Post #303,232
1/29/09 8:37:19 AM
|
Oh, yeah!
The marginalization is unstoppable.
That vote on the stimulus package showed exactly how far the Republicans are willing to take bipartisanship, how well they work and play with others. Karl Rove must be turning over in his grave. Which has to be distressing, since he isn't dead...
I just wonder what the new party will look like. There must always be two, no more, no less. I'm predicting the DLC splits off and replaces the Republicans.
|
Post #303,234
1/29/09 8:59:32 AM
|
s/grave/coffin
Then you've got it right.
-Mike
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania
|
Post #303,238
1/29/09 9:26:08 AM
|
So you think their main question unfounded?
You don't consider 300M in STD funding "pork" in a economic stimulus bill?
Just curious..as one of the main planks in their platform was fighting against this sort of tactic.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
Post #303,239
1/29/09 9:41:12 AM
|
Not the point
Whether the specifics of the bill are right or wrong is not the point. This story is about elected leaders calling radio talk show hosts to apologize for saying that elected leaders are the ones in charge.
If you'd like to talk about the facts of the stimulus package, feel free to use the "New Topic" button, conveniently located at the top of the page. This thread is about the on-air boot licking by an elected official.
--
Drew
|
Post #303,242
1/29/09 10:34:12 AM
|
Follow the bouncing thread
[quote]That vote on the stimulus package showed exactly how far the Republicans are willing to take bipartisanship, how well they work and play with others. Karl Rove must be turning over in his grave. Which has to be distressing, since he isn't dead... [/quote]
That was what generated my question...directly linked to the post that contains it.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
Post #303,246
1/29/09 11:47:44 AM
|
I did
Ashton's quote -- oops, I see it was the entire article, bad Ashton -- was not about the stimulus package. It was about a congressman apologizing to a talk show host for pointing out that congress is supposed to be in charge.
mhuber's post, to which you responded, was not about the merits of the stimulus package. It was about the highly partisan nature of the Republicans in congress.
You are the one who introduced the merits of the package to this thread, trying to divert it from the point everyone else is discussing. Specifically: The Republicans in congress are taking their cues not from the alleged Republican leadership, but from talk show hosts. And those "voices of the conservative movement's conscience" are dictating strict partisanship and obstruction.
--
Drew
|
Post #303,248
1/29/09 12:23:41 PM
|
you is correct
mark it on yer calendar son :-)
all fun aside, this "may" get the dog turds out of the republican party or create a new party that is fiscally conservative (whatever the hell that means anymore) socially blind and defense minded while protecting constitutional rights.
|
Post #303,249
1/29/09 1:23:32 PM
|
Gee, thanks pops
--
Drew
|
Post #303,565
2/3/09 9:09:51 PM
|
I can't wait
But I must say, I do have a difficult time seeing who might be the seed of such a party.
Welcome back, my friends, to the show that never ends! (Disk crashes notwithstanding...)
jb4
|
Post #303,253
1/29/09 2:26:47 PM
|
Are they?
I believe that may be a chicken vs egg argument. Did Rush invent the argument, or did he get it from party sources and blow it out of proportion.
Was it Rush's show that made all R and a couple dozen D vote against...or was it the substance of his argument..and if the substance of his argument we go back to point 1. Did he invent it, or did he hear about it and bring it up?
Even so, was it Rush that convinced them ALL? or was it the substance of the bill?
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
Post #303,258
1/29/09 4:02:40 PM
|
Doesn't really matter
When a talk show host has the power, through his legions of fans, to exert that kind of pressure on congressmen ...
When a congressman calls to grovel and beg forgiveness for suggesting that Congress is in charge and not the talk show host ...
When the nominal Republican leadership doesn't stand up and say, "You're damn right we're in charge. And the Next member who apologizes for that fact is getting censured" ...
Then we really have a bigger problem than whatever is in the particular bill they're talking about.
--
Drew
|
Post #303,259
1/29/09 4:35:42 PM
|
Do we really?
Those "legions of fans" are voters. Those congressmen that retort "we're in charge, not you" against those "legions of fans" are then saying what, exactly? "Thanks for your vote, now shut up and leave me alone!"?
Now there's a good message.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
Post #303,268
1/29/09 5:42:46 PM
|
His fans are a *portion* of the voters
There are a whole lot more voters who don't listen to him than there are who do listen to him. Pundits don't have to care about compromise or pragmatism. As long as they get enough people interested to make their ratings look good, they're happy. It doesn't matter to them whether their preferred policies are feasible, or whether they're acceptable to the majority of voters.
You know, pretty much exactly what the congressman said to start this whole thing off.
So no, it's not the same as saying, "Thanks for your vote, now shut up and leave me alone!" It's more like saying, "If you think Rush has such great ideas, tell him it's time to put up or shut up and run for office himself."
--
Drew
|
Post #303,331
1/30/09 4:44:47 PM
|
{sigh}
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-- H.L. Mencken
|
