A Problem of Shrinkage

**Xiahou** · 07-21-2009, 07:09

Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan

Its easy to be popular when you basically don't have to say anything. Granted, that can work,

So true!

Originally Posted by Lemur

In support of which, why wouldn't the Republicans embrace Romney? He seems like the natural choice and the best shot for 2012, but large chunks of the Repub base are cool toward him. Is it the Mormon thing? The Massachusetts thing? What? 'Cause the dude is extremely smart and successful, and a poster child for economic development. He seems like the strongest choice.

So why isn't he the obvious choice?

Count me in as one of the "cool" kids. Romney has a little bit of an issue with flip-flopping and then there's his legacy to Massachusetts, Romneycare, which has resulted in exploding healthcare costs for the state since he implemented it.

"They're trying to manage the huge costs of the subsidized middle-class insurance program that is gradually swallowing the state budget. The program provides low- or no-cost coverage to about 165,000 residents, or three-fifths of the newly insured, and is budgeted at $880 million for 2010, a 7.3% single-year increase that is likely to be optimistic. The state's overall costs on health programs have increased by 42% (!) since 2006."

Now, to me, he's not political dead meat by any stretch, but he's got enough question marks to keep me from running to him with open arms. But really, he probably is the best candidate we have on the table right now.

**Askthepizzaguy** · 08-06-2009, 15:53

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200...politico/25863

Please replace Chairman Michael Steele before I injure myself with laughter; he is a Democrat's wet dream, a walking parody. I do not quake with fear with this man leading the Republican party. He makes Howard Dean look sane.

**Lemur** · 09-01-2009, 18:04

This is the most encouraging thing I've seen in weeks, Republicans organizing against WND.

In the 1960's, William F. Buckley denounced the John Birch Society leadership for being "so far removed from common sense" and later said "We cannot allow the emblem of irresponsibility to attach to the conservative banner."

The Birthers are the Birchers of our time, and WorldNetDaily is their pamphlet. The Right has mostly ignored these embarrassing people and organizations, but some people and organizations inexplicably choose to support WND through advertising and email list rental or other collaboration. For instance, I have been told that F.I.R.E (The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) - an otherwise respectable group that does important work - uses the WND email list. They should stop.

No respectable organization should support the kind of fringe idiocy that WND peddles. Those who do are not respectable.

I think it's time to find out what conservative/libertarian organizations support WND through advertising, list rental or other commercial collaboration (email me if you know of any), and boycott any of those organizations that will not renounce any further support for WorldNetDaily.

**ICantSpellDawg** · 09-01-2009, 19:58

Originally Posted by Lemur

This is the most encouraging thing I've seen in weeks, Republicans organizing against WND.

In the 1960's, William F. Buckley denounced the John Birch Society leadership for being "so far removed from common sense" and later said "We cannot allow the emblem of irresponsibility to attach to the conservative banner."

The Birthers are the Birchers of our time, and WorldNetDaily is their pamphlet. The Right has mostly ignored these embarrassing people and organizations, but some people and organizations inexplicably choose to support WND through advertising and email list rental or other collaboration. For instance, I have been told that F.I.R.E (The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) - an otherwise respectable group that does important work - uses the WND email list. They should stop.

No respectable organization should support the kind of fringe idiocy that WND peddles. Those who do are not respectable.

I think it's time to find out what conservative/libertarian organizations support WND through advertising, list rental or other commercial collaboration (email me if you know of any), and boycott any of those organizations that will not renounce any further support for WorldNetDaily.

Lemur, is it still your position that Republicans are in decline? Or has your position changed as the times have?

**Lemur** · 09-01-2009, 23:49

I think the Republican Party is in some trouble, certainly, and there are some worrisome long-term trends. On the other hand, it is normal for the party that does not hold the White House to pick up seats in the interim elections, so we will probably see some sort-term gains in 2010. I don't hold out much hope for them in the 2012 presidential elections, but then again that's a political lifetime away. We shall see.

But on balance I fear the Republicans are pandering to trends that will hurt them in the long run. I really, really want them to re-grow their moderate wing (you know, the group currently dismissed as RINOs).

**ICantSpellDawg** · 09-02-2009, 05:18

Originally Posted by Lemur

I think the Republican Party is in some trouble, certainly, and there are some worrisome long-term trends. On the other hand, it is normal for the party that does not hold the White House to pick up seats in the interim elections, so we will probably see some sort-term gains in 2010. I don't hold out much hope for them in the 2012 presidential elections, but then again that's a political lifetime away. We shall see.

But on balance I fear the Republicans are pandering to trends that will hurt them in the long run. I really, really want them to re-grow their moderate wing (you know, the group currently dismissed as RINOs).

Arlen Specter was clearly a Democrat in disguise.

**Shaka_Khan** · 09-03-2009, 03:15

Why are you using that title to attract people with erectile disfunction? Do you think we're all Republicans!?

Just kidding.

**ICantSpellDawg** · 09-03-2009, 03:39

Originally Posted by Lemur

I think the Republican Party is in some trouble, certainly, and there are some worrisome long-term trends. On the other hand, it is normal for the party that does not hold the White House to pick up seats in the interim elections, so we will probably see some sort-term gains in 2010. I don't hold out much hope for them in the 2012 presidential elections, but then again that's a political lifetime away. We shall see.

But on balance I fear the Republicans are pandering to trends that will hurt them in the long run. I really, really want them to re-grow their moderate wing (you know, the group currently dismissed as RINOs).

What is going to happen is that people are going to start feeling betrayed and disgusted with Democrats for botching everything even worse than the Republicans botched things.

THEN

In order to win increasingly conservative or just plain angry districts, Democrats are going to give in to xenophobic trends and other populist stuff - all while looking weak and losing anyway. Hispanics ae goping to increase their Republican numbers, put off by the populist drivel and you won't think that the trend looks as dangerous. The GOP will then solidify its sway over religious or conservative hispanics to a greater extent and come in for a win in 2012. The demographics will change.

The GOP is inclusive to all except blacks really. They are the only demographic group that is practically shut out to the Elephant. Hopefully as black cultural leaders start to wake up and stop poisoning the wells, nroads can be made to a greater extent.

Fingers crossed.

**Lemur** · 09-03-2009, 16:00

A plausible scenario, TuffStuff, if not the most probable.

The call for a WND boycott has raised hackles and ruffled feathers:

Joseph Farah at WorldNetDaily...

He says my call for right-of-center organizations to stop supporting WND's conspiracy peddling is "bullying tactics".
He says he has never heard of me.
He says that WND didn't say they were "concentration camps"; they just said that the legislation "appears designed to create the type of detention center" that people "fear" could be used as "concentration camps for political dissidents, such as occurred in Nazi Germany." He calls this "nuanced".
He claims I have called "for an all-out jihad against WND."
He says, "Am I scared? No, folks. I'm not." and says he's just standing up for "truth".

In The Washington Times, Farah "questioned Mr. Henke's motives and standing", arguing that The Next Right is "pretty much a Republican establishment group who has worked for the RNC and the Republican Party and I can certainly understand why a group like that would have problems with World Net Daily." He added "these are not journalists, they are political activists who have their own agendas."

So, he's taking the "you can't handle the truth!" approach so beloved by true believers and conspiracy theorists. He also seems to think I'm part of the "Republican establishment" and aligned with the RNC. This is an interesting argument, considering the fact that I'm trying to get the RNC to stop working with Joseph Farah.

The RNC also responds, sorta.

**Lemur** · 10-27-2009, 16:10

I find myself in complete and utter agreement with Newt Gingrich:

**Vladimir** · 10-28-2009, 17:07

You crazy progressives. Trying to poison us with your moderate-left ways. Hrumph.

**Fisherking** · 10-28-2009, 23:00

Shrinkage!???

I am fed up with the two party system.

They always say they are going to do good things but look at what we get.

I am fully in favor of selecting our government officials in the same way we select our jurors.

Just send them to Washington and tell them to do something good for the country...

Can they do much worse?

**Sasaki Kojiro** · 10-29-2009, 01:35

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Shrinkage!???

I am fed up with the two party system.

They always say they are going to do good things but look at what we get.

I am fully in favor of selecting our government officials in the same way we select our jurors.

Just send them to Washington and tell them to do something good for the country...

Can they do much worse?

Yes. That's like saying "these referees are terrible, let's pick random fans".

**Fisherking** · 10-29-2009, 08:42

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Yes. That's like saying "these referees are terrible, let's pick random fans".

And sending a bunch of rich lawyers to Washington to write laws is a better idea?

**Sasaki Kojiro** · 10-29-2009, 16:16

Originally Posted by Fisherking

And sending a bunch of rich lawyers to Washington to write laws is a better idea?

If they are rich then they are less likely to accept bribes, and if they are lawyers they have a certain level of intelligence. Understanding the law would help in writing new ones...

Palin/Plumber 2012!

**Fisherking** · 10-29-2009, 18:33

Sorry but I tend to disagree with all but the intelligence part.

It is rather a conflict of interest for those who make money from the law to make new ones...

Being wealthy never stopped greed.

Those are the last people you want representing you, yet they seem the most likely to want the job...

Think about it.

By the way, a Quote I love;

When the white man discovered this country Indians were running it. No taxes, no debt, women did all the work. White man thought he could improve on a system like this.

**Sasaki Kojiro** · 10-29-2009, 21:02

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Sorry but I tend to disagree with all but the intelligence part.

It is rather a conflict of interest for those who make money from the law to make new ones...

Being wealthy never stopped greed.

Those are the last people you want representing you, yet they seem the most likely to want the job...

Think about it.

The presidential salary is lower today than it was it 1789.

So did all the rich lawyers make greedy laws to benefit themselves whereas poor garbage collectors would have no conflicts of interest?

I'll go back to my original example. The refs in the NFL should be the best in the country, yet they still make mistakes. Is the solution to improve the instant replay system and change some of the more arbitrary rules, or is it to pick random people from the crowd and have them referee?

Cynicism is a cop out for the disillusioned

**Fisherking** · 10-30-2009, 19:09

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

The presidential salary is lower today than it was it 1789.

So did all the rich lawyers make greedy laws to benefit themselves whereas poor garbage collectors would have no conflicts of interest?

I'll go back to my original example. The refs in the NFL should be the best in the country, yet they still make mistakes. Is the solution to improve the instant replay system and change some of the more arbitrary rules, or is it to pick random people from the crowd and have them referee?

Cynicism is a cop out for the disillusioned

Your analogy is a bit off.

The referees don’t make the rules of the game. They act as a police force to enforce the rules.

At its inception the Governing Bodies of the United States were not conceived as partisan camps.

We were to select Representatives to act on behalf of the people, all the people and not on behalf of a third party (the Party).

They represent the interests of the Party that got them elected and if they have higher notions of their position they are soon shown the way it really is.

Along the way they have restyled them selves not as Representatives of the People but as their Leaders.

It is no about service to the community and nations but instead about power and prestige.

They are beholden to special interests who gave them money and to the Party that sponsored their election.

The Parties have their own interests and agendas. Some times these may serve the people but first and foremost they serve the Party.

Furthermore, the laws that govern the people need not be written in such a way as to be unintelligible to those without legal training. In fact it started out in the other extreme.

Laws were not meant to be ambiguous, unintelligible, or to require someone with legal training to interpret them.

The original “final arbiter” of the law was meant to be the jury and not the courts. When the Supreme Court took upon its self the right to judge laws it did not draw it from the courts but because it was also the supreme jury of the land.

I am not being cynical. I would like to see Representative Government. At the same time I know that this thread is not going to change the world.

It is just a discussion.

The Republicans are having problems. The Democrats have recovered form the problems they were having. At worst a new Party will arise to take the place of one that fails but the system will go on giving power to an Elite who do not represent their constituents but their own interests and that of their party.

Selecting candidates from the voting base and making the final selection by vote might rid us of Parties but it is not going to happen because it does not serve the interests of those in power.

**Lemur** · 10-30-2009, 21:57

Man, what the heck is up with South Carolina? Is there something in the water?

SC state attorney caught with stripper, sex toys in graveyard

A deputy assistant attorney general who said he was on his lunch break when an officer found him with a stripper and sex toys in his sport utility vehicle has been fired, his boss said Wednesday.

Roland Corning, 66, a former state legislator, was in a secluded part of a downtown cemetery when an officer spotted him Monday. [...]

As the officer approached, Corning sped off, then pulled over a few blocks away. He and the 18-year-old woman with him, an employee of the Platinum Plus Gentleman's Club, gave conflicting stories about what they were doing in the cemetery, Officer Michael Wines wrote in his report, though he did not elaborate.

Corning gave Wines a badge showing he worked for the state Attorney General's Office. Wines, whose wife also works there, called her to make sure Corning was telling the truth.

He then searched the SUV, where he found a Viagra pill and several sex toys, items Corning said he always kept with him, "just in case," according to the report.

**ICantSpellDawg** · 10-31-2009, 02:57

Originally Posted by Lemur

Man, what the heck is up with South Carolina? Is there something in the water?

SC state attorney caught with stripper, sex toys in graveyard

A deputy assistant attorney general who said he was on his lunch break when an officer found him with a stripper and sex toys in his sport utility vehicle has been fired, his boss said Wednesday.

Roland Corning, 66, a former state legislator, was in a secluded part of a downtown cemetery when an officer spotted him Monday. [...]

As the officer approached, Corning sped off, then pulled over a few blocks away. He and the 18-year-old woman with him, an employee of the Platinum Plus Gentleman's Club, gave conflicting stories about what they were doing in the cemetery, Officer Michael Wines wrote in his report, though he did not elaborate.

Corning gave Wines a badge showing he worked for the state Attorney General's Office. Wines, whose wife also works there, called her to make sure Corning was telling the truth.

He then searched the SUV, where he found a Viagra pill and several sex toys, items Corning said he always kept with him, "just in case," according to the report.

In South Carolina, I would most likely be a Democrat. Wherever a party is in power it tends to ellicit more corruption. I tend to trust blue state Republicans in practice more often than Red state Republicans. Purple state Republicans are good too.

If they are the kings of the castle, they are corrupt and would most likely be Democrats if that was the party in power. They seek power and use stale politics, rather than come up with new ideas that serve the people.

**Lemur** · 11-01-2009, 17:50

As many suspected, Ron Paul wuz robbed.

Eighteen months later, Nevada Republicans have completed a count of all delegate ballots from last year's state convention.

A group of disaffected Republicans says it feels vindicated after a Friday night count of missing ballots from the April 2008 gathering showed three delegates for U.S. Rep. Ron Paul should have been sent to the national convention. [...]

Party leaders say the count will have no impact on the state's role in nominating U.S. Sen. John McCain as the party's presidential nominee last year.

But they said they hope it brings closure to Paul supporters and others who had pressed for the count.

"This should have been done a long time ago," said Nancy Ernaut, state party chairwoman.

**Crazed Rabbit** · 11-02-2009, 07:53

Originally Posted by Lemur

I find myself in complete and utter agreement with Newt Gingrich:

Well Gingrich is an idiot. The 'Republican' candidate dropped out (since she was last in the polls) and endorsed the Democratic candidate.

This is the same candidate who wouldn't sign the tax pledge at first, supported card-check (IE Union thug handout legislation), and wouldn't commit to running as a republican in the next election. Years and years of doing whatever it took to get reelected instead of giving a damn about passing GOP platform legislation lead the GOP to where they are now.

CR

**Louis VI the Fat** · 11-04-2009, 03:05

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Well Gingrich is an idiot. The 'Republican' candidate dropped out (since she was last in the polls)

Well one would find oneself last in the polls if under fire from one's own party.

Good development though. Let the GOP alienate the centre by purging the party from moderates and putting hardliners in their place.

Palin / Plumber for president 2012!

**Evil_Maniac From Mars** · 11-04-2009, 03:38

Let the GOP fall. Then let the Democrats fall with them, and fall hard.

**CountArach** · 11-04-2009, 08:06

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Well Gingrich is an idiot. The 'Republican' candidate dropped out (since she was last in the polls) and endorsed the Democratic candidate.

... who then went on to win...

**ICantSpellDawg** · 11-04-2009, 14:00

Dems picked up a Congressional seat guys, this must mean that the GOP is shrinking.

What does the fact that a Conservative candidate polled over 45% against the democrat's 49% tell you about that race? Wikipedia doesn't even have Hoffman's picture up.

I'm OK with Republicans losing races, just as long as Conservatives can make a strong showing. I'm registered in that guys party up here.

**CountArach** · 11-04-2009, 14:36

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

What does the fact that a Conservative candidate polled over 45% against the democrat's 49% tell you about that race? Wikipedia doesn't even have Hoffman's picture up.

The district is rated Republican +1 in the Cook Partisan Voting Index and in a race where the Republican had pulled out of his run then that tells you that the Democratic base isn't quite as disillusioned as some have claimed. In an odd-year election where a party is largely in control this is quite a rarity.

Still, people shouldn't read too much into it - but I'm just saying, there are conclusions in there.

Results from 2009 election night here... Maine has narrowly rejected gay marriage (Despite polls showing the opposite - Conservatives are more fired-up this season whilst Democrats remain complacent) and a law granting domestic partnership equality to gay spouses in Washington is close.

**ICantSpellDawg** · 11-04-2009, 15:22

Originally Posted by CountArach

The district is rated Republican +1 in the Cook Partisan Voting Index and in a race where the Republican had pulled out of his run then that tells you that the Democratic base isn't quite as disillusioned as some have claimed. In an odd-year election where a party is largely in control this is quite a rarity.

Still, people shouldn't read too much into it - but I'm just saying, there are conclusions in there.

Results from 2009 election night here... Maine has narrowly rejected gay marriage (Despite polls showing the opposite - Conservatives are more fired-up this season whilst Democrats remain complacent) and a law granting domestic partnership equality to gay spouses in Washington is close.

Republicans won the Governorship of New Jersey. That's New Jersey, right next to New York. That's with Pro-Life views and being a supporter of George Bush for 8 years.

If you don't see the hint of rebuke, I don't know what to tell you.

People are pissed now, if the system hits any more major bumps any time soon, the mid-term elections will be interesting. Partisan Conservatives were out in force this election and I didn't even vote, I'm moderate enough to give it some time. Moderates won't look so kindly on the administration or the Congress unless there is a major turn around before the mid-terms.

Decreasingly massive unemployment numbers arn't enough of a sign for some people, I know, crazy right?

I'm just happy to see Republicans pick up Governor spots. That's where we draft Presidents. Even if this election season wasn't a rebuke of the Dems, ever hear of the adage "fake it til ya make it"? Maybe it's a rebuke of the dems now, even when it wasn't before.

People have an interesting reaction when they've missed what they percieve as the bandwagon. Most of cultural movement comes from insistence by media and popular culture, the rest comes from the actual impact of policies and good ideas... at a margin of 10:1

**drone** · 11-04-2009, 17:28

The GOP took the Dems back behind the woodshed here in Virginia. Governor, Lt. Gov, Attorney General, and at least 5 more state delegates to cement their majority. A lot of papers are saying that this really means nothing for next year's national mid-term elections, but the Dems better get on the ball if they want to continue to enjoy their majority.

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I'm just happy to see Republicans pick up Governor spots. That's where we draft Presidents.

Not the new VA gov, he's unelectable on the national stage.

**ICantSpellDawg** · 11-04-2009, 17:30

Originally Posted by drone

Not the new VA gov, he's unelectable on the national stage.

Why is that? I'm pretty sure you could have said the same thing about GWB. Things change when you are the Governor of a State.

Thread: A Problem of Shrinkage

Thread Tools

Display

Re: A Problem of Shrinkage

Re: A Problem of Shrinkage

Re: A Problem of Shrinkage

Re: A Problem of Shrinkage

Re: A Problem of Shrinkage

Re: A Problem of Shrinkage

Re: A Problem of Shrinkage

Re: A Problem of Shrinkage

Re: A Problem of Shrinkage

Re: A Problem of Shrinkage

Re: A Problem of Shrinkage

Re: A Problem of Shrinkage

Re: A Problem of Shrinkage

Re: A Problem of Shrinkage

Re: A Problem of Shrinkage

Re: A Problem of Shrinkage

Re: A Problem of Shrinkage

Re: A Problem of Shrinkage

Re: A Problem of Shrinkage

Re: A Problem of Shrinkage

Re: A Problem of Shrinkage

Re: A Problem of Shrinkage

Re: A Problem of Shrinkage

Re: A Problem of Shrinkage

Re: A Problem of Shrinkage

Re: A Problem of Shrinkage

Re: A Problem of Shrinkage

Re: A Problem of Shrinkage

Re: A Problem of Shrinkage

Re: A Problem of Shrinkage

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions