Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 16 October 2011

Various driveby media television networks ^ | 16 October 2011 | Various Self-Serving Politicians and Big Media Screaming Faces

[MNJohnnie]

I agree. I am so frustrated with this political inertia.

We have had our credit rating down graded for the 1st time in our history and yet too many Americans want nice safe soft slogans from the political class instead of real solutions

[Fishtalk]

Oh dear Lord, in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. I almost cried as I read your narrative.

Putting a dog on the ROOF of a moving car? What an awful thing to do! Much less tell the anecdote as if it were the stuff of great merriment.

So okay, let me calm down as I am hyperventilating.

[Fishtalk]

What you said.

[Cheerio]

n 20 years who will be the worse President Obama or Johnson. IMHO Johnson was worse than Carter....

Which one do you think TRANSFORMED America the most? One certainly put the maggots in the streets and destroyed the nuclear family and the other one ruined our economy and showed the world we could not even respond to terrorism.

[Fishtalk]

True, thank you as the poster was referring to my earlier assertion that I would reluctantly vote for Romney if need be.

See, if Obama wins again he’ll have complete and unfettered permission to destroy this country and nothing less. Fighting back against this man has not been easy but we did the midterm 2010 thing, elected Brown in Mass though he flipped us the bird.

Imagine if he gets another mandate to continue on?

I consider an Obamer win the total destruction of this country and when compared to a vote for the pussy Romney it pales as to end results.

Lord I’d love to the Blue Bloods GOP to go away, and I’ve got a story that will shock, a bit later, stay tuned.

But not against Obamer. That’s not the arena to fight them.

[DollyCali]

I know you have not.

[bray]

Rock, that is the real reason they want me out. I am bringing them into the Party and upsetting the CC.

Pray for America

[9YearLurker]

You’re right, Romney would effectively kill the Republican Party—and that’s probably a good thing.

No, I wouldn’t back him in the primary, but I think he is the likely nominee and if he were to win that might finally be the end of the great Democrat-GOP charade.

[Freedom56v2]

Secure beverage LOL. Yes, I heard the audio of this, but not seen the video, and I like the nametag...Thanks!

[Finny]

Sounds great except for one thing....4 more years of Obama and his SCOTUS and Federal Court appointments.

Research Romney -- Romney's appointments would very likely be on a par with Obama's.

So you would vote FOR more statism, bigger government, global warming cap-and-trade production and energy regulation, forced acceptance of open homosexuality in military and civilian American's live, and government controlled healthcare, out of fear? The Supreme Court card is the strongest one that the statist GOP has to get you scared enough to vote for a man whose record has endorsed everything you're against. Romney fails on EVERY count -- why on earth do you think he wouldn't fail when it came to the court appointments?

With 4 more years of Obama, Congress goes hard right, and his appointments would be much more likely to meet serious hard-nosed challenge than the very same appointments made by Romney.

[Alas Babylon!]

Amen and halelujah!

[SoJoCo]

Which is the whole point. We are not interested in continuing current spending. 9-9-9 is one part of a multi prong attack to seriously reduce the size and scope of the Fed Government.

Lord knows that government spending has to be reigned in. I agree with that completely. So where is Cain going to do that? The 9-9-9 plan is silent. On the one hand he says that it "might not be politically popular to modernize and eliminate some of our entitlement programs, responsible leaders should be willing to do it all the same." On the other hand, according to some, he continues to pander to those on Social Security by claiming their benefits will not be taxed. If he won't tax them, then how can we expect him to cut their program? Other than that there is the usual blabbering about 'nothing should be off the table' and 'everything must be reviewed' and all the rest. So in other words, he has no real clue as to what he will do. But we're supposed to take it on faith that he'll do something.

[Jeff Chandler]

They were going on vacation so he tied the dog in a crate to the roof of his station wagon

[ROCKLOBSTER]

Good for you. You’ll find a way.

Think we have any RINOs in Maine?????

Thanks for all you do.

Rock.

[Fishtalk]

So okay, let me tell my story.

First, posters on this thread have questioned my assertion that I would vote for Romney, an act, the posters state, that encourages the Blue Blood elite of the GOP to keep sticking their handsome moderates down our throats. I’ve stated my reasoning for this most difficult decision so I’ll not state it again. read it upthread somewhere.

More background....here in Delaware, in 2008, the threw out that perfect horrible Mike Castle and I wake every day happy, no mind that awful Coons fellow. At least Coons broadcasts his side with evil as Castle smiled in our faces and peed upon our feet.

As a result of this violent uprising of the Delaware Repub party, the whole party, from state head through all three counties threw over the betrayers who had been allowing this guy to keep getting elected, yes we did, to suffering, torment, mockery, help from our Wilmington News Urinal paper....BUT WE WON!

They did not go away, they will NEVER go away, so I remind those who chastise me about voting for the Blue Blood choice that I’ve suffered as much as anyone, probably MOST, posters on this thread. And I have not always been the stuff of bravery but let me tell you my most recent experience.

Those of us, mostly in Sussex county, the most wonderful place in America to live, filled with conservatives who do, from time to time, get out the pitchforks and tar. But we did get rid of the lot of them, we elected all new, the monthly meetings and activity at the grass roots level has tripled, probably quadrupled, up from the time Castle ran the Delaware GOP and every one just did what he said.

But as I’ve said often and will say again, the Blue Blood GOP will attack, destroy, rip off the heads and vomit down the bloody necks of their own base should they question their wisdom, even as they reach across the aisle with manicured hands. Believe it.

So my RDC (Regional Distric Chair) is a fellow who ran against an entrenched Delaware politico who supported Mike Castle and as an aside, this same politico just got a nice $100K job for the local school district. My guy, who I’ll call Edward but I know there are readers on this thread who know who it is and go with me here, calm down, but there are readers on this thread who are very much part of this same vicious Del Blue Blood GOP. But it’s a free country but know that I am not fooled.

So Edward, who didn’t win with his challenge but gave our entrenched REPUBLICAn Castle-backer with the big school job doing nothing, a big scare. Edward also worked long and hard for Christine O’Donnell. He is the anti-christ of the Blue Blood GOP.

Edward, I suspect upon lobbying from the Sussex sheriff, wanted to draft a resolution urging our Sussex county to give more empowerment to our sheriff. It’s a long story, Not applicable to this tale.

Edward worked hard to pass his resolution, calling all his EDC’s (electorial District chairs) of which I am one. I told Edward if he wanted this that I would support him, and I did. I also agree with the notion but ponder if the timing was right with electing more Repubs of more import than this. Nonetheless, he’s my RDC and he deserved my support lest someone think I am unreasonable. You pick your battles and this was not one of mine.

the resolution puts no rules on the county council, mind, just a “sense of the party” that we’d like you to do this or that. But we’ve got some power here in Sussex and who knows, maybe they’re scared we’ll get out tar and pitchforks.

So I’ll quote, between the dashed lines, from a local guy deeply involved in Repub politics, a “moderate” sort, his summary of just why Edward got voted down by the Sussex GOP.

---

Dear Friends,

The new ultra conservative Sussex GOP Committee doesn’t want the Sussex County Sheriff and his deputies to receive the minimum certification in police training. Former State Senate candidate and 37th District Chairman, who was pushing a resolution to certify these 8 men, was taken to task at the GOP meeting Monday night in opposition to his idea. The diatribe he received became insulting and personal by some of the conservative elite who spoke in opposition to his resolution. Go figure?

Frankly, it is ridiculous not to have our Sheriff’s department certified as police officers. We don’t need a Sussex County Police Force, but to have 8 extra officers in the Sheriff’s department who could make a legitimate arrest without being persecuted would be prudent and righteous. The State constitution clearly names the Sheriff as the “Keeper of the Peace” and it is ironic that these so called conservatives don’t support initiative which is clearly conservative, legitimate, prudent, and well meaning. What a bunch of hypocrites these people are!

Way to go —Thanks for your idea and I’m sorry you didn’t get the support you should have from the Republican Committee. One’s good work, time, and money are apparently easily forgotton by this group if you are perceived to have stepped on the wrong toes???

Respectfully Submitted-Coastal Network

---

Okay, this is part of my story.....to be continued.

[Alas Babylon!]

Absolutely, Pat. 100% and then some.

People need to look at how easy it is to destroy this great country.

Look what’s happened in just 3, going on 4 years. Can you image doubling that? What would be left to rebuild? And how will we be sure it’s not another Leftwing socialist that wouldn’t take the reins in 2016?

I’ll tell you what I think. Next year will tell us whether our fellow countrymen, at least the ones who vote, are in their right minds or out of their F$#$%#%@ minds!

If we on the Right cannot band together to stop that, then we’ll deserve whatever we get.

[rodguy911]

Yeah it think its 26 states all together.

[linn37]

Having Romney for four years is still a better choice then Obama.

[rodguy911]

Good idea and now is the time.Cain may well be the final choice for conservatives this go round.

[Yosemitest]

I will NOT vote for RINOs and that includes Romney.
If you want to lose, vote for him. He couldn't even beat McCain.
You'd better go with a conservative.
There's no way in hell I can compromise my values.

Jack Kerwick wrote an article on May 24, 2011 titled The Tea Partier versus The Republican and he expressed some important issues that I agree with.

Thus far, the field of GOP presidential contenders, actual and potential, isn’t looking too terribly promising.

This, though, isn’t meant to suggest that any of the candidates, all things being equal, lack what it takes to insure
that Barack Obama never sees the light of a second term; nor is it the case that I find none of the candidates appealing.
Rather, I simply mean that at this juncture, the party faithful is far from unanimously energized over any of them.

It is true that it was the rapidity and aggressiveness with which President Obama proceeded to impose his perilous designs upon the country
that proved to be the final spark to ignite the Tea Party movement.
But the chain of events that lead to its emergence began long before Obama was elected.
That is, it was actually the disenchantment with the Republican Party under our “compassionate conservative” president, George W. Bush,
which overcame legions of conservatives that was the initial inspiration that gave rise to the Tea Party.

It is this frustration with the GOP’s betrayal of the values that it affirms that accounts for why the overwhelming majority
of those who associate with or otherwise sympathize with the Tea Party movement
refuse to explicitly or formally identify with the Republican Party.
And it is this frustration that informs the Tea Partiers’ threat to create a third party
in the event that the GOP continues business as usual.

If and when those conservatives and libertarians who compose the bulk of the Tea Party, decided that the Republican establishment
has yet to learn the lessons of ’06 and ’08, choose to follow through with their promise,
they will invariably be met by Republicans with two distinct by interrelated objections.

First,
they will be told that they are utopian, “purists” foolishly holding out for an “ideal” candidate.

Second, because virtually all members of the Tea Party would have otherwise voted Republican if not for this new third party,
they will be castigated for essentially giving elections away to Democrats.



Both of these criticisms are, at best, misplaced; at worst, they are just disingenuous.
At any rate, they are easily answerable.

Let’s begin with the argument against “purism.” To this line, two replies are in the coming.


No one, as far as I have ever been able to determine, refuses to vote for anyone who isn’t an ideal candidate.
Ideal candidates, by definition, don’t exist.
This, after all, is what makes them ideal.
This counter-objection alone suffices to expose the argument of the Anti-Purist as so much counterfeit.
But there is another consideration that militates decisively against it.

A Tea Partier who refrains from voting for a Republican candidate who shares few if any of his beliefs
can no more be accused of holding out for an ideal candidate
than can someone who refuses to marry a person with whom he has little to anything in common
be accused of holding out for an ideal spouse.
In other words, the object of the argument against purism is the most glaring of straw men:
“I will not vote for a thoroughly flawed candidate” is one thing;
“I will only vote for a perfect candidate” is something else entirely.



As for the second objection against the Tea Partier’s rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions,
it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first.

Every election season—and at no time more so than this past season—Republicans pledge to “reform Washington,” “trim down” the federal government, and so forth.
Once, however, they get elected and they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail,
those who placed them in office are treated to one lecture after the other on the need for “compromise” and “patience.”

Well, when the Tea Partier’s impatience with establishment Republican candidates intimates a Democratic victory,
he can use this same line of reasoning against his Republican critics.
My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none, he can insist.
But in order to advance in the long run my conservative or Constitutionalist values, it may be necessary to compromise some in the short term.

For example,

as Glenn Beck once correctly noted in an interview with Katie Couric,
had John McCain been elected in 2008, it is not at all improbable that, in the final analysis,
the country would have been worse off than it is under a President Obama.
McCain would have furthered the country’s leftward drift,
but because this movement would have been slower,
and because McCain is a Republican, it is not likely that the apparent awakening that occurred under Obama would have occurred under McCain.


It may be worth it, the Tea Partier can tell Republicans, for the GOP to lose some elections if it means that conservatives—and the country—will ultimately win.

If he didn’t know it before, the Tea Partier now knows that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics.

Ironically, he can thank the Republican for impressing this so indelibly upon him.

I'm fresh out of "patience", and I'm not in the mood for "compromise".
"COMPROMISE" to me is a dirty word.
Let the RINO's compromise their values, with the conservatives, for a change.

The "Establishment Republicans" can go to hell!