Laura Ingraham and George Will Face Off About GOP Race on ABC’s ‘This Week’
Conservatives must have thought they died and went to heaven when the Roundtable segment of ABC’s This Week began Sunday.
There were syndicated columnist George Will and talk radio’s Laura Ingraham facing off on the state of the Republican presidential race (video follows with transcript and commentary):
GEORGE WILL: Time is not Newt Gingrich's friend because the more time he has, the more he talks, and the more he talks, the more he says things as he just did here this morning. He said, “I’d love to be civil, but I'm running against a maniacal liar.” Now that's pretty strong language. I don't know if you have ever told Longfellow’s nursery rhyme to your 4-year-old daughter Alice.
JAKE TAPPER, HOST: No, not yet.
WILL: “There is a little girl who had a little curl right in the middle of her forehead. When she was good, she was very good indeed. And when she was bad, she was horrid.” And we're at the horrid stage with Newt Gingrich. […]
LAURA INGRAHAM: Newt defined himself in South Carolina. He framed the debate as, “I'm the real conservative. Mitt Romney is the faux conservative. He’s late to this game of conservative politics.” What happened is he became the figure in “The Godfather” trapped in the revolving door, okay? The bullets were coming everywhere, and that revolving door was stuck. He couldn't get out of it. And, today on the show, he spent a lot of the time complaining about the tone of the campaign. Negative ads, they're lying, they’re not true. Some of it may be true, but there’s a rule of thumb in politics: if you’re at a point where you're complaining about the other guy being mean and unfair and uncivil, that's probably a sign that you're losing. And that’s what he’s facing right now. […]
WILL: I think Mitt Romney is still learning the great lesson which is it's very risky to be cautious in presidential politics. This is the man who had gone all the way back to last fall couldn't get ethanol right. I mean, life’s full of complicated questions - that's not one of them. I mean, Al Gore’s given up on it, and he’s still splitting the difference, and he’s going to have to stop that.
INGRAHAM: But George, I think we also have to remember, though, the pig pile on Newt, never seen anything like it. I mean he said it was carpet bombing. That's pretty much what it was. I can tell you there are a lot of us here in Washington today who wouldn’t be here probably if it weren’t for two people, or three people: Bill Buckley, Ronald Reagan, and Newt Gingrich. So, for all of these people who are, and George I know you're one of them, Newt Gingrich isn't a real conservative, and he has some ideas that truly are not conservative. But, he was the face of conservatism in the 1990s. He was vilified by the left, and he was hailed by the right. And right now, he is still connecting among independents.
Mitt Romney, in the last NBC/Wall Street Journal poll is shown to be plummeting among independent voters. Gingrich I think still has some strength there. We'll see what happens. I don't think he can withstand this fusillade that he's getting against Romney.
WILL: The most recent poll I have seen of his support among independents is 22 percent.
INGRAHAM: I'm talking about Mitt Romney versus Barack Obama. The metric of Romney versus Obama. The invincibility aura of Mitt Romney I don’t think is there.
And this is why there should always be two real conservative pundits on every political talk show panel so that viewers get all sides of the right-leaning argument.
Of course, we'd like there to always be at least one in such settings, but we can feel a little greedy after what we witnessed Sunday.
ABC and the other networks should take notice: two conservatives and two liberals make for a far more informative and entertaining discussion than what viewers are normally treated to.
Bravo and brava.
Associate Editor’s note: As you are likely aware, since the financial collapse of 2008, charities and non-profit organizations have seen a sharp reduction in donations. Although the environment has improved, contributions are still nowhere near where they were prior to the recession. Unfortunately, the Media Research Center has not been immune. With this in mind, your support has become more important than ever. With a critical election approaching, the liberal media needs to be monitored 24/7. As we have been predicting for months, the press are willing to do anything to get their beloved politicians elected and/or reelected. As such, we need your help to fight this fight. Any contribution, even $10, is greatly appreciated. Please consider a tax-deductible gift to the Media Research Center to help us battle the liberal media. Thank you.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Two paychecks and two boxes
Submitted by monsterman on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 2:47pm.
Two paychecks and two boxes of granola is more expensive than three boxes of granola and one paycheck.
above the fray
Submitted by MidAmerica on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 2:53pm.
Polls about matchups with obama are pretty much meaningless at this point. We have two guys rolling in the mud, kicking and screaming at each other and then the people are asked for their preference compared to obama? Wait until obama is one of the guys rolling in the mud before any real analysis of voter preference is given any credence.
Hmph
Submitted by kilrod on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 2:58pm.
Looked to me like just more of the axe murder of Newt. That hole bunch of elitist media butts do not have a clue what the average person sees and hears and reacts to. I'm calling Fl. for Newt right now.( if i'm wrong it won't be the first time are the last) It's time the elitist media and politicians, both rep. and dim. were taught a lesson and i think the Tea Party calvary are fixing to do just that.
(grins) kilrod "the Birther"
"Let the Good Times Roll"
If an unborn child cannot trust you, why should I,??
do you take a mitten to a gun fight?
Submitted by MidAmerica on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 2:59pm.
The talking heads don't realize how disgusted and disappointed the Conservative voters were at McCain for 'taking the high road' against obama thereby losing any chance of winning. Our fear about Mitt is that he will fight as dirty as they come against a fellow Republican and then go all McCain on us in the general election.
!!!!!!!!
Submitted by helomech on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 3:44pm.
You hit the nail on the head! I too think Mitt will go down like a house of cards against the Annointed One and the Libstream media
Yes
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 5:53pm.
Mitt doesn't have any fight in him, unless it's against other Republicans. Because it's cool to bash Republicans.
Ditto, You hit that nail right on the head brah.....
Submitted by Chicagoray40 on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 2:16am.
That's exactly what's gonna happen, and these two and their ego's are really something. Newt got himself in the race that night telling the moderator to go bite one and for the 5 (at the time) to keep focus on Obamadinejad.
But as soon as he started rising he and Romney are tearing apart each others like two twatttts. The left won't even have to campaign if they keep clawing at each others' like they're doing. They have ammo to stay on Obamadinejad's azzz from here to kingdom come but they attack each others. Idiots. "
It does make you wonder though if Romney is Obama's stalking horse and then should he win or lose they still have a devout lefty. OR Romney HAS grown up since MASS, like most people who mature that turn conservative. It's a tough call though, and Nuclear Newt is really what's needed to contrast Obama.
Romney's too much like him sadly except a natural born American at least.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe. –Albert Einstein My Twitter
That's fusillade not
Submitted by Lakewood Ed on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 3:00pm.
That's fusillade not fuselage. ;)
Good one, Ed
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 3:14pm.
I read that and went "whoa", too.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Why is it that Conservative women...
Submitted by stage9 on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 3:28pm.
have bigger nads than Conservative men? What a bunch of spineless wimps!
"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner." — Malcolm Muggeridge
All oif a sudden Laura likes Newt.
Submitted by NeoKong on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 3:36pm.
She had been pushing Romney on us before.
A day late and a dollar short.
Are you sure you're not
Submitted by dzejk113 on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 8:07pm.
Are you sure you're not thinking of Ann Coulter? Ann has been pushing hard for Romney.
NeoKong
Submitted by amyshulk on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 8:31am.
Right - before. Just watched BOR - Laura said she was in for Mitt last go round, and had decided to NOT back anyone this time.
Ronald Reagan
newt
Submitted by kinijane on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 3:41pm.
Just came out of Fl off a vaca and I must say, the tv was saturated
with anti Newt ads, seemed like one every 2 minutes. Glad to get
back home where I don't have to watch that crap. I am pretty
disappointed with the cat fight going on in the GOP right now, they
need to be telling us what they plan on doing instead of trashing
their opponents, plus all these rhino's coming out and putting in their
2 cents worth now, save it for when we are down to 1 and then put
your efforts behind who we choose and get Obama out of there or we
are done.
Wee George Sniffalotofpus
Submitted by Annie Ashe Fields on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 3:45pm.
ANYTHING is better than that smarmy putz Stephanopolous - He just oozes dishonesty and opportunism. Yech.
That being said, there's a LOT to like about Jake Tapper. He still goes to the zoo now and then with progressive propaganda, but a LOT of the time he can be counted on to ask good, smart questions.
PLEASE give him the hosting job! Get rid of George. Enough already. The '90's are over.
Don't be surprised if Georgie
Submitted by celator on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 6:45pm.
Don't be surprised if Georgie boy joins the Obama campaign. He's already on the campaign staff, of course, but he'll be doing it openly. Well, I know he's already doing it openly, but you know what I mean.
Well my man Cain left the
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 3:48pm.
Well my man Cain left the stage a while back and there are only three left standing, I dont count Ron Paul as he has no chance. And of those three I believe Gingrich has the best chance of winning. I just dont like Romney as he seems to be a RINO at best and a liberal in sheep's clothing. And Santorum just doesn't seem ready for prime time.
time for soul searching...
Submitted by jdripper on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 4:30pm.
No one knows the final outcome of the Tuesday vote. Florida allows early voting and many people voted during the SC mess. However, Romney is pushing to get a possible 20 point victory. If that happens then Newt needs to come to grips with the idea that all he can be is a surrogate for B.O. Time to call it a day. The sole question is do you want BO to win re-election? If so then tell Newt it is time to let Romney and BO fight it out.
Jack
Romney will only lead us down
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 6:01pm.
Romney will only lead us down the primrose path and leave us to the wolves. He is a liberal Yankee who is a definite RINO. Do you think Mass would elect anything other than a Democrat or Democrat lite? Newt has his problems but he is a conservative. Newt will tear BO to shreds while Romney will be like McLame.
Dan The Man 2
Submitted by amyshulk on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 8:36am.
Which is why while ABO {which runs VERY strong} will be "ABO, but if my choice is BO or Mitt, I'll have to decide which is worse - 4 more of BO, or an R who will is NOT a C, and will destroy any chance of putting us on the right path"
Ronald Reagan
Love Laura
Submitted by mmilesll on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 4:47pm.
She said it all-"we wouldn't be here if it weren't for Bill Buckley, Ronald Reagan and NEWT". Too many of the attackers keep forgetting to mention David Bonier. As Mark Levin would say "look it up". Yes Newt has made mistakes-we all have-but he is so much better for truly changing America than Mitt it is not funny. Romney will not abolish Obamacare-mark my word.
Yes
Submitted by stratman on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 8:19pm.
Bonior was one of the main jackals going after Newt. But the central issue was propagated by none other than Cooter from the Dukes of Hazzard TV show. I kid you not. Newt beat the pants off Cooter in an election and, vindictive punk that he was, Cooter cooked up charges against Newt. The charges went to the IRS who found Newt innocent of the trumped up charges. Byron York, who appears weekly on the Laura Ingraham radio show, wrote abote the ethics investigation back in the 1990's and last week wrote another article about these recent attacks on Newt.
Bonior, a Socialist scumbag Congressman from Michigan, was a buddy of Cooter's and cooked up 75 charges against Newt. Bonior has been in charge of a pro-Union lobbying group and worked for John Edwards campaign. As one article I read on Verum Serum (?) said, Bonior sure knows his ethics.
83 of 84 charges against Newt were dropped. The remaining single charge was downgraded as a misdemeanor and Newt agreed to pay $300K for the cost of the investigation, not a fine, as per the (wrong) advice of his attorney. The Left and establishment Republicans such as Romney are telling lies and half-truths about Newt. They fear what Newt might accomplish again if elected, including exposing, challenging, and campaigning to get rid of dead weight and parasites on both sides of the aisle who are screwing our country into ruins.
Laura is a Newt surrogate
Submitted by cbeyer on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 5:47pm.
Having listened to her show, laura is clearly biased towards newt. In this interview she noted romney weakness with independents against obama while ignoring virtually all polls that show mitt much stronger against obama than newt.
Another clear fact is that hannity and rush are in the tank for newt. Hannity has newt on one of his shows numerous times a week. Mitt not so much.
Of the three viable
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 6:04pm.
Of the three viable candidates, Newt is clearly the one who will beat BO.
~You know..
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 6:19pm.
Hannity could have Newt on simply because he, unlike Mitt, can talk without sending the audience into a boredom-induced coma..
~How the bloody hell..
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 6:23pm.
..can anyone with two functioning brain hemispheres support a blue-blooded, weak-kneed, lily-livered, liberal boot-licking sniveller like Romney?
well what if that's who's on the menu?
Submitted by Chicagoray40 on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 2:08am.
So you gonna lodge one for Hussein Obamadinejad? because a McCain style stay home protest or non vote is a vote for Hussein and nothing more.
The ONLY thing that will beat this SOS is an historical right wing turnout. The media's giving us Romney, but that doesn't mean people HAVE TO VOTE for him, so get out and vote for the alternative as many times as you can get away with just like the left will be doing in full force with illegals and ghetto snipe or suffer the end of the republic and nothing less.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe. –Albert Einstein My Twitter
~If that's who's on the menu
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 10:20am.
Then the lesson hasn't been learned. As long as the GOP establishment can get away with shoving garbage like Romney on us, nothing will change.
Scratch that, one thing will change. President Romney would tarnish conservatism beyond all hope of repair for the forseeable future.
OMG-youd think Snuffalufagus's head would explode!
Submitted by NJRightWinger12 on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 6:36pm.
IDK-does he still host? If not, Im sure its some other air-headed dumb lib doing it! Im surprised they allowed Laura through security, let alone TWO right wingers! If shows had it fairly even, they might be viewable! Maybe someday 60 Quaaludes! Yeah, right!
NJRightWinger12...Did you find 'This Week' viewable
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 8:32pm.
in the 90's when the panel was comprised of conservatives George Will and Bill Kristol, Democrats [but frequent critics of Clinton] Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts, moderated by Republican David Brinkley and produced by Republican Deborah Stone?
Jer
What we are all looking for
Submitted by celator on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 6:41pm.
What we are all looking for is a conservative, articulate Braveheart who can take the fight to Obama and his trained liberal seals. We want someone who can rally the troops, lead the charge and fight to the very end. We get a taste of that in Newt, and see none of those qualities in Romney.
As we know, this is not going to be an ordinary election. Obama will conduct the dirtiest election in 150 years, we can count on that. Union leadership, the Black Panthers, the hydra-headed Acorn goons, electronic balloting shenanigans, the MSM, the Socialist and Communist Party USA, the liberal academics et al have their sleeves rolled up on this one. I know for a fact that the AFL-CIO has sent trainers twice to this state to teach the state union workers how to disrupt elections, and pound on any media which supports the R nominee. No doubt the same is happening in other states.
We need a Braveheart.
IF FLORIDIANS GIVE US ROMNEY
Submitted by countryfirst on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 10:04pm.
I will never visit that state again, it will also prove that , they will beleive anything the lyin g rino says, what is wrong with these people, I WAS DISGUSTED WITH THE VOTERS WHEN OBOZO GOT IN , are they too stupiud tosee, there is no difference between rino and obozo
Don't forget this about Florida
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 8:44pm.
There are not very many native Floridians. We have been overrun on the Gold Coast by liberals from the northeast, as well as immigrants, and over on the West Coast is a huge flood of midwesterners.
It's particularly bad in Broward (where I live, home of the hangin' chad).....democrats from New Yawk abound.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I used to consider George
Submitted by big.league.slider on Sun, 01/29/2012 - 10:34pm.
I used to consider George Will a fairly bright conservative guy. But to listen to his feeble defense of Romney is a bit depressing.
He claims Romney is being careful and learning along the way. But Will fails to grasp that Romney has effectively been running for president for over 5 years, which would imply Romney is a slow learner.
Then Will's final flailing argument is Newt's current 22% poll standing among the magical "independents". Why would that statistic matter early in a primary race? The only poll statistic that currently matters is the one showing Obama getting pounded by a generic Republican candidate in the general election. By making such a comment, Will appears stupid enough to believe that if Gingrich is the nominee, all of these so-called moderates will flee to Obama. His theory being that a highly incompetent, but likeable Obama is preferable to a competent, but unlikeable Gingrich.
I hear you
Submitted by Chicagoray40 on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 2:01am.
And I think Will has run his course as a useful pundit just like most of the over 50's who have anything to do with DC in any way. All part of the old guard.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe. –Albert Einstein My Twitter
George Will and Laura Ingraham may not like Mitt...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 12:03pm.
equally as well, but this they have in common: They both know Mitt will win in Florida and then will go on to win the nomination.
Mitt can beat Obama because he has the organization, the money, the brains and the looks. Newt would fare as well against Obama as he did against Mitt.
~Even if he did beat Obama
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 1:17pm.
which I doubt, he'd be the biggest cluster!@#$ to happen to conservatism, ever.
The only thing worse than Obama is his pasty white twin pretending to be one of us.
Bru?
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 1:19pm.
Curious, who are you supporting?
~I don't like any of them
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 1:32pm.
but Romney is the worst option, in my opinion.
At least with Obama in office people are finding out that liberalism is one big, fat failure. A hardcore RINO like Romney will act like a liberal and make conservatism seem like a watered down big, fat failure. The way to truly destroy something is to pass off a counterfeit of it as the real deal.
And, I'm of the opinion that if Romney weasels his way into the nomination he'll get crucified on RomneyCare. ObamaCare is a huge point against Obama, and the media can, and will, use RomneyCare to point out that the Republican did the same thing, before Obama did it on a national level!
Game, set, match.
The RomneyCare-ObamaCare thing is interesting.
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 1:51pm.
But here's where I think Romney can sell it- in the SCOTUS decision. (Keep in mind, I'm not a Romney fan, but I suspect he'll win the nomination and we can't have Obama for another 4, so I'm trying to convince myself that I can vote for Romney i good conscience.)
I March, there will be 5-1/2 hours of oral argument on ObamaCare, specifically, the individual mandate. In June, a decision will be rendered. If, as a lot of people suspect, SCOTUS finds the individual mandate on the Federal level as un-Constitutional, Romney wins. He can say, "I've always said that what works in Mass. is not necessarily what should or would work for the entire country. That states should have the right to choose for themselves what works best for them. I've never supported ObamaCare on the federal level and as the Supreme Court just affirmed, ObamaCare on it's face is un-Constitutional. As president, I will work with governors to find health care solutions that work for them, and with Congress to insure that health care can be purchased across state lines."
Newt, on the other hand, supported Obama's individual mandate. Newt also supported TARP, by the way. And Dede Scozzafava.
Anyway- my point is mostly on RomneyCare/ObamaCare. I think that argument will be largely moot come June; a point a lot of people seem to be omitting. In July we'll either be talking about a GOP administration trying to find ways to limit the big-government effects of ObamaCare in the future, or the GOP plan for health care reform in this country as ObamaCare crashes and burns. The SCOTUS decision means everything.
~Newt and Dede
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 2:08pm.
Did Romney throw his weight behind Hoffman?
All three of the men in current contention are hand-in-glove with the GOP establishment elites. That's why I don't like any of them.
Bottom line, Romney pulled an Obama in his state before there was an Obama. He's obviously not ideologically opposed to statism, as long as his side is doing it. That's an insurmountable strike against him, as far as I'm concerned.
Maybe you're the wrong person to address this with
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 2:16pm.
though that's why I asked initially who you support. What I'm trying to figure out is, how can anyone support Newt over Mitt based on the big-government principles held by each? But it sounds as though you're sitting this one out, so I apologize for drawing you in. Odd how few takers there are on this subject though (I've asked it in various ways on a couple of threads), and how many seemingly passionate Newt supporters there are on these boards -you, notwithstanding.
~I can't support *any* of them
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 2:40pm.
based on the big-government principles they hold! I'm VERY disappointed in the options. I've never sat a vote out in the 12 years that I've been old enough to vote, but when I try to picture pushing the button for either Newt or Mitt my imagination simply fails me. (I don't think Santorum stands a chance of getting the nod)
I don't see how anyone can be passionate about the current selection. I'm tepidly for Newt over Mitt, but only because I see Mitt as the worst possible choice for a Repub nominee.
I am with you on this one.
Submitted by Ruths husband Ben on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 2:56pm.
I am with you on this one. Never have I seen such a miserable selection. At least at this point in the last election we had a possibility of a decent candidate. Of course we ended up with McCain, but there you go, we had a shot. I may not vote this time because as I said before, I would rather have the nation taken down the toilet by a Democrat then by a Republican. Obama, Newt, or Romney don't have what it takes to lead us at this juncture. I'm not sure Santorum does but at least he is a man of values, not values of the moment or of opportunity.
We hammered Kerry for flip flopping and we have the two leaders in the race who have flip flopped more than Kerry ever dreamed of and they essentially get a pass because they are of our party? Not from me.
Edited to add: I would vote for Ron Paul over these two clowns and Ron Paul is nuts.
RhB,
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 3:14pm.
Up until 2008 I would have agreed with you but, respectfully I can not agree with that premise anymore.
For one thing, when you are fighting for life you hold on for as long as possible hoping for a miracle or at least an abatement to those things that are killing you. With Obama you are saying you would rather die quickly as long as it is someone else's fault.
For another, your reasoning that the Democrats/Liberals will be blamed is nullified by the increased control of the message by media and the state (as bad as the media manipulation was under Bush - how many times did you hear that with the internet and talk radio it couldn't get worse - now it is many times worse under Obama). Any loss in this election by a Republican will be a great victory for the Obama agenda. Any failure of the Obama agenda will be the fault of recalcitrant Republicans.
Both candidates have in one way or another promised to kill Obamacare. Both candidates, in very different ways, have an understanding of budgets, job creation and the role of government in economics. Their histories are pathetic but in lieu of strapping yourself to the Titanic I believe it may be better at this point in our fight for survival to perhaps hope the candidate has learned some lessons along the way and fulfills their campaign promises.
~A few thoughts
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 3:25pm.
1. You're basing all your hopes on a big-government establishment elitist changing his spots.
2. The media won't give Republicans credit even if they do pull the economy back from the brink.
3. If Obama is at the helm when the ship goes down the media will not be able to successfully claim that a minority in Congress was the sole reason for his failure. They can say it till they're blue in the face, but it's simply not credible to the majority of the population.
WB, a few more thoughts
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 3:36pm.
1. My hope of the big-government establishment elitist keeping their campaign promises has a much better chance of happening than Obama stopping his effort to continue fundamentally changing America.
2. I would take the blame for all the ills in the world to get America back on track. I can argue my points everyday in a free society but not if I'm busy standing in line to get bread for my family.
3. At some point of control the media can abandon the pretense of credibility. It has happened many times in history. Though this is one of the few times it has happened with consent.
Bonus thought: People can surprise you when given the opportunity. I think we know what Obama's surprises will be like.
~I think my response below
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 3:57pm.
covers what I would say here, so I won't duplicate.
I have come to the painful
Submitted by Ruths husband Ben on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 4:53pm.
I have come to the painful conclusion that both parties are lying to us and have been lying to us since Roosevelt was President. And this is the lie: That Politicians can fix anything. That Politicians are capable of fixing anything. They can't. Do you ever wonder why so many of them are so fatally flawed? The reason given by the talking heads is because they are highly intellectual and those types are always flawed. Bull. They are fatally flawed because they believe the lie as a fundamental principle. When you build on a lie, everything else is also a lie.
Politicians can't fix anything. The government can't fix anything. Democrats want to create a state where all the underpriviledged are taken care of. And although this sounds nice, the end result is that government turns human beings into pets. And that is evil. Eventually, that type of system creates feral pets (AKA Occupy). And that is truly evil.
But the Republicans are little better (if at all). They too believe the lie that government/politicians can solve the problems that government/politicians created. The truth is they are all leaches on the backs of the people who actually produce wealth. It is not a symbiotic relationship, just a different kind of parasite. Their insanity is clear by who they bring forward to battle the Democrats. In an election cycle that should be a walk in the park because of Obama's abysmal record, it isn't clear that any of the dough-heads the Republicans are running stand a chance in hell.
So, go ahead and vote for whoever you think will save us. I hope you are right and I am wrong.
But I think we are in for a hard reset. I think the entire world is in for a hard reset. And I have begun steps to (hopefully) weather the storm.
I would argue that politicians are "fatally flawed",
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 5:22pm.
to use your term, more so at the executive level than the representative level simply because they have to appeal to a broader range of people in order to get elected. It's why Ron Paul can continually be elected to the House, but doesn't stand even a remote chance at the White House.
America, by it's very nature, will always have conflicting political viewpoints. There will always be pandering and there will always be relatively moderate executives, i.e. Governors and Presidents. (Obama is clearly a one-off in that regard, but mostly because of the completely misread mandate and progressives' opportunity to exploit the financial crisis that began in '07. Recent revelations by Larry Summers regarding the Stimulus prove that; they were able to use the financial crisis as a way of securing taxpayer money to reward their campaign supporters in a way no other President has been so unabashedly arrogant to do.)
If we could elect a truly conservative president in this country, we would have seen true Conservatives enter the race. The Tea Party is roughly 27-30% of the Republican Party; no candidate can win on the Tea Party vote alone. And, unfortunately for Bru and the rest of us who'd like to see liberalism - or more appropriately, progressivism- eradicated: we won't. Ever. You simply can't convince people who live off of others without consequences, to stop. And you can't add consequences and win national elections. And for anyone who thinks this is so, I would challenge you to walk through the streets of west Baltimore with a sandwich board saying "End Social Welfare" on the front and "No More Free Rides" on the back. You'll not survive the experience.
South Park has a great episode in '04 that concluded that every election comes down to a metaphorical Giant Douche vs. a Turd Sandwich. That pretty much sums it up.
~One point
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 5:32pm.
before I get dinner started.
If we could elect a truly conservative president in this country, we would have seen true Conservatives enter the race.
I believe that we see so incredibly few 'true conservatives' in politics because a true conservative is far too sane and normal to want to run for political office.
Two thumbs up to your last point in that comment. LOL
I don't watch South Park, but
Submitted by Ruths husband Ben on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 5:42pm.
I don't watch South Park, but I agree with the sentiment. And I'm not going to buy into either anymore. All of my political involvement (read monetary donations) are at the local level now. I am donating to defeat Claire McCaskill, cause I am from Missouri and because she told her staff not to answer any phone calls from constituents running up to the Obamacare vote and I told her then that I would do whatever I can do to make sure she is replaced (remember me honey?).
being preparred doesn't hurt
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 10:12am.
You have come to the same painful conclusion as nearly every major political philosopher since ancient Greece. Politicians are a problem because of their own ethical/moral failings, the ethical/moral failings of their constituents and/or the corruption of power. I think you would be surprised at how few really believe the lie that they can fix things. However, what they do know is that things have to happen for them to campaign and win re-election so they are obligated to ‘make things happen’.
If you are alluding to the idea that they have been lying to us since FDR you are off by at least a century on a large scale and even farther back on to smaller degrees. Check out the rhetoric used in arguments for statehood for various territories used in several campaigns if you ever get the chance.
Think about this – Trust in the media is nearly inconsequential; trust in the Congress is a mere statistical anomaly; faith in government is at record lows; less than 40% believe we are even going in the right direction; however, Obama’s approval rating is above 40%. As much as you may dislike our political representation, this must tell you something about the people, voters, constituents that these politicians are supposed to be representing.
“So, go ahead and vote for whoever you think will save us. I hope you are right and I am wrong.” – Trust me; you don’t want me to be right. There is only one group of people, IMHO, that can save us and that is the American People but I have little faith in that right now. So, in lieu of having a solution I am for forestalling the consequences and either hoping for a miracle that puts on the correct path or that we at least hang on long enough for my child to have a reasonably good life. Many people see the failure of liberalism in the US as the proof of the superiority of capitalism and conservatism but I simply do not. The failure of liberalism in the US will bring the nation down with it and what comes out the other side is most likely going to be a modern version of the Dark Ages (the real dark ages – not the myth induced and Hollywood version preceding the Enlightenment). It is not just what is happening here in the US. It is the decline of Western Civilization to their own greed (greed is good as a motivation not as a lifestyle for a nation), the rise of the power in the Caliphate and the inability of the world to distinguish when it is necessary to take a stand and to be able to stand together.
“But I think we are in for a hard reset. I think the entire world is in for a hard reset. And I have begun steps to (hopefully) weather the storm.” – In this I agree with you. I’m not ready to go S.M. Stirling in Dies the Fire and The Protector’s War but it is something that I keep in mind. However, I do think that the current conditions are creating the leadership out there that we need to escape our current path. Strong people that know that leadership is not about giving people what they want but allowing people to have the opportunity to earn what they need and the freedom to make decisions that allow them to also earn what they want in a limited fashion.
Yeah, I am not interested in
Submitted by Ruths husband Ben on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 11:21am.
Yeah, I am not interested in becoming a survivalist, at least not in the wearing pseudo-military clothing, and playing Rambo on weekends. I am interested in finding ways to feed my family, staying warm, provided medical care, and basically keep below the radar as much as possible for the 10 to 20 years it would take to sort everything out.
I don't think either Gingrich or Romney has the desire or wherewithal to push back against the liberal infection. Romney's offer to "on the first day in office, I will issue an executive order to allow any state that wants to to opt out" actually belies his belief that Obamacare is a good thing. Otherwise, he would swear to repeal it whole hog. The federal government has no business whatsoever mandating that to even a state which wants to have universal health care. If a State wants it, like Mass., I think that is okay, but the feds really overstepped the Constitution on this one. I think Obamacare is tantamount to tyranny. And Gingrich has already stated that he was in favor of much of Obamacare itself.
I think Ron Paul has the desire, but would probably be the most ineffective President because he is too tied in with the wacko's. In addition, he would fail completely in defending us against the enemy without, while we are addressing the enemy within.
Of the four, I like Santorum best, but he too is a big government type, so there you go.
Like I said, the Republican machine let Conservatives down big time and I for one am so pissed about it I can't see straight.
~Precisely
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 3:17pm.
When the ship of state sinks beneath the weight of liberalism we don't want the rats to be able to blame us as they scurry off.
Wrathful Brunette
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 3:50pm.
and what is going to stop them - regardless of who is sitting in office? They don't take the blame for USSR, PRC or even NAZI Germany as failed socialist programs and have even managed to make NAZI Germany into a conservative movement while supporting PRC as a potential paradise and USSR as a good idea gone bad.
Putting Obama in office for four more years not only gives him the power to continue his transformation of America but it also gives four more years of a stranglehold on the media.
Edit (added): Prior to 2008 I was making similar arguments as you are now but after seeing what has transpired in the last 3 years my ideas have changed to get the most appropriate person into office and then fight that person to do the right thing.
~It's all about swaying perception
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 3:54pm.
Liberals count on deceiving people to fulfill what would be an unpopular agenda if it were made clear, conservatives count on telling people the truth and letting them draw their own conclusions.
Liberalism is bringing the civilized world to it's knees, and liberals aren't in a campaign to stop that from happening, they're in a campaign to convince people that it isn't liberalism's fault. When all the people in charge while the economy crashes and burns are avowed liberals, the biggest media spin campaign in history isn't enough to cover up the truth.
The longer Obama is in power, the more he and his fellow liberals will be exposed for what they truly are. The more exposed they are, the more unpopular they and their ideology will become, and the web of deceit will break. When it does, the truth will stand clear in the wreckage.
WB,
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 4:04pm.
In the wake of the destruction of the freest nation on Earth it will be comforting to know that it was someone else's fault - but not much. How long did the truth stand after the collapse of the USSR?
The Conservative principals that we hold so dear will not win until there is leadership in place that can espouse those ideas with the passion of the founders in face of 'feel good' rhetoric and public sympathies.
The ideas of hard work and diligence lose out to the ideas of entitlement and being a victim as long as our selected leaders are willing to exchange freedom for security - for themselves and for their constituents.
We need to survive long enough to find such leadership.
~The destruction didn't begin when Obama was elected
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 4:15pm.
And it won't end if he's kicked out. Liberalism as a whole must be defeated, and the only way for that to happen at this point is to let everyone see what it looks like when it runs rampant.
WB, (Allen West Quote)
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 4:27pm.
(if you haven't seen the quote at the bottom please read it even if you don't read the rest of the response - I believe the leaders we need are out there and they are getting ready if given enough time)
We, as a world, have seen it many, many times and it is still around. Ideas don't get defeated by simple failure but by abandonment. People have seen the destruction of socialist ideas repeatedly and they continue to migrate back to same ideas because of new rhetoric, apologist and because they are not ultimately crushed by capable leaders. How many dead in the last 70 years due to social programming and yet 90% world is still heading down that path.
I see glimpses that there are people out there ready to lead that are willing to do what it takes to bring the nation back. I just hope there is enough freedom left for them to at least make an attempt. It is possible that we could survive 4 more years of Obama and still make a turnaround but even I am not very optimistic about that possibility. I can think of three very good economic reasons to vote for Romney or Newt until we can get someone better. For now three reasons is all I need.
One example:
Rep. Allen West-'This is a battlefield that we must stand upon and we need to let president Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and my dear friend, the chairman of the democrat national committee, we need to let them know that Florida is not on the table. Take your message of equality of achievement, take your message of economic dependency, and take your message of enslaving the entrepreneurial will and spirit of the American people somewhere else. You can take it to Europe, you can take it to the bottom of the sea, you can take it to the North Pole, but get the hell out of the United States of America.'
~Agnostic
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 5:18pm.
I read every response to me in a convo with the exception of crazy people rants, so no worries.
People abandon bad ideas because they fail, which is why liberals have to keep re-branding their pet projects and pretending that the failed ones aren't theirs. The problem is, liberals have come up against the wall since the entire world is running out of money to fund them.
I believe that a collapse of the current debt-based system is inevitable, and when that collapse comes we don't want to be the ones trying to prop it up. When we try to 'rescue' Social Security/Medicaid/Medicare we're rescuing liberalism. All the establishment wants to do is resuscitate the current system, and the current system is rotten to the core.
failure leads to abandonment -
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 8:29am.
but not until the people pushing the ideas find something else to have faith in (one of the many importance of religion in history).
Socialism has failed and failed and failed but until the people who are believers in the idea can be lead to something more substantial they will continue down the same path while changing names or shifting blame. That is why, IMHO, just allowing them to show their failure will not work. You have to give them an alternative to their failure. If we were to somehow elect the greatest group of leadership since the founding fathers and turn everything around in 10 years and be a peaceful and prosperous nation you would still have 30%+ of the nation fighting for social solution to problems.
Freedom is hard, capitalism requires tough decisions and conservatism doesn't sell well to people who demand 'change'. The more a society prospers the less the people want to hear words like hard, tough and patience. It doesn't help that there are people out there that are willing to make their fortunes by turning a society upside down. Soros was for capitalism in a socialist nation in order to make money and he is for socialism in a capitalist nation to make money - in chaos there is opportunity.
The truth is that people in general, even conservatives, want a mixed economy. They want their socialist programs and their government involvement but everyone disagrees on how much. As a nation we can afford great programs even run as inefficiently as a government will run them. The problem is that the opportunities are limited and we have to have responsible people work within exacting guidelines to maintain these programs and that is something that a government cannot do. Did you ever hear the punch line - "No politician ever got elected by promising not to fix something!"? It is true. We seek out people that by their very nature are people wanting to take action and try things and we put them in positions of power and to make things better. What are they going to do? They are going to take action and create programs, push new laws and make deals because it is their nature to do so because that is who we sought out. One of the reason the nation was set up as Republic is so that the checks and balances along with good leadership could limit the democratic sort of flotsam that has taken over DC.
We as a people are at fault as much as the deplorable leadership that we have had in the offices in DC and around the nation (a blanket statement that I realize is not fair to all). In the simplest terms - the government needs to be concerned with the needs of society but we elected people that would service our wants. Our wants are unlimited and they are dragging the nation down.
Not only do we need to find an 'Idea' to replace socialism for a society but we also need to start electing leadership by the quality with which they can lead and not what they can do for us.
Many people will not accept hard work and making tough decisions when living in a comfortable society so you will always have people with the tendancy to believe the socialist rhetoric. The failure of the liberal ideas in the US can only come with a failure of America. There is no guarentee that a Republic will rise from the ashes.
Agnostic
Submitted by amyshulk on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 9:45am.
I agree, with one exception - the pendulum. It has swung too far left, and it's going to sharply swing back, hurting {as per usual} the middle class. That's all that ever seems to happen - the MC gets squished, while the bottom is held down, and the "elite" run our lives.
I don't see an end to entitlements, but I *hope* to see people having to "work' for them instead of finding their way through the bureaucratic maze, to then have those programs shower them with such largesse as we see now.
Ronald Reagan
The pendulum is on a ship that is listing left.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 1:10pm.
Hence the pendulum never swings back all the way to the right, we may get a little right swing out of the next elections, however the left swing after word will finish us off.
EPA is killing us and it's a religion... mission statement in only one of it's many branches......to save the ozone layer
We are all (us tax payers) compliant members of this cult, that has the Audacity to compete with the Creator of the Universe.
You Didn't Build That.
~It seems I haven't been clear enough
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 10:09am.
My whole point is that people must fully realize what liberalism truly is in order to finally reject it, and when they do they'll look for something else, and that's where we come in. We're not starting from scratch here, we already have the Constitution. It already produced the greatest nation on earth and it can do it again if we return to it. That's it. Finito.
And no, the failure of liberalism isn't the failure of America, it's the re-birth of what liberalism slowly choked to death. The simple fact is that if we didn't have all these unConstitutional socialist liberal programs, we wouldn't be sinking beneath their weight.
Wrathful B,
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 10:23am.
I get your point and I will admit that I'm not being clear because I don't want to use terminology that some may find offensive but if you will allow me to be blunt I will attempt not to offend.
Socialism can not fail as an idea because it is not a system of governance or a style of economics. Socialism is an idea that is in search of a functioning structure that can support it's tenets. In short Socialism is closer to a religion than anything else. People don't give up their religions because they fail. They may eventually abandon the religion for various reasons including the one you expect - a better idea comes along. But the tenets of Conservatism and Capitalism are not religious in nature even they parallel many basic beliefs. Hard work, tough decisions, patience and the idea of opportunity costs do not appeal at the emotional level of a religion. If you want to replace Socialism in the hearts and minds of people it has to be something that will appeal to their emotional needs.
~Socialism fails every time it's tried
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 12:43pm.
And all we have to do is point to the failures and then point to what worked, the Constitution. We don't have to build from the ground up, the ideological framework is already in place and all we have to do is go back to it. We're not Russia, where they didn't have a clue what to do once the serf system collapsed. America has a long history with a system that WORKS, as long as we stick to it. We need to hammer that point, and we've already got a significant base that knows all this.
Every facet of liberalism is a substitute for religion, whether we're talking about their "be green" mania or their supposed compassion for the poor. It's all part of a system to replace God and all He represents, because once you get rid of God, you can do whatever the hell you want with no consequences.
We should start a forum on this.
good luck WB,
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 3:56pm.
people have been pointing out the failures of socialistic ideas for 250 years that I know of but maybe this time it will work - who am I to say it won't.
Your topic for a forum would need to recognize that though central planning has been a core tenet of socialism - in of itself, central planning is generality and not a specific governing or economic system for the purpose of debate. Other than that I have to agree that whether deliberate or not Socialism is an equivalent to Islam in that it is a system that exists in order to combine religion and government into one entity. The human need that is fed by religion has to be replaced and socialism has all types of reactionary methods of allowing its faithful to deal with that issue.
~If Americans as a whole were drawn to socialism
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 6:04pm.
or wanted it to replace the Constitution, liberals wouldn't have to pretend they aren't socialists. Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue. They know we'd reject it if they called it what it is, so they call it something else.
You'll notice that liberals are fine with all the gods but the Christian God; why do you think that is?
That's not necessarily true
Submitted by dzejk113 on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 7:41pm.
The only god liberals are fine with is the muslim god, and that's mostly out of fear, and partly out of admiration for islams relentless drive for absolutism. I'm certain that if any of the various pre-Christian religions of Europe were still around today, liberals would hate them too, because they all revered powers greater than man and had their own codes of conduct, some stricter than others. Islam has been the only exception to the liberals hatred of religion.
~See bottom of the thread
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 7:40pm.
.
An appropriate spot for dzejk's bottom-of-the-barrel scrapings.
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 8:01pm.
His/her drivel about liberals admiring Islam because of its relentless drive for absolutism is so demonstrably absurd it is actually comical.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 8:18pm.
Any idea why liberals shield islam? I'm having trouble figuring that one out.
Rad...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 9:24pm.
There are probably factions on the left which are guilty as charged, but I think with respect to the majority of liberals the issue is one of support for religious tolerance, which some interpret as pro-Islamic and anti-Christian biases.
Jer
~Question for everyone
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 1:38pm.
Does anyone think that the TEA party would have come into existence, or that conservatism would have experienced the resurgence it did, if McCain had won?
Yes.
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 1:51pm.
Absolutely. In response to Johnny Mac.
~I can't see it
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 2:13pm.
The fact that McCain won (in this hypothetical) as a Republican and supposed conservative would make protesting him as a conservative incredibly difficult. Just by publicly opposing him you'd automatically be aligning yourself with liberals.
For example, were there massive public protests from conservatives about Bush's liberal domestic policies?
Good point
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 2:26pm.
Although I don't remember too many people championing Mac as a conservative.
Personally, I think too much emphasis is placed on historical reference. You can't win the nomination without SC. You can't win without big money. It's whoever is next in line. Blah, blah, blah. I think the reason people weren't protesting Bush over spending is because 94% of the country was working and actually making pretty good money. People could buy a car every other year. They could buy a house with zero down. "Wanna take the kids to a movie tonight honey? Sure, why not."
But then everything changed. And quickly. People lost their jobs. And housing! Man, housing made all the difference in this past recession compared to others. The stars were unusually aligned for Dems heading into '08 and they completely misread -or more likely, just took advantage of- their mandate. They over-reached like never before and came out of the closet with their real agenda. People woke up for the first time and, looking back, realized how they were set up for this to happen. And finally, they got mad.
That's why I think '08 was a shift from what used to work pretty consistently to a scenario that made both the Tea Party and the idiot OWS'ers a force in today's political condition. It's much easier to protest when there is something tangible to protest about. Not having a job due to the economic conditions in the country is tangible. Not having a job for 6 months got people out of their homes. Not having a job for 2 years has kept them out of their homes. These weren't the conditions under Bush, or Clinton before him.
~It's not that McCain was conservative
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 01/30/2012 - 2:59pm.
It's that the perception is that conservatives and Republicans are the same thing.
A bunch of elephants protesting the elephant in charge and trying to tell everyone that he isn't really an elephant and the qualities of a real elephant are a, b, c, while his qualities are d, e, and f, therefore he's not a true elephant, is a considerably more difficult task than elephants protesting a donkey. The differences between them are much easier to delineate.
Meanwhile the elephants protesting the 'elephant' are marching in the same direction as the donkeys, with one group protesting the guy isn't conservative enough and the other protesting his supposed conservatism. It muddies the waters and turns off the less-informed, who assume, based on superficial appearances, that there's no difference between liberalism and conservatism and therefore the answer must lie elsewhere.
Enter radical socialists, communists, anarchists, stage left.
That said, I completely agree with you that most people don't pay attention to politics until the actions of the government adversely affect their pockets in a noticeable way. That's where the ideological war must be fought and won, because too many people are now so ignorant of history and human nature that the radicals mentioned just above find fertile ground for their agenda.
~dzejk113
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 01/31/2012 - 7:46pm.
Liberals gush and fawn over every religion except Christianity; when's the last time you heard any of them speak mockingly of Buddha, Shiva, or Allah?
I can't say
Submitted by dzejk113 on Wed, 02/01/2012 - 1:37pm.
I've ever heard liberals speak about Buddha or Shiva one way or another. But the impression I always got from liberals was that they were against the whole concept of believing in God, or gods. They prefer their earthly religions like man-made global warming, evolution, and utopianism, where humans are the ultimate power and not some deity. I'm not trying to say that liberals don't hate Christianity, I'm saying all religions are incompatible with liberalism, but they make an exception for islam out of fear.
@Jer: I'm glad I could amuse you.
~Liberals go out of their way to fawn
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 02/01/2012 - 1:46pm.
over every religion but those based on Judeo-Christianity.
Escaping the single column
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 02/01/2012 - 3:16pm.
Escaping the single column print-
"~If Americans as a whole were drawn to socialism or wanted it to replace the Constitution, liberals wouldn't have to pretend they aren't socialists."
On average Americans are drawn to improving society. In as much that the average person sees America as a prosperous nation they leave their hearts, minds and wallets out to the idea that we can take action to help those that need help in a more inclusive manner than private charity. Social Security, Training Programs, Education, Libraries, etc..., become the bedrock of government involvement in the tenets of advancing the society. People want cuts in spending but when you put programs in front of the average person and ask, 'Do we cut this program?' - the answer is usually, 'No!'. We may not seek out socialism as individuals but the society on a whole demands it at some level. It is up to true leadership to keep the level of social demands at an affordable level - one that they will almost always fail to do.
"You'll notice that liberals are fine with all the gods but the Christian God; why do you think that is?"
Because it is the one they see restricting their life/lifestyle and it is the one they see in their political opponents.
~Americans give more to charity, percentage-wise
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 02/01/2012 - 3:47pm.
than any other country, last I checked. Yet most Americans don't want taxes raised, which indicates to me that we're much more comfortable with voluntary giving to charity than we are with being forced into funding government social programs.
Sure, they'd like to cut the program, they just don't want to be seen, or to think of themselves, as mean and selfish. Which is why the Left has been so successful at impoverishing us through confiscation and re-distribution, they frame the debate as a "Do you want poor people to starve?" issue rather than a "there's no Constitutional grounds for government social programs" debate.
This highly entertaining video does a great job of explaining why the Left hates God...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c
Wrathful Brunette
Submitted by amyshulk on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 4:22am.
Thanks for the link - I watched this last year and Evan Sayet is so on!!!
Ronald Reagan
WB,
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 8:49am.
I absolutely agree with your post but I believe it is more than just that people don't want to be seen as mean and selfish. Consider this: Latino, Black and Jewish families are among the most conservative and church/synagogue attending families in America but all vote Liberal ideas by large percentages. The emotional appeal of the socialistic aspects of liberalism need to replaced by conservatives because because not only will the liberals continue to pound the 'mean conservative' meme but the effectiveness of the Conservative message will not resonate with touching the emotional chord. It seems to me that the only time the Conservative message resonates is when people are in fear due to the failure of socialist ideas. Conservatives need to develop a message that resonates. In his time Reagan was able to do this because of the 'malaise' felt in the nation and his contrasting view of American greatness. Unfortunately that is a short lived theme because to hammer it too much pushes the limits of acceptable Nationalism.
~Agnostic
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 12:28pm.
That thing about blacks and latinos being conservative and going to church? I know lots of them, lots, and none of the ones I know go to church.
Given their voting patterns, I don't know what you're basing their so-called 'conservatism' on unless it's their opposition to "gay marriage". As someone quite familiar with both demographics, I can assure you it isn't because they have some high and holy idea about marriage, it's because they loathe gay people with visceral passion. Other than that, they vote for every liberal idea that comes down the pike, because they know that the Democrats will keep the government money flowing.
WB, that thing?
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 1:19pm.
Interesting. I now lots and lots of whites and most of them don't go to church either - does that mean whites don't go to church? I'm sure there are demographics and other regional aspects that could explain the reasons but it doesn't matter much. While you are absolutely right about the reasoning on homosexual issue I assure there are very large populations of blacks in this nation that are very Conservative in their beliefs, very religious and vote Democrat.
Entire Catholic churches are supported by Latino families (I grew up around Cuban and Puerto Rican families but didn't really start interacting with Mexican families until about 15 years ago) in many parts of this nation. Much like the old Mafia movies their actions don't exactly follow the wishes of the Church but they were are very devout.
Large portions of the Cuban population used to vote Democrat just because JFK allowed them in the country and ignored the more tangible aspects that he wasn't necessarily a friend to their cause.
However, if you don't like dividing on racial lines perhaps you would be more comfortable with the fact that Catholics and Jewish still vote heavy with the Democrats.
None of this really matters even if you don't agree - my only point is that you can't defeat idealism such as that created with liberalism/socialism with logic and results alone. You have to have an emotional and/or spiritual appeal.
~Agnostic
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 1:54pm.
The point is that the 'conservatism' you were referring to isn't conservatism, it's part of a cultural attitude.
Would you prefer it if I'd referenced that point as "The point to which you refer, about black and latino churchgoing habits, has been a rarely observed phenomenon in these here parts"? I was typing out a quick, concise response in between other tasks, but feel free to read something else into it.
A relatively small percentage of liberals, of whatever color, attend church regularly.
I assure there are very large populations of blacks in this nation that are very Conservative in their beliefs, very religious and vote Democrat.
Conservative about what? Limited government? A flat tax rate? The holiness and sanctity of marriage and the family?
Forty years ago, a government report on the state of the black family in America warned that almost one out of four black children were born to unmarried mothers. Recent figures suggest that now, almost 70 percent of black children are born out of wedlock.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), approximately 45 percent of preborn black babies were aborted in the United States in 2007 (the most recent year for which federal statistics are available).
Could you be more specific as to what you mean by 'conservative' in their beliefs? I'm drawing a blank, here.
Oh, and this part..
my only point is that you can't defeat idealism such as that created with liberalism/socialism with logic and results alone. You have to have an emotional and/or spiritual appeal.
That's where you start mixing religion and politics in order to control people, body and soul. That isn't what conservatism is about. Conservatism is about keeping government in it's place so people are free to live their lives in peace, free from the meddling of petty bureaucrats. Religion has no place as an official part of government. Once you start trying to appeal to people through the medium of religion, in order to gain a political end, you've officially left the territory of the good guys.
sorry WB,
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 2:21pm.
I fear I can not adequately explain this. Perhaps an example would be helpful: Part of my childhood I grew up across the street from a very nice family, father was a Minister, mother a school teacher, two son (one went into business and the other played football at FSU). They were very influential in the neighborhood with many friends. Among their friends were prominent members of the Uruhus. Several members of the Uruhus attended the church even though they were acclaimed Marxist. In this particular neighborhood, even though they were seemingly complete opposites in political beliefs and social actions - the Uruhus represented the voting block of the neighborhood and by their involvement in the church they offered a great deal of legitimacy to messages of minister. The people of this neighborhood lacked many of the social restraints in their actions but if you were to talk to them one-on-one their answers would be along traditionally Conservative lines. I don't claim to understand the disconnect. Why actions and group beliefs do not follow the tenets of the individual. A single mother whose son was a member of the Uruhus was against abortion (she had an abortion as well as her son's girlfriend), she was against welfare (she received three different checks from the government), she went to Church every Sunday and even tithed - spoke the words you would expect to hear about Jesus but allowed her son to hide guns in her house for use in a riot and potential attack on local officials. I did not know this woman personally but knew three of her nephews and they all described her the best Christian terms. Another oddity, the three nephews - only one attended church but they would punish their kids if they even complained about having to go to church.
I won't pretend it makes sense - as individuals these people recognize the concepts we accept as Conservative and they generally believe them. The fact that they don't extend out into their actions is something I don't fully understand. No more than I understand why so many Jews side with those who are so openly anti-Israel.
I am agreeing with you in that their actions are not Conservative but there is a definite difference in action and belief - how that exist is truly beyond my grasp. But this disconnect is one of the factors that makes me believe that Conservatives need to come up with an emotional appeal because logic and 'being right' are not going to be enough. This will become increasingly true as the demographics continue to reduce the domination of the 'white' vote.
~There's a very, very simple explanation for it, Agnostic
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 2:28pm.
Google "whited sepulchre". Also, "lip service". Also, "hypocrite". Also, "Matthew 7:23".
If the examples you cite are what you think Christians are, no wonder you're not one.
WB,
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 2:44pm.
Understand the sentiment but that is very insulting to some very good people and some very good friends but you don't know them so it is easy to only see the bad - that is understandable when their poor decisions are collectively costing us so much as a nation.
I'm not one for necessarily making excuses for people and the point I'm trying to convey is that Conservatives need to improve their message if they have any hope to make headway into the liberal mindset because it is much more than what is correct. It is my opinion that understanding what causes people to be 'hypocrites' at such a large social scale would be key into tapping into the emotions necessary to sway voting liberals.
~Holy cow
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 2:59pm.
If any of the people you described two posts up are the same people you're referring to here as "very good people", then you and I have dramatically different definitions of "very good people".
Bottom line, when your actions are consistently in direct opposition to your stated beliefs, you're a hypocrite.
Definition of HYPOCRITE--
1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
Those people you describe are acting on, and voting on, their true beliefs. Like the old adage says: If you want to know who someone truly is, don't listen to what they say, look at what they do.
Holy cow is right
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 3:26pm.
would that include passing judgment on people when you haven't stepped in their shoes and only know of a very minute portion of their lives?
It is responses such as your that cause Conservatives to be judged as uncaring, judgmental, unworldly and self-centered - none of which do I believe you are nor are most Conservatives. But this is the way our message comes across and why we need to adapt a better message without abandoning core beliefs which I believe to correct and very strong.
~Oh yeah
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 3:42pm.
I'm totally the bad one here. I'm calling it according to the information you've provided me with; am I at fault because the behavior you described fits the dictionary definition of 'hypocrite' to a T?
This is degenerating into a meaningless tangent about a personal anecdote. Care to address my response (below) to your thoughts on finding a replacement for the emotional appeal of socialism?
WB,
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 4:27pm.
Exactly an anecdote - an extremely small photograph in a long life - hardly does her justice nor us if we judge by that alone but giving the full tale would be too much and way beyond point. But you are correct in the term hypocrite - though in this particular case I think many of the actions were taken because she lacked the faith and/or resources to deal with what seemed like over whelming circumstances at the time. I understand that failing a test of faith is a difficult thing in religion.
I apologize for offending but there are personal reasons which are really unimportant to the point at hand.
Reagan tapped into our emotional appeal with a nationalistic flair. People abandoned the left in droves and the only places that remained socialist were the inner cities, Hollywood and the institutions of higher learning where liberals still had a stranglehold on the message. I've always been curious what Reagan would have done if he would have had a like minded Congress.
As to response I will do that below.
~Agnostic
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 5:09pm.
You speak specifically of 'her' now, but your original post referenced multiple people in a multitude of circumstances. I didn't single one person out for condemnation, I merely pointed out that all of the described behavior was hypocritical in nature. If by 'her' you were referencing the woman who had an abortion, I would like to clarify something.
I understand that failing a test of faith is a difficult thing in religion.
God didn't make her pregnant, and it sure wasn't a test of faith. God doesn't gamble with unborn babies' lives like that. All of us have the free will to make our own life choices. The succession of choices she made led to the death of her unborn child, and God didn't have a thing to do with that. None of the people you describe have any 'faith' at all, according to the way you describe them. They're living their lives as practicing atheists while paying lip service to a Deity they daily disobey and clearly have no personal doings with. It's like a man saying he's heterosexual over and over again while having exclusively homosexual relationships. Who does he think he's fooling? What's the point?
I don't understand why you'd be defensive or offended by me pointing any of that out; it's all perfectly obvious and logical when you look objectively at the evidence presented. The idle lip service you describe is nothing more than a sort of superstitious insurance policy. An "If I go to church once in a while, maybe He won't be mad about that other stuff" mentality.
~Agnostic
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 2:15pm.
This is such a HUGE point here that I want to say something about it where it's not mixed up with the other points we're discussing.
You do realize that what you're advocating here..
my only point is that you can't defeat idealism such as that created with liberalism/socialism with logic and results alone. You have to have an emotional and/or spiritual appeal.
..is that conservatives come up with their own form of a replacement of God with the State. Frankly, I find that creepy as hell.
All forms of statism seek to abolish religion, which is a systematized approach to a personal relationship with God, and replace it with reliance on the State. You're saying that conservatives need to do the same thing in order to appeal to the masses, i.e. the ignorant sheeple who must be swayed and led by emotion. This is clearly impossible, as the core tenet of conservatism is the belief that the 'masses' are made up of individuals who are capable of intelligent decisions and self-government.
creepy as hell!!
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 4:45pm.
hate to bring up Reagan again but he did it while holding on to God and religion. I admit that Nationalism can only go so far before it creeps people out but it would be a good start now because the malaise of the 70's is back.
MLK tapped into the emotions of people while holding on to God and religion by weaving a message that uplifted all races in a way that made the obligated to one another for the betterment of all of society.
Religion has an emotional appeal that can be, for lack of a better term, used to reach out to people as it has been doing for generations. The media would never allow a strictly religious message to get to the people so it is my opinion that it has to be coupled with an emotional plea that is somehow coupled to the conservative ideas.
The rhetoric of improving society has for too long been the placations of the socialist - power to the people style slogans are too powerful because the address the inherent feelings of the individual seeing unfairness in society. They are wrong about the solution - we need to offer what we know is a better solution and we need to be able to do so in a manner that appeals to mob mentality. Terms that need to be explained or tempered will not work. They have to forceful, strike at the core of perceived injustice and offer an understandable solution. As we know the message doesn't have to actually work but it would be nice if it did for a change.
~Agnostic
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 5:18pm.
I think we're talking at cross-purposes, here. You said before that people needed something in place of religion, and we (conservatives) needed to find something to fill that need. I pointed out that that is exactly what Statism is, a replacement of God with the all-powerful State. (which is creepy as hell)
Now you seem to be saying we all need God. If so, we're in total agreement.
Wrathful Brunette & Agnostic
Submitted by amyshulk on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 2:58am.
Well, as a person basically raised by wolves {according to my sis} with no religion and little consequence for my actions, I dropped out at 16, went to work full time, and hung out with the losers.
I realized I didn't fit with these losers because while I might have done many of the bad things they did to try to fit in, I was the only one who earned my own way, and was responsible.
I joined the USN and shed those behaviors, and basically turned myself around. I jokingly suggested to a liberal friend a year or so ago that ALL dropouts should at *least* go through boot camp, to get their minds right, and for those that wanted "free" food/housing/medical, sign up!!!
I agree that conservatism is NOT a religion, and should NOT be tied to one - but I understand why Agnostic brought it up. The D's have cornered the market on group think and leeching your good feelings from the actions of others - conservatives are {as you noted} individuals first.
How to square that circle, to draw in the people who may be where I was {hanging with losers} that aspire to be better, is the way to do it IMHO. How? NO clue!
Ronald Reagan
~Amy
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 1:46pm.
Thanks for the input; you sparked another line of thought I hadn't really touched on here.
Liberals are always talking about what's wrong with the country, conservatives (Reagan is a great example) talk about what's awesome about this country. Liberalism naturally draws pessimists and self-loathers; conservatism naturally draws optimists and self-motivators.
We're obviously not going to draw everyone, because there will always be pessimists, but we don't have to because we already have a majority! Some 20% of the country self-identifies as liberal and twice that self-identify as conservative. The only reason we're in this mess is because that 20% all work in the news media and the schools...and run for office. Conservatives, by and large, are just living their own lives. What we saw with the TEA party and the 2009 townhalls was the average conservative getting actively involved in politics, in a way we usually leave to the liberals. As everyone saw, we outnumber the living crap out of them. Trust me, things aren't as bad out there for conservatism as the barrage of negative press would have us believe. They can't beat us in the arena of ideas, so they're in a war to make us lose heart. They'll find out in the end that they badly miscalculated.