Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe most rigidly conservatives members of the Republican National Committee are circulating a proposal to establish a purity test for the party's candidates.
If adopted, the party would withhold money from any contender who disagreed with conservative principles on more than two of 10 essential issues identified by the right-wingers.
"The problem is that conservatives have lost trust in the Republican Party that we will govern as conservatives," argues James Bopp Jr., an RNC member from Indiana who has spearheaded the purity-test push. "I think that loss of trust is warranted to a certain extent because of the fact that we in the final several years of the Bush administration were supporting increased government, earmarks and, ultimately, bailouts."
Earlier this year, Bopp and his compatriots pressured RNC chair Michael Steele to declare President Obama to be a "socialist." The conservative crusaders were rebuffed then, but if they win approval for their purity test at the committee's winter meeting in January, the party will officially express: "Republican solidarity in opposition to Obama's socialist agenda is necessary to preserve the security of our country, our economic and political freedoms, and our way of life."
With Orwellian irony, Bopp and his buddies have labeled their proposal: "Reagan's Unity Principle for Support of Candidates." The relevant portion of the resolution reads:
WHEREAS, the Republican National Committee shares President Ronald Reagan's belief that the Republican Party should espouse conservative principles and public policies and welcome persons of diverse views; andWHEREAS, the Republican National Committee desires to implement President Reagan's Unity Principle for Support of Candidates; and
WHEREAS, in addition to supporting candidates, the Republican National Committee provides financial support for Republican state and local parties for party building and federal election activities, which benefits all candidates and is not affected by this resolution; and
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee identifies ten (10) key public policy positions for the 2010 election cycle, which the Republican National Committee expects its public officials and candidates to support:
(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama's "stimulus" bill;
(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
(4) We support workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing, denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership; and be further
RESOLVED, that a candidate who disagrees with three or more of the above stated public policy positions of the Republican National Committee, as identified by the voting record, public statements and/or signed questionnaire of the candidate, shall not be eligible for financial support and endorsement by the Republican National Committee; and be further
RESOLVED, that upon the approval of this resolution the Republican National Committee shall deliver a copy of this resolution to each of Republican members of Congress, all Republican candidates for Congress, as they become known, and to each Republican state and territorial party office.
Fair enough.
So here's a question: Applying the standard established in the resolution – review of the candidate's official record, public statements and answers to questions – would Ronald Reagan pass the purity test?
Let's see:
(1) Deficit spending soared during Reagan's presidency. Strike one.
(2) As governor of California, Reagan oversaw the development of Medi-Cal, the nation's largest Medicaid program – expanding it to cover long-term care and developed massive new managed care systems. Strike two.
(3) As governor of California, Reagan Reagan established the Air Resources Board to battle California's smog problems and supported aggressive government intervention where the market had failed to protect the environment. As president, Reagan signed more wilderness protections laws – which restrict private-sector exploitation of natural resources – than any president in history. Strike three.
(4) Reagan was a former union president who campaigned against the Taft-Hartley Act and other restrictions of the right of unions to organize. Strike four.
(5) Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which granted amnesty to most undocumented workers who could prove they had been in the country continuously for the previous five years. After he finished his presidency, Reagan continues to speak out forcefully for immigration rights. Strike five.
(6) After the 1983 bombing of a Marine barracks in Beirut, Reagan was urged by some to surge more troops into the region. Instead, he ordered the Marines to begin withdrawal from Lebanon. Strike six.
(7) Reagan acknowledged that during his presidency the U.S. sold weapons to Iran. Strike seven.
(8) Reagan was the first president to invite an openly gay couple to spend the night in the White House and he famously argued that gays and lesbians should not be discriminated against in a 1978 television advertising campaign. Strike eight.
(9) Shortly after his inauguration as governor of California, Reagan signed into law the most liberal abortion statute of its day". Strike nine.
(10) Here's Reagan, in 1991, on gun control: "I support the Brady Bill, and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay." Strike ten.
Of course it is true that Reagan, like John Kerry, was for some ideas before he was against them.
Reasonable people might debate the proper point at which to try and pin Reagan down.
But no reasonable person can suggest that Ronald Reagan would have met the eight out ten test the RNC right-wingers seek to apply – especially on hot-button issues such as gun control, gay rights and immigration
Indeed, one of the favorites of the RNC's extreme conservatives, Florida U.S. Senate candidate Marco Rubio, recently declared that Reagan was wrong to support amnesty for undocumented immigrants.
And it is probably worth noting that, when Reagan was seeking the Republican nomination in 1980, conservatives Phil Crane and John Connolly suggested that "the Gipper" was an amiable fellow but just not pure enough. Crane positioned himself that year as as a pure conservative alternative to Reagan.
Crane, the purist, won 1.8 percent of the vote in the New Hampshire Republican primary and exited stage right.
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Mr. Nichols,
you pee pee on their parade.
and their pope.
Frostwin's law to be invoked shortly.
Posted by Benchrest at 11/24/2009 @ 1:36pm
Reagan fails the Neocons' litmus test. Love it!
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/24/2009 @ 1:38pm
Mask works for the Nation or they're taking his ideas. He says this over and over and over...
Posted by urmygyro at 11/24/2009 @ 1:42pm
This test is corollary to the black/white, "With Us Or Against Us" mindset that helped make the republican party irrelephant. Marching in lockstep against diversity of thought will not likely prove to be an effective recruitment tool.
(Good.)
Posted by drhammer at 11/24/2009 @ 1:48pm
reagan?
you forgot offshore drilling ban and bloatation of the burrocrats.
but he did get to invade cool places and fund nun-raping death squads.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/24/2009 @ 1:49pm
Marching in lockstep against diversity of thought will not likely prove to be an effective recruitment tool. (Good.)
Posted by drhammer at 11/24/2009 @ 1:48pm
i dunno...
big ben and cousin timmy have only been able to paper over HALF of the residential real estate catastrophe and they really can't print much more.
oh, and then there's commercial....
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/24/2009 @ 1:51pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/24/2009 @ 1:51pm
Sorry, while I'm no fan of Bernanke or Geithner, the relevance of your comment kinda zoomed right by me.
I was referring to the pubs' ability to attract new talent to the party.
Posted by drhammer at 11/24/2009 @ 1:56pm
As candidates with past record or reformed policy stances, 8 of 10 sounds perfectly fine w/me! If more than one to choose from in a Primary, I'd just have to see which 2 transgressions are tolerable.
Once in office and faced with the reality of geopolitics and domestic governing, positions may require "Change".....that's, if the candidate isn't a die-hard Narcisist like our own Magic......he who wants to go down in history as worse than Jimmy.
All seems rational and practical to me......like I didn't hang on to my Enron stocks to the bitter end!
Posted by Happy at 11/24/2009 @ 1:58pm
oh, just the <i>candidates</i>....
oops.
i was kinda thinking your average "voter" with the cut'n'paste section.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/24/2009 @ 2:02pm
Posted by urmygyro at 11/24/2009 @ 1:42pm | ignore this person | warn this person
that mask fellow is an interesting guy. although nichols never wades into his blog pits (at least not under his real name), i'm positive he mines the blog response pits for material...
yup...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/24/2009 @ 2:07pm
ok...time to rant and mock and crow smarmily!!!!
if the republican party wants to purify itself to death...
GOOD!
yes, mensa members of the GOP, nominate palin for 12, kick out all the reagan style republicans, and assume the role of third party!!!!
but you see...they think this is just a very temporary situation...they think that they can still pull the old propaganda blitz, and the "army" of limbaugh listening juju zombies will grow and overflow and...and...and...
they are getting stupider every day....
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/24/2009 @ 2:13pm
Mask works for the Nation or they're taking his ideas. He says this over and over and over...----Posted by urmygyro at 11/24/2009 @ 1:42pm
MANY people can speak the Truth, urmy.
I'm just a bit more "ahead of the curve" than some....LOL
BTW, they even missed a few-
1. Reagan raised taxes on gasoline with the STAA highway bill...strike eleven.
2. He used the money from that for a JOBS PROGRAM to upgrade the road..."Government make-work jobs bills"?!?!?....strike twelve.
3. He signed the 1986 Tax Reform Act...which raised taxes again on...corporations. The Right/Repubs called it "closing loopholes"...but if OBAMA tried that, it'd be a "tax hike on business"...which it was....strike 13.
4. Signed the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty with the Rooskies and offered TOTAL nuclear disarmament to Gorbachev for joint SDI deployment...odd message to send from Mr. "Tear Down This Wall" wasn't it?....strike 14.
BTW, the "Reagan Recovery"?....began almost two YEARS his tax cuts passed.
But today? The Right won't give Obama's policies a year.
Posted by Mask at 11/24/2009 @ 2:17pm
but you see...they think this is just a very temporary situation...they think that they can still pull the old propaganda blitz, and the "army" of limbaugh listening juju zombies will grow and overflow and...and...and... they are getting stupider every day.... Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/24/2009 @ 2:13pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--the republican party has been declared dead many a time. you don't really think it'll be relegated to a 3rd party status, do you?
Posted by urmygyro at 11/24/2009 @ 2:18pm
BTW, BTW...none of these historical FACTS...
will have the slightest impact on those who bow at the Altar of Reagan. They'll never sway from the True Faith.
See, he's something of a...."messiah"...to them.
heheh
Posted by Mask at 11/24/2009 @ 2:22pm
Point one: A book I read recently mentioned Reagan. Supposedly, he told his barber (I'm paraphrasing because I don't have the text in front of me:)
I came to DC to do five things: Shrink, government, lower tax rates, defeat communism, strenghten the military, and a fifth thing DTBFT can't remember.
Well, four out of five ain't bad.
*********
The point point is, Reagan favored smaller deficits, but he accepted higher deficits to secure other priorities such as a stronger military and defeating communism.
Nancy Pelosi isn't prolife, but she accepted a pro-life amendment in order to secure a healthcare bill. Doest that mean she would face a purity test on choice? No she wouldn't.
Now, to deconstruct Nichols's 10 criticisms of Reagan.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/24/2009 @ 2:23pm
BTW, BTW...none of these historical FACTS... will have the slightest impact on those who bow at the Altar of Reagan. They'll never sway from the True Faith. See, he's something of a...."messiah"...to them. heheh Posted by Mask at 11/24/2009 @ 2:22pm | ignore this person |
--Larry/antisocialist won't even criticize George W. Bush--so, like you said, Reagan is untouchable.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/24/2009 @ 2:33pm
Okay, point 2:
1) Deficits soared to keep tax rates low and the military strong. This is an acceptable bargin for the early '80s
2) "Market-based solutions" does not preclude subsidizing the poor. CA Medicaid subsidized the poor by purchasing care for them in the free market. This is no violation of principle.
3) Bullshit. Reagan didn't support cap-n-trade. Smog was a problem and there was no free market solution proposed to address it so government intervention was the only option.
4) Bullshit. Taft/Hartly doesn't do away with secret ballots. And besides he fired the illegally striking air trafic controllers. Double bullshit.
5) Granted, he sighed amnesty. But legal immigration would include changing the existing laws to a more rational policy. That is what Reagan was about.
6) Bullshit. We were not at war at the time, like we are in Iraq and Afgahnastan. Surging troops into Lebanon wouldn't have addressed the Lybia problem like bombing Tripoli did.
7) Okay, super bullshit. The policy of the day was to encourage Iraq and Iran to keep beating the shit out of one another so that they'd be too tired to fuck with anyone else. Now that Iraq has been cleaned up, containment of Iran is the new policy. Just because we aren't at war with England today is not an indictment of the President who fought them during 1812. This is a super disingenous claim.
8) Super Duper bullshit. Not discriminating against gay is not the same as marriage rights. Pretending it is is disingenous.
9) Mistakes made as the governor of the most liberal state in the nation do not reflect badly on his character. He certainly would have passed during his run for president.
10) Bullshit. He didn't favor gun control. He was supporting the brain-damaged man who saved his life.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/24/2009 @ 2:42pm
The Honorable President Ronald Reagan is DEAD! So what is your point now Mr. Nichols? Is this about bringing back Disco?
Posted by BigPasture at 11/24/2009 @ 2:42pm
ACORN staff dumped thousands of sensitive documents outside a California office just days after the state launched an investigation of the community organizing group, a private investigator says.
Derrick Roach, a licensed investigator based in San Diego, told Fox News that he watched from his car as a man tossed bags of files into a trash bin outside the local branch of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now on Oct. 9.
Roach said he searched the bin and found more than 20,000 documents, many containing confidential information that could put people at risk for identity theft.
"We're talking people's driver's license numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, tax returns, credit reports," he said.
Roach showed Fox News a document containing bank account information for a woman paying an ACORN membership fee by check.
He said tossing documents like that into a trash bin constitutes a crime in California.
Where is all the Nations support for ACORN? Everyone must be busy writing glowing articles supporting the Obamanation and ACORN, so I'll wait!
Posted by BigPasture at 11/24/2009 @ 2:46pm
Posted by urmygyro at 11/24/2009 @ 2:18pm | ignore this person | warn this person
no...not really...
but...
they seem bound and determined to go there, don't they?
there's a first for everything and until it happens, its never happened!
but yeah, trying to guard against imputing wishful thinking onto prognosticating...so...probably gonna survive...
jeez, if they were actually really conservative (as opposed to some aberrant combination of aynrando and satano-christian weirdness) i'd consider joining and shaking things up.
lord know they need some fresh ideas and common sense...
but its just too much of a pathetic joke right now...a pack of concrete objective thinking ideologues, barely conscious teabaggers, christofascists, and aynrando tools who think themselves homo superior only as a result of their inferior critical thinking capabilities which leads them to think themselves homo superior...ah, projection and defense mechanisms!!!
i guess i'll stay a democrat after all.
last bastion of real conservatism at he moment.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/24/2009 @ 2:51pm
Wow, talk about disingenous cherry picking.
The former union president who fired the illegally striking air traffic controlers would fail a purity test based on eliminating secret ballots for organizing.
The full throated, staunchly pro-life Reagan, who nominated Judge Bork, Reinquist, and Scalia, according to Nichols is the pro-life posterboy for NOW.
The Guy who said "government IS the problem" according to Nichols would support cap-n-trade and higher taxes.
The guy who Kushner said was the devil in "Angels in America" is, according to Nichols, a proponent of gay marriage?
WTF? Why would Nichols write this ridiculous joke of a column?
Why don't you write a collumn about how Al Sharpton is a member of the Klan?
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/24/2009 @ 2:53pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/24/2009 @ 2:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person
but he was a union boss for those crazy socialist hollywooders!!!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/24/2009 @ 3:02pm
they are getting stupider every day....
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/24/2009 @ 2:13pm
And yet, "they" seem to be always right 99.3% of the time.....LOL!
Rush was on a tear today on the big scandal that is AGW....and he, as well as I, have been right for 20+ years!
AGW is the new face of social-engineering and lib's desire to control everybody.
Now is a good time to repeat....any all are welcome to join me....and state after me: "Time is the Conservatives' Friend" and it seems, the "stupider" we are, the righter we are....hahahahaha!
Go for the Gold!
Posted by Happy at 11/24/2009 @ 3:08pm
......crazy socialist hollywooders!!!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/24/2009 @ 3:02pm
This shows your youth!
Today's Hollywooders sure ain't your father's Hollywooders!
Would today's Hollywooders have the cajones to make the Green Berets alongside the Deer Hunter?
Posted by Happy at 11/24/2009 @ 3:12pm
but he was a union boss for those crazy socialist hollywooders!!!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/24/2009 @ 3:02pm
When Reagan was SAG president, they were communists, not socialists. Hence, his staunch anti-communism.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/24/2009 @ 3:17pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/24/2009 @ 2:42pm
Thanks for taking care of the obvious nonsense, Darin. Many if not most of Nichols' points are ludicrous.
Of course, any educated person knows whose budgets were passed in the 80's - Tip O'Neill's. If you don't know this, google 'Omnibus Spending Bill' and 'Tip O'Neil declares Reagan budget DOA -annually for 10 years'. It gets tiresome repeating this, almost as tiresome as reading leftist revisionist history on this point.
And of course Nichols' ridiculously equates stripping workers of the right to a secret ballot with allowing union workers to organize. Absolute claptrap. Why anyone takes this stuff seriously is beyond me.
Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 3:23pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/24/2009 @ 2:42pm
Thanks for taking care of the obvious nonsense, Darin. Many if not most of Nichols' points are ludicrous.
Of course, any educated person knows whose budgets were passed in the 80's - Tip O'Neill's. If you don't know this, google 'Omnibus Spending Bill' and 'Tip O'Neil declares Reagan budget DOA -annually for 10 years'. It gets tiresome repeating this, almost as tiresome as reading leftist revisionist history on this point.
And of course Nichols' ridiculously equates stripping workers of the right to a secret ballot with allowing union workers to organize. Absolute claptrap. Why anyone takes this stuff seriously is beyond me.
Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 3:24pm
Oh, and CRABBIE, since the last thread was superseded, I'm reposting my response to you - your education is that important to me.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/24/2009 @ 11:54am
"What exactly are the GOP's plans to bring affordable health care to people?"
Well, we would start by NOT bankrupting the country, and, through tax cuts and sensible management of government, endeavorign to build a private business base that - who knows - may one day actually may even allow the country to afford to pay for all that free stuff your liberal politicians get elected by promising.
"And, why didn't they institute those plans while in power for 6 years?"
Because you, and tens of millions of Gimmecrats like you, have been brainwashed into thinking that other people owe you a living - thus making it impossible to cut the entitlements that you feel you deserve, regardless of the fact that you never earned them.
Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 3:28pm
Gold, by the way, is now up 40 percent since Obama's election. With the Democrats in Congress seemingly determined to bankrupt the country, destroy the dollar by printing money and driving industry overseas, destroy the business base with higher taxes, drive unemployment even higher with new taxes , and create yet another vast new entitlement on top of the two programs already scheduled to bankrupt us, it seems destined to go much higher. Hope and Change!
Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 3:34pm
Posted by Mask at 11/24/2009 @ 2:22pm
Oh, and MASK - the reason why Rasmussen consistently shows less favorable results for Obama than other polls, such as, say, the WaPo and CBS polls is that those other polls consistently over-sample Democrats - intentionally.
Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 3:39pm
Posted by Happy at 11/24/2009 @ 3:08pm | ignore this person | warn this person
dammit HAP! get off that satano-aynrando braincrack. jump ship before it goes down! you ain't the captain!
lol
time to redefine what "conservative" means. i'm serious about my fantasies of joining the GOP and shaking things up - but right now i have to say...gotta cultivate business contacts and in my industry, in my local...
better be a democrat...
lol...the irony!!!
why'd ya have to go be nice to me, tancredo? now i kinda like you...
LMAO!!!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/24/2009 @ 3:46pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/24/2009 @ 3:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person
yeah...how many careers were ruined and disrupted by that wicked fascist mccarthy, and his bunch because they may have attended a meeting or two of the american communist party or one of its front groups in the depths of the depression?
commernists!!!!
right...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/24/2009 @ 3:48pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/24/2009 @ 3:48pm
You know, ibble, I had lots of teachers like you in school - always ready to talk about the persecution of the poor communists in the 50's. In fact, one of their pet peeves was the persecution and execution of the poor, innocent Rosenbergs. Many was the lecture I received regarding their innocence. Ever heard of them?
Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 3:58pm
......crazy socialist hollywooders!!!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/24/2009 @ 3:02pm
This shows your youth!
Today's Hollywooders sure ain't your father's Hollywooders!
Would today's Hollywooders have the cajones to make the Green Berets alongside the Deer Hunter?
Posted by Happy at 11/24/2009 @ 3:12pm
But I was under the impression that to you neocons (some of whom here have now dubbed the likes of George Will "irrelevant")Hollywood is representative of "old-school" media, and therefore, irrelevant no matter what it produces.
Or is that not so?
Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/24/2009 @ 4:04pm
Reagan didn't go into his McCarthyite snitch/antiunion mode until it became clear to him he would never elevate from "B" status as an actor.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/24/2009 @ 4:09pm
I guess rebellion takes place in many forms...
Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/24/2009 @ 4:10pm
...but I get a warm fuzzy feeling when the batshit wing of the Republican Party comes to the fore...it's just a little early for me.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/24/2009 @ 4:11pm
Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 3:58pm | ignore this person | warn this person
i don't know...looks to me like the rosenbergs were guilty...sedition and espionage...regardless of commernist affiliation...
but will geer? grampa from the waltons who had to live in western europe for like 20 years in order to work?
it was the weak and semi-defenseless that that grandstanding, claptrap playing, whiskey swilling, witch hunting, bully, mccarthy relished ruining most...
i was not that kind of teacher, though i do admit to tearing down an ayn rand indoctrination workshop poster once in the copy room...
nah...i liked arguing politics with the brighter and more aware little budding satano-aynrandos...gave 'em good grades if they earned it too...and were especially dogged in their desire to prove me wrong...i always admired that even if i disagreed...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/24/2009 @ 4:16pm
In the end you will still need to pony up five bucks at the starbucks for your favorite fix.
Its the economy stupid!
Posted by RaymondAnthony at 11/24/2009 @ 4:30pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/24/2009 @ 4:16pm
"i don't know...looks to me like the rosenbergs were guilty...sedition and espionage...regardless of commernist affiliation... "
Right. They WERE guilty. Of treason. Guilty of giving the H-Bomb to Stalin, I believe it was. And possibly much more. Not for money, mind you - for ideology. Just remember the next time you rail against McCarthy that there WERE traitors in the government - motivated by communist sympathies - doing real damage to this country.
Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 4:32pm
Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 4:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--you really spend your free time defending joe mccarthy? if god has a plan, it surely is a sad one.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/24/2009 @ 4:37pm
Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 4:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person
i suppose so, but i also think there was a scapegoating hysteria at work as well as political aggrandizement.
and a lot of innocent folks were ruined...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/24/2009 @ 4:41pm
yeah...how many careers were ruined and disrupted by that wicked fascist mccarthy,
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/24/2009 @ 3:48pm
Far too many. I was just going for historical accuracy.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/24/2009 @ 4:46pm
Oh, and MASK - the reason why Rasmussen consistently shows less favorable results for Obama than other polls, such as, say, the WaPo and CBS polls is that those other polls consistently over-sample Democrats - intentionally.
Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 3:39pm
Your proof for that assertion?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/24/2009 @ 4:58pm
Right. They WERE guilty. Of treason. Guilty of giving the H-Bomb to Stalin, I believe it was. And possibly much more. Not for money, mind you - for ideology. Just remember the next time you rail against McCarthy that there WERE traitors in the government - motivated by communist sympathies - doing real damage to this country.
Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 4:32pm
I can think of several traitors much more recently:
Dick Cheney (and his entire staff - Scooter, David Addison, etc.)
Or do you think giving out the secret identity of a covert CIA agent is NOT treason (when the law clearly states that it is) simply for political purposes?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/24/2009 @ 5:03pm
RNC: fail
Posted by thekingofcheap at 11/24/2009 @ 5:04pm
Posted by urmygyro at 11/24/2009 @ 4:37pm
"--you really spend your free time defending joe mccarthy? if god has a plan, it surely is a sad one."
Just providing a little balance. I don't know much about Joe McCarthy, but I do know that at the time he was looking for communist traitors, there were, in fact, communist traitors to be found. You might not have learned this in school, I know I didn't - in fact, I was told it was all a witch hunt, which it most certainly was not.
Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 5:21pm
It is amazing how much time the political left spends obsessing and hyper-analyzing and critiquing Conservative and/or Republican leaders, past, present and future.
The themes applied vary from how stupid they are proclaimed to be, or they are not true Conservatives or Conservative enough and thus are hypocrites for promoting it, or they are criminals guilty of wrong.
Is it because the left has no positive ideas of it's own to make life better for people.....except the standard and failed idea to turn us all into helpless wards of a kind, caring and compassionate socialist state?....and to become a meek and compliant country on the world stage who is subserviant to the U.N., and apologetic and guilty for all the wrongs the left thinks we are guilty for?
Could be....it probably is because of something like that.....the left seeks to marginalize and neutralize it's opponents so people don't see the shortcomings of the left and it's agenda and it's promoters.
One positive thing...with the left's obsession with next-President Palin and former President Reagan, the attention has moved away from the left's favorite punching bag until recently, George W. Bush. He seems to have moved out of the left's limelight for now.
I should not get too optimistic about that, however, because that is probably one of the main reasons the Obama administration is trying terrorists in a criminal court in New York City rather than a military tribunal at Gitmo.....the Obama administration is probably hoping that the terrorists, through the court procedings and their ability to manipulate what happens, turn the trial into a de-facto trial on George W. Bush.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/24/2009 @ 5:34pm
Stephen_Carver1,
About your 5:03pm post above,
Somebody ought to make you go back to school, get in front of a blackboard, take a piece of chalk, and write 1,000 times the words:
Richard Armitage
================
On February 12, 2007, Bob Woodward testified that "former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage disclosed the identity of a C.I.A. agent to him in June 2003, but that I. Lewis Libby Jr. said nothing about the agent when Mr. Woodward talked to him two weeks later," David Stout reported in the New York Times.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/24/2009 @ 5:42pm
.....the Obama administration is probably hoping that the terrorists, through the court procedings and their ability to manipulate what happens, turn the trial into a de-facto trial on George W. Bush.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/24/2009 @ 5:34pm
I think this is part of Magic's `soft-power foreign policy' and not intended for domestic consumption. Never mind that his `soft-power' has turned into `bow-down FP'....in this case of KSM & collegues, it's BHO's way of bowing down to Al Qaida to see if it just might work (it won't, but he can Hope).
Posted by Happy at 11/24/2009 @ 5:47pm
Posted by sjchermak at 11/24/2009 @ 5:34pm | ignore this person | warn this person
"It is amazing how much time the political left spends obsessing and hyper-analyzing and critiquing Conservative and/or Republican leaders, past, present and future."
how much time do they spend doing this? jeez, never heard a righty run down clinton or carter...
"Is it because the left has no positive ideas of it's own to make life better for people.....except the standard and failed idea to turn us all into helpless wards of a kind, caring and compassionate socialist state?....and to become a meek and compliant country on the world stage who is subserviant to the U.N., and apologetic and guilty for all the wrongs the left thinks we are guilty for?"
a little "socialism" a la europe seems to me business's best friend. socialist socialist socialist...
meek and compliant? how bout not stupid and trigger happy? does not being meek involve rash foolishness and blustery machismo?
"the Obama administration is probably hoping that the terrorists, through the court procedings and their ability to manipulate what happens, turn the trial into a de-facto trial on George W. Bush."
i seriously doubt that. that "wishing ill on yor own country because your political party is no longer in power" sound a lot more like a righty phenomenon to me...whats that t-shirt going around that quotes some bible verse that encourages teabaggers to kill obama?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/24/2009 @ 6:00pm
oh - and i noticed saracuda's book just topped the ny times nonfiction list.
sold for $4.95 a copy at rallies...you guys used to skew the ny times list by having some rich righty like richard melon scaife buy a few thousand copies right off the press until the ny times caught on to the ruse. made it look like everybody was reading it when they weren't, but sometimes we can create alternate realities with enough money. wonder how much mr scaife or whoever contributed to keep the price of "goin' rogue" down to 1980's level in this satano-aynrando enabled recession...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/24/2009 @ 6:03pm
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/24/2009 @ 4:58pm
"Oh, and MASK - the reason why Rasmussen consistently shows less favorable results for Obama than other polls, such as, say, the WaPo and CBS polls is that those other polls consistently over-sample Democrats - intentionally.
Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 3:39pm
Your proof for that assertion?"
Try google.com
Oh, and please bear in mind that the people who are exposing ABC/WaPo and other polls' sampling bias? They aren't liberals. So, if you plan on discarding any 'unapproved' source, regardless of actual merits of what is being reported - don't bother I guess.
Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 6:04pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/24/2009 @ 6:03pm
So, does the conspiracy theory account for the fact that most of the books on the best seller list are conservative?
I heard the liberals at the NYT were clamoring for a re-definition of the best-seller list - in order to find a way to get all those conservative books off of it. Kind of an echo of the global warming 'no respectable publication publishes skeptic works - and if they do they're not respectable any more' progression.
Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 6:08pm
WaPo/ABC poll: The 14-point partisan gap posted at 9:30 am on November 17, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
After a while, it gets to be a broken record, but we still have to ask: does anyone know how to poll out there? Despite every indication that the partisan split among Americans has narrowed considerably since the last Presidential election, won by the Democrat by seven points while garnering considerable independent and Republican cross-over votes, the new Washington Post/ABC poll uses a sample in which Democrats outnumber Republicans by fourteen points. Moreover, the WaPo/ABC poll has progressively widened that gap over the last four monthly polls:
* 11/15/09: 35/21/39 (D/R/I) * 10/18/09: 33/20/42 * 9/12/09: 32/21/43 * 8/17/09: 35/25/34
Let's have a reality check here. In the last four months, which party would have lost ~20% of its representation in the polls and had them shift to the independent column? With both Gallup and Rasmussen showing the Democrats losing the generic Congressional ballot for the first time in several years, it's not the Republicans losing voters. And yet the Post and ABC conduct their public-opinion polls based on samples that not only wildly oversample Democrats but show the opposite trend of partisan identification.
Even while increasing the sample to the point of farce, Barack Obama and Democratic policies lost ground in this poll:
* Approval on health care: 47/49, was 48/48 in October * Approval on deficit: 42/53, was 45/51 in October * Approval on the economy: 51/47, was 50/48 * Support ObamaCare: 48/49, was 45/48 * Public option: Up 10 (53/43), was up 17 in October (57/40)
Maybe WaPo/ABC should use a 25-point gap the next time between Democrats and Republicans.
Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 6:13pm
Here's another special to The Nation from yours truly, B Kool. No place to appropriately put it for now, but I felt the need to fire this one off today.
Interesting how little play Darwin's gotten today....
IS THERE GRANDEUR IN THIS VIEW?
Today, Nov. 24th, 2009 marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of the Species". The first run of 1,250 copies was sold on the first day, and a firestorm of controversy was ignited which still burns today in various forms, some --needlessly, in my opinion-- quite furiously.
Yet, as incredible as the idea is that we are "simply" the products of impersonal forces blindly shaping the characteristics of both humans and every other living thing, it seems that those who are profiting most from the ramifications of this unprecedentedly explosive idea in the history of ideas are corporate behemoths who do so via the employment of manipulation techniques used to cynically exploit our human weaknesses. I think it's high time that the general population bears the fruits of Darwin's profound idea. It must start, as so many things must, with understanding --and most crucially, with a minimum of fear.
As the sharp thrust of science –particularly since, say, Galileo and Newton-- has made clear, the only rationally useful way to proceed in the understanding of our world and our known universe is through a judicious use of that eminently useful tool of the wise of any generation, Occam's Razor, or more precisely, the principle of parsimony. That is, we understand reality best when we utilize the explanations that most economically reflect the data and/or the broadly exhibited outlines of what was just observed.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/24/2009 @ 6:14pm
To put it bluntly, God, gods and the "supernatural" are now officially condemned to the sidelines of any contest considered to be genuinely fair. These hobgoblins from our deep evolutionary past are best viewed as the remnants –still potent though they are-- of a world where humans had no broader comprehension, or useful context, of the world in which they were born.
Now, thankfully, we have a remarkable context in which to place ourselves temporally and spatially-- in a universe that is currently understood to be 13.7 billion years old and vast beyond our comprehension, containing more stars (and by extension, planets) than there are grains of sand on all the beaches of the Earth!
In spite of this spanking new and incredible reality, humanity broadly, seems incapable of expanding its collective mind to think in more useful and life affirming ways, and while being treated to Hubble views of uncountable numbers of galaxies beyond our own, we insist on the navel gazing of our various tribalisms, including racism and bigotry, here on Earth.
I know the terror that many feel when they even begin to entertain the thought that they are, again, "simply" a vast aggregation of cells in communication with each other, ultimately producing something we refer to as "consciousness". The terror of contemplating that one's own existence is most likely limited in space and time is understandable. Death is the greatest fact of life.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/24/2009 @ 6:14pm
But we have something to combat the worst of our fears. It is nothing less than the power of the universe within. Our own human minds are essentially the biological equivalent of the external universe. Not literally, of course, but usefully nonetheless because the human nervous, endocrine and other intertwined bodily systems are something that, if fully comprehended, are worthy of our most profound contemplation, and worthy even of a form of (secular) worship, perhaps. We should no more wish to extinguish another human being than we should wish to destroy an entire world.
In fact, the transformation that must occur in the human species to ultimately enable our long term survival must involve the expansion of our human capacity to value life more broadly than just human life. If any "religion" is worthy of our adherence it is simply a religion that holds all of life to be something, if not quite "sacred", then pretty damned close.
This is going to take some real doing, obviously. One of the most pervasive characteristics of life is that it feeds on other forms of life. We, as humans though, have the capacity to rethink our relationship to the living world and to each other, in ways that are affirming of the value that is due to the entire web of life on the only planet in the universe that we know to harbor life.
The answer, as a multitude of philosophers and commentators both religious and secular have maintained for thousands of years, lies in love. We have a great, dark capacity for destructiveness and hatred as human beings, but it is equally true that our capacities for love, philosophy and contemplative living in cooperation with each other have also been demonstrated, if far less commonly.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/24/2009 @ 6:14pm
If we are, on one level, caught in a tangled web of divided loyalties based on the interminably complex movements of our own biology as well as a vast jumbled ball of societal constructs, we are certainly, on another level, capable of slicing through this Gordian knot with the powerful concepts that Charles Darwin first opened the book on one hundred fifty years ago.
As another great thinker so wisely once said, "The errors of religion, generally speaking are dangerous, those of philosophy are merely ridiculous". It is prime time to move past the dangers of own deeply seated fears, and open our eyes to the light of our own personally generated love, humility and life affirming ingenuity.
That we have it in us, I think there can be no denying. It's up to humankind to solve this conundrum before the conundrum dissolves us –for good. In the end, we will find our grandeur, or we will expire trying. God or no gods, we supply our own referees on this court, or we devolve into a game with no rules and more significantly, no winners.
End of essay.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/24/2009 @ 6:14pm
Addendum:
Much has been made in the media of the recent twentieth anniversary of the 11/9 date of the fall of the Berlin Wall. I would submit that a more fitting celebration would commemorate the 30th anniversary of Pink Floyd's "The Wall" album which was released on 11/30/89. We are, as yet, far from tearing down the most important "walls" that enclose and enslave us.
Lyric excerpt from track #1:
"If you wanna find out what's behind these cold eyes, You'll just have to claw your way through this disguise."
And a captivating video The Trial (second to last track) here:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCMHmDnfD6I
"Good morning, Worm your honor. The crown will plainly show The prisoner who now stands before you Was caught red-handed showing feelings Showing feelings of an almost human nature…"
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/24/2009 @ 6:14pm
See, he's something of a...."messiah"...to them.
heheh
Posted by Mask at 11/24/2009 @ 2:22pm
let's see...that would be Double Standard 101.....lol.............
Posted by OneVote at 11/24/2009 @ 6:19pm
Posted by sjchermak at 11/24/2009 @ 5:42pm
I know about Richard Armitage...but who do you think told him?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/24/2009 @ 6:22pm
Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 6:04pm
You're using Google.com to help you defend your outrageous assertion that national polling samples for every poll except Rasmussen oversample Dems purposefully?
Is that REALLY what you're doing?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Funny!
Now that the joke is over, how about using a reputable news source to back up your assertion....
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/24/2009 @ 6:25pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/24/2009 @ 6:14pm | ignore this person | warn this person
And, what effect television is having on evolution, and now perhaps more importantly, the personal computer and internet???
What if we had neither?
Would we be better off?
Would corporations and corrupt centralized government have so much sway?
Would the Reagan cult of personality have arisen?
I wonder?
Posted by OneVote at 11/24/2009 @ 6:26pm
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/24/2009 @ 6:25pm
"Now that the joke is over, how about using a reputable news source to back up your assertion...."
Surely Stephen, I know that no 'reputable' news source would report anything you didn't already know, or, in any case, contrary to what you want to believe...
Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 6:32pm
Maybe WaPo/ABC should use a 25-point gap the next time between Democrats and Republicans.
Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 6:13pm
Only 20% of Americans are stupid enough to even call themselves Republicans. If only 20% of people are chartreuse out of 100 people (i.e. 20 chartreuse people) are represented in a poll, then only those 20% will have chartreuse viewpoints.
There are far more independents and Democrats in America than Republicans, so OF COURSE there will be more independents and Democrats in random sampling.
Jesus, you're an idiot. You think Republicans should represent 50% of people polled when they only represent 20% of our population? THAT would be a skewed poll.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/24/2009 @ 6:32pm
You think Republicans should represent 50% of people polled when they only represent 20% of our population? THAT would be a skewed poll.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/24/2009 @ 6:32pm
So, the Republicans are really pretty powerful, huh? Each GOP = about 2~3 Dems, I reckon, based on your reality.....thanks! I can dig it!
Posted by Happy at 11/24/2009 @ 6:46pm
Probably the most telling moment of Reagan's career was his acceptance speech at the 1980 convention, in which he cited FDR's 1932 pledge to balance the budget; the rank and file didn't know whether to cheer or boo, but Repub insiders got the joke. They knew that the unprecedented deficits that Reagan was advocating would lead to an unprecedented expansion of the corporate welfare state.
And taxes? One of Reagan's first official acts was to raise taxes on workers who were paid less than minimum wage, by requiring them to report tip income. Reagan also 'saved' Social Security (which he campaigned against earlier in his career) by doubling payroll taxes on the poorest workers, from 3% to 6%.
So now that they're out of power, Repubs are back to advocating the principles that all of their elected leaders from Reagan to Gingrich to Bush Jr. have betrayed in furtherance of the real Repub agenda: the redistribution of public and private resources from the workers to corporate profiteers; an ever-expanding corporate welfare state. And the rank and file are still making excuses for their betrayers.
Posted by samcrossett at 11/24/2009 @ 6:47pm
So, the Republicans are really pretty powerful, huh? Each GOP = about 2~3 Dems, I reckon, based on your reality.....thanks! I can dig it!
Posted by Happy at 11/24/2009 @ 6:46pm
No, that's not what I am saying. What I'm saying is that the polls, which pontifidumbass thinks are skewed purposefully leftward, are actually pretty good polls because there ARE many independents and a few Dems who lean towards the right. There are also a lot of Dems on the far left who are almost as upset with Obama as the Republicans are...so that's why Obama's numbers are dropping. The polling is actually pretty accurate.
But in the end, who really cares? He's elected the President, he's trying to tackle something that has been defeated every single time it's brought up, so it's not surprising that his numbers have dropped. Nor is it surprising that Palin's numbers are higher...she's not running for anything. She's an ex-governor mom who "wrote" a book (with a ghost-writer to make her sound more intelligent).
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/24/2009 @ 6:59pm
Stephen_Carver1,
You ask me:
"....I know about Richard Armitage...but who do you think told him?...."
Pray tell, why would that matter?
Why would it matter who told a government official (Armitage) , a person who likely had the authority to know that information anyway?
Your implication is that it was wrong to tell Armitage. I am sure that is where you were headed with the question, although now you may pull a Mask and say that is not where you were headed, you were just wondering.
Actually, it seems that Armitage was privy to that information as part of his job, from what I am able to gather on the subject.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/24/2009 @ 7:31pm
It's funny and sad...as the ignorant are revealed as such, they just get louder. The sun revovlves around the earth...the world is flat...the past 30 years have been great...
Posted by dekist at 11/24/2009 @ 8:11pm
The sun revovlves around the earth...the world is flat...
Posted by dekist at 11/24/2009 @ 8:11pm
And the latest and greatest bunch of Flat-Earthers are.....please give me the envelope.....and it is the AGW Mongers.....
Just thought I complete my thought at your expense.
Posted by Happy at 11/24/2009 @ 9:09pm
Though I have not read the whole thread yet, no mention in the first few of a huge ideologic mishap by St. Ronnie of the Ray Gun:
EMTALA
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act made access to medical care a right for all, regardless of ability to pay.
Beyond that, the idea of a 'purity test' is utterly laughable, or would be if the potential for damage to the nation weren't so significant.
Posted by skeletonman at 11/24/2009 @ 9:14pm
"It is amazing how much time the political left spends obsessing and hyper-analyzing and critiquing Conservative and/or Republican leaders, past, present and future". Not much to analyze since their's not much there to begin with. It is quite entertaining though to watch them go off on some fantasy rant. Something else I've noticed growing up in a Conservative household is that right wingers are devoid of original ideas, are followers, not leaders and that they come equipped with hyper-paranoia. Something in the genes me thinks. Reagan's most important contributions, other than a slew of "B" flicks, was a few Conservative catch phrases - 'Greed is Good' and 'I've got mine, screw the rest of you'.
Posted by mkpoorman at 11/24/2009 @ 9:28pm
She's an ex-governor mom who "wrote" a book (with a ghost-writer to make her sound more intelligent).
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/24/2009 @ 6:59pm
You have to give CHERMAK some credit for trying. He loves to conjecture about what you MAY have been thinking since he typecasts everyone he comes into contact with and assumes to know something about the thought process.
When last sighted he was somewhere in Cincinnati urinating into a public fountain. I must admit that I gave him the idea, but he seemed to think that it was a good one. It's very possible that he works in a coal mine or is the victim of mercury poisoning. He also likes to go to a special website that he directed me to called rightwingnews.com. He incessantly denies using this site as support for some rant he was on, but its theme is "Beating Liberalism to Death with a Shovel".
Posted by ficheye at 11/24/2009 @ 9:52pm
Reagan's most important contributions, other than a slew of "B" flicks, was a few Conservative catch phrases - 'Greed is Good' and 'I've got mine, screw the rest of you'.
Posted by mkpoorman at 11/24/2009 @ 9:28pm
Excuse me....poorman, you've watched too many movies, not by Reagan, and is Lost in Space.....Hahahaha!
Oh, btw, Libs are the most greedy since their Life Goal is TAKE money that doesn't belong to them....they don't even pretend to sell some shoddy product at huge markups, they just take via their pals in Congress.
I know this is pretty deep for you....but give that some thought...good edumycation!
Posted by Happy at 11/24/2009 @ 10:50pm
Really Happy...REALLY? The Senate has been bought and sold and whored by business to the point it is now laughable to listen to people beholden exclusively to large contributors attempt to explain their position. Thats dems and res. To not accept that reality, and by that reasoning accept who has last word in legislating is willful ignorance...and since you're clearly a reasoning giant, we can agree on this, at least...
Posted by dekist at 11/25/2009 @ 02:22am
One positive thing...with the left's obsession with next-President Palin and former President Reagan, the attention has moved away from the left's favorite punching bag until recently, George W. Bush. He seems to have moved out of the left's limelight for now.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/24/2009
I repeat...
I saw footage of Obama at an NBA game a few weeks ago and he didn't pick his nose one time.
Posted by koroviev at 11/25/2009 @ 02:29am
reagan was a huge liar and criminal. FACT!!! Should have spent the rest of his drooling life in a prison for breaking the law!!! rebublicans are insane, lying, psycho freaks who cannot tell the truth ever!!!
Posted by Tiger2Lover at 11/25/2009 @ 05:47am
Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 6:13pm | Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/24/2009 @ 6:59pm |
I'm ROTFLMAO that accurate sampling of voters proportional to their national numbers is construed as 'skewed' by Republicans who are upset that THEY are the ones losing party members to the independents because they can't find their ass with a flashlight and a map (where are all of Michael Steele's hip-hop voters, yo?).
Try adopting a platform that doesn't make sensible people reel in shock if you want better results and for goodness sake, take a stat class or two.
100% of Palin admirers agree: neurons are the work of the devil.
Posted by snowball777 at 11/25/2009 @ 05:59am
Posted by Happy at 11/24/2009 @ 10:50pm |
Only Dems collect SS and Medicare?!
Only Dems work in the defense industry?!
Only Dems traded in clunkers?!
Those Dems are 'taking' money from me and giving it to your mom, Happy. At least the people 'taking' money actually need help, unlike your tax-evading self.
Pugs talk a good game about ending entitlements because their Horatio Alger myth rests on said foundational cowpie, but, as soon as they're passed, they line up at the trough right quick.
And let's not forget the biggest beneficiaries of government largesse...Wall St...only in your head is progressive taxation a bigger theft than charging someone 30% interest on a credit card.
Posted by snowball777 at 11/25/2009 @ 06:15am
If the GOP adopts these 10 issues as their litmus test it proves once and for all that to be initiated into the GOP club, you first and foremost have to be a greedy, homophobic, parnoid raging Ahole. Nothing new here.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/25/2009 @ 07:41am
The first principle would pretty much eliminate funding for a good 75% of the party.
Posted by nkurland at 11/25/2009 @ 09:49am
Those Dems are 'taking' money from me and giving it to your mom, Happy. At least the people 'taking' money actually need help, unlike your tax-evading self.
Pugs talk a good game about ending entitlements because their Horatio Alger myth rests on said foundational cowpie, but, as soon as they're passed, they line up at the trough right quick.
And let's not forget the biggest beneficiaries of government largesse...Wall St...only in your head is progressive taxation a bigger theft than charging someone 30% interest on a credit card.
Posted by snowball777 at 11/25/2009 @ 06:15am
IF the Dems ram through spending I oppose, I'll try my damn best to "line up at the trough right quick"....and thank you if you're willing to play the sucker....& for supporting my mother, she does reap in quite a few benefits and she doesn't need them. Same with my in-laws who are richer than any of their kids. Good financial planning means taking advantage of what's available, loop holes are made for the non-poor!
How can any sharp finance guy (say me for eg) "forget the biggest beneficiaries of government largesse...Wall St."? I'm powerless to prevent abuses of progressive taxation but I surely do love my banks charging "30% interest on a credit card" to willing customers who don't like to anticipate harder times and are big spenders.
Oh, one last thing......I had cashed in on the ethanol boom (now bust) and Hope to do so on my alt. energy plays....but now I'm a little concerned that the whole AGW thingy is about to blow up and some are now advising dumping renewable energy stocks.....To Dump or Not To Dump?
LOL!
Posted by Happy at 11/25/2009 @ 10:35am
Some years ago I read comments here because I had nothing better to do. Happy was writing screeds here. Today I returned and found that he is in the same chair and writing the same stuff. How the world has changed eh. I suppose that his heaven on earth is much closer now or perhaps he will discover that there isw a world outside.
Posted by si8bqm at 11/25/2009 @ 11:07am
Today I returned and found that he is in the same chair and writing the same stuff. How the world has changed eh. I suppose that his heaven on earth is much closer now or perhaps he will discover that there isw a world outside.
Posted by si8bqm at 11/25/2009 @ 11:07am
My heaven is in fact, "much closer now", thanks in large part, to the Hopey and Changey Messiah!
My guess is, your outside world is perfectly peachy and Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours!
I'm having the time of my life and enjoying the Magci Era!
Posted by Happy at 11/25/2009 @ 11:10am
So, again, Happy....WE think Obama is a "Messiah"...
yet YOU guys will brook no "bad talk" about Ronald Reagan who "saved our economy and defeated the Commies single-handed."
Ever heard of the psychological term..."projection"?
Posted by Mask at 11/25/2009 @ 11:29am
Posted by pontificus at 11/24/2009 @ 6:08pm | ignore this person | warn this person
the NY Times caught onto the trick some time in the mid 90's and did not count mass purchases...
and yes, it was a common practice in the 80's and early 90's by wealthy rightwing billionaires. like sending agents to scour the trailer parks of arkansas looking for folks to "tell" (SELL) their "stories" about the clintons.
"yes virginia! there IS a vast right wing conspiracy"
lee atwater
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/25/2009 @ 12:16pm
... the attention has moved away from the left's favorite punching bag ...
Posted by sjchermak at 11/24/2009
You're just jealous. Besides, even in private life GW manages on occasion to do or say something stupid. And when he does, let the punching begin. Whack - a - mole!
I always get a kick out of the fact that George portrayed himself as a voracious reader. But I think if truth be told, George had a 'ghost reader' - someone who could just tell him what the book was about so he could discuss it with faux familiarity. Artificial intelligence.
Besides, verbal skills should increase with a greater knowledge of the language. No one 'misunderestimated' the guy.
Posted by ficheye at 11/26/2009 @ 4:24pm
ficheye,
You say:
".....I always get a kick out of the fact that George portrayed himself as a voracious reader. But I think if truth be told, George had a 'ghost reader' - someone who could just tell him what the book was about so he could discuss it with faux familiarity. Artificial intelligence. ....."
The operative words here on your part are "I think".....and I will give you credit for admitting that you have expressed your opinion and not declaring something to be absolute fact .....because you have no information that would support your contention....it is just a hunch on your part based only on your opinion of the man, and nothing more.
An incorrect hunch, by the way.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123025595706634689.html
I know, I know.....the article in the Wall Street J0urnal was written by Karl Rove....and thus it is "invalid"......or you made your Nov 26 4:24 pm post to bait me and I took the bait or blah,blah,blah........
But I thought I would post in and give you credit for including the words "I think" (admitting you are expressing your opinion and not proven fact) in your post, because the words "I think" are absent from a lot of posts on this site.
Myself, as you well know, I don't get to do much reading what with frequent travel back and forth to Cincinnati to go to the bathroom at Fountain Square. It does take time to get there and back.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/26/2009 @ 6:51pm
I know, I know.....the article in the Wall Street J0urnal was written by Karl Rove....and thus it is "invalid"......or you made your Nov 26 4:24 pm post to bait me and I took the bait or blah,blah,blah........
Posted by sjchermak at 11/26/2009 @ 6:51pm
Those poor folks in Cincinnati!
I actually thought that you spent most of your time blogging on rightwingnews.com. I didn't know that you could find your way to the airport, or to the bathroom for that matter. Hence the fountain, I guess.
Who needs bait? This little thing about the fountain seems to have sent you off on a paroxysm of lame rebuttal and semi-intelligent attempts at humor. You're just trying to get even for all those stories I wrote about you... I can understand that. As long as YOU think you are funny, well, that's what's important.
And as for the reading skills of George W. Bush... you go on ahead and believe what Rove tells you. The fact that you had to go find an article just to write a put down is proof that you can be led, by Carl Rove AND me. I've also heard various things recently about how Rove was not beyond making stuff up to achieve his agenda, so I couldn't read your article without that thought in mind.
Back to the fountain with you! But as you are peeing down your leg as you fail to actually reach the new mecca of your fountain, remember that Reagan tax cuts enriched only the upper quintile, the nation's richest twenty percent. The trend was clearly visible in charts prepared by the Brookings Institution, BEA, the Bureau of Labor Statistics et al. As you make your way through the suggested reading list of our past president maybe you would consider embracing another concept, difficult as it may seem... reality.
Mission accomplished!
Posted by ficheye at 11/27/2009 @ 12:05pm