Originally Posted By Pixie Glitter Post 72 beautifully sums up my own feelings. Hang in there, wahooskipper. You're not alone.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I hope there will be a moderate Conservative party to replace the GOP for people like yourself.*** There already is. It's called the Democratic party. Seriously. America is so right-leaning these days they can't even see it, but compare left-wing parties in European countries with America and you'll see the contrast right away. The Democrats, left-wing? Bah. Half of them don't even want to pass any kind of healthcare reform, they're fighting the President on it (who, by the way, is a centrist pretty much...and a centrist faced with hyper-partisanship is pretty much an oil/water deal sadly, in another circumstance I think Obama could be MUCH MUCH MUCH more effective). We've gone so far right that the "right-wing party" has gone right off the reservation into lunatic territory. And if they vanish, when the Democrat party splits in two it will be the "majority" that becomes the new right-wing voice while the true progressives (think Bernie Sanders, Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich et al) will form a new left-wing. And it will be good again.
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 << Where the WH screwed up I believe was in the original wording of "What students can do to help the President?" That comes across as a little self serving but that's really a minor nitpick.>> George H.W. Bush asked that exact same question to students in 1991. It is not really self serving...by asking students how they can help the president they are asking how can you help make the country better. It is really a sad day in this country when the President cannot talk to students with out is becoming a major issue. (I am not leveling that at specific person on here, just in general) I personally do not care what a person's political affiliation is. I am an independent and am not a member of either party. I truly believe that everyone is entitled to their opinions and, if you feel strongly about something, everyone has not only the right but the responsibility to state those opinions and get involved in the debate. I do draw the line at the hysteria we have been seeing and I really cannot stand it when politicians use flat out lies to get people riled up. If you have an opinion, state the facts and the basis of that opinion. Do not make up stories to scare people into believing you. Being lied to or treated like an idiot makes me really mad.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>There already is. It's called the Democratic party.<< As far as I'm concerned, the wings are relative, so the Dems do qualify as the US version of liberal. Surely you don't expect the USA to have a *real* Socialist Party, do you? At least not one worth mentioning. Check in again when the Big Crash happens. I would expect that if my moderate Conservative party (we'll call them the RINOs) ever came into viable being, they'd pick up a lot of disgruntled Dems as well (we'll call them DINOs). I might be persuaded to sign up myself, depending on the circumstances. If the Socialists don't get to me first. ;-)
Originally Posted By Mr X ***As far as I'm concerned, the wings are relative, so the Dems do qualify as the US version of liberal.*** Some of them do, but would you really call the Blue Dog obstructionists "liberal"? Doesn't seem that way to me. Honestly the Democratic party has just as much of an idealistic schism as the GOP, it's just that the progressive wing isn't as blatantly hostile as "the base" on the other side. Frankly I don't see much difference between "moderate" Democrats and RINOS; put the two together and you've got yourself a viable conservative group. You're right about the socialist angle though, the progressives would have to moderate themselves considerably if they were on their own.
Originally Posted By ecdc And post 79 sums up my feelings perfectly. I'm not that doomsday yet, but I'm getting there. Like mawnck said, how do you have a conversation when the other side is insane? And that's the rub. I chatted with some of these anti-school speechers this weekend on Facebook and other forums. They really do think they're just concerned, moderate patriots. They're entirely unaware of how extremist they are. They think being so off-the-deep-end paranoid that they won't even deign to let their children listen to the President of the United States is perfectly mainstream. And they don't get the rabid reaction they've engendered. As far as they're concerned, we're just Americans who disagree. Who disagree about what? Whether Obama is the anti-Christ or not? These people are nuts, and the strong language mawnck employs is sadly accurate - it's bordering on treacherous.
Originally Posted By TheRedhead This whole thing would be funny if it weren't so scary. I teach in a high school not far from where Obama spoke. Our administration was aware of the impending speech weeks ago. It was never forced on them, but at no point did they think they wouldn't show it. Of course they would show it. He's the President. And at no point were they being told that they had to show it live at noon. So the week before teachers were returning to school (our first day back was last Monday), they were debating whether to show it live (which would have been tough since it was lunch time) or record it and show it during the last period of the day. They were going to give us a week's notice as to what the school would do, which is plenty of time for us teachers to plan accordingly. But some parents (and even some faculty) started complaining before we even made it back to school, and the first time I heard about it, people were saying that we were being forced to show the students a live speech from the pres that would stress the importance of health care reform. It was madness. Anyway, here's the thing that confuses me the most: some parents wanted to opt their kids out of the speech. OK. Do these parents realize that they're sending their kids to a public school, which ultimately answers to the president? Do they not understand we are at the complete mercy of whomever is the president and all of his educational policies? If a parent is scared that their child will be influenced by the president's 20 minute speech, then they must be MORTIFIED by how their child will be influenced by his policies, something that could actually affect the day-to-day operations of the school. If the president is that insidious, it is only logical that they take the student out of public schooling altogether. Right?
Originally Posted By DAR <<too bad education isn't allowed in school anymore.>> Thank you teachers union.
Originally Posted By ecdc One thing I've noticed in all this hoopla around the speech: extremist conservatives seem to assume we're all just as crazy as they are. Without fail, the number one question I was asked when I encountered a Speecher was, "Well, would YOU have let YOUR kid listen to George W. Bush!?!" My answer was always the same: Of course! I think George W. Bush would've gotten up in front of the children, had a smile on his face, welcomed them, given a speech about staying in school, and been perfectly kind to them. The man was incompetent - not sheer evil. These nutcases don't get it.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan The GOP has major egg on their face after this whole non-controversial controversy began. That's the problem when you whip something up out of thin air -- it seldom lives up to advance billing. Red meaters were promised an INDOCTRINATION SPEECH. Instead, we got "stay in school, pursue your dreams, wash your hands, stay home if you're sick." Earth-shattering stuff. I hope post-traumatic stress disorder experts were on hand to guide the children through the nightmarish aftermath of a speech like that. I think you'd have to go all the way back to Geraldo and Al Capone's vault to find something that turned out to be even less like the build up than the actual event.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>Burn millions of DVDs and ship them? LOL, that's great fiscal-conservative thinking there<<< And think about the environmental impact! Oh sorry, the right don't concern themselves with such things. It doesn't directly impact their selfish lives.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>The Democrats, left-wing? Bah. Half of them don't even want to pass any kind of healthcare reform, they're fighting the President on it (who, by the way, is a centrist pretty much...and a centrist faced with hyper-partisanship is pretty much an oil/water deal sadly, in another circumstance I think Obama could be MUCH MUCH MUCH more effective).<<< Indeed Mr X is right, on the international spectrum, the democrats are right of centre. It's funny, because in the UK, my real socialist friends accuse me of being right wing, and yet, my American friends call me a pinko commie. It's hillarious.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Mawnck said in post 79, "My opinion - you've lost that war." I couldn't disagree more. When a forest gets overgrown it starts to become unhealthy and sometimes the best fix is a disaster such as a fire. All of the old wood is burned off and before long new growth begins to take shape. That is the issue with the Republican party right now. There is know doubt it is in crisis but new leadership will emerge from this crisis and the party will rediscover itself. There is no more evidence of that than Clinton and Obama. Their party was in turmoil before both of them emerged and brough new life. Politics is cyclical. The future leader of the Republican party is someone we either don't know at all or know very little about. It isn't McCain or Palin, that is for sure. In the absence of true leadership people will listen to just about anything and that is the source of the problem on the conservative side of the aisle right now. But, then again, that is just my 2 cents.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I couldn't disagree more. When a forest gets overgrown it starts to become unhealthy and sometimes the best fix is a disaster such as a fire. All of the old wood is burned off and before long new growth begins to take shape." FWIW, I sincerely hope you're right. Who figured on Obama four years ago? But that will be then and this is now, and right now the gutless, cowardly jerks are in charge.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***There is no more evidence of that than Clinton and Obama. Their party was in turmoil before both of them emerged and brough new life.*** Sure, but I must say that the GOP has a hard time coming up with young, charismatic leaders. In fact, with the odd exception of Reagan (though FAR from young lol), who else has there been? I gotta say, trotting out old, stoic white millionaires doesn't go over as well as it used to.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Well, I'm not saying the next leader will be "young" but there are some quality Republican governors out there and some quality senators as well. The question they have to ask themselves is if they want to put themselves and their families through the gauntlet that is a national campaign. I don't know too many folks who would tolerate all the crap that goes with that these days.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Well, I'm not saying the next leader will be "young" but there are some quality Republican governors out there and some quality senators as well.*** Got examples? I've seen NONE with even a modicum of the charm and charisma of a Clinton, a Reagan, or an Obama...not even close. You don't *always* need that (Bush 1 Bush 2 and Nixon come to mind), but it helps.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I think Romney has charisma as does Crist of Florida, Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen in South Florida. But again, I suspect the next leader will emerge not unlike Obama did. Assuming Obama is a lock for 8 years then the 2012 Republican Convention will likely be the launching pad for someone we know very little about right now. In the 80s and early 90s Democrats had very little reason to be hopeful. How are they doing today?
Originally Posted By Mr X I actually kinda like Pawlenty, though charisma is NOT an attribute I'd ascribe to him. Crist, I know nothing about. ROMNEY is the real deal, charisma wise, but unfortunately he's completely unelectable due to his religious proclivities. I have no problem with it (any more than any other religious proclivities), but somewhere along the line someone would send out some robo-calls and some letters explaining all the details of that religion and then the Christians would vote against him en masse, purely from shock. I get your point about someone emerging. If you hear about him/her, let us know! As far as Obama is concerned, I notice looking back on Democrat sites that they were buzzing about him since way back even before he was elected nationally. I've not seen the same about any particular Republicans at this point, but certainly 2016 is a long way off. Appreciate your thoughts on this, Wahoo...very reasonable and interesting as usual.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Obama started drawing buzz after his Convention speech in 2000 (I believe). No one outside of Chicago had heard of him prior to that. (Reagan wasn't a serious blip on anyone's radar until his convention speech in '76.) And, I will only say that in the 40s and 50s nobody ever thought a Catholic would become President. In the 80s and likely even in the 90s I think folks thought the liklihood of an African-American President was pretty slim. Romney has a bigger hill to climb and I honestly don't think he is the one...but I wouldn't call it impossible.
