Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Hm, who knew that part of being a conservative was the need to criticize liberals.> Mele likes to mock me when I point out that too many liberal posters here distort, dismiss, and demonizes conservatives, but here's an example of her doing just that. If you go back and look at what I said, it's clear I meant that conservatives should criticize liberal ideas, not liberals. There's a difference between the two, and it's not arguing semantics to point that out.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "You're a sad, small man because you don't know the difference between criticizing and bashing." Again, coming you, I'll take it as a compliment. Your kind became irrelevant long ago.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh My kind still represents at least a third of the electorate, and, with the right message and messenger, have the ability to persuade another 20% to vote for our candidates. That's how Ronald Reagan won two landslides, how the GOP won control of Congress in 94, and why George W Bush was elected twice. It would be as unwise to discount us as it would be to underestimate Gov Palin.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney If Gov. Palin ever got in the White House in my lifetime, I will have underestimated how stupid people truly are to put this woman in the White House. You would think after Bush, people would learn.....let's hope they dont forget agaain. But its a pipe dream, Palin wont get past the first primary after other Republicans go at her hard. There are waaaay too many smart people in that party to give it to someone who didnt know what NAFTA was, geesh!!
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>underestimate Gov Palin<< You know, people keep saying that, and yet, I don't see why. When I said they should let her speak more, I was warned "Be careful what you wish for." Then she spoke, and most conservatives dropped off the boards here. I don't blame them, who would want to defend such nonsense? And then when she did speak, it was mostly a lot of rhetoric, when it wasn't flat out gibberish or curious ideas on the role of the vice president. I'm going to go ahead and keep underestimating her, thanks. I think in a low population state like Alaska, perhaps the sort of small-town political maneuvers she employs are seen as sophisticated or clever. I don't think she is stupid, but I think she is a lot more about rhetoric of the talk radio variety than anything. You have to bring a bit more to the table in a presidential campaign, and I am convinced that months of debates and actual questions from actual reporters would reveal a lot more than we learned in 2 brief months, none of it particularly helpful to a Palin candidacy. For the record, I am doubtful that she didn't really know that Africa was a continent, or the names of the countries in NAFTA. I'm not a fan of this whole thing -- from reporters agreeing to sit on facts until an agreed upon time after an election, to the unnamed sources saying whatever they want about a person. It's dirty pool. But the notion that she is some serious contender for the presidency in 2012 is fantasy. Pinning your hopes on Mrs. Palin is dooming the GOP to waste time going down a dead end.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh < the notion that she is some serious contender for the presidency in 2012 is fantasy.> Who is raising it? I have my doubts she'll be a serious contender in 2012. But she'll be an even better Veep pick then than she was now. I have my doubts she's as ignorant as some claim, but that can be fixed, while Sen Biden's problems can't.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Who is raising it?<< The talk radio crowd, mostly. I think the motive for the "unnamed sources" is to kill her chances early with this stuff. >>I have my doubts she'll be a serious contender in 2012.<< We agree. >>But she'll be an even better Veep pick then than she was now.<< Why?
Originally Posted By mele <<it's clear I meant that conservatives should criticize liberal ideas, not liberals.>> You're just nitpicking. I was pointing out how stupid it is that you believe that criticism of others is PART of being a conservative. Ridiculous but, clearly, your need to criticize others does seem to be something that you feel you need to do. Not every conservative feels that his beliefs have to include criticizing. That's your bent but don't assume that every "good" conservative needs to criticize others.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Ken Adelman? Really? You're going with that?>> <I don't know why you do this. It's not like I say things I don't believe, and aren't pretty sure are correct. Maybe Mr Adelman is the most conservative of the moderates you listed, but he's still mostly a Neocon. His principal concern is defense, and I haven't seen any indication he's conservative on social or fiscal issues.> First of all, most of the others were conservatives as well. Second, have you seen any indication (let alone evidence) that he's not conservative on social or fiscal issues? If not, you're leaping to the conclusion that he's a moderate pretty quickly (and, I would guess, without really knowing - you just wanted to contradict me when you realized your claim that "no real conservative would endorse Obama" was ridiculous). <<Again, when you stand that far to the right, everyone looks left.>> <Sorry it doesn't work that way. I judge right and left by where people stand on the issues.> I'm going to bet you have no clue where Adelman, say, stood on fiscal or social issues (indeed, if you did, you could have cited some.) <And for the record, I'm not that far right. I believe in paying taxes for essential government services.> So does everyone except the extreme libertarian fringe. The question, as always, is what is "essential." I think you define that much more narrowly than most who aren't far right. <I'm fine with a progressive tax system.> Good. Although, again, so is everyone except the most extreme anti-taxers. The question is where you draw the lines. And with the kicking and screaming the right put up with Obama's plans simply to rescind Bush's tax cuts on the upper income levels... <I believe abortion should be legal in some cases.> Again, only the very far right doesn't think rape and incest should be included. Most moderates believe it should be legal even if they don't approve personally. Again... not lookin' so moderate here. <I think States should recognize gay marriage, if it can be shown to have a beneficial effect on society.> What was the "benefit" of ending Jim Crow? Better bus service? Fine cuisine at Woolworth's? No. Equality itself. That IS a benefit. <I'm against mandatory prayer in school, and teaching creationism as science.> Good. I'm glad to hear that one. <But it's easier to dismiss arguments by claiming people are idealogues, then refute or consider them. So here we are.> On most of those issues, you essentially positioned yourself slightly to the left of the most rabid right. So here we are.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Re: 128 - Because she'll have more executive and national experience than she has now, without losing any of her positives.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You're just nitpicking. I was pointing out how stupid it is that you believe that criticism of others is PART of being a conservative.> It's not nitpicking to point out that you're arguing against something I never claimed. If you want to debate strawmen, you don't have to include quotes of my words.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The talk radio crowd, mostly.> You sure know a lot about what the talk radio crowd says, for someone who doesn't listen to it. I listen to a fair amount of conservative talk radio, and I can't recall anyone saying it.
Originally Posted By gottaluvdavillains <<without losing any of her positives>>> What exactly were her positives.. I am being serious. In all honesty I did not know who I was going to vote for until after both VP's were announced. Even then it wasn't until watching her speak and listening to how she behaved.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <First of all, most of the others were conservatives as well.> I disagree. <Second, have you seen any indication (let alone evidence) that he's not conservative on social or fiscal issues.> Have you seen anything that Andrew Sullivan has written in the last two years that indicate he's a conservative? <I would guess, without really knowing - you just wanted to contradict me when you realized your claim that "no real conservative would endorse Obama" was ridiculous> My claim was not ridiculous. <On most of those issues, you essentially positioned yourself slightly to the left of the most rabid right.> On all of these issues, I am to the left of the far right, which makes me not on the far right.
Originally Posted By dshyates Has anyone else notice Douglas recently has slide from Bush supporter to Goldwater conservitive? I see hope in the GOP yet. I beleve this thumping is the best thing for he GOP in MY lifetime. (Sshhhh, Ronald Reagan being the worst. If it weren't for Reagan ushering in the Neocon revolution, W would never have happened. W. was a side effect of Reagan, and the recent meltdown the end result of Reaganomics).
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <What exactly were her positives.. I am being serious.> I'm sure you didn't get them if you get your news strictly from the networks, PBS, CNN, most newspapers and Time or Newsweek. Or the Daily Show, Letterman, and the View. She's the Governor of a State and a former Mayor, so she has executive experience. She's also helped run family businesses. She upholds family values, without pusing her pro-life views. People that have gotten to know her say she's a pretty quick study, with good instincts. She's not afraid to take on her own party, if they're in the wrong. She knows a lot about energy policy, since she served as Commisioner of the Alaskan energy board before becoming Governor. She's attractive, and not just in physical beauty, but in the way she projects to a crowd. She's hardworking and optimistic. And, despite rumours, she never tried to ban books, or charged women for rape kits, or pushed creationism, or tried to outlaw abortion, and she was never a member of an Alaska separtist party.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Has anyone else notice Douglas recently has slide from Bush supporter to Goldwater conservitive?> I am, always have been, and always will be, a Reagan conservative. I have defended President Bush against unwarranted attacks, but I've never claimed he hasn't made mistakes. <If it weren't for Reagan ushering in the Neocon revolution, W would never have happened.> There hasn't been a "Neocon revolution", so President Reagan couldn't have ushered it in. Many neocons are former liberals who were attracted to the GOP because they believed in a strong national defense. Many are Jewish, and favor a strong defense of Isreal. They're not too concerned with the issues of social or fiscal conservatives, and while they had a fairly strong influence on the Bush administration, they did not completely dominate it. <W. was a side effect of Reagan, and the recent meltdown the end result of Reaganomics> Not so. The recent meltdown was the result of several factors, but the primary one was the push to lower the barrier to credit to allow more people to buy homes. This policy was pushed mostly by Democrats, through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***What exactly were her positives..*** She was highly adept at whipping a crowd into an angry frenzy. If you want to consider that a "positive". (she really IS a good speaker, you have to give her that...much better than McCain was in fact)
