|
A Sign of the Apocalypse
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lebezniatnikov |
Are conservatives continuing to get behind Barack Obama? If this conversation is any indication, it appears that Obama may be bringing precisely the bipartisanship he pledged on the campaign trail:
| quote: | MALVEAUX: Are you looking forward to an Obama administration? A change?
ROBERTSON: I am remarkably pleased with Obama. I had grave misgivings about him. But so help me, he's come in forcefully, intelligently. He's picked a middle of the road cabinet. And so far, if he continues down this course, he has the makings of a great president.
So, I'm very pleased so far. |
Yes, that's Pat Robertson. Of 700 Club fame.
This has to be the first time that he's said even marginally kind things about a Democrat, right? Surely he's the only partisan Republican who feels a tingle in the leg, right?
Well, no:
| quote: | McCain has had "kind words" for President-elect Obama's nominees, including Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, Gen. Jim Jones as national security adviser, and Bob Gates as secretary of defense.
"You look at the national security team; this is a team you could have picked," Stephanopoulos said. "Sure, sure. Absolutely," McCain responded. |
McCain? Really? I thought Obama was getting all his advice from far-left loons!
| quote: | | "You know, in all due respect to the Republican National Committee and anybody -- right now, I think we should try to be working constructively together, not only on an issue such as this, but on the economy stimulus package, reforms that are necessary. And so, I don't know all the details of the relationship between President-elect Obama's campaign or his people and the governor of Illinois, but I have some confidence that all the information will come out. It always does, it seems to me." |
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/...s_n_150850.html
Wait, John, isn't this more evidence of Obama's bad influences? No?
Well, maybe we'll be able to put this election past us and get some governing done after all.
I can already sense Rush Limbaugh opening up another bottle of Oxycontin.
| quote: | LIMBAUGH: Back to this October surprise. I am just wondering — as I say, it can’t be proven — I’m just wondering if a lot of this was by design to create economic panic. Remember now — the Iraq war had dominated everything, and the economy was said to no longer be an issue in the campaign for the first time. Corruption, other things were — ethics (well, the Republicans had those problems) — but the economy wasn’t. They wanted to create economic crisis, a mindset of this.
So Chuck Schumer starts a run — a $1.3 billion run on IndyMac, and then all of a sudden, look what we learn! All these mortgages are worthless. All the mortgage derivatives and the mortgage-backed assets are worthless. Everything was worthless. There was no there there. Every institution, every guy in the institution was an empty suit. We had to bail out this, we had to bail out that; it didn’t help. I just wonder if what was a planned attempt to scare people economically — starting a run on the bank, doing this, that, and the other thing — has spun so far out of control, it’s gone so far beyond what the intention was, just to win an election, that nobody knows what to do about it.
The only mitigating argument against is that the number one, the primary beneficiary of this — and you have to look that even in an economic collapse like ours there are beneficiaries — Who’s benefiting? Aside from the people being bailed out. The Democrat party and Barack Obama are benefiting.
They got elected, they increased their numbers in the House, they increased their numbers in the Senate, they got the White House now, and they’ve got a crisis that people think can only be fixed with the all-mighty and powerful government interceding to save this or to save that, when in fact, the government is going to nationalize the automobile industry. It’s going to nationalize some banks. It’s going to nationalize the mortgage industry, and may end up nationalizing the automobile industry. […]
So the Obama team and the Democrat party are benefiting tremendously from this, even if it has spun out of control. It’s spun out of control, but they’ll make due with a new crisis they created a la Rahm Emanuel. But the reason I think it has spun a little out of control and gone a little further than they intended is that even the Obama people are saying, “Hey, it’s going to be really bad for a really long time.” |
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/12/22...democrats-indy/
The division of the Republican Party continues and so too does the devolution of the wingnuts into more and more radical nutjobbery.
With a large faction of conservatives able now to see the woods through the trees, it appears that we may have an Administration truly capable of working with both sides of the aisle toward goals common among all Americans. It manages to throw the shrieking on the far, far right into starker relief, eh? Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh may be on the verge of discovering that "Real America" is much smaller than they previously thought.
To paraphrase Bill Murray, Rush's mindset right now has to be something like the following: "This is real wrath of God type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!" |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Yes, that's Pat Robertson. Of 700 Club fame. |
You can only trust a glorified televangelist as far as you can throw him. This believes dinosaurs were walking around 4000 years ago, or at least he says he does... that pretty much sums it up for me on how serious to take someone like him. He's just jockying for some position of relevance during the next term... doesn't want to be left out in the cold (like McCain who's doing the same thing).
| quote: | McCain has had "kind words" for President-elect Obama's nominees, including Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, Gen. Jim Jones as national security adviser, and Bob Gates as secretary of defense. "You look at the national security team; this is a team you could have picked," Stephanopoulos said. "Sure, sure. Absolutely," McCain responded.
"You know, in all due respect to the Republican National Committee and anybody -- right now, I think we should try to be working constructively together, not only on an issue such as this, but on the economy stimulus package, reforms that are necessary. |
Yep... I'm not surprised one bit that McCain is back to his old true self; scolding Republicans and actually thinking that acting more like Democrats and finding ways to move left are the keys to GOP victory. Compromise for Democrats is only compromise when people on the right move in their direction. McCain is pathetic.
As for Rush, I've been keeping up with him... he's not at all spinning out of control; he fully expected what McCain is doing and saying. He's right, people haven't been listening to him, which is exactly why the GOP is tattered and losing with their foolish "expanding tent" strategy. I mean, obviously that tactic didn't work... the "wizards of smart" as he calls them pimped McCain as the only candidate who could beat a Democrat because of his "bi-partisan" nature and willingness to cross the aisle. He alienated his base, started playing identity politics trying to get the "hispanic vote" and the "jewish vote" and the "female vote," etc... and millions of republicans stayed home because they couldn't bring themselves to vote for someone so uninspiring.
Edit: "Aim for the flat-top!" |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Yep... I'm not surprised one bit that McCain is back to his old true self; scolding Republicans and actually thinking that acting more like Democrats and finding ways to move left are the keys to GOP victory. Compromise for Democrats is only compromise when people on the right move in their direction. McCain is pathetic. |
lol, when the right moves left...:stongue:...dude, they've already done that without anyone's help...:haha: |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
lol, when the right moves left...:stongue:...dude, they've already done that without anyone's help...:haha: |
wrong, they've done that with the advice of the RINO's and "moderates," moderate pundits and people like the ever-drifting Schwartzenegger who desperately tried to convince the GOP that moving left was the way to win. The results speak for themselves. The "Regan Democrats" that helped Ronny get 2 landslides moved right based on his ideas and leadership... he didn't have to pretend to be a hat-in-hand bi partisan or any of that other nonsense McCain failed at doing |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
wrong, they've done that with the advice of the RINO's and "moderates," moderate pundits and people like the ever-drifting Schwartzenegger who desperately tried to convince the GOP that moving left was the way to win. The results speak for themselves. The "Regan Democrats" that helped Ronny get 2 landslides moved right based on his ideas and leadership... he didn't have to pretend to be a hat-in-hand bi partisan or any of that other nonsense McCain failed at doing |
Oh, so all these stimulus packages, and bailouts...It's all the Dem's, Lib's, and Moderate's doing huh? So by your statement, the GOP should have gone more to the right! That is truly incredible logic. When policy fails, well, just make it more radical! |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
You can only trust a glorified televangelist as far as you can throw him. This believes dinosaurs were walking around 4000 years ago, or at least he says he does... that pretty much sums it up for me on how serious to take someone like him. He's just jockying for some position of relevance during the next term... doesn't want to be left out in the cold (like McCain who's doing the same thing). |
I wholeheartedly disagree - a diehard conservative loses relevance with his own people when he starts agreeing with a "liberal" Democrat. Robertson isn't gaining relevancy by going out on a limb and praising the "enemy" - if anything, those like Rush that stay in the far corner of the right-wing are becoming the new face of the (albeit shrunken) Republican Party.
| quote: | | Yep... I'm not surprised one bit that McCain is back to his old true self; scolding Republicans and actually thinking that acting more like Democrats and finding ways to move left are the keys to GOP victory. Compromise for Democrats is only compromise when people on the right move in their direction. McCain is pathetic. |
I don't know how you can be an impartial observer of the last two months and make the claim that Obama hasn't steered far more moderate than he has needed to. He won a majority of the vote, he has large majorities in both houses of Congress, polling suggests 65% of the US is in favor of his major policy initiatives, and 70% is optimistic about his first year in office. That's a pretty demonstrative mandate, and he doesn't need to be appointing Republicans or Moderates in his cabinet. It's interesting that you can't acknowledge the fact that liberals move to the center just as frequently as conservatives. Because it isn't far enough for your own personal political preferences, you decry it as more liberal posterizing.
| quote: | | As for Rush, I've been keeping up with him... he's not at all spinning out of control; |
Then can you explain those statements in the first post? Surely you don't agree that the economic crisis is a calculated political move by the Obama campaign and his allies in Congress? That's straight out of Toon Town.
| quote: | He alienated his base, started playing identity politics trying to get the "hispanic vote" and the "jewish vote" and the "female vote," etc... and millions of republicans stayed home because they couldn't bring themselves to vote for someone so uninspiring.
|
If Obama has done anything, it's shown that having cross-appeal does not necessitate a lack of inspiration in the base. McCain just ran a sloppy campaign - the tactics weren't to blame (in fact, remember in September they looked pretty successful) - poor management and very sloppy handling of Palin and the economic crisis are solely to blame for the bad showing on Nov. 4.
I think we're going to continue to see signs of good faith emanate from the conservative ranks - exactly because those good faith demonstrations are being made by the Obama transition team, despite your failure to acknowledge them. For God's sake, liberals are more vocal in opposition to Obama than moderates or regular conservatives. Rev. Rick Warren is a lightning rod among liberals symbolizing Obama's move to the center.
In any case, this is a movement I can get behind - it could lead to some real progress in Washington over the next few years, and really, given the electoral realities, the Republicans should be glad they're getting such a large role. It's within the Democrats' ability to largely cut them out of lawmaking next session of Congress, but they're "moving to the middle" by incorporating Republicans into policy discussions.
Now, the only reason I can think of for not being pleased by that is that it ruins your campaign slogan for 2012 - a supermajority of Dems might not be so bad after all. |
|
|
| adi_hanson |
Didnt the last influential evangelical guy get booted out for bumming a rent boy?
Not that american policitics interests me |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Oh, so all these stimulus packages, and bailouts...It's all the Dem's, Lib's, and Moderate's doing huh? So by your statement, the GOP should have gone more to the right! That is truly incredible logic. When policy fails, well, just make it more radical! |
You're not understanding me. By advocating for stimulus packages and bailouts (which are doing nothing but creating more problems), the GOP's so-called conservatives are moving away from their core principles. It's hurting the GOP because they are moving to the left.... not that they need to move more towards the right. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
I wholeheartedly disagree - a diehard conservative loses relevance with his own people when he starts agreeing with a "liberal" Democrat. Robertson isn't gaining relevancy by going out on a limb and praising the "enemy" - if anything, those like Rush that stay in the far corner of the right-wing are becoming the new face of the (albeit shrunken) Republican Party. |
As a conservative, yes... you do lose relevance if you agree to liberal principles. To do so diminishes one's core conservatism. As a conservative and a republican, it is clear to me that the reason the GOP is in such trouble is because it has abandoned its principles and tried to become more like the democrat party. It is obvious that this does not inspire the republican base, which is largely to the right of the center. Robertson is simply an opportunist doing what he can to get a seat at the table.
| quote: | | I don't know how you can be an impartial observer of the last two months and make the claim that Obama hasn't steered far more moderate than he has needed to. He won a majority of the vote, he has large majorities in both houses of Congress, polling suggests 65% of the US is in favor of his major policy initiatives, and 70% is optimistic about his first year in office. That's a pretty demonstrative mandate, and he doesn't need to be appointing Republicans or Moderates in his cabinet. It's interesting that you can't acknowledge the fact that liberals move to the center just as frequently as conservatives. Because it isn't far enough for your own personal political preferences, you decry it as more liberal posterizing. |
I do think Obama has steered more right than I expected, but what's ironic is that he had to become more conservative to win. The question that remains to be seen is, was it just talk to get elected and will he really push a far left agenda? Only time will really tell. With a majority in congress and the senate, and the ability to appoint judges, etc... he can say all he wants right now about bi-partisanship and working together, because he won't have to put up much of a fight at all to pass the kind of legislation he wants. He can easily make the appearance that he is moving towards the middle by including republicans for positions, but it's just a smokescreen (or at least it can be in theory) because they still won't be able to stop him from doing what he wants. Plus, and very importantly, do you realize that it is a huge strategy to have republicans in the fray at all times rather than have a Democrat supermajority? Because, with a Dem. supermajority, if anything goes wrong, all of the blame will get solely placed on their shoulders.
McCain on the other hand, thought he had to become more liberal (if that's possible to do and still call himself a republican), and it backfired. As for polls... I've also read polls that show a majority of people do not favor the bailouts and their tax dollars being squandered. I don't pay attention to polls about "Obama optimism" when he hasn't served a day; much of that could simple be people hoping things get better regardless of who is in office. After some time passes, those polls will become relevant I think. And, yes I do find it hard to believe that liberals move towards the center; people on the left try to get people to the right of them to move in their direction.
| quote: | | Then can you explain those statements in the first post? Surely you don't agree that the economic crisis is a calculated political move by the Obama campaign and his allies in Congress? That's straight out of Toon Town. |
No I can't agree with that... but you can't deny the fact that Chuck Schumer did start a run on IndyMac with his irresponsible talk. Rush is definitely taking an extreme personal theory on that way too far. I think he was trying to stir the pot a little too much on that one.
| quote: | If Obama has done anything, it's shown that having cross-appeal does not necessitate a lack of inspiration in the base. McCain just ran a sloppy campaign - the tactics weren't to blame (in fact, remember in September they looked pretty successful) - poor management and very sloppy handling of Palin and the economic crisis are solely to blame for the bad showing on Nov. 4.
I think we're going to continue to see signs of good faith emanate from the conservative ranks - exactly because those good faith demonstrations are being made by the Obama transition team, despite your failure to acknowledge them. For God's sake, liberals are more vocal in opposition to Obama than moderates or regular conservatives. Rev. Rick Warren is a lightning rod among liberals symbolizing Obama's move to the center.
In any case, this is a movement I can get behind - it could lead to some real progress in Washington over the next few years, and really, given the electoral realities, the Republicans should be glad they're getting such a large role. It's within the Democrats' ability to largely cut them out of lawmaking next session of Congress, but they're "moving to the middle" by incorporating Republicans into policy discussions.
Now, the only reason I can think of for not being pleased by that is that it ruins your campaign slogan for 2012 - a supermajority of Dems might not be so bad after all. |
Well, you're right... McCain did run a sloppy ass campaign. Real conservatives were practically begging for inspiration from him but it never came. But still, I think the Democrats would have won no matter what this time after serious Bush fatigue. Once McCain got the nod, I knew in my heart it was over. I'm actually not as pessimistic and bitter as you think, because if this turns out to be another Jimmy Carter type presidency, it will totally revamp conservatism like it did 30 years ago. And, if Obama does stay more towards the center for real, then I will be pleased. We just have to wait and see man.
2010-2011 will be so ing interesting IMO with that upcoming rounds of elections. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
You're not understanding me. By advocating for stimulus packages and bailouts (which are doing nothing but creating more problems), the GOP's so-called conservatives are moving away from their core principles. It's hurting the GOP because they are moving to the left.... not that they need to move more towards the right. |
Wasn't it the GOP who deregulated the financial industry allowing for highly leveraged trading, mergers, and acquisitions to take place? |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Wasn't it the GOP who deregulated the financial industry allowing for highly leveraged trading, mergers, and acquisitions to take place? |
That's too simplistic. As a strategy, all the regulation or deregulation in the world means nothing when you have ty management by the people running those companies. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
That's too simplistic. As a strategy, all the regulation or deregulation in the world means nothing when you have ty management by the people running those companies. |
Let me analogize your statement.
---> As a strategy, all the traffic laws in the world means nothing when you have ty drivers on the road. <---
Macro-management of the economy is the most influential method of guiding the overall economy. If they don't get it right, how do you expect micro-managers to? With all this deregulating stuff...as well as...traffic laws bring order to the streets. If the laws aren't adequate, how do you expect drivers to govern themselves? |
|
|
|
|
