Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<<gingrich, is disliked by most conservatives, they think he is a rino, so funny you think he's so right wing.>>> <<Which tells you something about how far to the right the GOP has been hijacked these days.>> <Or it says how out of touch the radical left is> Need I point out that this doesn't follow logically? Conservatives dislike Gingrich and think he's a RINO, and this says "how out of touch the radical left is?" Good example there of logic being waylaid by ideology and the need to attempt to get a lame little dig in there.
Originally Posted By alexbook Back to the main argument: >>And that's it in a nutshell, isn't it? Right wingers are disinclined to vote for him, but they'll still grasp at any straw that validates their world view. << I read an interesting article yesterday about the race for the Republican nomination for governor in California. Both of the principal candidates have pretty shaky credentials, as far as the right wing of the party is concerned. For the moment, Steve Poizner seems to be the favorite of the conservatives, because he's more convincing in his repudiation of his moderate past: <a href="http://www.ocweekly.com/2010-03-11/news/moxley-confidential-meg-whitman-mike-schroeder" target="_blank">http://www.ocweekly.com/2010-0...chroeder</a> These sorts of races point out one of the big problems with our whole "lesser of two evils" political philosophy.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***These sorts of races point out one of the big problems with our whole "lesser of two evils" political philosophy.*** That really is the crux of this "two party system" garbage though, isn't it? I mean, it was pretty hilarious when Palin was going before the teabaggers saying "well, you have to pick one you know!" when what they REALLY want is to form their own party. Of COURSE she tells them they have to choose, because she is part of the system (a renegade part, sure, but still a part of it). As long as this two party thing continues, one thing is for certain. They will fight each other to a point, but they will NEVER go beyond what is necessary to keep one OR the other in power. I think that's a lot of what we're seeing from spineless Democrats lately. They COULD'VE done much more, but if they did so they could've killed the Republicans as a legitimate opponent in the process. Fantasy? If so, explain why else they acted the way they have this past year, with all the cards in their hands and the opposition at their mercy.
Originally Posted By snappyfun >>There's a pretty graph at the page I linked to. Year: Liberal, Moderate, Conservatie 1992: 17%, 43%, 36% 1993: 18%, 40%, 39% 1994: 17%, 42%, 38% 1995: 16%, 39%, 36%<< I think it's amazing that so few Americans view themselves as liberals yet liberals have so much power.
Originally Posted By alexbook Liberals have power? News to me. If liberals had any power at all in this country, we'd already have single-payer health care.
Originally Posted By snappyfun >>If liberals had any power at all in this country, we'd already have single-payer health care.<< Did not say they could do anything they want, but they still have the president, the head of the senate and head of the House, all liberals.
Originally Posted By alexbook Here's a thought: If there are all these crypto-liberals running around calling themselves moderates, then the actual percentage of Americans who are liberal must be higher than 21%. Makes you wonder. More likely scenario: Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are the moderates they claim to be. Certainly, they're not popular with the liberal wing of their party, which ought to tell you something. If you go to the liberal Americans for Democratic Action rankings, you'll find that Sen. Obama only got a 45% approval rating in 2008. Sen. Reid got 70%, which is actually lower than the Republican senators from Maine. <a href="http://www.adaction.org/media/votingrecords/2008.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.adaction.org/media/...2008.pdf</a>
Originally Posted By alexbook Meanwhile, yes, Romney's book is #1, putting him in such illustrious company as Sarah Palin, Edward Kennedy, and Kathy Griffin. <a href="http://www.hawes.com/no1_nf_d.htm#2010%27s" target="_blank">http://www.hawes.com/no1_nf_d....2010%27s</a> Sadly, "No Apology" drew the notorious "dagger" notice: "A dagger (†) indicates that some bookstores report receiving bulk orders." This could mean that it's popular with book clubs, or it could mean that somebody connected with Romney or his publisher is buying the book themselves, to make it look more popular than it actually is. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/books/bestseller/besthardnonfiction.html" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03...ion.html</a>
Originally Posted By Labuda Interesting info on the dagger there, alex. I notice none of the other books have one on that 2nd link you posted. Any idea why MitRom's book has now one, but two daggers?
Originally Posted By alexbook >>I notice none of the other books have one on that 2nd link you posted.<< There are usually one or two daggers each week on the general non-fiction list. You'll see a lot more on the business and advice lists. It doesn't necessarily mean that somebody's gaming the system, of course, but I always find it a little suspicious. >> Any idea why MitRom's book has now one, but two daggers?<< Don't know. I've never seen that before.
Originally Posted By alexbook I was reading an ad for this book, and the following sentence caught my eye: >>Many of his solutions oppose President Obama’s policies, many also run counter to Republican thinking, but all have one strategic aim: to move America back to political and economic strength.<< Romney'd better be careful. Open-mindedness can win general elections, but it can lose primaries. <a href="http://us.macmillan.com/noapology" target="_blank">http://us.macmillan.com/noapology</a>
