Originally Posted By DAR Republican's have RINO's but...... Who are the DINO's? Who are the MINO's oderates Who are the LINO's ibertarians Who are the GINO's reen Who are the SINO's ocialists Who are the FINO's ascists And finally the NEO-CONINO'S
Originally Posted By Mr X lol. Wouldn't a "FINO" be a good guy though? (speaking of bad guys...I was talking to a Japanese guy who was SHOCKED, absolutely SHOCKED when I informed him that most of the world speaks of Hitler, Mussolini and HIROHITO in one breath) By the way, today is a national holiday in Japan. Hirohito's birthday (yup, they still celebrate it..North Korea style). Happy Birthday, scumbag! ;p
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I disagree.> With what, exactly? That it wasn't "stealing." If so, you should be able to explain just how Franken is "stealing" anything. Questioning whether certain ballots should have been excluded in the first place (and having the courts agree with him) wouldn't qualify, so it would be interesting to learn what would.
Originally Posted By DVC_Pongo ???SIXTY!! Oh, what a magical number.<<< Yes it is magical. This now removes the last tiny remaining excuse for this administration, this President, and his term in office. Way to go! Now, truly, there is no excuse left. Good, his success will be his own, and I hope he is successful. Our economy is getting worse daily.
Originally Posted By DAR Obviously Specter is free to do as he wants. But I can't help but think this is a move that benefits Arlen Specter and not the citizens of Pennsylvania.
Originally Posted By Mr X Well, yes and no. He has to do what he has to do to survive politically IF there are elements in his own party (there are, by the way) who would be more than happy to tank the general election in order to elect a more "pure" republican even if they lose to a Democrat in the general election anyway (sound familiar?). So, no. I'm not entirely sure he did the "wrong" thing (a very easy thing would've been to simply step down, which I believe would have resulted in the Governor appointing some interim person?), but I do understand that it's LARGELY to do with his own protection and I'm a bit surprised that the Democrats are cozying up to the guy so much (did the Republicans embrace Libermann? Hardly lol).
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh "For years, many in the conservative world have wished for an ideologically purer GOP. Their wish has been granted. Happy?" I'd be happier if people like David Frum would stop trying to run social conservatives out of the GOP and realize that if we don't stick to some core beliefs like smaller government, fiscal responsibility, respect for tradition and private enterprise, hardly anybody will have any reason to support the GOP. I'm pretty sure Mr Frum was one of those who advocated a "big government" conservative movement which soured so many fiscal conservatives on the GOP. Also, I believe Mr Frum endorsed Sen McCain, whose chief failing was his tendency to use intemperate language against potential allies. You can't win an election by pissing off people who agree with you 75% of the time by deriding their views when they disagree with you. If moderates want more acceptance in the GOP, they need to be more accepting towards conservatives.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Also, I believe Mr Frum endorsed Sen McCain*** Didn't all of you guys "endorse" Senator McCain? He was the chosen Republican candidate for President and all of that, right?
Originally Posted By Mr X "respect for tradition" You had me on that whole first paragraph until this. What does that mean, exactly? "respect for tradition" Traditional religious values, or something?
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Sen McCain, whose chief failing was his tendency to use intemperate language against potential allies. You can't win an election by pissing off people who agree with you 75% of the time by deriding their views when they disagree with you.*** Translation: "Don't piss off the Religious Right" I hope you guys go with it...go with it with GUSTO! It's perfect.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>If moderates want more acceptance in the GOP, they need to be more accepting towards conservatives.<< Moderates don't "need" to do anything of the kind. It's funny that you champion sticking to your core values, but moderates have core values as well. Why should they abandon them to make far righters happy? If the GOP wants to win elections, they need to appeal to more moderates. What doesn't appeal to moderates are far right social politics. In fact, I bet a majority of moderates would describe themselves as fiscally conservative, socially liberal. That's a huge amount of voters just for the asking. Or, they can be told "you have to be more accepting of these hardline religious ideas we have and like it."
Originally Posted By DAR <<Or, they can be told "you have to be more accepting of these hardline religious ideas we have and like it.">> The kicker is I'd guess a large percentage of moderates are fairly religious.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Why should they abandon them to make far righters happy?> I'm not asking them to. I believe both groups should be more accepting and willing to compromise.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Okay, that sounds reasonable. What sort of compromise should each side make? What's an example where the far right could bend a little?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 < Also, I believe Mr Frum endorsed Sen McCain, whose chief failing was his tendency to use intemperate language against potential allies. You can't win an election by pissing off people who agree with you 75% of the time by deriding their views when they disagree with you.> Is that the new conservative talking point? That McCain lost the election was he wasn't backed by social conservatives? That's just not backed by the data. Yes, he said some things about "agents of intolerance" (which were correct), but that was years ago. He toadied up to social conservatives in 2008, then gave them the ultimate sop, choosing Sarah Palin. And all the exit polls show that McCain won "the base" social conservatives handily, partly due to their enthusiasm for Palin. Trouble is, that alienated moderates. The exit polls couldn't have been clearer. McCain lost because he couldn't adequately attract moderates and independents. Obama won most of them, and with them the election. But hell, I hope the far right DOES take that as a talking point, because it ensures they learn the wrong lesson from 2008, and makes it more likely they'll be the minority party for some time.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << But I can't help but think this is a move that benefits Arlen Specter and not the citizens of Pennsylvania. >> If the Republicans nominate another Senate candidate in their primary and cause Specter's defeat there, the citizens of Pennsylvania lose a very senior member of the U.S. Senate. The value of a senior Senator is immeasurable. Pennsylvania doesn't gain much by electing a freshman senator. It takes years for a politician to gain the kind of seniority that makes it possible for a state to have real influence in Washington. If Specter is able to be re-elected as a Democrat, Pennsylvania citizens don't have to start at ground zero with a new politician that can't do much for them.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <What sort of compromise should each side make?> Just toning down the rhetoric and recognizing the need for compromise would be a great help. <What's an example where the far right could bend a little?> Voting for someone who agrees that some abortion should be restricted but who thinks calling for an amendment to outlaw it would be extreme might be a good start.
Originally Posted By DAR I heard this locally today talking about Specter, you can't spell Democrat without the word RAT. It is kind of funny.
