RNC Proposal to Oppose Socialism
Hopefully this is a sign of things to come from the GOP leadership.
In what would amount to a slap in the face to a sitting Republican president and the party’s Senate and House leaders, national GOP officials, including the vice chairman of the Republican National Committee, are sponsoring a resolution opposing the resort to “socialist” means to save capitalism.
“We can’t be a party of small government, free markets and low taxes while supporting bailouts and nationalizing industries, which lead to big government, socialism and high taxes at the expense of individual liberty and freedoms,” said Solomon Yue, a cosponsor of a resolution that would put the RNC—the party’s national governing body—on the record as opposing the U.S. government bailouts of the financial and auto industries.
Will Paul Ryan be quitting to protest teh move?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 30, 2008 at 1129 hrs
I hope the RNC knows what they are doing. We don’t want them to loose or alienate the minority voter, Jewish voter, Union worker or damage their tight relationship with the MSM.
This is going to make somebody mad. I hope it isn’t anybody we know. Taking a stand on something can be tough on their image.
Looks like someone in the RNC took some of their Viagra that the government, i.e., taxpeyers paid for. Big Whoop…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 30, 2008 at 1202 hrs
Assuming minorites, Jews or Union workers actually vote
Republican, it is unlikely that, if they do, this would bother them at all. If Republicans actually walked-the-(conservative)walk, they would win every time. But they don’t. They’re largely a bunch of “squishes”.Posted by Steve on December 30, 2008 at 1217 hrs
Steve: My point is Republicans still try to win votes of those who have as much chance of voting for them as Israelies have of winning the love of the Palestinians. Ain’t never going to happen but they still try.
Squishes? Indeed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 30, 2008 at 1239 hrs
Quite true. Republicans need to quit trying to get the other side to love them. I think experince with the sitting President has made that all too clear.
Posted by Steve on December 30, 2008 at 1314 hrs
Republicans need to quit trying to get the other side to love them.
Why quit when you are ahead?
I think experince with the sitting President has made that all too clear.
I can’t wait to read about Bush’s betrayal of Republicans/conservatives here.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 30, 2008 at 1329 hrs
Amen to that brother.
John McCain’s career is more evidence the MSM will never respect you in the morning no matter how much you try the night before.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 30, 2008 at 1330 hrs
John McCain’s career is more evidence the MSM will never respect you in the morning no matter how much you try the night before.
Especially after you chose to spend the night with Palin.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 30, 2008 at 1339 hrs
Not betrayal. Just the fact that the Left was never going to like him and he made a mistake trying.
Posted by Steve on December 30, 2008 at 1339 hrs
pjr: The MSM hated Palin. More evidence that they saw her as a threat to their thinking and an effective though sytaxtically challenged communicator.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 30, 2008 at 1356 hrs
The MSM hated Palin. More evidence that they saw her as a threat to their thinking and an effective though sytaxtically challenged communicator.
Was that what the electorate was thinking on November 4?
Or was it the difference that lipstick does or doesn’t make?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 30, 2008 at 1406 hrs
As a sign of things to come this resolution is pointless. The party has a record of action and that record is at loggerheads with the resolution.
The proper thing to do would be for the RNC’s representatives, the republicans in office, to act first, then and only then will the RNC’s proclamations carry any weight.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 30, 2008 at 1511 hrs
Nobody cares about these pointless resolutions except the freepers. Nobody.
To hell with Bush, McCain, Palin, whatever. They’re all old news. The sooner the GOP figures out that it needs to start talking about the issues America is talking about, and not just about taxes and homeland security all the time, the sooner they will start to win.
If Americans want to talk economy, health care, and education, then YOU have to talk about those things instead of trying to convince everyone that they should be paying attention to YOUR issues. Which isn’t to say that you can’t also talk about taxes and homeland security. But the GOP is losing largely because it has no coherent message and plan to sell in the other areas.
The GOP needs a broad-spectrum agenda, and right now it’s only got two colors of the rainbow. If those colors aren’t en vogue, the GOP gets its ass whipped.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on December 30, 2008 at 1516 hrs
BBB/RS are exactly right.
Until those two perceptions are realized and the pudding is proofed it is just nothing more than noise.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 30, 2008 at 1536 hrs
As a sign of things to come this resolution is pointless. The party has a record of action and that record is at loggerheads with the resolution.
Exactly. This reminds me of all those useless “strongly worded resolutions” out of the U.N. Wow. How “dazzling” of the GOP to claim to support something they have completely abandoned in any sense of accountability from their elected membership for many years.
The GOP is done as a party. The question now is when the smart ones who are left (few as they are) switch to LP or form another party altogether.
What’s left in the GOP are extremists and naive idealists. a bad mix, and the combination for a perpetual minority party. GOP fans now would be better off voting for DINO’s (a play on ‘RINO’, but with Democrats). Meaning: Just do what the Dem’s have been doing at the State level for years now: run as a Democrat even if you disagree with 99% of the party platform.
Posted by David on December 30, 2008 at 1546 hrs
I would not consider the GOP out for the count. A standing 8 count yes. As long as they are competing against the likes of Barney Frank, Polosi, and the clowns in the other two rings, the circus is always up for grabs.
pjr: Do you think McCain lost because of his VP pick? I think you are just looking for a fight today. Did your dog run away so you can’t kick it?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 30, 2008 at 1706 hrs
John, I think McCain lost partially because of Palin. I used to think she was a bigger reason, but in fact she was a symptom. McCain abandoned his independence for the base.
I don’t particularly care what the MSM or any liberals thought of Palin, I was apalled by her. She showed no ability to do anything but repeat talking points. Nothing she said was remotely original - I can log onto WND, Freeper or this place, or tune into 1130 anytime and see/hear all the same fanasies. At least Obama occasionally veered from Dem boilerplate and his appointments and rhetoric during the transition suggest he will indeed act as a pragmatic centrist, which is what this Country desperately needs.
Of course the proof is yet to come. He may be a dyed in the wool liberal who doesn’t stand up to the clowns in Congress. If that’s the case, then I’ll think him a failure just as much as I think of W.
Anyway back to Palin. I don’t honestly know how anyone could listen to that woman and think she belonged anywhere near the West Wing unless it was on a tour. I mean, I know you all don’t like eggheads and intellectuals, but come on. It was like The Onion created a cartoon that was lifelike enough that McCain chose it to run with him.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 30, 2008 at 2202 hrs
Judging by Obama’s appointments and rhetoric he is utterly clueless and completely beholden to special interest and ideology, which is exactly what the country doesn’t need.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 30, 2008 at 2338 hrs
ATV Palin. To each his own. A VP is supposed to repeat and emphasize the talking points.Not steal the show. Joe B couldn’t even do that. Palin did it well. Cheney actually did it better than Bush. Who do you think would have changed the outcome for McCain? The answer is nobody. It was a popularity contest and Obama won. Palin got Miss Congeniality.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 31, 2008 at 0018 hrs
A VP is supposed to repeat and emphasize the talking points. Not steal the show.
Golly, Palin could’ve fooled me, since her selection was basically designed to distract everyone from everything else they were talking about at the time. Now mind you, that’s not her fault necessarily, but that was certainly the intended result and that’s what the McCain campaign got.
Both Palin and Biden were pretty inept politically. The GOP base cheered for Palin because of her personal history and ideology, and not because of her ability to coherently articulate a message, whether hers or McCain’s. If one can judge by polls (and I like to because collectively, they’re pretty damn accurate), Americans were overwhelmingly doubtful of Palin’s competencies by election day. People thought Biden, however, was qualified.
That said, the VP pick usually matters little in the broader scheme, since few people vote based on that individual. I did, but my vote went from McCain to third party and not to Obama.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on December 31, 2008 at 0933 hrs
RS is spot on.
It’s hard to say whether Palin gained 3 basers for every independent she cost, or gained 2 basers for every 3 independents lost.
I know she was the final straw as far as McCain losing my vote. Had he chosen someone competent, coherent and more pragmatically conservative I may have been able to overlook his other faults. But the idea that a whacko like that was a 72 year-old’s health away from the Oval sealed the deal.
I ended up voting for Obama just to vote for an African American for the first time. He was going to win Wisconsin anyway, so why not take the opportunity. But it certainly wasn’t like I was terribly excited about it. I mean, the guy is a transplanted FIB.
I think there’s a South Park episode about an election like this.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 31, 2008 at 1124 hrs
ATV: You’ve just shown what a moron you truly are. You voted for Obama because he’s Black? That’s just f-in stupid. Obviously, you believe in nothing.
Posted by Steve on December 31, 2008 at 1151 hrs
Since when did the ability to speak well in public under intense scrutiny become the sole indicator of intelligence?
I know plenty of very intelligent people that stumble and stammer at the microphone. And some of pretty average intelligence that can sell themselves as much more in the same venue. Go to any public speaking class for evidence of this.
If eloquence is our sole measure of intelligence, than this country is truly in deep s..t.
But back to the original thread. The GOP needs to root out more than a few RINO’s and start walking the talk before this type of resolution can come close to having credibility. For the record, I don’t think we should have bailed out any corporation, financial or other. The house of cards needed a good correction. All the bailout money is only prolonging the inevitable and leaving us with a much larger bill. So, yes, from a fiscal perspective, GWB is and has been a dismal failure, maybe not to some Republicans, but certainly to conservatives.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 31, 2008 at 1338 hrs
JJ, she didn’t even speak intelligently when she was interviewed by Hannity or any other hack.
Good speaking is not the issue, it’s what you say. She lied about the bridge to nowhere, she lied about her state’s share of energy production, and worst of all she seemed to think that as V.P. she’d apparently get to set the debate agenda and speak on the floor of the Senate with regularity.
I know Biden and Obama had their share of gaffes and mistruths, but nothing compared to her mix of dishonesty and inanity.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 31, 2008 at 1540 hrs
Steve,
You’re one of those true believers aren’t you. You think you need to buy into an ideology and have strong partisan beliefs, along the lines of religion.
Spare me. Ideology and partisanship are shortcuts to thinking. Of course I have core principles which are more conservative than you’d allow yourself to believe. But unlike you I’m not beholden to a party or an ideology. A solution from one ideology might make sense here, another there.
Don’t you ever get tired of the hypocrisy that partisanship and adherence to ideology requires? Don’t you ever get tired of defending your party or ideology even when it fails? Don’t you ever get tired of orally servicing what is in effect a glorified high school clique known as a political party?
I know the simplicity of ideology and partisanship is hard to overcome, and I know it makes you feel good to belong to a group, to fight against an other. But try letting go just once and thinking independently for a change. Let go of your ideological chains and think issues through for once.
Dare ya.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 31, 2008 at 1546 hrs
I think, therefore I am not a Liberal. Or a Republican
Not thinking is voting for a person because of the color of their skin, not because of their beliefs. Not thinking is believing that YOUR candidate had thier share of gaffes and missteps, but the opposition is an evil liar.
Religion is belief based solely on faith. I keep my religion in church and don’t force it on others.
I fight against that which is counter to my core beliefs. Not for any group. That my beliefs happen to agree with others is really immaterial.
I had a snarky comeback, but I’ll leave it. It was too easy.
Posted by Steve on December 31, 2008 at 1555 hrs
Hey JJ,
Where you see “RINO”, some of us see “majority.”
Wisconsin will never elect 50 conservatives to the Assembly, nor 17 conservatives to the Senate, nor will it ever elect a conservative governor. I’m just operating off Wisconsin’s track record. I’m not Nostradamus or anything, but like many of you, I frequently think the past is a good predictor of the future.
Tell me the last time Wisconsin elected a conservative to a statewide office. Then tell me who our last truly conservative president was (and when you look at the entirety of Reagan’s two terms, he was far more a pragmatist than what you would call a conservative).
I’m not knocking conservative ideology. I’m saying that you guys will always need help if you ever want to do something other than bitch and moan.
Then again, that’s where some of you seem happiest. A lack of accountability is a beautiful thing, no? Remember that when your taxes are going up because you won’t compromise on concealed carry and abortion and gay marriage and the rest of the PLW/NRA/Family Research Council agenda.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on December 31, 2008 at 1700 hrs
Hey RS,
Where do you see a “majority” anywhere?
The more the Republicans abandoned conservative principles - especially those of the fiscal variety, they more they get their ass kicked.
With all due respect, you do nothing BUT knock conservative ideology and as an insider, you are as much of the problem as anyone. Maybe you idiots in Madison could find something better to do with your time - like truly balancing the budget instead of telling me that I can’t take my 4-year-old into the hot tub at the water park to warm up before she hits the slides again because of the new State Law prohibiting anyone younger than 6 going into hot tubs. I’ll give you a hint, I was able to balance my budget by cutting expenses because we didn’t get a raise this year.
The Dems and RINOs have given us the nanny-state, and a multi-billion dollar budget deficit. Keep patting yourself on the back…. ugh.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 31, 2008 at 1754 hrs
Madison? You mean the place I haven’t lived for 3 1/2 years? It’s nice. I visit occasionally.
Please answer my questions. I’d seriously love to hear your answer. I’m not even being the least bit facetious, I swear. I’ll ask them again:
1. Tell me the last time Wisconsin elected a conservative to a statewide office.
2. Then tell me who our last truly conservative president was (and when you look at the entirety of Reagan’s two terms, he was far more a pragmatist than what you would call a conservative).
I have no problem with conservatives personally. I understand why conservatives get cantankerous sometimes. I do not understand why some conservatives wish to employ political strategies that will forever ensure that they don’t have a seat at the table.
Moderate and conservative Republicans have a lot of areas where common ground can be found. But it doesn’t matter for squat when guys like Mark Gundrum are pushing majority-killing referenda that throw outstate moderate Republicans under the bus.
And by the way, I’m totally with you on all that nanny state crap. There are a lot of Republicans - conservatives, moderates, whatever - who wish we would focus on the real issues and stop wasting time with hot tub bills or green license plates for sex offenders or whatever. For the record, conservative legislators push this crap too. Crappy ideas come from politicians of all philosophies and ideologies.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on December 31, 2008 at 1819 hrs
Well the only R governor that I remember was Tommy! - I’m not that old
We all know he wasn’t really all that conservative. But the recent “compromises” from the R’s in the legislature of memory were caving in on spending increases and fee increases and the like. None of which were conservative and now the R’s (moderate or otherwise) are now firmly in the minority status. Which to a conservative really isn’t any different than before.
I’d like to see some middle ground being made on reducing the number of state employees and cutting spending. Seriously, do we need the State to be the largest employer? Do we need the State to keep buying land for conservation? Both of these shift the burden further to the private sector to feed the beast.
In the real world, we cut our spending and costs by 10% last year and are expected to do the same this year. That means cutting out the “nice to have’s” for the “gotta have’s”, negotiating pricing and payment terms, smaller raises if any, increased co-pays on our insurance, and hiring freezes. All we ask is for the State to do the same.
Since the State has never cut any budget - 10% should be a piece of cake, shouldn’t even break a sweat.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 31, 2008 at 1840 hrs
See, I’d agree with like 95% of that. All I ever ask is that if the state buys it, the state pays for it honestly - enough of this beg, bond, and steal BS. If the state needs to raise taxes to pay for its spending, I’d rather it do that than raid segregated funds or bond out the yazoo to do it.
And that said, of course the state should be able to cut. Start with K-12, Corrections, and MA - all the stuff we ordinarily spare, the stuff that’s running us dry. Then get rid of levy limits and make school finance a local issue again. If a community wants to tax itself silly to pay for schools, let it.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on December 31, 2008 at 2241 hrs
Steve-O,
That faint sound you may have heard as you typed your response? It wasn’t a 747, it was my point.
You jump to the immediate conclusion I was out to vote for the first black guy no matter what, probably because it’s simple.
Not the case. I don’t vote 3rd party so it was between McCain and Obama. Neither much impressed me, and I knew Obama was going to win Wisconsin, so I took pleasure in voting for the black guy. I wasn’t out to vote for a black guy regardless of what he thought, said, or did like you’d like to believe.
By all means let’s hear your snark. Even people who type what you do can be funny on occasion.
Or you can answer me this: on what basis would you put faith in either political party to do anything sensible or pragmatic? Or is it just all ideology?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 01, 2009 at 1622 hrs
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 104
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/12/2012 01:50 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).