place. I think it's good that they are retiring as they would have been risking a lot if Romney had been elected. You are crazy if you think Obamacare would have been repealed Day One.

I wish them well in their retirement. My Physician just retired too. Right after he did, he found out he had cancer.

Things happen for a reason.

Well, don't know about the cancer thing, but I'm sure that so many
people don't know about the details of ACA that there will be a big
time surprise as the different aspects go into effect and people realize
that the ACA really is something to help the majority and it is pretty
fairly priced to help so many people when they didn't have help before.
I'd venture to say that many here don't know just how much it is beneficial
when there is a broader participation. The issue here, folks, is that the
more healthy young people who get on board and participate the cheaper
it becomes. Now, your argument about paying for nothing goes away when
these young healthy folks need help, and they will, this is a given!

[rock on sooner]

I need some yard werk done

Vet, they couldn't stand the nekkidness..they'd go blind. 'Sides they'd
be skeeered of yer stitches and stuff!!:biggrin:

[olevetonahill]

Vet, they couldn't stand the nekkidness..they'd go blind. 'Sides they'd
be skeeered of yer stitches and stuff!!:biggrin:

Well hell.

[TUSooner]

I know several physicians who have decided to retire earlier than they had originally planned because they are tired of the goverenment interference in medicine.

On the other hand, my dad got tired of private practice and became a military doc (talk about government "interference"!)

[BoulderSooner79]

I know several physicians who have decided to retire earlier than they had originally planned because they are tired of the goverenment interference in medicine.

I know lots of doctors. Most are frustrated and some are even retiring. But it's not because of government - it's from price fixing what they can charge coming from private insurance companies and HMOs.

[FaninAma]

I know lots of doctors. Most are frustrated and some are even retiring. But it's not because of government - it's from price fixing what they can charge coming from private insurance companies and HMOs.
Welll apparently the physicians you know don't care that under Obama Care the government is hiring several thousand more fraud and abuse inspectors because they are going to go hard after hospitals and physicians for "abuse" of the system, not fraud. Abuse is anything that HCFA says it is.

Also, I doubt the physicians you talk to do very much business with Meidcare or Medicaid. If they did they sure wouldn't be bitching about private health insurance companies. BTW, do the physicians you know take Medicaid or Medicare? If not, why not?

[SanDiegoSoonerGal]

Dear Liberals,


I'm not going to hire your sorry *ss.


Sincerely,


The Right

Dear Right,

So what else is new? You haven't hired us in years. Too busy outsourcing American jobs overseas.

Sincerely,
Registered Independent whose former job is now being performed in India

[SicEmBaylor]

Dear Right,

So what else is new? You haven't hired us in years. Too busy outsourcing American jobs overseas.

Sincerely,
Registered Independent whose former job is now being performed in India
It never ceases to amaze me when I hear liberals (not necessarily saying you are one) complain about oursourcing jobs when they are responsible for the environmental, regulatory, tax, union agreements, and minimum wage policies that caused those jobs to be shipped overseas as a result.

I'll tell you what -- start supporting politicians who advocate rolling back the kind of policies that kill jobs and make it too expensive to produce things in the United States and then maybe, just maybe, you'll get your job back because no politician can force a business to hire anyone and Obama isn't going to get your job back.

[SanDiegoSoonerGal]

It never ceases to amaze me when I hear liberals (not necessarily saying you are one) complain about oursourcing jobs when they are responsible for the environmental, regulatory, tax, union agreements, and minimum wage policies that caused those jobs to be shipped overseas as a result.

I'll tell you what -- start supporting politicians who advocate rolling back the kind of policies that kill jobs and make it too expensive to produce things in the United States and then maybe, just maybe, you'll get your job back because no politician can force a business to hire anyone and Obama isn't going to get your job back.

First, I don't expect Obama, or any politician*, to get my job back. In fact, I fully expect to lose the one I have now to overseas outsourcing as well. I changed careers and industries in an effort to keep working, but I'm already seeing the writing on the wall: the industry I am in now (health care) is just a little slower to catch up with the trend.

But anyway.

Back in the glory days of my youth in the Mesozoic age, many many things were manufactured in the United States, unions and all, even with all the union-bestowed benefits and negotiated wages, and no one that I recall complained that it was too expensive to produce things in the US.

Insofar as I remember, that excuse started popping up only after manufacturers outsourced jobs overseas with the realization that they could pay impoverished workers elsewhere ten cents an hour, or something like that, for a 7-day 20-hour workweek, with no benefit costs and not even any laws regulating the safety of the workers' conditions--conditions that would of course cost the company $ to implement.

Am I wrong? If so, I am willing to be educated.

All that aside though, really? Minimum wage is a bad thing? A reasonable workweek (brought to you by union agreements) is a bad thing? Policies that protect the environment from such as acid rain are a bad thing? Expecting hugely profitable corporations to pay taxes even slightly proportionate to their income what a middle-class individual pays is a bad thing? Employers not being allowed to pay any hourly wage they deem suitable, and demand employees work whatever number of hours in a week they decree, else lose their jobs, is a bad thing?

As I said, I'm willing to be educated.

*I especially didn't expect Romney to get my job back as Bain Capital outsourced it in the first place.

[StoopTroup]

It will take awhile....he's off being amazed.

[BetterSoonerThanLater]

Vet, they couldn't stand the nekkidness..they'd go blind. 'Sides they'd
be skeeered of yer stitches and stuff!!:biggrin:

Aint know differnt than what they do in san fransicko. At least in OK I'd. Be around good people and family

[XingTheRubicon]

Dear Right,

So what else is new? You haven't hired us in years. Too busy outsourcing American jobs overseas.

Sincerely,
Registered Independent whose former job is now being performed in India

Sorry to hear about your job.

[XingTheRubicon]

More earners/moochers false binaries. That 47% and "Republicans sign their checks on the front" talk didn't work too well for Romney. If some Republican business owners want to pout and take their ball and go home, I'm sure there are others (from both parties) with a much less childish outlook willing to help this economy grow.

It doesn't change the fact that Republicans own this country. Look at how the 200K+ voted. Almost 2 to 1 against Obama.


We decide who works. We'll let you know.

[rock on sooner]

First, I don't expect Obama, or any politician*, to get my job back. In fact, I fully expect to lose the one I have now to overseas outsourcing as well. I changed careers and industries in an effort to keep working, but I'm already seeing the writing on the wall: the industry I am in now (health care) is just a little slower to catch up with the trend.

But anyway.

Back in the glory days of my youth in the Mesozoic age, many many things were manufactured in the United States, unions and all, even with all the union-bestowed benefits and negotiated wages, and no one that I recall complained that it was too expensive to produce things in the US.

Insofar as I remember, that excuse started popping up only after manufacturers outsourced jobs overseas with the realization that they could pay impoverished workers elsewhere ten cents an hour, or something like that, for a 7-day 20-hour workweek, with no benefit costs and not even any laws regulating the safety of the workers' conditions--conditions that would of course cost the company $ to implement.

Am I wrong? If so, I am willing to be educated.

All that aside though, really? Minimum wage is a bad thing? A reasonable workweek (brought to you by union agreements) is a bad thing? Policies that protect the environment from such as acid rain are a bad thing? Expecting hugely profitable corporations to pay taxes even slightly proportionate to their income what a middle-class individual pays is a bad thing? Employers not being allowed to pay any hourly wage they deem suitable, and demand employees work whatever number of hours in a week they decree, else lose their jobs, is a bad thing?

As I said, I'm willing to be educated.

*I especially didn't expect Romney to get my job back as Bain Capital outsourced it in the first place.


Very sound argument and well stated!

[JohnnyMack]

It doesn't change the fact that Republicans own this country. Look at how the 200K+ voted. Almost 2 to 1 against Obama.


We decide who works. We'll let you know.

Rich white people voted Republican?!?!?!? Somebody alert teh mediaz!!!!!!!!!

[TUSooner]

It never ceases to amaze me when I hear liberals (not necessarily saying you are one) complain about outsourcing jobs when they are responsible for the environmental, regulatory, tax, union agreements, and minimum wage policies that caused those jobs to be shipped overseas as a result.

I'll tell you what -- start supporting politicians who advocate rolling back the kind of policies that kill jobs and make it too expensive to produce things in the United States and then maybe, just maybe, you'll get your job back because no politician can force a business to hire anyone and Obama isn't going to get your job back.

Keep in mind that SicEm is neither a republican nor a democrat (small "r" and small "d"). His politics defy description, I call it laissez-faire fascism, or totalitarian libertarianism, which may oxymorons, but I said he defies description. In SicEm's America, the sole virtue is the amassing of wealth by "the right sort of people" who speak English. Immigrants muddy the gene pool and pollute the culture. Poor people likewise are a drag and need to exported, exploited, or bought and sold. (Really, they ought to do the decent thing and "self-exterminate.") Unhampered procreation by poor people and non-English speakers ought to be stopped, by governments if necessary.

On the other hand, things that tend to hinder the amassing of wealth must be eradicated - you know, stuff like environmental protection laws, labor protection laws, human rights laws, taxes (especially if used for social services that "enable" poverty), and, well, -- what the heck -- the entire federal government. If there's not a profitable market for something -- big national parks for example, or public transportation used only by poor people who can't afford cars, they should go. Only "producers" should be allowed to vote. Which would actually disqualify him unless promulgating bizarre social theories counts as production. His model? The Confederacy comes close, but he's willing to borrow from the National Socialists (not the really nasty stuff, of course!) and similar geniuses of social engineering. Poor houses and debtors' prisons? Bring 'em on! And restore capital punishment for property crimes, while you're at it. Ayn Rand is a liberal softie in comparison.

Am I too harsh SicEm? I really am trying to be accurate (though mostly just snarky, I confess). I expect I may have missed the mark in some respects, but on some points I expect you to defend yourself with at least a "What's wrong with that?" You might get a lot of support! Seriously, I mean this all in a sporting way, and I hope I exaggerate a lot. But you have expressed some of these thoughts over the years. And I am not calling you stupid, just wrong, IMHO. Anyway, here's your chance to correct my many errors and to evangelize the gospel according to SicEm. I yield the floor, Sir.

PS- Regarding your post: Outsourcing to places where sweat-shops are accepted does make perfect sense when the only "value" in the world is making money. And allowing those things here (like in the "good old days") would certainly create more jobs, just like slavery would lead to virtually full employment.

EDIT = y'all know I actually like SicEm, right?

[XingTheRubicon]

Rich white people voted Republican?!?!?!? Somebody alert teh mediaz!!!!!!!!!

No, everyone together (women, men, white, brown, black, gay, straight) that made over 200K voted Republican 2/1.




You know, the haves.

[FaninAma]

On the other hand, my dad got tired of private practice and became a military doc (talk about government "interference"!)

With Obama setting his sights on Military spending I would be looking for another place to practice. I know your dad is probably retired and won't have to worry about it. But what people don't realize that when you cut military spending you are cutting a lot of spending on social services for personnel. And I wonder what will happen to the unemployment rate when forces are reduced and defense contractors cut back?

Elections have consequences,

[FaninAma]

TU you are very good at labeling people you disagree with and creating strawmen arguments based on emotion to try and discredit them. Typical tactics when you can't argue your opponents stances with any objectivity or facts.

[SoonerorLater]

The title of this thread however is correct, the Republicans did fail in many ways. I'm not sure why we should be even a little surprised that Romney lost and republicans lost congressional seats. Romney was nominated with tepid support from a conservative base because he was considered "electable". Obviously not. Since no party is the party of af ederal government that is limited in size and scope why not vote Democrat? The number of people in the U.S that want to be taken care of is of is growing daily. This should bode well for Democrats in the future.

[Soonerjeepman]

It doesn't change the fact that Republicans own this country. Look at how the 200K+ voted. Almost 2 to 1 against Obama.


We decide who works. We'll let you know.

wait..I'm rep and only make 59K...ugh...lol

[OU_Sooners75]

Let's face it. The only reason the GOP lost the national election was because neither on the ticket were of minority.

95% of the minority people voted for a minority president.

Couple that with a younger generation that wishes they could change their skin color and WHAM! you have the democrats winning a very very close election.

But than again, you look at demographics of the election, and one could conclude that the reason Obama was reelected was simple becasuse the vast majority of thos that elected him are on some sort of government welfare.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Well, don't know about the cancer thing, but I'm sure that so many
people don't know about the details of ACA that there will be a big
time surprise as the different aspects go into effect and people realize
that the ACA really is something to help the majority and it is pretty
fairly priced to help so many people when they didn't have help before.
I'd venture to say that many here don't know just how much it is beneficial
when there is a broader participation. The issue here, folks, is that the
more healthy young people who get on board and participate the cheaper
it becomes. Now, your argument about paying for nothing goes away when
these young healthy folks need help, and they will, this is a given!


You know nothing about economics or cost drivers.

[rock on sooner]

You know nothing about economics or cost drivers.

Okay, smart guy. Tell me ALL about the ACA.

[SoonerAtKU]

It doesn't change the fact that Republicans own this country. Look at how the 200K+ voted. Almost 2 to 1 against Obama.


We decide who works. We'll let you know.

I think maybe you need to take a little break from arguing on the internet for a while. Maybe spend some time on your yacht to decompress. Ski the Alps.


P.S. Talking about your salary is so New Money.

[TitoMorelli]

Let's face it. The only reason the GOP lost the national election was because neither on the ticket were of minority.

95% of the minority people voted for a minority president.

Couple that with a younger generation that wishes they could change their skin color and WHAM! you have the democrats winning a very very close election.

But than again, you look at demographics of the election, and one could conclude that the reason Obama was reelected was simple becasuse the vast majority of thos that elected him are on some sort of government welfare.

If we manage to survive the next four years, I just wonder which symbolic identity-politics candidate will be the Dems' next darling. Hillary is already looking old and frumpy, and probably missed her chance. Maybe Debbie Wasserman-Schnauser could get the nod, since she is a double-qualifier (Jewish and female).

Menendez probably blew any chance he had of getting to be the first historic Hispanic Democrat nominee (then again, silly little things like hiring and then stiffing prostitutes doesn't bother Dem voters).

And I really can't think of any other light-skinned eloquent blacks who are rising stars within the party. And they have to be light-skinned and talk like a white person in order for Harry Reid and his compatriots to give them a chance.

Maybe they'll go with trying to win by promoting the first openly gay candidate for president...hmmmm, no, somehow I don't think Barney would draw much support nationwide.

Looks like they might have a real challenge on their hands finding the next empty suit to foist off on the country.

[kevpks]

More earners/moochers false binaries. That 47% and "Republicans sign their checks on the front" talk didn't work too well for Romney. If some Republican business owners want to pout and take their ball and go home, I'm sure there are others (from both parties) with a much less childish outlook willing to help this economy grow.

It doesn't change the fact that Republicans own this country. Look at how the 200K+ voted. Almost 2 to 1 against Obama.


We decide who works. We'll let you know.

That's one of the more pompous comments I've seen on the Internet in awhile. You act as if every hiring decision is made by one guy behind a desk in a Gordon Gekko suit. That's not how it works for jobs in education, health care, public service, etc.

I'm doing fine thank you and would never want a job from someone like you anyway. Your salary does not give your ideas merit. Your callous response does not address the point that the GOP rhetoric is not resonating.

If entrepreneurs want to pout about the election and retreat into a shell, I'm sure there are other wiser, more industrious men and women ready to take their market share.

[kevpks]

No, everyone together (women, men, white, brown, black, gay, straight) that made over 200K voted Republican 2/1.




You know, the haves.

I don't know about the country you live in, but in the United States not everyone making under 200K is a "have not." That's how your candidate sees the world too and look where it got him. I've been registered as a Republican since I was 18, have worked hard and built a nice career. I haven't made it to 200K but certainly don't feel like a "have not" nor should anyone who is able to provide for his/her family and secure a proming future for his/her children.

People making over 200K voted for Romney in part because they are afraid their taxes will go up under Obama. That's fine but people act as if their bank account grants them some kind of profound wisdom about the best direction for the country.

[TUSooner]

That's one of the more pompous comments I've seen on the Internet in awhile. You act as if every hiring decision is made by one guy behind a desk in a Gordon Gekko suit. That's not how it works for jobs in education, health care, public service, etc.

I'm doing fine thank you and would never want a job from someone like you anyway. Your salary does not give your ideas merit. Your callous response does not address the point that the GOP rhetoric is not resonating.

If entrepreneurs want to pout about the election and retreat into a shell, I'm sure there are other wiser, more industrious men and women ready to take their market share.
Hear him!

[TUSooner]

Let's face it. The only reason the GOP lost the national election was because neither on the ticket were of minority.

95% of the minority people voted for a minority president.

Couple that with a younger generation that wishes they could change their skin color and WHAM! you have the democrats winning a very very close election.

But than again, you look at demographics of the election, and one could conclude that the reason Obama was reelected was simple becasuse the vast majority of thos that elected him are on some sort of government welfare.

This is the amusing aspect of these threads. The losers refuse to accept the fact that their strident brand of conservatism does not resonate even with people who might otherwise agree with generally conservative economic policies. This is especially so when everyone who dosagrees with Rush-Beck-Hannity, et al., is falsely and scurrilously branded as a taker or a socialist or a moocher or what have you. THE WORLD IS NOT DIVIDED INTO ONLY TWO KINDS OF PEOPLE. Lots of decent, smart, hardworking, responsible, caring, God-fearing people realized that today's GOP is a slave to the loony fringe and has thus become a party of fear and ignorance that depends on vilifying anyone who might be an opponent and stoking the paranoia of its own followers. Whoever said the GOP has become an "apocalyptic cult" was bang spot on. Just take a sniff of the acrid bitterness oozing from some of the losing right-wing rug-chewers around here. It's the smell of the bunker.

[JohnnyMack]

No, everyone together (women, men, white, brown, black, gay, straight) that made over 200K voted Republican 2/1.




You know, the haves.

By and large,

Rich people vote Republican

Poor people vote Democrat

It's what happens.

Except for poor/working class midwestern bible thumpers who are too dumb to realize that the GOP doesn't represent their best financial interests, but Jeebus will save them, so it's OK.

[BoulderSooner79]

This is the amusing aspect of these threads. The losers refuse to accept the fact that their strident brand of conservatism does not resonate even with people who might otherwise agree with generally conservative economic policies. This is especially so when everyone who dosagrees with Rush-Beck-Hannity, et al., is falsely and scurrilously branded as a taker or a socialist or a moocher or what have you. THE WORLD IS NOT DIVIDED INTO ONLY TWO KINDS OF PEOPLE. Lots of decent, smart, hardworking, responsible, caring, God-fearing people realized that today's GOP is a slave to the loony fringe and has thus become a party of fear and ignorance that depends on vilifying anyone who might be an opponent and stoking the paranoia of its own followers. Whoever said the GOP has become an "apocalyptic cult" was bang spot on. Just take a sniff of the acrid bitterness oozing from some of the losing right-wing rug-chewers around here. It's the smell of the bunker.

^This counts for me. I'm in the demographic sweet spot for the republicans. Baby boomer white guy that earns enough money to get hit by tax increases. I used to be a republican and would like to be again someday, but I'm not counting on it. Until hard right idealogues that are at the base of the RNC get swept aside, I will remain independent and most likely vote with the democrats. I'm just one vote, but I don't think I'm alone.

[SoonerorLater]

If somebody's brand of conservatism seems strident it's probably because the listener isn't conservative. Completely different thing than being put-off by some loudmouth radio talk-show host. If indeed there is as you describe "acrid bitterness' it is because over the last half century this country has devolved from a country where morality and self-sufficiency were the norm into a more permissive nanny state that many of the conservatives you describe detest. It's a cultural tug-of-war. Just like a real tug-of-war you can't just pull hard enough to maintain equilibrium. You have to harder and harder to break the opponent.

[JohnnyMack]

This is the amusing aspect of these threads. The losers refuse to accept the fact that their strident brand of conservatism does not resonate even with people who might otherwise agree with generally conservative economic policies. This is especially so when everyone who dosagrees with Rush-Beck-Hannity, et al., is falsely and scurrilously branded as a taker or a socialist or a moocher or what have you. THE WORLD IS NOT DIVIDED INTO ONLY TWO KINDS OF PEOPLE. Lots of decent, smart, hardworking, responsible, caring, God-fearing people realized that today's GOP is a slave to the loony fringe and has thus become a party of fear and ignorance that depends on vilifying anyone who might be an opponent and stoking the paranoia of its own followers. Whoever said the GOP has become an "apocalyptic cult" was bang spot on. Just take a sniff of the acrid bitterness oozing from some of the losing right-wing rug-chewers around here. It's the smell of the bunker.

I HEART YOU.

[kevpks]

If somebody's brand of conservatism seems strident it's probably because the listener isn't conservative. Completely different thing than being put-off by some loudmouth radio talk-show host. If indeed there is as you describe "acrid bitterness' it is because over the last half century this country has devolved from a country where morality and self-sufficiency were the norm into a more permissive nanny state that many of the conservatives you describe detest. It's a cultural tug-of-war. Just like a real tug-of-war you can't just pull hard enough to maintain equilibrium. You have to harder and harder to break the opponent.

Morality was the norm? When was that? The 1950s or 60s? Ask a person of color living in the South back then how they feel about that statement.

[SicEmBaylor]

Morality was the norm? When was that? The 1950s or 60s? Ask a person of color living in the South back then how they feel about that statement.
I call that 'the good old days.'

[TUSooner]

*****Except for poor/working class midwestern bible thumpers who are too dumb to realize that the GOP doesn't represent their best financial interests, but Jeebus will save them, so it's OK.

Careful, you're talking about my family. :biggrin:

[rock on sooner]

^This counts for me. I'm in the demographic sweet spot for the republicans. Baby boomer white guy that earns enough money to get hit by tax increases. I used to be a republican and would like to be again someday, but I'm not counting on it. Until hard right idealogues that are at the base of the RNC get swept aside, I will remain independent and most likely vote with the democrats. I'm just one vote, but I don't think I'm alone.

I'm not in the Pubs sweet spot but, have over the years, voted for the best
candidate, regardless of party. I think you're spot on about the hard right
and the need for the Pubs to remove that influence from the party. If they
do that and open minded, pragmatic and inclusive thinkers exert some force
in the party, then I believe there's hope for the two party system. If the
hard right stays intractable now, then, IMO, 2014 will show substantial gains
for the Dems in the House, Senate, too, but I don't know how many seats the
Pubs defend in 2014.

[Skysooner]

^This counts for me. I'm in the demographic sweet spot for the republicans. Baby boomer white guy that earns enough money to get hit by tax increases. I used to be a republican and would like to be again someday, but I'm not counting on it. Until hard right idealogues that are at the base of the RNC get swept aside, I will remain independent and most likely vote with the democrats. I'm just one vote, but I don't think I'm alone.

I'm also in the sweet spot, and I was Republican registered until the 2008 election. It was some of the hard right policies that made me rethink my affiliation but by and large I still vote for moderate candidates. As many know, I ended up voting for Romney this election cycle due to the energy industry, but I voted straight Democrat after that. It is goint to take a centrist party or a reshifting of what values are core to the Republicans before I would come back.

[TUSooner]

If somebody's brand of conservatism seems strident it's probably because the listener isn't conservative. Completely different thing than being put-off by some loudmouth radio talk-show host. If indeed there is as you describe "acrid bitterness' it is because over the last half century this country has devolved from a country where morality and self-sufficiency were the norm into a more permissive nanny state that many of the conservatives you describe detest. It's a cultural tug-of-war. Just like a real tug-of-war you can't just pull hard enough to maintain equilibrium. You have to harder and harder to break the opponent. I understand this sort of sentiment, but I think it's just wrong because
(1) your rosy view of the glorious past is simply dreamy and overly romanticized (though I acknowledge that rise of welfare in the 1960's actually harmed families more than it helped) and (2) your nightmare vision of an all-consuming nanny state is also exaggerated. I doubt that even the staunchest Obamanites think they could get that even if they wanted it. And if they overreach, there will be a backlash against them, just like their is a backlash against the Tea Party.

But your fears are exactly why we need the GOP to stop catering to the bible-thumping anti-intelligence loonies on the right! We need a SENSIBLE conservative party who can check the overexhuberance of the left without having to drag a bunch of freaky lunatics along for the fight. I'm telling you, the biggest liability of the Republican party is its so called "base" of Te Party nutcakes.

Right now, I imagine the GOP is going to see a fight between those who think it would have won if only it had run a far-right Santorum-like campaign, and those who want to distance the party from the loony fringe. If the Santorum-ish wing wins, kiss good-bye to any sensible opposition to the Democrats, or pray for a new centrist party. Because the paranoia and religious puritanism of the nutty far right is highly unlikely to resonate with a majority of Americans.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

This is the amusing aspect of these threads. The losers refuse to accept the fact that their strident brand of conservatism does not resonate even with people who might otherwise agree with generally conservative economic policies. This is especially so when everyone who dosagrees with Rush-Beck-Hannity, et al., is falsely and scurrilously branded as a taker or a socialist or a moocher or what have you. THE WORLD IS NOT DIVIDED INTO ONLY TWO KINDS OF PEOPLE. Lots of decent, smart, hardworking, responsible, caring, God-fearing people realized that today's GOP is a slave to the loony fringe and has thus become a party of fear and ignorance that depends on vilifying anyone who might be an opponent and stoking the paranoia of its own followers. Whoever said the GOP has become an "apocalyptic cult" was bang spot on. Just take a sniff of the acrid bitterness oozing from some of the losing right-wing rug-chewers around here. It's the smell of the bunker.

This is the best political post I have ever read on here..Instant boner.

[TUSooner]

I'm also in the sweet spot, and I was Republican registered until the 2008 election. It was some of the hard right policies that made me rethink my affiliation but by and large I still vote for moderate candidates. As many know, I ended up voting for Romney this election cycle due to the energy industry, but I voted straight Democrat after that. It is goint to take a centrist party or a reshifting of what values are core to the Republicans before I would come back.

Me too, basically. As should be apparent, I voted for Obama, but I was prepared to get up and go to work if Romney had won. I don't think he would have been a bad President, partly because I doubt he was a far to the right as he campaigned in the primaries. But who could know? And I did not want to encourage the Faux News zombies and Tea Party simpletons by giving them the White House. I hope someday to be able to vote for a Republican President, but Id 'd like it to be an Ike or even a Bush I instead of the crop of corn flakes they paraded in front of the nation last year.

[JohnnyMack]

Careful, you're talking about my family. :biggrin:

And mine. :P

[JohnnyMack]

This is the best political post I have ever read on here..Instant boner.

A/S/L?

[SoonerorLater]

Morality was the norm? When was that? The 1950s or 60s? Ask a person of color living in the South back then how they feel about that statement.

You're pointing to the exception to prove the point. With that and maybe a few other things (technology excluded) we have digressed as a country. I might add that the we felt that this was such a significant problem that we passed a contitutional ammendment. That is the way it is supposed to work.

Also just to clarify when I talk about morality I'm aware that everybody living in the USA in 1960 wasn't saintly. What I am saying is there is a BIG difference between individual morality and institutionalized immorality. The latter is what most conservatives battle against.

[JohnnyMack]

I understand this sort of sentiment, but I think it's just wrong because
(1) your rosy view of the glorious past is simply dreamy and overly romanticized (though I acknowledge that rise of welfare in the 1960's actually harmed families more than it helped) and (2) your nightmare vision of an all-consuming nanny state is also exaggerated. I doubt that even the staunchest Obamanites think they could get that even if they wanted it. And if they overreach, there will be a backlash against them, just like their is a backlash against the Tea Party.

But your fears are exactly why we need the GOP to stop catering to the bible-thumping anti-intelligence loonies on the right! We need a SENSIBLE conservative party who can check the overexhuberance of the left without having to drag a bunch of freaky lunatics along for the fight. I'm telling you, the biggest liability of the Republican party is its so called "base" of Te Party nutcakes.

Right now, I imagine the GOP is going to see a fight between those who think it would have won if only it had run a far-right Santorum-like campaign, and those who want to distance the party from the loony fringe. If the Santorum-ish wing wins, kiss good-bye to any sensible opposition to the Democrats, or pray for a new centrist party. Because the paranoia and religious puritanism of the nutty far right is highly unlikely to resonate with a majority of Americans.

The GOP needs more Newt Gingrich and Chris Christie and Less Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann. In fact the latter two should be strapped to a rocket and launched into the sun.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Except for poor/working class midwestern bible thumpers who are too dumb to realize that the GOP doesn't represent their best financial interests, but Jeebus will save them, so it's OK.

I'm sure kevpks won't get indignant over this stereotyping.

If only these folks had mental giants like JM and kevpks to show them the error of their ways. After all, JM is the new Jesus. Just ask him. He'll tell you.

[JohnnyMack]

I'm sure kevpks won't get indignant over this stereotyping.

If only these folks had mental giants like JM and kevpks to show them the error of their ways. After all, JM is the new Jesus. Just ask him. He'll tell you.

I did stop shaving for "Movember". Maybe I should become a deity, get a funky beard going, start a cult.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

I know my life is better for reading your nuggets of enlightenment. I think you should shave everything and be the bald Jesus.

[okie52]

Oh God...the Republican party is dead...they just can't relate to the common man.

Just 10 years ago Mr. Robert Reich:


I know a dead party when I see one, and I’m looking at a dead party right now. Just consider the past eight years: lost the presidency, both houses of Congress, almost all its majorities in state legislatures; will lose additional house seats in the next redistricting; most of the current justices of the Supreme Court appointed by Republicans; and the interminable Bill Clinton scandal. The Democrat Party is stone dead. Dead as a doornail.
Source: Crashing the Party, by Ralph Nader, p.245 , Oct 14, 2002

[StoopTroup]

This is the amusing aspect of these threads. The losers refuse to accept the fact that their strident brand of conservatism does not resonate even with people who might otherwise agree with generally conservative economic policies. This is especially so when everyone who dosagrees with Rush-Beck-Hannity, et al., is falsely and scurrilously branded as a taker or a socialist or a moocher or what have you. THE WORLD IS NOT DIVIDED INTO ONLY TWO KINDS OF PEOPLE. Lots of decent, smart, hardworking, responsible, caring, God-fearing people realized that today's GOP is a slave to the loony fringe and has thus become a party of fear and ignorance that depends on vilifying anyone who might be an opponent and stoking the paranoia of its own followers. Whoever said the GOP has become an "apocalyptic cult" was bang spot on. Just take a sniff of the acrid bitterness oozing from some of the losing right-wing rug-chewers around here. It's the smell of the bunker.

Word. It's the smell of what it really smelled like in "The Bubble". You can't know what's on the outside of the Bubble (Bunker) unless you pour out the Febreeze open the door and let in some fresh air.

[Skysooner]

Me too, basically. As should be apparent, I voted for Obama, but I was prepared to get up and go to work if Romney had won. I don't think he would have been a bad President, partly because I doubt he was a far to the right as he campaigned in the primaries. But who could know? And I did not want to encourage the Faux News zombies and Tea Party simpletons by giving them the White House. I hope someday to be able to vote for a Republican President, but Id 'd like it to be an Ike or even a Bush I instead of the crop of corn flakes they paraded in front of the nation last year.

I was really close to voting for Obama as well. I had some big fear that Romney would govern from the far right which would, of course, have ensured a Demo victory in 2016. Still it all worked out although to hear it the sky is falling per my fellow supervisors here.

[kevpks]

You're pointing to the exception to prove the point. With that and maybe a few other things (technology excluded) we have digressed as a country. I might add that the we felt that this was such a significant problem that we passed a contitutional ammendment. That is the way it is supposed to work.

Also just to clarify when I talk about morality I'm aware that everybody living in the USA in 1960 wasn't saintly. What I am saying is there is a BIG difference between individual morality and institutionalized immorality. The latter is what most conservatives battle against.

Racism was institutionalized back then. What is the institutionalized immorality you are referring to? I'm not trying to be inflammatory. I just wanted to know what exactly we are talking about.

[okie52]

I was really close to voting for Obama as well. I had some big fear that Romney would govern from the far right which would, of course, have ensured a Demo victory in 2016. Still it all worked out although to hear it the sky is falling per my fellow supervisors here.

Maybe your supervisors have a better grasp of Obama after seeing his energy policies the last 4 years.

[kevpks]

I'm sure kevpks won't get indignant over this stereotyping.

If only these folks had mental giants like JM and kevpks to show them the error of their ways. After all, JM is the new Jesus. Just ask him. He'll tell you.

I don't know about indignant but I am well aware that people ("midwestern bible thumpers") vote on more issues than just financial interests.

[Skysooner]

Maybe your supervisors have a better grasp of Obama after seeing his energy policies the last 4 years.

Actually they weren't talking energy. It was more misinformation (i.e. gun control etc.) that was being blasted about. As I said, I voted Romney. Basically what happens now is that they all have to work together. Divided government at its best.

[kevpks]

Neil Boortz sums up the failings of the GOP (my party on paper anyway) better than I could.


Stop crying in your beer and listen up. America is going to suffer another four years under Obama because of YOU. The Republican party blew this one --- big time. Abortion – gay marriage – immigration reform. The perfect electoral storm, and you couldn’t have played it any worse. Leave these issues alone! Drop them! If the GOP cannot turn loose of this mindless social conservatism, then you will be relegated to second class status (politically speaking) for the remaining days of this Republic, which may not be all that many. The Republican Party as it currently stands needs to die.


http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2012/nov/08/republican-party-let-me-help-you-out/

[SoonerorLater]

Racism was institutionalized back then. What is the institutionalized immorality you are referring to? I'm not trying to be inflammatory. I just wanted to know what exactly we are talking about.

OK off the top. Gambling, abortion, pornography, same sex marriage. Not even to mention the many esoteric laws and regulations that lead to profligate behavior.

[okie52]

Actually they weren't talking energy. It was more misinformation (i.e. gun control etc.) that was being blasted about. As I said, I voted Romney. Basically what happens now is that they all have to work together. Divided government at its best.

I knew you voted for Romney. Surprised they weren't talking energy since we know that Obama will truly suck in that area.

[SoonerorLater]

Neil Boortz sums up the failings of the GOP (my party on paper anyway) better than I could.




http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2012/nov/08/republican-party-let-me-help-you-out/

This is the problem I have with Neil Boortz. He expects the Republican Party to run on a defacto Libertarian Platform. What Boortz doesn't seem to understand is that if a lot of conservatives, me included, had to vote for a candidate that supported "Abortion – gay marriage – immigration reform" then there wouldn't be any point to vote for that candidate. We might just as well have Obama. Frankly Boortz's moral issues don't matter schtick is wearing thin with me. Obviously it does matter to a lot of people.

[kevpks]

OK off the top. Gambling, abortion, pornography, same sex marriage. Not even to mention the many esoteric laws and regulations that lead to profligate behavior.

So we need bigger government to regulate people's lives on these issues? And the party that is supposed to be the proponent of small government is supposed to be the one to do it? This is the schizophrenic nature of today's GOP that I don't understand. This seems to be a consequence of reaching out to the religious right. It's good for getting votes in some states but I think the religious rhetoric is hurting the party nationally. This interesting timeline shows the development of the GOP platform. Personally, I'm glad I live in a state that is conservative on many of these issues but it is not a winning strategy nationally IMO.

http://billmoyers.com/content/timeline-the-religious-right-and-the-republican-platform/

[okie52]

Neil Boortz sums up the failings of the GOP (my party on paper anyway) better than I could.




http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2012/nov/08/republican-party-let-me-help-you-out/

Is it social conservatism to be against open borders and amnesty?

[kevpks]

This is the problem I have with Neil Boortz. He expects the Republican Party to run on a defacto Libertarian Platform. What Boortz doesn't seem to understand is that if a lot of conservatives, me included, had to vote for a candidate that supported "Abortion – gay marriage – immigration reform" then there wouldn't be any point to vote for that candidate. We might just as well have Obama. Frankly Boortz's moral issues don't matter schtick is wearing thin with me. Obviously it does matter to a lot of people.

I completely understand that. I just wish those issues weren't in the spotlight in the presidential campaign. Those positions were also argued very poorly by Akin and a few others. It cost the party the senate and I argue the presidency because it distracted from the economy.

[Soonerjeepman]

lol...got to laugh at some of these post. I'm pro-life, anti gay marriage, LEGAL immigration reform and fiscal conservative and since I have a different view of the social issues I'm "far right" and out of touch. So basically you want me to compromise MY beliefs and morals. Sorry not doing it, and honestly I think it will come around. If not, so be it. I do agree the party is so wishy/washy on it. Either come out strong and stay with it or change and choose what you believe. I agree with kevpks, I think the pubs didn't come out strong and argue the economy better and even tried to back away from their conservative stance.

3 million repub didn't vote..not sure that would have changed the election, but it definitely didn't help.

[kevpks]

lol...got to laugh at some of these post. I'm pro-life, anti gay marriage, fiscal conservative and since I have a different view of the social issues I'm "far right" and out of touch. So basically you want me to compromise MY beliefs and morals. Sorry not doing it.

3 million repub didn't vote..not sure that would have changed the election, but it definitely didn't help.

I don't think it is a question of candidates being too far right. I think the GOP needs candidates with broader appeal. They have to do better with women, minorities, and young people. That probably requires compromises on some issues, not for the individual voter but for the candidate and the national platform. I'm not sure how that compromises your morals.

Good point about the 3 million. I'm shocked so many republicans stayed home given all of the anti-Obama sentiment we've been hearing for four years. There are some highly paid strategists who need to formulate a better plan for 2014.

[SoonerorLater]

So we need bigger government to regulate people's lives on these issues? And the party that is supposed to be the proponent of small government is supposed to be the one to do it? This is the schizophrenic nature of today's GOP that I don't understand. This seems to be a consequence of reaching out to the religious right. It's good for getting votes in some states but I think the religious rhetoric is hurting the party nationally. This interesting timeline shows the development of the GOP platform. Personally, I'm glad I live in a state that is conservative on many of these issues but it is not a winning strategy nationally IMO.

http://billmoyers.com/content/timeline-the-religious-right-and-the-republican-platform/

Moyers is such a liberal hack. His time line while it may be factually correct it doesn't present a balanced representation of the religious right. Given who it is written by nobody should expect it to be. Many of the platform reforms were in response to what conservatives believed to be an attack on the moral fabric of the country by left wingers like Moyers. Naturally abortion wasn't a campaign issue before 1973. It was illegal. You went to jail. Then presto through the Supreme Court discovering our "Right to Privacy" after about 200 years, we find out that not only is abortion not illegal but it is a right as defined by our constitution. I'm not a big fan of most of the media gospel but because of the constant moral encroachment on society by the progressive faction they had to draw a line in the sand.

[TUSooner]

I just had to laugh when I saw this:

an attack on the moral fabric of the country by left wingers like Moyers

Bill Moyers attacking the moral fabric of our country? BILL MOYERS!? I suppose that makes Mr. Rogers the Anti-Christ. Sorry, I know that was not really your point. Carry on.

[TUSooner]

OK off the top. Gambling, abortion, pornography, same sex marriage. Not even to mention the many esoteric laws and regulations that lead to profligate behavior.

You left out the part about how drinking alcohol disappeared during Prohibition.

Sorry, I'm not really picking on you, because I do basically understand your point of view.

[TUSooner]

The last time a Puritan political movement gained political power we got Prohibition. That may be why it was -- I hope -- the LAST time a Puritan political movement gained political power.

[Soonerjeepman]

I'm not sure how that compromises your morals.

Good point about the 3 million. I'm shocked so many republicans stayed home given all of the anti-Obama sentiment we've been hearing for four years. There are some highly paid strategists who need to formulate a better plan for 2014.

hmm, well, if they are open to supporting those things I don't then that compromises my morals, (voting for them) ....understanding it's a moral issue for me...make sense?

I do think obama's group really did a better job of recruiting the vote....working the ground people...which got him another 4. He counted of the dumbass that don't understand the economy to vote for him and got them to. Again, I know, obviously lots of non-minorities voted for him, BUT MOST minorities voted for him and IF the 3 mill pubs voted for Romney he would have got tne the popular vote. So, yes, race and skin color had a lot to do with it and if people deny that they are really blind.

[Midtowner]

Racism was institutionalized back then. What is the institutionalized immorality you are referring to? I'm not trying to be inflammatory. I just wanted to know what exactly we are talking about.

Social conservatives back then fought against interracial marriage, or "misogyny" as they put it. I think he forgot to qualify his statement about fighting against institutionalized immorality by stating that they fight what they subjectively believe to be institutionalized immorality. That's a lot different than objective institutional morality because morality is subjective.

[SoonerorLater]

You left out the part about how drinking alcohol disappeared during Prohibition.

Sorry, I'm not really picking on you, because I do basically understand your point of view.

I guess you could say the same for any law from shoplifting to murder. I wouldn't choose to repeal those laws. I'm not under any illlusion that we can stop individuals from bad behavior. We can as a society choose not to institutionalize certain behaviors that in aggragate, degrade society.

[champions77]

I think that the election results says a lot more about what this country is becoming and what is "acceptable" rather than what is wrong with the GOP. The left is a "failed ideology" in that this track we are on cannot be sustained. The percentage of citizens receiving some type of federal payments has gone from 30% in 1983, to 49.10% in the First quarter of 2011. So extrapolating this out to the future, at some point, there will not be enough workers to keep the country running. Someone will have to do the work. So at some point in time, whether it be ten years or twenty years, the federal government will demand that some work. They have been paying you in exchange for your vote, but they will come to you demanding your labor in return. You owe them.

I have to laugh when the lefties charge the GOP with being radical, while all the same time creating a welfare/nanny state, accepting a 16 Trillion in debt with no serious demands that it be reduced, feverishly looking for ways to circumvent the Constitution, expanding the federal Government reach, power, scope and intrusiveness far beyond what any of the Framers intended, while other lefties explore the ideas of UN Control over us and extol the virtues of a One World Government. Upon closer examination, many would say that the Democratic Party are the radicals, that the Democratic Party has moved, that the GOP has remained pretty consistent with their values and principles and position on the issues.

As to the election, it's hard beating Santa Clause.

[kevpks]

hmm, well, if they are open to supporting those things I don't then that compromises my morals, (voting for them) ....understanding it's a moral issue for me...make sense?..

It does make sense. It is just going to get increasingly more difficult for a presidential candidate to win in an electoral college system if national views on those issues are changing, particularly same-sex marriage. This is especially true when you couple that with the changing demographics. If non-whites aren't voting for Republicans, the GOP needs to figure out why and more effectively chip away at those numbers.

I'm comfortable with leaving most social issues to the states. States won't be able to do that on same-sex marriage. Now there is a Democrat president who may have the opportunity to appoint as many as three Supreme Court justices. I'd be willing to bet there will be a Supreme Court ruling in favor of same sex marriage within 10 years. That's why I think that issue is a losing battle.

[kevpks]

I have to laugh when the lefties charge the GOP with being radical, while all the same time creating a welfare/nanny state, accepting a 16 Trillion in debt with no serious demands that it be reduced, feverishly looking for ways to circumvent the Constitution, expanding the federal Government reach, power, scope and intrusiveness far beyond what any of the Framers intended, while other lefties explore the ideas of UN Control over us and extol the virtues of a One World Government. Upon closer examination, many would say that the Democratic Party are the radicals, that the Democratic Party has moved, that the GOP has remained pretty consistent with their values and principles and position on the issues.

As to the election, it's hard beating Santa Clause.

I don't know if I'd call the GOP radical. I think the Tea Party has hurt the GOP in the Senate and possibly helped them in the House. I just think they've had a bad approach to running for president the last few tries. Both Romney and McCain had a very narrow path to victory that hinged on a few swing states. Romney needed FL and OH. Obama only needed one. Find a way to put a large Blue state in play. I know there were a lot of issues with his campaign and this is just an example but Rudy Giuliani could have put New York in play.

[TitoMorelli]

Good food for thought on both posts, kevpks.

[olevetonahill]

By and large,

Rich people vote Republican

Poor people vote Democrat

It's what happens.

Except for poor/working class midwestern bible thumpers who are too dumb to realize that the GOP doesn't represent their best financial interests, but Jeebus will save them, so it's OK.

If you really believe that, You are dumber than I thot
Im Not Rich, Im Not a Bible Thumper( I do believe tho that a Person can have what ever beliefs they want)

Its Peeps Like YOU an TU(who I normally agree with on most things)
That keep leading this Country down the sewer path.

Most The Folks I KNOW who vote RePub do so because they believe that a Person Should work or sacrifice for what they get , NOT have it handed to them by the Government

[TUSooner]

I think that the election results says a lot more about what this country is becoming and what is "acceptable" rather than what is wrong with the GOP. The left is a "failed ideology" in that this track we are on cannot be sustained. The percentage of citizens receiving some type of federal payments has gone from 30% in 1983, to 49.10% in the First quarter of 2011. So extrapolating this out to the future, at some point, there will not be enough workers to keep the country running. Someone will have to do the work. So at some point in time, whether it be ten years or twenty years, the federal government will demand that some work. They have been paying you in exchange for your vote, but they will come to you demanding your labor in return. You owe them.

I have to laugh when the lefties charge the GOP with being radical, while all the same time creating a welfare/nanny state, accepting a 16 Trillion in debt with no serious demands that it be reduced, feverishly looking for ways to circumvent the Constitution, expanding the federal Government reach, power, scope and intrusiveness far beyond what any of the Framers intended, while other lefties explore the ideas of UN Control over us and extol the virtues of a One World Government. Upon closer examination, many would say that the Democratic Party are the radicals, that the Democratic Party has moved, that the GOP has remained pretty consistent with their values and principles and position on the issues.

As to the election, it's hard beating Santa Clause.

The lame GOP construct that "THERE'S ONLY TWO KINDS OF PEOPLE!" has been addressed and discredited elsewhere. Lots of smart, hard-working, self-sufficient people voted for Obama, without expecting him to drop down the chimney. And we can listen to Rush ourselves if we want to hear what he thinks.

[FaninAma]

The GOP needs more Newt Gingrich and Chris Christie and Less Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann. In fact the latter two should be strapped to a rocket and launched into the sun.

There's a whole ****load of people the Democrats could do without(including Harry reid, Sheila Jackson Lee, Joe Biden, Jesse Jackson ,Jr) but that apparently doesn't stop the voters who want stuff from the government from voting for them.

Here's the deal. Your party won 2/3 of the election. That doesn't mean what they are selling is the right thing for the country or that the GOP's stance is the wrong thing. It means that you were able to convince a slim majority of voters, most of whom are in the lower echelon of the socioeconomic strata in this country, to vote for your party. To now take that slim margin and pretend to have some deep insight on how the GOP should conduct itself going forward is laughable.

Now the countdown starts on how long it takes TU to show up and start the name calling.

[FaninAma]

The lame GOP construct that "THERE'S ONLY TWO KINDS OF PEOPLE!" has been addressed and discredited elsewhere. Lots of smart, hard-working, self-sufficient people voted for Obama, without expecting him to drop down the chimney. And we can listen to Rush ourselves if we want to hear what he thinks.

But tak away those that do expect something from the government ans see where it leaves the Democrats....certainly not as the winners of last Tuesday's election.

[rock on sooner]

I don't know if I'd call the GOP radical. I think the Tea Party has hurt the GOP in the Senate and possibly helped them in the House. I just think they've had a bad approach to running for president the last few tries. Both Romney and McCain had a very narrow path to victory that hinged on a few swing states. Romney needed FL and OH. Obama only needed one. Find a way to put a large Blue state in play. I know there were a lot of issues with his campaign and this is just an example but Rudy Giuliani could have put New York in play.

There were 83 TPers in the House and 10 of em got tossed. There will
be a LOT more of them tossed in two years if they stay on their current
plan of attack.

Guiliani was too busy ranting about Obama's response to Sandy.

The GOP was outcoached by the Dems, COMPLETELY snowed under
by the Dem ground game, blueprint for 2016..GOP better start right
now.

[kevpks]

But tak away those that do expect something from the government ans see where it leaves the Democrats....certainly not as the winners of last Tuesday's election.

There are probably some distinctions to be made in the group that expects something from the government. There is a big difference between wanting to expand the welfare system and wanting to prevent cuts to Pell Grants, for example.

[kevpks]

There were 83 TPers in the House and 10 of em got tossed. There will
be a LOT more of them tossed in two years if they stay on their current
plan of attack.

Guiliani was too busy ranting about Obama's response to Sandy.

The GOP was outcoached by the Dems, COMPLETELY snowed under
by the Dem ground game, blueprint for 2016..GOP better start right
now.

I'm talking about Giuliani's 2008 campaign, not his comments today when he didn't even try to run for president. I agree with you on the Tea Party for the most part but one cannot deny they helped fire up the party in the midterm election last time.

[TUSooner]

If you really believe that, You are dumber than I thot
Im Not Rich, Im Not a Bible Thumper( I do believe tho that a Person can have what ever beliefs they want)

Its Peeps Like YOU an TU(who I normally agree with on most things)
That keep leading this Country down the sewer path.

Most The Folks I KNOW who vote RePub do so because they believe that a Person Should work or sacrifice for what they get , NOT have it handed to them by the Government

See, that's the thing I just can't agree with, the idea that not-voting RePub means you favor a Robin Hood / nanny state instead of people working.

Sewer path? Cut me little slack!

[rock on sooner]

There's a whole ****load of people the Democrats could do without(including Harry reid, Sheila Jackson Lee, Joe Biden, Jesse Jackson ,Jr) but that apparently doesn't stop the voters who want stuff from the government from voting for them.

Here's the deal. Your party won 2/3 of the election. That doesn't mean what they are selling is the right thing for the country or that the GOP's stance is the wrong thing. It means that you were able to convince a slim majority of voters, most of whom are in the lower echelon of the socioeconomic strata in this country, to vote for your party. To now take that slim margin and pretend to have some deep insight on how the GOP should conduct itself going forward is laughable.

Now the countdown starts on how long it takes TU to show up and start the name calling.

If you think the GOP should stay the course and not try to become more
inclusive and openminded, then it'll be a long time before you win another
national election, just sayin...

[champions77]

The lame GOP construct that "THERE'S ONLY TWO KINDS OF PEOPLE!" has been addressed and discredited elsewhere. Lots of smart, hard-working, self-sufficient people voted for Obama, without expecting him to drop down the chimney. And we can listen to Rush ourselves if we want to hear what he thinks.

You are right, there are some hard working, self sufficient people that voted for BHO. But unfortunately the "self sufficiency" you refer to is under attack by the Democratic Party. Personal responsibility, and self reliance are virtues that unfortunately are being undermined by the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is creating a following of voters by their distribution of "government goodies", and this class of dependents is doing great harm to the country, not only in it's impact on the deficit, but what is is doing to them personally.
Not much upward mobility for those that are accepting a life of dependency.

If a law were to be passed tomorrow that if you do not work, and you have elected to take welfare from the Federal Government, that you forfeit all voting rights, you would see the Democratic Party abandon these folks the next day. Would have no use for them.

[TUSooner]

There's a whole ****load of people the Democrats could do without(including Harry reid, Sheila Jackson Lee, Joe Biden, Jesse Jackson ,Jr) but that apparently doesn't stop the voters who want stuff from the government from voting for them.

Here's the deal. Your party won 2/3 of the election. That doesn't mean what they are selling is the right thing for the country or that the GOP's stance is the wrong thing. It means that you were able to convince a slim majority of voters, most of whom are in the lower echelon of the socioeconomic strata in this country, to vote for your party. To now take that slim margin and pretend to have some deep insight on how the GOP should conduct itself going forward is laughable.

Now the countdown starts on how long it takes TU to show up and start the name calling.

I'm here. No name calling just yet, though.

[rock on sooner]

I'm talking about Giuliani's 2008 campaign, not his comments today when he didn't even try to run for president. I agree with you on the Tea Party for the most part but one cannot deny they helped fire up the party in the midterm election last time.

They absolutely did fire up the party in 2010, and a lot of what they have
done since fired up the other party in 2012. If they keep it up, it'll be a
raging inferno in 2014.

[kevpks]

They absolutely did fire up the party in 2010, and a lot of what they have
done since fired up the other party in 2012. If they keep it up, it'll be a
raging inferno in 2014.

However, they would probably be better off sticking to the Taxed Enough Already talking points and steer clear of Akin moments.

[Skysooner]

Ultimately Obama won't hurt my company too bad. We are onshore and not heavily dependent on public lands.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Ultimately Obama won't hurt my company too bad. We are onshore and not heavily dependent on public lands.

Good for you. We'll see if Obama now, unencumbered by having to run again, will slow down or severely restrict offshore permitting. If so, folks down here can join the folks in Michigan and Ohio an the ur line.

[Skysooner]

If he does restrict offshore there will be a shift onshore. Lots and lots to drill onshore right now especially in Michigan and Ohio.

[FaninAma]

There are probably some distinctions to be made in the group that expects something from the government. There is a big difference between wanting to expand the welfare system and wanting to prevent cuts to Pell Grants, for example.

By all means lets argue over minutae while the economy and defcit go down the toilet. Now, if the GOP were cutting college student loans then you might have my sympathy. I never received a Pell grant. Never even applied. I did just finish paying back over $80K in college loans with an average interest rate of 8%.

[kevpks]

By all means lets argue over minutae while the economy and defcit go down the toilet. Now, if the GOP were cutting college student loans then you might have my sympathy. I never received a Pell grant. Never even applied. I did just finish paying back over $80K in college loans with an average interest rate of 8%.

I'm sorry for wasting your time rather than solving the deficit. I didn't think I was looking for sympathy. Who cares if you ever had a Pell Grant? I never had one either. That doesn't mean it's not a successful program. Personally, I think investing in education gives you a more educated workforce that helps grow the economy. I also would hope our government is willing to argue over what you call minutiae. Tough decisions need to be made I would hope they would debate the merits of each program they cut or restructure.

My point was that the moocher characterization has failed the GOP miserably. It works great in an Ayn Rand novel, not so much in contemporary politics.

[StoopTroup]

Ultimately Obama won't hurt my company too bad. We are onshore and not heavily dependent on public lands.

I'm hoping ours will finally quit hiding in bankruptcy with the 4 billion dollars they had in the bank when they filed Chapter 11. Word is they have 5 billion now and that the Bain Playbook is why. Nothing like a little Corporate Welfare to grow a nice nest egg.

[SicEmBaylor]

Keep in mind that SicEm is neither a republican nor a democrat (small "r" and small "d"). His politics defy description, I call it laissez-faire fascism, or totalitarian libertarianism, which may oxymorons, but I said he defies description. In SicEm's America, the sole virtue is the amassing of wealth by "the right sort of people" who speak English. Immigrants muddy the gene pool and pollute the culture. Poor people likewise are a drag and need to exported, exploited, or bought and sold. (Really, they ought to do the decent thing and "self-exterminate.") Unhampered procreation by poor people and non-English speakers ought to be stopped, by governments if necessary.
You're probably somewhat on track. Everyone has the right to make and earn a living by whatever means possible -- I would certainly never limit someone's ability to accumulate wealth. I'm actually a very firm believer in everyone being treated equally under the law which is, for example, why I support gay marriage rights. It is absolutely true that I don't like immigration for the precise reason you just stated, but I would challenge your assertion that I think poor people should be exported, exploited, and/or bought and sold. To the contrary, I actually don't oppose all social safety nets -- I oppose social safety nets at the Federal level. I consider myself somewhat moderate on the issue when it comes to state policy. I believe states ought to be the incubators for social change and experimental labs for social policy. Let me be clear -- I am adamantly opposed to government coercion. The idea of forcibly sterilizing people (minority, poor, or otherwise) is so repugnant to me that I would be the first in the streets leading a revolution against it. If you remember, years ago, Homey used to make this EXACT argument and I had some pretty lengthy arguments with him over the subject of forced sterilization. You're actually described his position fairly well but certainly not mine.


On the other hand, things that tend to hinder the amassing of wealth must be eradicated - you know, stuff like environmental protection laws, labor protection laws, human rights laws, taxes (especially if used for social services that "enable" poverty), and, well, -- what the heck -- the entire federal government.
Not quite the entire Federal government, but a significant portion of it as it currently exists. Disputes between states must be resolved by someone, some interstate commerce regulation is justifiable, foreign policy must be conducted as one voice, providing for the common defense is necessary of any free society, etc. etc.

If there's not a profitable market for something -- big national parks for example,
I'm a proponent of historical site preservation. Some national parks are fine, but not in the number or acreage we have now.

or public transportation used only by poor people who can't afford cars, they should go.
I am opposed to public transportation.

Only "producers" should be allowed to vote. Which would actually disqualify him unless promulgating bizarre social theories counts as production.
I don't think "producers" or property ownership are good criteria for determining the privilege of voting. I've thought for a long time that passage of a basic 8th grade level civics test should be what is required.

His model? The Confederacy comes close,
The Confederacy in theory; not the Confederacy in practice.

but he's willing to borrow from the National Socialists (not the really nasty stuff, of course!) and similar geniuses of social engineering. Poor houses and debtors' prisons? Bring 'em on! And restore capital punishment for property crimes, while you're at it. Ayn Rand is a liberal softie in comparison.
Now that bit about National Socialism is nonsense. There is absolutely nothing that I like, admire, or agree with about National Socialism from top to bottom. The problem is that I'm a regionalist not a nationalist. The very idea of pledging unwavering faith or love into a government or national party is utterly repulsive to me in every possible way. There is nothing I don't hate about National Socialism from its managed "corporatism" economy to its suppression of individual thought. The only thing I'd come close to saying I have in common with them is the protection of social identity and culture, but how we do that would be very very different.


Am I too harsh SicEm? I really am trying to be accurate (though mostly just snarky, I confess).
I think so, yes. I consider myself a 'small r' republican...a southern agrarian very much in line with Jefferson's own concept of a very small republic that maximizes individual liberty. Where I differ with him is the extent to which it's important to preserve certain social institutions. It's hard to pin down my ideology, like you said. Paleoconservatism comes pretty close; although, I have some issues there as well. Eugene Genovese was highly influential on me.


I expect I may have missed the mark in some respects, but on some points I expect you to defend yourself with at least a "What's wrong with that?" You might get a lot of support! Seriously, I mean this all in a sporting way, and I hope I exaggerate a lot. But you have expressed some of these thoughts over the years. And I am not calling you stupid, just wrong, IMHO. Anyway, here's your chance to correct my many errors and to evangelize the gospel according to SicEm. I yield the floor, Sir.

You are sort of on the right track with me, but you miss the mark a bit. Part of the problem is that you mix up my personal distastes with some issues and some people as a desire to see government forcibly construct a reality that fits my world view -- nothing could be further from the truth. For example, I will admit that I'm prejudicial when it comes to minorities. I vehemently deny being a racist, but I do have a fairly strong strength of prejudice running through my veins. Having said that, the idea of limiting someone's rights because of skin color is disgusting to me. That doesn't mean I want them playing at my country club though. ;)

PS- Regarding your post: Outsourcing to places where sweat-shops are accepted does make perfect sense when the only "value" in the world is making money. And allowing those things here (like in the "good old days") would certainly create more jobs, just like slavery would lead to virtually full employment.[/QUOTE]

[champions77]

I'm sorry for wasting your time rather than solving the deficit. I didn't think I was looking for sympathy. Who cares if you ever had a Pell Grant? I never had one either. That doesn't mean it's not a successful program. Personally, I think investing in education gives you a more educated workforce that helps grow the economy. I also would hope our government is willing to argue over what you call minutiae. Tough decisions need to be made I would hope they would debate the merits of each program they cut or restructure.

My point was that the moocher characterization has failed the GOP miserably. It works great in an Ayn Rand novel, not so much in contemporary politics.

Failed the GOP? Facts are facts. Food stamps recipients up from 30 to 47 million, 23 million out of work, and countless other taking part time employment. These numbers represent more than GOP talking points. They are an indication that our country is not well. You and Obama want to ignore it, but if it continues the next four years, you will see a once proud country begin to look more like a 3rd world country, with adults sitting around on the porch with nothing to do.

At what point in time do apologists like you finally begin to hold this man accountable for his actions? Is this really what you bargained for? Is being for secondary issues like gay marriage and abortion really going to be the issues that sustain you thorough disastrous economic times? Will your lefty friends be satisfied that the gay men next door are now married, but you can't find a job and wait for your government check so all is now good?

[FaninAma]

I'm sorry for wasting your time rather than solving the deficit. I didn't think I was looking for sympathy. Who cares if you ever had a Pell Grant? I never had one either. That doesn't mean it's not a successful program. Personally, I think investing in education gives you a more educated workforce that helps grow the economy. I also would hope our government is willing to argue over what you call minutiae. Tough decisions need to be made I would hope they would debate the merits of each program they cut or restructure.

My point was that the moocher characterization has failed the GOP miserably. It works great in an Ayn Rand novel, not so much in contemporary politics.

It irritates me because as I stated it is minutae. It is a distraction and a diversionary topic to try and demonize those who might actually favor controlling spending. When the GOP talks about cutting spending the Democrats pull out tidbits like Pell grants and then try to demonize the Republicans and emotionally tie all of their budget proposals together in the same light. And appearing by your vehement defense of Pell grants it looks like their tactic has worked.

Their goal is to get people to make a visceral emotional response and conclude that the GOP is heartless and does not care about students instead of having an honest discussion and suggesting they put Pell grants back into the budget.

And as Congress gets side tracked on silly issues like this the democrats and, to a lesser extent, the GOP can avoid addressing the budget deficits that threaten the country's economic security.

[kevpks]

Failed the GOP? Facts are facts. Food stamps recipients up from 30 to 47 million, 23 million out of work, and countless other taking part time employment. These numbers represent more than GOP talking points. They are an indication that our country is not well. You and Obama want to ignore it, but if it continues the next four years, you will see a once proud country begin to look more like a 3rd world country, with adults sitting around on the porch with nothing to do.

At what point in time do apologists like you finally begin to hold this man accountable for his actions? Is this really what you bargained for? Is being for secondary issues like gay marriage and abortion really going to be the issues that sustain you thorough disastrous economic times? Will your lefty friends be satisfied that the gay men next door are now married, but you can't find a job and wait for your government check so all is now good?

It did fail the GOP. Who is the next president of the United States? Also, I'm not a leftist. Not everyone who critiques the GOP is a leftist. Many of you in the GOP are acting like victims. The defeats are something the democrats did to the party rather than something the party helped bring about. The GOP has plenty of money and plenty of thinktanks. They've been playing a losing strategy ever since squandering their advantage in the Bush years.

[TAFBSooner]

More earners/moochers false binaries. That 47% and "Republicans sign their checks on the front" talk didn't work too well for Romney. If some Republican business owners want to pout and take their ball and go home, I'm sure there are others (from both parties) with a much less childish outlook willing to help this economy grow.

Thank you. Nobody signs the front of a check (whether a paycheck or a check for groceries) because they're a demi-god, or generous. They do so because they reckon they're paying for value received.

[kevpks]

It irritates me because as I stated it is minutae. It is a distraction and a diversionary topic to try and demonize those who might actually favor controlling spending. When the GOP talks about cutting spending the Democrats pull out tidbits like Pell grants and then try to demonize the Republicans and emotionally tie all of their budget proposals together in the same light. And appearing by your vehement defense of Pell grants it looks like their tactic has worked.

Their goal is to get people to make a visceral emotional response and conclude that the GOP is heartless and does not care about students instead of having an honest discussion and suggesting they put Pell grants back into the budget.

And as Congress gets side tracked on silly issues like this the democrats and, to a lesser extent, the GOP can avoid addressing the budget deficits that threaten the country's economic security.

It was not my intention to demonize the GOP. My point was that many people who use government programs are trying to benefit themselves. They're not all looking for a handout. I brought up Pell grants because I am a professor and have seen them benefit students firsthand. They study to keep the grant and find better jobs or get promotions with their degrees. That is what the program is intended to do. Many of these students would not ever go to college without them and probably would end up as "moochers."

[soonercruiser]

Mama, I'm afraid you just prescribed more failure by not changing anything. Despite the rhetoric from the far right, Obama is not a "socialist," but is actually being forced by the deficit -- among other factors -- into a more centrist position on the role of Government. It's maybe not really conservative but it's just barely centrist enough that the GOP's position looks like virtual anarchism. The right wing and the religious right need to recognize the simple fact that they are so extreme that they risk never being more than a noisy fringe minority. The GOP needs to tell the anti-science, Bible-thumping, paranoid xenophobes to start their own party. If they succeed, so be it, but right now they are a drag on sensible conservatism.

Thank you for the assessment, Chris Matthews!
:smiley_simmons:

[TAFBSooner]

Rich people voted Republican?!?!?!? Somebody alert teh mediaz!!!!!!!!!

fify -- Herman Cain

[kevpks]

FaninAma,

I do agree in principle on your point about the distraction of pointless, small issues. The attacks on PBS and NPR are a good example of that. That is a minuscule part of the budget. I just don't happen to see Pell Grants as a small, pointless issue.

[champions77]

It did fail the GOP. Who is the next president of the United States? Also, I'm not a leftist. Not everyone who critiques the GOP is a leftist. Many of you in the GOP are acting like victims. The defeats are something the democrats did to the party rather than something the party helped bring about. The GOP has plenty of money and plenty of thinktanks. They've been playing a losing strategy ever since squandering their advantage in the Bush years.

You voted for Obama RIGHT? And Obama is a leftists. He abhors the private sector and believes that EVERYTHING should emanate from the Federal government. He thinks that the economy should be micro managed through the feds. He wants control, and he cannot control the private sector like he can the public sector. At least not in the degree he desires. Not here to prop up the GOP, but at least they for the most part believe in the principles this country was founded on. You don't hear conservatives speak of the Constitution as a "living document" so they can amend and alter it to fit their ideology like the dems do.

[soonercruiser]

You couldn't be more wrong. The results in this election can be attributed to the fact that the Republican party nominated a guy that started out with an enormous "likability" handicap who was never able to connect to the average voter. The convention helped this problem somewhat, but not nearly enough to create the sort of warm and trusting type of candidate they needed to win. There was an enormous disconnect between the feelings and struggles of average Americans and the things coming out of Mitt Romney's mouth and Obama skillfully exploited that disconnect never allowing the American people to fully embrace Romney. The support that Romney did have was mostly anti-Obama sentiment. Sure Romney had some supporter that genuinely liked the guy, but that's hardly enough to win an election or a single swing state.

Furthermore, this is was absolutely a repudiation of current Republican "philosophy" although I reject the notion that either of the two major political parties are ideological or philosophical, but let's just set that point aside for the moment...Neither Mitt Romney nor the Republican Party represented limited government. The list of ways that Romney would have increased the size and scope of government are too numerous to list.
1)Domestic spying
2)Foreign drone attacks
3)Increased military spending
4)Supported the bailout (at one point)
5)Supports a government managed economy
6)Has not proposed a single way he would increase personal liberty
7)Opposes civil unions
etc. etc. etc.

Romney, time and time again, has shown himself to be a friend of government and not an enemy to it. The Republican Party is soon going to die on the vine and it isn't because it isn't courting enough Hispanics by opposing immigration reform. The Republican Party must transform itself into a party that brings together a wide and diverse coalition of anti-government pro-liberty constituencies that clearly set themselves apart from the 'statists' that currently make up much of both the Republican and Democrat parties.

The Republican Party must bring together anti-tax/regulation advocates, pro-small business interests, property rights advocates, 2nd amendment advocates, people in favor of a less-robust foreign policy, civil liberty advocates, legalization advocates, etc. etc. At the same time, it can attract blue collar workers by opposing free trade agreements and doing more to promote (though not direct or manage) an economic environment in which they can thrive. Furthermore, the Republican Party on the state level must take a bigger role in crafting new and innovative social policy that addresses the needs of the people in the various states rather than continue to rely on the Republican Party to promote over-reaching Federal programs.

That would be a start.

Insane evaluation of the situation! Typical leftist thoughts!
And you would tell us that everything coming out of Obama's mouth "connects" with the average working Joe???
INSANITY! (you didn't build this...Benghazi was all about the video....coal plants will be put out of business...lies about oil production on public land, and on, and on....)

What Obama and the Dem campaign did (echoed by many pundits), is he connected well with the new, young age voting groups like Hispanics that want stuff! Hispanics (many) came to this country for free stuff!
These great swing states were busyinside themselves (like Colorado) with voting to legalize Pot!
THis shows where the country is, and where we are headed.

There is only one thing that will bring the insane dpencency minions back to earth....a complete and deep economic collapse. Then those most "dependant" will be hurt the most.
The cuontry has already passed the dependency tipping point!

[soonercruiser]

The last time a Puritan political movement gained political power we got Prohibition. That may be why it was -- I hope -- the LAST time a Puritan political movement gained political power.

I looked it up in the phone book.
No Puritan churches in OKCity!
You still dunkin witches yourself?

[kevpks]

It did fail the GOP. Who is the next president of the United States? Also, I'm not a leftist. Not everyone who critiques the GOP is a leftist. Many of you in the GOP are acting like victims. The defeats are something the democrats did to the party rather than something the party helped bring about. The GOP has plenty of money and plenty of thinktanks. They've been playing a losing strategy ever since squandering their advantage in the Bush years.

You voted for Obama RIGHT? And Obama is a leftists. He abhors the private sector and believes that EVERYTHING should emanate from the Federal government. He thinks that the economy should be micro managed through the feds. He wants control, and he cannot control the private sector like he can the public sector. At least not in the degree he desires. Not here to prop up the GOP, but at least they for the most part believe in the principles this country was founded on. You don't hear conservatives speak of the Constitution as a "living document" so they can amend and alter it to fit their ideology like the dems do.

Do you have evidence that he abhors the private sector? That he thinks everything should emanate from the federal government? I did vote for him this time after voting for republicans the past 3 times. Those are the only elections I've been eligible for. I've seen improvement in the country over the past four years despite gridlock in congress. Recovery has been too slow but I saw nothing in Romney's ideas or policies to make me think he could do better. His dramatic shifts on issues and ignorance of foreign affairs (Russia is our greatest threat) did not give me much confidence.

[SicEmBaylor]

Insane evaluation of the situation! Typical leftist thoughts!
And you would tell us that everything coming out of Obama's mouth "connects" with the average working Joe???
INSANITY! (you didn't build this...Benghazi was all about the video....coal plants will be put out of business...lies about oil production on public land, and on, and on....)

What Obama and the Dem campaign did (echoed by many pundits), is he connected well with the new, young age voting groups like Hispanics that want stuff! Hispanics (many) came to this country for free stuff!
These great swing states were busyinside themselves (like Colorado) with voting to legalize Pot!
THis shows where the country is, and where we are headed.

There is only one thing that will bring the insane dpencency minions back to earth....a complete and deep economic collapse. Then those most "dependant" will be hurt the most.
The cuontry has already passed the dependency tipping point!

I know you've often struggled with this, but once again I feel compelled to point out that I'm not the least bit "leftist." If there was a liberal bone in my body, I'd cut it out with a dull butter knife like a cancer.

The fact that I'm not in lock-step with the Republican Party, and I don't spout off Hannity talking points is not evidence that I'm a leftist.

[TAFBSooner]

I call that 'the good old days.'

I've been away a while. Is 1950's style traditional heterosexuality working for you these days?

That was joshing. If you mean pre-Rosa Parks, pre-MLK, pre-Freedom Riders was the good old days, then . . . I should have stayed away longer.

[TAFBSooner]

I understand this sort of sentiment, but I think it's just wrong because
(1) your rosy view of the glorious past is simply dreamy and overly romanticized (though I acknowledge that rise of welfare in the 1960's actually harmed families more than it helped) and (2) your nightmare vision of an all-consuming nanny state is also exaggerated. I doubt that even the staunchest Obamanites think they could get that even if they wanted it. And if they overreach, there will be a backlash against them, just like their is a backlash against the Tea Party.

But your fears are exactly why we need the GOP to stop catering to the bible-thumping anti-intelligence loonies on the right! We need a SENSIBLE conservative party who can check the overexhuberance of the left without having to drag a bunch of freaky lunatics along for the fight. I'm telling you, the biggest liability of the Republican party is its so called "base" of Te Party nutcakes.

Right now, I imagine the GOP is going to see a fight between those who think it would have won if only it had run a far-right Santorum-like campaign, and those who want to distance the party from the loony fringe. If the Santorum-ish wing wins, kiss good-bye to any sensible opposition to the Democrats, or pray for a new centrist party. Because the paranoia and religious puritanism of the nutty far right is highly unlikely to resonate with a majority of Americans.

What is a "sensible" conservative party? One that is fiscally conservative only? The fiscal conservatives by themselves can never be competitive in a two-party system. That's why they *have* to have the social conservatives along for the ride. That is blowing up in their faces, because (1) that includes the Akins and Mourdocks, who disgust a LOT of people, and (2) the people who grew up with traditional 50's and early 60's morality are . . . demographically challenged.

[TAFBSooner]

I guess you could say the same for any law from shoplifting to murder. I wouldn't choose to repeal those laws. I'm not under any illlusion that we can stop individuals from bad behavior. We can as a society choose not to institutionalize certain behaviors that in aggragate, degrade society.

Shoplifting, murder, alcohol. One of these things is not like the others. Two of them, in and of themselves, hurt other people. The other has the potential to do so, so we allow but regulate alcohol. We tried Prohibition, it not only failed but backfired, and we still have to deal with the remnants of the Mafia.

[TAFBSooner]

I know you've often struggled with this, but once again I feel compelled to point out that I'm not the least bit "leftist." If there was a liberal bone in my body, I'd cut it out with a dull butter knife like a cancer.

The fact that I'm not in lock-step with the Republican Party, and I don't spout off Hannity talking points is not evidence that I'm a leftist.

You have an eclectic set of beliefs. Why should it bother you so much to have a liberal one?

BTW, you do have some agreements, at least, with liberals:

(The following are bad):
1)Domestic spying
2)Foreign drone attacks
3)Increased military spending

4) bailout is not so clear-cut. Liberals may have preferred TARP to letting the banks fail, but we definitely would have used the leverage to impose some leadership and regulatory changes. And definitely not let a G-S man run the thing. Too big to fail is too big to exist.

7)Opposes civil unions

[SicEmBaylor]

You have an eclectic set of beliefs. Why should it bother you so much to have a liberal one?

BTW, you do have some agreements, at least, with liberals:

(The following are bad):
1)Domestic spying
2)Foreign drone attacks
3)Increased military spending

4) bailout is not so clear-cut. Liberals may have preferred TARP to letting the banks fail, but we definitely would have used the leverage to impose some leadership and regulatory changes. And definitely not let a G-S man run the thing. Too big to fail is too big to exist.

7)Opposes civil unions

You're right that there's some convergence of opinion with liberals, but I don't consider those to be "liberal" issues. Conservatism, to me, is about protecting and conserving our founding principles and improving upon those principles where and if possible. To that end, the conservative thing to do is to protect civil liberties and individual rights. I believe the individual has an expectation of privacy away from government intrusion unless the government can demonstrate to the court compelling reason to invade an individual's privacy.

As for military spending, the Department of Defense is no different than any other government department or agency. It's full of wasteful spending that has little or nothing to do with protecting the homeland. It should be common sense for a fiscal hawk Republican to order a top-to-bottom audit of the Department of Defense (along with every other department and agency) and evaluate each and every program and make cuts where needed.

[TUSooner]

*****The fact that I'm not in lock-step with the Republican Party, and I don't spout off Hannity talking points is not evidence that I'm a leftist.
It is around these parts, sonny! As you well know, there are a couple of handfuls of posters who are are totally owned by the Right Wing Media and who share that narrow two-tone world view with a religious fanaticism. Nothing short of a genuine divine epiphany will unchain their minds.

[kevpks]

The fact that I'm not in lock-step with the Republican Party, and I don't spout off Hannity talking points is not evidence that I'm a leftist.

I'm not going to address people calling me a leftist on this board anymore. If they're calling you a leftist, they clearly don't know what that word means.

[TUSooner]

I'm not going to address people calling me a leftist on this board anymore. If they're calling you a leftist, they clearly don't know what that word means. really, and they're probably not listening to what you're saying either.

[Tiptonsooner]

Most seem to have the same concerns, just more passionate about certain specifics. Totally understandable, that's what politicians want. The more divided society is, the more control politicians maintain.

Live and let live..

[champions77]

I'm not going to address people calling me a leftist on this board anymore. If they're calling you a leftist, they clearly don't know what that word means.

I assume that you vote for the candidate that most closely fits your political ideology. BHO is a radical leftist. I don't know why a conservative or a moderate would vote for him.

You and a lot of others don't vote for the GOP based on the GOP's position of Gay Marriage and Abortion rights. Those should be secondary concerns/issues.

So when some of you out there are waiting on your government check because the economy has been in the hands of a President that is clueless about the economy, and there are no jobs to be found, just ask yourself how voting for a man based primarily on his position on Abortion and Gay Marriage is working out for you.

[SoonerorLater]

Do you have evidence that he abhors the private sector? That he thinks everything should emanate from the federal government? I did vote for him this time after voting for republicans the past 3 times. Those are the only elections I've been eligible for. I've seen improvement in the country over the past four years despite gridlock in congress. Recovery has been too slow but I saw nothing in Romney's ideas or policies to make me think he could do better. His dramatic shifts on issues and ignorance of foreign affairs (Russia is our greatest threat) did not give me much confidence.

I would say if you put any credence in the notion that a man is known by the friends he keeps then yes, Obama is not an advocate of Laissez-faire Capitalism. (Not to say Romney is either). The list of his change the concept of America cronies is numerous and has been recounted many times. He just doesn't have an American-centric, traditional values concept of us as a nation. Some people find that to be ok. I'm not one of them.

[kevpks]

I assume that you vote for the candidate that most closely fits your political ideology. BHO is a radical leftist. I don't know why a conservative or a moderate would vote for him.

You and a lot of others don't vote for the GOP based on the GOP's position of Gay Marriage and Abortion rights. Those should be secondary concerns/issues.

So when some of you out there are waiting on your government check because the economy has been in the hands of a President that is clueless about the economy, and there are no jobs to be found, just ask yourself how voting for a man based primarily on his position on Abortion and Gay Marriage is working out for you.

I didn't vote for him primarily based on his views on abortion and gay marriage and he's not a radical leftist. I'm still waiting for evidence to the contrary. There is, however, plenty of evidence that he his not a radical leftist. Thanks for the warning, but I doubt policies like the ones below will have me in any bread lines in the next four years. Besides, I'm a professor. Democrats love us "liberal" professors, right?


Yes, Obama began his presidency with bailouts, stimulus, and borrowing. You know who started the bailouts? George W. Bush. Bush knew that under these exceptionally dire circumstances, bailouts had to be done. Stimulus had to be done, too, since the economy had frozen up. A third of the stimulus was tax cuts. Once the economy began to revive, Obama offered a $4-trillion debt reduction framework that would have cut $3 to $6 of spending for every $1 in tax hikes. That’s a higher ratio of cuts to hikes than Republican voters, in a Gallup poll, said they preferred. It’s way more conservative than the ratio George H. W. Bush accepted in 1990. In last year’s debt-ceiling talks, Obama offered cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid in exchange for revenue that didn’t even come from higher tax rates. Now he’s proposing to lower corporate tax rates, and Republicans are whining that he hacked $716 billion out of Medicare. Some socialist.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2012/11/obama_the_moderate_republican_what_the_2012_electi on_should_teach_the_gop.html

[kevpks]

Voting for Obama is not something I did on a whim. He's the first Democrat I've ever voted for president. It has nothing to do with social issues. I just think the GOP is one the losing side of history on many of those issues. If they want to stick to their principles on that, fine. I just think it will continue to cost them in national elections. I started to turn from the GOP with some of their attacks on teachers and public sector unions. I'm not a huge fan of unions but I feel teachers were unfairly demonized by the GOP in Wisconsin and elsewhere, especially when they were offering concessions but turned down because they wanted to keep their right to collectively bargain. One minute, the GOP would attack teachers making $50,000 as greedy while arguing that the taxes on those making $200,000 are an attack on freedom and putting families in a dire situation.

Furthermore, the attitude towards science by prominent GOP house members concerned me. Evolution and the Big Bang Theory are lies from the pit of hell? Really? And this guy is on the House Science committee?

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20121006-u.s.-house-science-committee-member-calls-evolution-big-bang-theory-lies-straight-from-the-pit-of-hell.ece

This country is churning out a lot of PhDs in science and math. The only problem is that the students are from other countries and when they graduate, they're going back there. We're at third world levels in science and math. That has to change. If the GOP is putting people like that on science committees, it is not a problem they are taking seriously.

So, I'm not a leftist. I don't own any Che Guevara shirts. My party just doesn't speak to me right now.

[rock on sooner]

I didn't vote for him primarily based on his views on abortion and gay marriage and he's not a radical leftist. I'm still waiting for evidence to the contrary. There is, however, plenty of evidence that he his not a radical leftist. Thanks for the warning, but I doubt policies like the ones below will have me in any bread lines in the next four years. Besides, I'm a professor. Democrats love us "liberal" professors, right?



http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2012/11/obama_the_moderate_republican_what_the_2012_electi on_should_teach_the_gop.html

The Slate.com article accurately summed up...wait for it...Clinton
and his second term, as well as Obama's coming up. MODERATE
Republicans have good ideas, workable ideas and helpful ideas.
The more extreme, strident wing of the Pubs have hijacked the
party, signing up with Norquist and the like. It is a given that
the gov't needs more revenue and MUST spend less.

[soonercruiser]

What is a "sensible" conservative party? One that is fiscally conservative only? The fiscal conservatives by themselves can never be competitive in a two-party system. That's why they *have* to have the social conservatives along for the ride. That is blowing up in their faces, because (1) that includes the Akins and Mourdocks, who disgust a LOT of people, and (2) the people who grew up with traditional 50's and early 60's morality are . . . demographically challenged.

Barney's Frank is your kinda people?
:cower:

[soonercruiser]

Here's an expert's opinion on what happened.
http://www.trevorloudon.com/2012/11/communist-party-leader-obama-victory-dawn-of-a-new-era/

[champions77]

The Slate.com article accurately summed up...wait for it...Clinton
and his second term, as well as Obama's coming up. MODERATE
Republicans have good ideas, workable ideas and helpful ideas.
The more extreme, strident wing of the Pubs have hijacked the
party, signing up with Norquist and the like. It is a given that
the gov't needs more revenue and MUST spend less.

I have to laugh when people like you try and convince themselves that it is the GOP that has moved to the right, and the dems have stayed the same. The GOP has always been against abortion and against Gay Marriage. Do you really believe the Democratic Party is not controlled by the far left?

If JFK came back today, the Dems wouldn't let him speak at their convention. I mean the President that once stated "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country", and authored a huge tax cut to jump start the economy today would be lambasted for such words. Today the Dems are more than happy to add you to the food stamp or welfare rolls. They feel they are bringing voters to their side in doing so. Hell they run advertsing on the TV and radio imploring people to sign up. It's not the GOP that has tried to undermine the US Constitution with attempts to throw out the 10th Amendment, the 1st Amendment with the "Fairness Doctrine" and others to revise the 2nd Amendment, severly limiting gun ownership. Others in the Democratic Party favor a One World Government, by relinquishing control to the United Nations. While others in the Democratic Party would like nothing more than to see "IN God We Trust" removed from all currency, and see to it that Church's have their Tax Exempt status removed.

It was Democratic President Obama that declared to the world that he wants to "FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE THIS COUNTRY" Does that sound like any moderate that you know? Don't you wish by now that you would have taken him to task on exactly what he meant by those words?

[rock on sooner]

I have to laugh when people like you try and convince themselves that it is the GOP that has moved to the right, and the dems have stayed the same. The GOP has always been against abortion and against Gay Marriage. Do you really believe the Democratic Party is not controlled by the far left?

If JFK came back today, the Dems wouldn't let him speak at their convention. I mean the President that once stated "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country", and authored a huge tax cut to jump start the economy today would be lambasted for such words. Today the Dems are more than happy to add you to the food stamp or welfare rolls. They feel they are bringing voters to their side in doing so. Hell they run advertsing on the TV and radio imploring people to sign up. It's not the GOP that has tried to undermine the US Constitution with attempts to throw out the 10th Amendment, the 1st Amendment with the "Fairness Doctrine" and others to revise the 2nd Amendment, severly limiting gun ownership. Others in the Democratic Party favor a One World Government, by relinquishing control to the United Nations. While others in the Democratic Party would like nothing more than to see "IN God We Trust" removed from all currency, and see to it that Church's have their Tax Exempt status removed.

It was Democratic President Obama that declared to the world that he wants to "FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE THIS COUNTRY" Does that sound like any moderate that you know? Don't you wish by now that you would have taken him to task on exactly what he meant by those words?

This aint gonna be easy but "people like me" tell "people like you" to look
in the mirror to laugh. I've posted on this board to elicit "intelligent"
conversation and many of the RWers only response is something like
the garbage you just posted. Sorry, cowboy, but enough is enough!
---- --- and the horse you rode in on!

[SicEmBaylor]

I have to laugh when people like you try and convince themselves that it is the GOP that has moved to the right, and the dems have stayed the same. The GOP has always been against abortion and against Gay Marriage. Do you really believe the Democratic Party is not controlled by the far left?

If JFK came back today, the Dems wouldn't let him speak at their convention. I mean the President that once stated "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country", and authored a huge tax cut to jump start the economy today would be lambasted for such words. Today the Dems are more than happy to add you to the food stamp or welfare rolls. They feel they are bringing voters to their side in doing so. Hell they run advertsing on the TV and radio imploring people to sign up. It's not the GOP that has tried to undermine the US Constitution with attempts to throw out the 10th Amendment, the 1st Amendment with the "Fairness Doctrine" and others to revise the 2nd Amendment, severly limiting gun ownership. Others in the Democratic Party favor a One World Government, by relinquishing control to the United Nations. While others in the Democratic Party would like nothing more than to see "IN God We Trust" removed from all currency, and see to it that Church's have their Tax Exempt status removed.

It was Democratic President Obama that declared to the world that he wants to "FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE THIS COUNTRY" Does that sound like any moderate that you know? Don't you wish by now that you would have taken him to task on exactly what he meant by those words?

Well, actually, the GOP hasn't always been against abortion. Although you're probably right about gay marriage.

As for the Kennedy comment, I think you're missing something here. Conservatism, by its very nature, seeks to conserve a nation/society's traditional political and social institutions. That means different things in different places; in the United States, our founding political documents form the 'guide' for the political institutions we ought to preserve while the traditional family unit provides a rudimentary guide for preserving our social institutions.

Liberalism, by its very nature, is different. Liberalism (small l) is post-nationalist, tends to be universal, and is ever evolving. Kennedy doesn't look like a liberal by today's standards because he wasn't -- liberalism is constantly evolving. It stands to reason that had Kennedy lived, as a liberal, his own politics would have continued to progress. Our Founding Fathers were liberal by the standards of their day, but if we could drop them into contemporary American society they certainly would not be.

So it's not really a fair example.

[rock on sooner]

Well, actually, the GOP hasn't always been against abortion. Although you're probably right about gay marriage.

As for the Kennedy comment, I think you're missing something here. Conservatism, by its very nature, seeks to conserve a nation/society's traditional political and social institutions. That means different things in different places; in the United States, our founding political documents form the 'guide' for the political institutions we ought to preserve while the traditional family unit provides a rudimentary guide for preserving our social institutions.

Liberalism, by its very nature, is different. Liberalism (small l) is post-nationalist, tends to be universal, and is ever evolving. Kennedy doesn't look like a liberal by today's standards because he wasn't -- liberalism is constantly evolving. It stands to reason that had Kennedy lived, as a liberal, his own politics would have continued to progress. Our Founding Fathers were liberal by the standards of their day, but if we could drop them into contemporary American society they certainly would not be.

So it's not really a fair example.

Well said, thank you.

[TAFBSooner]

Barney's Frank is your kinda people?
:cower:

No, but he is a person. De-humanizing people by using that sort of epithet is on the way out, Thank God. If you don't like the results in Maryland and Maine, go to Colorado or Washington state and chillax.

Fifty's-style morality also included bans on contraceptives, including for married couples. Do you also want to go back to that? . . . Never mind, I just saw your sig.

[LiveLaughLove]

I love how many of you are posting on here now that your guy won, but you were nowhere to be seen, or very rarely seen BEFORE the election.

I would imagine you are the ones that sign up at hornfans.com after we win, but aren't anywhere to be seen when we don't.

You're opinions mean nothing. You're guy won, but you had no convictions before the election, so stuff it now.

You can gloat about the demise of the GOP, it doesn't mean your ideas are better, only more popular. This country is not sustainable, that's a fact. The dem's will never give up giving away money, and eventually you will run out.

You have no plan for after that. You will lie in a fetal position and want the adults to fix things. Well, you can stuff it then too.

You think your ideas are new? and dare I say progressive? They are as old as time. There's nothing new about it, just new here. Our rugged individualism was what made us exceptional. Our entrepreneurial spirit has funded this country for centuries. Collectivism is all around us and there is nothing exceptional about any country that does it.

The happiest people today are not you guys, it is the enemies of this once great country because they know, it's just a matter of time now.

So have fun kids. Do your worst. Party like it's 1999 and it's never going to end. When you wake up in your own vomit, and there's no food and no more beer, well, you can stuff that too.

I'm on my way to H & H. I have resisted owning firearms because of the amount of kids I have. But I'll have to risk it now.

[okie52]

No, but he is a person. De-humanizing people by using that sort of epithet is on the way out, Thank God. If you don't like the results in Maryland and Maine, go to Colorado or Washington state and chillax.

Fifty's-style morality also included bans on contraceptives, including for married couples. Do you also want to go back to that? . . . Never mind, I just saw your sig.


What??? No condoms in the 50's?

[kevpks]

I love how many of you are posting on here now that your guy won, but you were nowhere to be seen, or very rarely seen BEFORE the election.

I would imagine you are the ones that sign up at hornfans.com after we win, but aren't anywhere to be seen when we don't.

You're opinions mean nothing. You're guy won, but you had no convictions before the election, so stuff it now.

You can gloat about the demise of the GOP, it doesn't mean your ideas are better, only more popular. This country is not sustainable, that's a fact. The dem's will never give up giving away money, and eventually you will run out.

You have no plan for after that. You will lie in a fetal position and want the adults to fix things. Well, you can stuff it then too.

You think your ideas are new? and dare I say progressive? They are as old as time. There's nothing new about it, just new here. Our rugged individualism was what made us exceptional. Our entrepreneurial spirit has funded this country for centuries. Collectivism is all around us and there is nothing exceptional about any country that does it.

The happiest people today are not you guys, it is the enemies of this once great country because they know, it's just a matter of time now.

So have fun kids. Do your worst. Party like it's 1999 and it's never going to end. When you wake up in your own vomit, and there's no food and no more beer, well, you can stuff that too.

I'm on my way to H & H. I have resisted owning firearms because of the amount of kids I have. But I'll have to risk it now.

I've been on Soonerfans for a long time. I honestly never considered talking about politics on here, but thought I'd take a look. I've voted in every election since I was 18, so I have plenty of convictions. I didn't know I had to post of a political page or a sports message board to have convictions. Politics is not like sports to me.

The GOP is not my favorite team. It is the party that usually aligns with my views. Obama is who I voted for but he's not "my guy." I was willing to grit my teeth and vote for Perry, Cain, or Paul. I would not vote for Romney. I didn't trust how constantly his ideas "evolved." I didn't see much difference between Romney and Obama once Romney moved to the center in the general election. I thought he would be a liability with foreign policy and much more likely to get us into another war. I don't think his business record was an indication that he could accelerate recovery. His business background actually seemed pretty shady to me. The other GOP candidates focused plenty on that in the primary. I voted for Obama and hope he does well and I'll be honest that I'm glad the GOP kept the house. I voted for Cole to try to help that happen. I don't see that in a lot of optimism on this board. That's fine but in that pessimism is also a lot of hope that Obama will fail.

I'm paraphrasing, but I've seen this a lot, Just wait until you don't have a job and the economy is in the toilet. I'm prepared for the economic collapse and I'll laugh when it happens. It will give me joy.

That's a pretty sick outlook if you ask me.

[BoulderSooner79]

Politics is not like sports to me.

The GOP is not my favorite team. It is the party that usually aligns with my views....

You just touched on what I think is one of the biggest problems in politics. I've always stayed on the football board, but peeked over here during election week. I notice that people talk about their party affiliation in the same terms as their sports team! And having Romney lose the election has folks venting the same way they did after OU lost to KSU or ND.

But it's a bad analogy! Politics is not like sports at all. If your team wins in sports, it's a win - put 1 in the 'W' column. If the candidate you voted for wins, the game has just begun and you may have really lost big time. What if your candidate is incompetent or his/her plan sounded good in a speech but doesn't work worth crap in practice? And on the flip-side, what if the candidate you didn't vote for wins and they do a bang up job and your life is better in 4 years than it is today? Did you lose? I swear, some people would answer "yes" because they are so tied to their "team" (party) they would be blinded to reality.

[XingTheRubicon]

I don't know about the country you live in, but in the United States not everyone making under 200K is a "have not." That's how your candidate sees the world too and look where it got him. I've been registered as a Republican since I was 18, have worked hard and built a nice career. I haven't made it to 200K but certainly don't feel like a "have not" nor should anyone who is able to provide for his/her family and secure a proming future for his/her children.

People making over 200K voted for Romney in part because they are afraid their taxes will go up under Obama. That's fine but people act as if their bank account grants them some kind of profound wisdom about the best direction for the country.


"You're born, you take sh*t. You get out in the world, you take more sh*t. You climb a little higher, you take less sh*t. Till one day you're up in the rarefied atmosphere and you've forgotten what sh*t even looks like. Welcome to the layer cake son." .

[kevpks]

.

I don't have to take a lot of "sh*t" in my field. That's one thing I like about it. It won't make me a millionaire but it's a rewarding career that makes me happy.

[champions77]

I love how many of you are posting on here now that your guy won, but you were nowhere to be seen, or very rarely seen BEFORE the election.

I would imagine you are the ones that sign up at hornfans.com after we win, but aren't anywhere to be seen when we don't.

You're opinions mean nothing. You're guy won, but you had no convictions before the election, so stuff it now.

You can gloat about the demise of the GOP, it doesn't mean your ideas are better, only more popular. This country is not sustainable, that's a fact. The dem's will never give up giving away money, and eventually you will run out.

You have no plan for after that. You will lie in a fetal position and want the adults to fix things. Well, you can stuff it then too.

You think your ideas are new? and dare I say progressive? They are as old as time. There's nothing new about it, just new here. Our rugged individualism was what made us exceptional. Our entrepreneurial spirit has funded this country for centuries. Collectivism is all around us and there is nothing exceptional about any country that does it.

The happiest people today are not you guys, it is the enemies of this once great country because they know, it's just a matter of time now.

So have fun kids. Do your worst. Party like it's 1999 and it's never going to end. When you wake up in your own vomit, and there's no food and no more beer, well, you can stuff that too.

I'm on my way to H & H. I have resisted owning firearms because of the amount of kids I have. But I'll have to risk it now.


+1 "Their" path is no sustainable. You rarely hear one of them address the debt in this country, and what it is projected to do in the future. Obama lied about what he would do about the debt his first term, so now we believe him for the second term? His only solution? Tax the hell out of the wealthy and decrease defense spending? Brilliant.