Comments on: Mitch Daniels not running for Prez

By: mcfly

mcfly — Mon, 23 May 2011 01:38:50 +0000

Agreed. The media’s nothing compared to the torches and pitchforks wielded by the Tea Party. Lifelong conservatives cast aside as liberals! The horror.

When we ask ourselves, when did dialog end, we can look to 2010

By: TB

TB — Sun, 22 May 2011 23:00:40 +0000

It shows.

By: ER

ER — Sun, 22 May 2011 22:36:10 +0000

Post and Pre Reagan, and Goldwater and McCarthy too. I make no apologies. TB, I simply don’t like your philosophy.

I believe the purpose of government is to help the people, not provide a suitable environment for entrepreneurial self-actualization. In fact, the primary purpose of government is to protect the people from bullies, which I lump into three major categories: foreign attackers, domestic criminals, and unscrupulous businessmen.

I do not feel any sympathy or kinship with those whose primary purpose is to not pay taxes, keep worker salaries as low as possible, run dangerous and polluting industries selling shabby and poisonous products and hamstringing unions.

That’s how I feel about it. Now you will excuse me, it’s about news time and I need my daily dose
of that liberal news media. I just can’t get enough of it.

By: TB

TB — Sun, 22 May 2011 22:24:14 +0000

“Post-Reagan?” As though Reagan’s administration and ideas are considered by all right-thinking reasonable people as representing “good” Republicans?

Nice try.

The Left and the Democrats hated Reagan with every fiber of their being. Maybe you’ve forgotten the constant shitstorms Reagan got back then – from the Democratic Party, from the media, from the entertainment culture, from everywhere.

Many of the attacks were almost word-for-word the kind of things now being thrown at Palin and the other “lunatics:” people who have positions on economics, foreign policy, social and other issues that differ not one degree from Reagan’s.

“Post-Reagan Republicans?” You can’t carry that one off. I was there. So were you, and so were a lot of others here.

Didn’t you try to pull the same thing with Goldwater?

By: ER

ER — Sun, 22 May 2011 21:32:55 +0000

“You can tell what scares Democrats by what they attack.”
Well, you have my unqualified agreement on that. The Post-Reagan Republican party scares the shit out of me.

By: ER

ER — Sun, 22 May 2011 21:26:21 +0000

Wake up, TB, Gingrich is an unprincipled SOB who’s own party staged a palace revolution and kicked him out of a position of power (what was he, whip, speaker, something like that?). And his shameless parroting of Huckabee’s Kenyan Mau-Mau slurs on Obama (he called him anti-colonial, as if that were a crime). Do you really think he was stupid enough to believe that crap, or was he just mean and greasy enough to try and jump on the bandwagon? As for Gingrich’s current troubles, and his frantic evasions were a shameless attempt to pass himself off as a moderate by insulting his own party, until his own party recoiled in outrage. And of course, he had to attack viciously Obama’s middle east speech this week even though it has merely expressed US Policy under President’s Clinton, Bush and Obama.

As for the ladies, all I have to say is “honkly tonk wimmen, gimme, gimme, gimme, the honky tonk blues.”

By: TB

TB — Sun, 22 May 2011 21:13:19 +0000

Something to remember: The election victory in 2010 was driven by ideas from the right, including the Tea Party movement. The Democrats and the media spent a lot of time focusing on two major candidates that lost. Not much time on the rest of the results, including at the state level.

1980, 1984, 1994, 2010. All major Republican victories, and all driven by candidates who had a solid foundation in the fundamental ideas of conservatism, and knew how to talk about them to the electorate.

You can tell what scares Democrats by what they attack.

By: TB

TB — Sun, 22 May 2011 20:55:09 +0000

Tell me what political positions qualify those people as lunatics. I understand the label, like most of them, is more useful floating in midair, but I’m a stickler for this sort of thing.

Meanwhile, people who support some form of state control over almost every aspect of our society continue to wave the banners of “reasonable,” and “moderate.”

By: ER

ER — Sun, 22 May 2011 20:44:36 +0000

Right now, the shit-storm is blowing completely from the right. It ain’t the lamestream media that’s attacking Romney and Gingrich. And all the moderates know they can’t pass muster with the Tea Party in charge, which is why they’re keeping a low profile. Regardless of what ER may think, Palin and Bachmann ARE mentally challenged lunatics, and Newt the stoat is a very smart, articulate one.

Of course, our definitions of “moderate” differ. But that shouldn’t surprise anyone. My only complaint, as I alluded to earlier, is that this glorious state of affairs cannot be expected to last indefinitely. Sooner or later, the grownups in the GOP, the ones who pay the bills, will step in and put a stop to this nonsense.

Man, I never thought I’d see the day when I was nostalgic for Nelson Rockefeller.

By: TB

TB — Sun, 22 May 2011 20:19:39 +0000

I can tell you right now what’s keeping a lot of Republicans out is the certain knowledge of the shitstorm they would face once they became the nominee. The 2008 election was a serious wakeup call for Republican hopefuls. The Democratic candidate got a pass from the media on everything. As far as they were concerned, Barack Obama sprang from the head of Zeus sometime in 2007. No more information was needed, and anybody asking for it was an “extremist.” Meanwhile, you could probably find Sarah Palin’s genome on public display somewhere. Anybody who’s running as the Republican in 2012 has to know that the media will set out to utterly destroy them, their families, and pretty much everyone they know. In short, we’re heading rapidly for the point where no sane person would run for the office as a Republican.

We need someone as a candidate who has a solid hold on the right set of principles. “Reasonable” seems to be defined now as “someone who isn’t going to be a serious obstacle to Democrats doing whatever the hell they want.” I’m well aware of where the Democrat/media bar is for “extreme” is on the Republican side. The word has become an attack word, bereft (as so many of them are) of any objective meaning. Language without thought or meaning is a key political weapon.

ER labels Palin, Bachmann and Gingrich as lunatics. That’s where the political conversation stands now. We saw what happened when the Democrats had all the power for a couple of years. This, apparently, was considered “reasonable.” In 2010, voters disagreed.

Think about the positions that are now being labeled “extreme:” opposition to higher taxes. The belief that government spends way too much money. The idea the entitlements need major reform. Opposition to nationalized health care. Opposition to environmental dictatorship. Advocating almost ANY cuts in government spending.

Meanwhile, real lunacy goes unchallenged.