Oh... the Irony...

[rich_t]

If you don't live in one of these states, you can have no impact upon who gets elected there.......simple fact of life, and there is no sense "beating a dead horse" about it......

Ahh, but DOC... you touch on something very near and dear to my heart.

I do NOT get to impact who gets elected there....

But I damn sure have to live with the legisation they vote for.

I get screwed over by those elected in other states.

I don't think that this is what our founders had in mind.

But then again, I don't think they envisioned the type of "full time" congress we currently have.

[Eupher]

That is such a politically and intellectually shallow statement I don't know where to begin.
Sigh. TRG, if you don't know where to begin, then what are you yapping about? Sheesh.  
Look the Republicans aren't perferct...no political party is and no solution the 100%'ers on here claim to have is either.
I never said anything about ANY political party being perfect - as creations by and of people, they are, by definition, flawed. Study some organizational theory sometime and then come back and tell me that political parties stay resolute and entrenched in their ideology - fact is, they don't. Don't believe me? Just take a look at McLame's own morph over the years. As the Republican poster child for the campaign of 2008, he left a helluva lot to be desired.
But dammit they are right on issues more than they are wrong and they are certainly mor of a mindset with the American people thatn ANY Dem I can think of right now.
Great! Then vote Republican! Every time!  
When they are right we need to back them and point out when they are wrong.
I'll agree with you on that - and I'm pointing out right now that the Republican party, under the spineless leadership of Michael Steele, is not in a position to oust the Dems right now. In point of fact, the Dems are doing a marvelous job in ousting themselves, dontcha think?
Tossing the baby out with the bathwater just helps the political party we are struggling against.
I don't believe I said anything about tossing any baby out with the bathwater, even when it comes to metaphors. Like it or not, we're stuck with the bullshit two-party system. As much as I'd love to interject a third party (I like odd numbers, okay?   ), that practice has largely failed to confront the real scourge, which is liberalism.
They LOVE to see posts that tout and hear experts claim "there's no difference between the parties".
In actual practice, despite the examples you cite below, the current crop of Republicans continue to spend and continue to expand government. Just how is that dissimilar from the Dems?
If there's no difference between the aprties then maybe you can point out the Republican Congressman or President that would have EVER supported having as an assistant AG the laywer that defended John Walker Lindh...or as the Assistant Solicitor General of the U.S. the laywer for Absul Hamden?
That's a strawman and you know it.
Which Republican Congressman...AG or President would have supported criminilazing terrorist interrogations?
I'll go you one better - check out McLame's connections with the Contras/U.S. Council for World Freedoms - the CWF being a conduit for funds to the Contras, a known terrorist organization. Oddly enough, terrorist organizations don't all have to be left-wing moonbats or even islamofascists.
You don't see Republicans coming up with the anti-business anti-capitalism programs designed to take us into socialism that the Democrats are. That's correct - and that's because they're too busy signing on to more government. (It's hard to do more than one thing at a time when you're a congressman.)

Saying there's no difference between the parties might get you a lot of rah-rah's on some internet chat site...but it doesn't mean squat in reality...and it plays into what the Dems want.
I don't particularly care what Dems want -- that's not why I posted the comment I did. I posted the comment because I'm fundamentally disgusted with Congress (as is the vast majority of Americans today). While I acknowledge that, in general, a Republican is preferred to a Dem (absent more in-depth study vis a vis Scuzzyfavabeans), being a Republican isn't an automatic ticket for my vote.

There is no magic bullet, just as there is no Republican plan right now. Steele is useless and should've stepped down after the election. I'd love for the RNC to step up and exert some leadership, but under Steele, it hasn't happened.

Responding to TVDOC's observation for the necessity for a plan, my plan has been and continues to be asserting my objections to the RNC. I haven't broadcasted those issues on this board because they've been sporadic and less focused than I'd prefer. But my disgust for Steele is only exceeded by my disgust for Congress.

I suspect I'm not alone in that.

[Chris_]

I get screwed over by those elected in other states.

As do we all, and there is little we can do about it.....

I don't think that this is what our founders had in mind.

Actually they did.....if you read the Federalist and Antifederalist Papers (perhaps you have) you can see that there was far from an ideological consensus between the two groups (or even within either of the groups), and the Constitution reflected a great deal of haggling, dissension, and eventual compromise.....

But then again, I don't think they envisioned the type of "full time" congress we currently have.

This is true......they envisioned a "citizen legislature" made up of representatives who would come from all walks of life and serve.....then return home.  The Senate (when members were chosen by the individual states) was about as close as they came to the concept of professional politicians that we have today.......

The likelyhood of changing it is remote, regardless of how desireable......Newt Gingrich tried to establish term limits as part of the "Contract with America" in 1994, and sadly failed.......

doc

[rich_t]

But my disgust for Steele is only exceeded by my disgust for Congress.

I suspect I'm not alone in that.

You are not alone in that.

[rich_t]

The likelyhood of changing it is remote, regardless of how desireable......

So we should all just sit back and not even attempt to change it?

Are you honestly advocating the support of status quo just because changing it would be difficult?

[Chris_]

So we should all just sit back and not even attempt to change it?

Are you honestly advocating the support of status quo just because changing it would be difficult?

No......I'm saying that you won't find enough politicians, regardless whether or not they run on, or promise to do so, to actually accomplish it......practical reality.

You will need at least 218 members of the House of Representatives......

60 members of the Senate........

And finally a president that will sign it.......

Political reality.....chance of sucess.....zero.....

Makes us all warm and fuzzy to think about it, but in today's environment, that is all that it will do.

doc

[TheSarge]

So we should all just sit back and not even attempt to change it?

Are you honestly advocating the support of status quo just because changing it would be difficult?

Wait...you've had any idea that is any better?

No one is saying the status quo should remain in place.

Support the Republicans when they do something right and hold them accountable when they don't.

But for God sakes your assinine idea of not supporting the party as a whole or just thrown them ALL out is just plain stupid and politically shallow.

[TheSarge]

There is no magic bullet, just as there is no Republican plan right now. Steele is useless and should've stepped down after the election. I'd love for the RNC to step up and exert some leadership, but under Steele, it hasn't happened.

Responding to TVDOC's observation for the necessity for a plan, my plan has been and continues to be asserting my objections to the RNC. I haven't broadcasted those issues on this board because they've been sporadic and less focused than I'd prefer. But my disgust for Steele is only exceeded by my disgust for Congress.

I suspect I'm not alone in that.

Euph I see you put all of about 5 minutes of thought into your reply...which is pretty good for you on this.

But I still see you...like bkg and a couple of others are really long on rhetoric and short on real ideas.

How about next time...bring your nose and your high brow down out of the clouds...quit treating those that don't agree with you like we're stupid and actually give us what YOU think the Republican/Conservative plan should be.

Cause right now you're about 7 paragraphs shy of an op order on this one.

[rich_t]

Wait...you've had any idea that is any better?

No one is saying the status quo should remain in place.

Support the Republicans when they do something right and hold them accountable when they don't.

But for God sakes your assinine idea of not supporting the party as a whole or just thrown them ALL out is just plain stupid and politically shallow.

My idea was to throw out ALL the RINOs and not just blindly follow the GOP lead by supporting whatever candidate that they happen to like.

If that occassionally means voting for a conservative independant then by all means that it what I am going to do.

I will support the candidate that I think will best represent my views regardless of what letter they put behind their name.

If that pisses off the broken glass republicans, I really don't give a damn.

[Eupher]

Euph I see you put all of about 5 minutes of thought into your reply...which is pretty good for you on this.

But I still see you...like bkg and a couple of others are really long on rhetoric and short on real ideas.

How about next time...bring your nose and your high brow down out of the clouds...quit treating those that don't agree with you like we're stupid and actually give us what YOU think the Republican/Conservative plan should be.

Cause right now you're about 7 paragraphs shy of an op order on this one.

 

Who's banging the rhetoric drum on this one, Tex? Here's a hint - take a look at your garbage verbiage just above.

Here's a news flash for you now that we're in condescension mode - your worship of the Republican party blinds you from seeing reality. Of course if you like walking around with a white cane, that's your business.

[TheSarge]

My idea was to throw out ALL the RINOs and not just blindly follow the GOP lead by supporting whatever candidate that they happen to like.

Who here is exactly following the GOP lead as you say?

If that occassionally means voting for a conservative independant then by all means that it what I am going to do.

And what happens when he gets shut out of both Caucus'?  How's that vote work for you then?

I will support the candidate that I think will best represent my views regardless of what letter they put behind their name.

You call yourself a Conservative and then sit there and say you'd vote for a Dem?

Really?

If that pisses off the broken glass republicans, I really don't give a damn.

How does it feel to have marginalized yourself from reality in the political world?

[TheSarge]

Who's banging the rhetoric drum on this one, Tex? Here's a hint - take a look at your garbage verbiage just above.

Show me where I'm wrong then.

Here's a news flash for you now that we're in condescension mode - your worship of the Republican party blinds you from seeing reality. Of course if you like walking around with a white cane, that's your business.

Tell ya what...you go back and show where I've shown some "worship" of the GOP and I'll stand down.

I dare ya.  Go back and dig up archives at CU if you want to.

But then it seems that your idea of "blind worship" is anyone who doesn't agree with your lame-ass theory that there is no difference between the Republicans and Democrats and that we should just toss them al lout and start over.

No plan...no clue as to the way we should go other than to belittle and berate anyone who dares challenge you to actually THINK instead of just knee jerk.

You keep beating that drum and then get back to me on who is really playing the rhetoric game.

[Eupher]

Show me where I'm wrong then.

Tell ya what...you go back and show where I've shown some "worship" of the GOP and I'll stand down.

I dare ya.  Go back and dig up archives at CU if you want to.

But then it seems that your idea of "blind worship" is anyone who doesn't agree with your lame-ass theory that there is no difference between the Republicans and Democrats and that we should just toss them al lout and start over.

No plan...no clue as to the way we should go other than to belittle and berate anyone who dares challenge you to actually THINK instead of just knee jerk.

You keep beating that drum and then get back to me on who is really playing the rhetoric game.

Here we go again. You get dialed up and it's off to the races. 

I'm not going to play your silly game -- invest (potentially) hours re-reading your "posts" on dozens of issues in an effort to find a term that approximates "worship" of the GOP.

You don't worship the GOP? Fine. Have it your way. Makes no difference to me either way.

Just don't sit there and tell me there are fundamental differences between the two parties - Dem and GOP - when Congress' own approval ratings hover somewhere near 11%.

Here's a link for ya, just in case you don't believe me - Rasmussen

Notice that the American people don't distinguish between the two parties -- they both suck pretty much equally. That's the point I'm making.

Mathematically, I think it's a long stretch to even try to segregate the parties when the very PROOF of how the politicians are executing their individual party platforms sucks as bad as it does.

Plan. Yeah, right. There you go with your "plan" thing again. *Sigh*

What about your plan is so monstrously genius that the eggheads and think tanks in D.C. haven't already thought of it?

Instead of criticizing the criticism of the two political parties and how they're fundamentally the same, i.e., serve themselves first, how are you so brilliant that you've blown the doors off the Mensa charts?

Are you that much in love with yourself that you can't see the forest for the trees?

[formerlurker]

We just had the biggest piece of socialist legislation pushed through by a supermajority that the "real conservatives" installed because they instead of placing an (R) in office, decided to stay home -- throwing their you-know-it's-all-about-me-and-MY-feelings trantrums on political boards instead of voting to maintain the balance. 

But but... "they" didn't put up a candidate I liked and "they" aren't listening to me  <------ why the freakin hell am I then only who sees the fundamental flaws in this reasoning.

Obamacare, brought to you by the "real conservatives."   You own it, wear it proud.

[rich_t]

Instead of criticizing the criticism of the two political parties and how they're fundamentally the same, i.e., serve themselves first,

Exactly!

[Chris_]

Obamacare, brought to you by the "real conservatives."   You own it, wear it proud.

Actually that is hyperbole, and simply not true......I can write a book on how we got to this point, without mentioning a single conservative name, so if you guys are going to discuss this intelligently, lets stick to the facts.....

The "100 percenters" have their position, and there is some validity to it, although most of us realize that the political reality will always leave them angry, frustrated, and relegated to lashing out at those of us who are pragmatists, and accept the political realities of the times......this isn't going to change, so beating each other over the head with it solves nothing.......

It's entertaining for some of us to watch......but it isn't productive in the real world......

Carry on.....

doc

[rich_t]

I think the term 100 percenter is bandied about far too frequently.

Some have reached the point where they will call anyone that disagrees with the recent behavior of the GOP leadership as a 100 percenter.

[Chris_]

I think the term 100 percenter is bandied about far too frequently.

Some have reached the point where they will call anyone that disagrees with the recent behavior of the GOP leadership as a 100 percenter.

Perhaps you're right......however, for me, it's one of those pesky......"if the shoe fits".....things.....

doc

[rich_t]

Who here is exactly following the GOP lead as you say?

And what happens when he gets shut out of both Caucus'?  How's that vote work for you then?

You call yourself a Conservative and then sit there and say you'd vote for a Dem?

Really?

How does it feel to have marginalized yourself from reality in the political world?

I've said it before and I'll say it again....  I've met some southern democrats that are far more conservative than some northern republicans.  So yes, I might vote for a democrat if I felt they would best represent my conservative views or at least a large percentage of them.

As I have stated on numerous occassions and I will do so again....  I will vote for the person that I feel will best represent me regardless of the initial they opt to put behind their name.

I don't give a shit if that pisses you or anyone else off.  I really don't.


Let me know when you start reading for comprehension.

The 100 percenter here is you.  You are 100 percent republican, which by the way doesn't mean you have any sort of LOCK on conservatism or what it means to others.

So go back to your juvenile insults.  It's seems to be all you have these days.

[rich_t]

Perhaps you're right......however, for me, it's one of those pesky......"if the shoe fits".....things.....

doc

OK.  Perhaps I am missing something here.

What is the accepted definition of a 100 percenter?

[Doc]

OK.  Perhaps I am missing something here.

What is the accepted definition of a 100 percenter?

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I view a "100 percenter" as an individual that insists on absolute purity in a candidate's views on conservative (or liberal for that matter) issues, and refuses to acknowledge that there are some conservative candidates that come from districts/states that simply will never get elected, unless they moderate their position on certain issues that are important to their constituancies.

In these cases the "100 percenters" scream at we political realists like we are traitors for simply suggesting that we could support a candidate from (for example) the southern California area that is "pro-choice", and pro-amnesty"........even though this candidate will consistantly vote with the Republicans on tax cuts, smaller government, increased military spending, etc., etc.

In instances like these, we think that the "100 percenters" ......or "poitical purists" is perhaps a better word, simply don't understand how our system works......and we are confused.......sure, we are all for electing, or putting up a primary challenger in a state/district to defeat a RINO if the people in that area will elect him/her.......the alternative to having "half a glass" rather than nothing at all, with a Democrat being elected.

To a political pragmatist like myself......I have a complete understanding that if we want to get rid of RINO's, and their liberal ilk from the political scene......we are not going to do it by running candidates that can't win in areas just to make us feel better, or voting for an independent, or third party candidate........we are going to have to change the minds of the PEOPLE that vote in these areas....to the extent that they will elect a more conservative candidate........

Granted, changing the minds of each and every voter in a liberal area is a steep hill to climb, but it is.....realistically.....the ONLY way to do it.......berating fellow conservatives for accepting the realities of politics is......as I've said a number of times......unproductive, and frankly silly......

doc

[rich_t]

Thanks Doc.

Perhaps in my expressions of what I desire, I may have come off as a 100 percenter to some.  But I assure you that I am well aware of the politcal realties.

I don't have to like it do I?

I can voice my opinion and work to change the status quo.

Which is pretty much what I have been attempting to convey even if ineffectively per some here.

[Carl]

We are all very opinionated and that often makes it easy to get our backs up sometimes...fair enough.

Along the same vein as what Doc wrote is the fact that there have been threads and posts here at CC regarding Scott Brown in Mass that he isn`t a conservative and almost a sense (my opinion) of distaste that he was elected.
No doubt coming from Mass he will not be a deep conservative nor likely to vote that way on some issues.

Look at what his election has done though in two months time.
It stalled the health care bill and opened up a window of sunlight and public discourse on it.
No it didn`t defeat it as hoped but a national conservative cause has been greatly helped by it.
Many in the middle that were cluelessly suckered into thinking O was the messiah have seen and become aware of what his politics stand for and will do.
He may very well prove to be more Rino then conservative but he also may have allowed for some deep conservatives in other areas of the country to be elected or for state and local parties to be aware of voter anger and be nominated.
I think that is a good thing and not a bad one and yes do not understand why sometimes there is an attitude of being looked at as a traitor or not conservative enough to be thankful for whatever gains we can make.

Not intended as an attack on anyone but as it relates to the immediate subject in general using a specific example.

 

[Chris_]

Thanks Doc.

Perhaps in my expressions of what I desire, I may have come off as a 100 percenter to some.  But I assure you that I am well aware of the politcal realties.

I don't have to like it do I?

I can voice my opinion and work to change the status quo.

Which is pretty much what I have been attempting to convey even if ineffectively per some here.

Roger that......tensions are running high right now, and it is going to get worse by November......hell, I just got off the phone with the former House majority "whip's" executive assistant......I've never done this before.....the candidate's name is Roy Blunt, and he is running for the senate seat here in Missouri that is being vacated by Kit Bond.....

The call was prompted by a letter that I received asking for campaign donations, so I called his office in DC, and asked for his legislative assistant, and told the operator that I had some very specific questions that I wanted to ask him about his position on issues, before I write him a check.......

Now Roy Blunt has been a consistant conservative since forever, but I wanted to make sure that if elected to the senate, the "McCain" syndrome would not set in......plus, the outgoing senator, Kit Bond, has been becoming more and more "mushy" on his positions over the past few years, so I wanted answers to some VERY pointed questions, and wanted to hear his legislative plans if elected......

It was a refreshing 45 minutes on the phone, and this guy called a "spade a spade" on everything from "amnesty" to what actions he planned to persue on HCR......he was very clear, and that was refreshing......

As an aside, I asked hom about the Republican plans for the HCR, and his answer was simply......"we are going to win back the House.......and gut this thing from top to bottom.......we can't repeal it, but we can certainly bring implementation of it to a screeching halt.......the majority made a BIG mistake delaying the onset of benefits for four years.....by that time, we will drive a stake through its heart".............

That, at least was encouraging....

doc

[formerlurker]

Actually that is hyperbole, and simply not true......

2008:

Then there were those who didn't show up. There were 4.1 million fewer Republicans voting this year than in 2004. Some missing Republicans had turned independent or Democratic for this election. But most simply stayed home. Ironically for a campaign that featured probably the last Vietnam veteran to run for president, 2.7 million fewer veterans voted. There were also 4.1 million fewer voters who attend religious services more than once a week. Americans aren't suddenly going to church less; something was missing from the campaign to draw out the more religiously observant.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122653996148523063.html