Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 24, 2014, 03:43:21 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83383 Posts in 2260 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 73 74 [75] 76 77 ... 84
3701  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Iraq on: December 01, 2008, 10:45:56 AM
Gibberish yes.

Democratic party loving and bush hating bias pure and simple.  Of course.  He is already giving all the credit to BO and detracting from W.

***I’m sure that Obama, whatever he said during the campaign, will play this smart. He has to avoid giving Iraqi leaders the feeling that Bush did — that he’ll wait forever for them to sort out their politics — while also not suggesting that he is leaving tomorrow, so they all start stockpiling weapons.***
3702  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: R.I.P. on: November 29, 2008, 08:17:36 AM
Very sad.
One just asks the same question asked forever during the turbulent history of humanity - why?
3703  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: November 28, 2008, 09:16:00 AM
All we need to do is open the US continental shelf to drilling.  That will give us more time to develop green technology that is actually affordable.  That will get us off the dependency of our enemies.
This will create jobs, bring in taxes.

3704  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Iraq on: November 25, 2008, 11:09:29 AM
Doug,
Here is another write up from Cal Thomas that confirms the same.  That Iraq is stabilized.  Instead of the W being given credit he is of course demonized by his political enemies.

Russia is going to have a total field day getting concessions from the closet marxist who now leads our country.  Let see.  If Putin gets in the octagon with Hillary whose derierre is going to be kicked??? rolleyes

***Mission Accomplished II

By Cal Thomas

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Nineteen months after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared the war in Iraq "lost" and just nine months after Speaker Nancy Pelosi asserted the war has been a "failure" because it had not brought political change leading to reconciliation, it can now be said conclusively that both were wrong.

One of the great military reversals in history is close to achieving victory. That is contributing to stability in Iraq, along with reconciliation between warring factions.

These conclusions are contained in a report compiled by retired General Barry R. McCaffrey after a recent visit to Iraq during which he consulted with Iraqi and American military leaders and diplomats.

McCaffrey, now an adjunct professor of International Affairs at the United States Military Academy at West Point, wrote a memorandum for his academic colleagues. It concludes, "The United States is now clearly in the end game in Iraq to successfully achieve what should be our principle objectives: the withdrawal of the majority of U.S. ground combat forces ... in the coming 36 months; leaving behind an operative civil state and effective Iraqi security forces; an Iraqi state which is not in open civil war among the Shia, the Sunnis, and the Kurds; and an Iraqi nation which is not at war with its six neighboring states."

While adding that the security situation is "still subject to sudden outrage at any moment by al-Qaida in Iraq" or to "degradation because of provocative behavior by the Maliki government," McCaffrey concludes that "the bottom line is a dramatic and growing momentum for economic and security stability, which is unlikely to be reversible."
 McCaffrey notes the sharp drop in attacks and casualties in the last two years and praises the "genius of the leadership team of Ambassador Ryan Crocker, General David Petraeus and Secretary of Defense Bob Gates." He credits these three with "turn(ing) around the situation from a bloody disaster under the leadership of Secretary Rumsfeld to a growing situation of security."

While McCaffrey is cautious about the Maliki government, he adds that Maliki "clearly has matured and gained stature as a political leader since he assumed his very dangerous and complex leadership responsibilities." Provisional elections are scheduled for January 2009, district elections for mid-year and national elections sometime next December. McCaffrey says fighting is now more about politics than shooting and bombing and that Americans should "have a sense of empathy for these Iraqi politicians (who) have survived a poisonous Saddam regime and a culture of intrigue and murder from every side."

While optimistic, McCaffrey's memo is filled with caveats that have much to do with America's willingness under a new president to finish the job. The Iraqi military, he says is still "anemic," lacking adequate weapons and equipment. "Their military officer corps is immensely better than a year ago — but the bench is thin."

Though the economy struggles — (unemployment is 20 percent and under-employment is probably 60 percent, he says), the financial system is "immature," investment capital is lacking, enterprises are run with "badly maintained, outmoded equipment" and the country suffers from "brain drain" — things are markedly better than at any time since the war started. "The markets are open. The roads are again viable. Oil and electricity (are) no longer routinely sabotaged by the insurgents and criminals. Cell phone communications, satellite TV, and radio are all operating."

McCaffrey is critical of those responsible for managing the war during its early years: "It did not have to turn out this way with $750 billion of our treasure spent and 36,000 US killed and injured." Still, he says, it is critical that force reductions are conducted in a "deliberate and responsible manner," leaving "a stable and functioning state."

Many still argue — as president-elect Barack Obama does — that we should never have invaded Iraq. But if a stable Iraq results and serves as a bulwark against terrorism and terrorist states, it may turn out to have been worth it. While much could still go wrong, McCaffrey's conclusion that gains are now "irreversible" is the most optimistic assessment since President Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln five years ago.

That sentiment was premature, but if this one is correct, don't look for the current president to get short-term credit. That will go to Barack Obama for pulling the troops out. Long after any Republican can derive political credit, historians will be forced to acknowledge that freedom won and state terrorism lost in Iraq.***

3705  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Iraq on: November 25, 2008, 09:58:38 AM
Thanks for the post.

Maybe one day history will redeem W for saving Iraq from Saddam.   I still feel we did the right thing against all political correctness.

Of course as things quiet down allowing BO to start withdrawals the MSM will rush to give *him* all the credit.

Like Rome, Americas weakness comes from within, lack of will, political infighting.

The only good thing from the financial mess is that it may slow BOs wish to make the US into an international cream puff.

Bo's foreign policy consists of "Americans need to speak more French than just merci beaucou".


3706  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Caution: rated R on: November 24, 2008, 03:40:58 PM
spread the wealth:

http://forthardknox.com/2008/11/20/spread-the-wealth-pencil-sharpener/
3707  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: November 24, 2008, 12:18:34 PM
Hi Doug,
Bundling the service for a health problem into one overall cost irregardless of number of visits, phone calls, etc is part of it.
I am just going by experience and my study of the situation but am not an expert:

There are different ways of bundling.   Surgeons are usually bundled by procedure - say they get a lump sum that includes visits and procedure for hernia repair.  Others are capitated - that is they get a lump sum from the insurer to provide all care to a patient.  I am not in favor of this because the financial incentive is for providers to do as little as possible since they earn the same either way.
Another would be boutique medicine wherein a doctor provides all care (availability, visits, hospital, etc) to a patient for a specified monthly or yearly fee billed directly to a patient.

The main concept of *outcomes*, is bonus pay in getting patient to their target goals based on national standards. Say more pay for physicians if there patients blood pressures are where they should be and not over the goal for example.  Other outcomes I guess could be patient satisfaction, screening tests recommended as per national guidlines, preventative care etc.

The idea is to base reimbursement partly on measured performance rather than just on how many patients or procedures one does.
Reimbursement for quality and not just quantity I guess would be another way to put it.

As of right now those doctors who do procedures are compensated far more than doctors who do cognitive types of care whether specialist or primary.


   
3708  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: November 24, 2008, 09:33:58 AM
Agree with Jindal about innovation.  We need more like him.  Romney sounded good over the weekend talking about Detroit.
We don't need more pundits like Laura Ingram - *my way or the highway*.

***physicians and hospitals will be compensated for outcomes -- rather than volume of visits and procedures -- and get incentive payments for good performance***

There is ongoing research on this model now by many groups.  Many different interests from providers, insurers, government, vendors, pharma, pharmacies, patients, cottege industries.
Its premature to say how this is going to work.  In theory there are pros and cons, but I like the idea and hope it will have value to all.  Early results suggest it will.
3709  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Piracy on: November 23, 2008, 01:56:24 PM
Somalia is ruled by gangs it seems:

***Anarchy in Somalia

The lawless Horn
Nov 20th 2008
From The Economist print edition

Pirates are only part of a much bigger problem in east Africa

IT IS tempting to be jaunty about piracy. So what if a few Robin Hoods in skiffs nick the odd tanker off the Horn of Africa? Often enough, the owners pay ransom and nobody gets hurt. Everyone needs a living in these hard times. And if the worst comes to the worst, gunboats can always be dispatched to clean the problem up, just as the British and Americans did off north Africa’s Barbary coast at the turn of the 19th century.

It is tempting, but it is wrong. The Barbary pirates caused immense human and economic damage, and the current spate of piracy in the waters of east Africa is now getting out of hand too. On November 15th pirates operating hundreds of miles from the coast seized the Sirius Star, a supertanker carrying 2m barrels of Saudi oil (see article). A dozen or so other vessels are already held by pirates. One of them—surrounded by American and Russian warships—contains a cargo of 33 T-72 tanks, enough to tip the balance in a small local war.

The last thing the world needs right now is disruption of one of its busiest shipping lanes and a spike in insurance premiums. But the cause of the present surge of piracy is no less worrying than its consequences. What has made the pirates’ audacity possible is the collapse of Somalia. The existence of a vast ungoverned space in Africa’s Horn does not just provide a useful haven from which pirates can hunt their prey at sea. It also threatens to transmit shockwaves through a seam of fragile and strife-torn African states from Sudan to the Congo.

How did this happen, and how can it be resolved? The first question is the easier to answer. About 50,000 peacekeepers are currently deployed under United Nations or African Union auspices in east and central Africa in an effort to dampen down various conflicts. In Somalia in 2006, however, the Bush administration tried something different: war by proxy. It gave a green light for Ethiopia to invade Somalia. The plan was for Ethiopia to squash an Islamist movement and reinstate a Somali government that had lost control of most of its territory.

Two years on, the plan has backfired. Abdullahi Ahmed, Somalia’s increasingly notional president, admitted on November 15th that a variety of Islamist insurgents once again dominate most of the country, leaving only two cities, Mogadishu and Baidoa, in the hands of his increasingly notional government. Neither Ethiopia nor the African Union ever sent enough soldiers to impose order. Worse, the strongest of the insurgent groups, the Shabab, is even more radical than the Islamic Courts movement which the Americans and Ethiopians originally took on. It is suspected of being linked by money to the pirates (who hand over a slice of the ransom in return for protection) and by ideology to al-Qaeda.

So how to resolve the issue? It is not enough just to send more gunboats. Although an Indian warship sunk an alleged pirate vessel this week, and a bigger naval effort could help to keep the sea-lanes a little safer, a long-term solution demands much more. This includes establishing stability inside Somalia itself, depriving the pirates of a sanctuary, and preventing the jihad-tinted anarchy there from spilling over Somalia’s borders. But since there are no serious military forces available to defeat the insurgents, a proper answer will entail reshaping the country’s politics and stepping up attempts to woo the more biddable Islamists—if there are enough left and a deal with them is still possible. Maybe not so jaunty, after all. ***



3710  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: November 22, 2008, 09:01:10 AM
The article points out that cancer is being diagnosed too late in Britain but it is not at all clear why.
Are patients getting their screening tests?  Are they being offered?  Is it the delay in confirmatory testing and eventual referral to specialist?

Many studies also show that more screening does not equate to better care or longer survival.  In fact many studies show that more screening makes for more problems.  There are relatively few screening test that are clearly supported by evidence of having net benefit.  For every total body scan one might want to do to look for a lurking cancer we will find two dozen other things that will warrant more tests, biopsies, anxiety and money that would never have been a problem.
We could also do screening up the wazoo till the nation goes bankrupt.  There is a balance.

Access to specialists is important and should be easy.  Yet patients who run to different speicalists do wind up getting more tests (especially if the specialist has the test in their office and can bill for it - usually reasonable but clearly overdone at times) get fragmented care. 

In this country nurses are replacing primary care doctors so one could argue there will be more opportunity for diagnoses to be missed.  But some simple care they probably could do.  I notice patients of mine who go to local walk in clinics for colds are invariably getting antibiotics though invariably it is uncommon they really need them.  I try to talk my patients out of it.  In these clinics that are more concerned for generating customer satisfaction they are all getting antibiotics because the patients think they need it.  They are now contributing to further use of antibiotics and the problem of resistance.

But I digress.


3711  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / SOS HRC - I need an sos on: November 21, 2008, 03:03:57 PM
Hillary for SOS.  tongue The soap opera never ends.  I was afraid of this.  The MSM loves this.  They will be drooling over every step, every breath, every word, every momnet of silence, every expression.  She will look so *glamorous*, so *smart and witty*, she can do no wrong and yes the drama of her relationship with Barack.  The endless torture of talk from the MSM.
Of course I could just watch NFL and MMA sports. cheesy

BO and HRC will be turned into some sort of epic movie drama -

Like Caesar and Cleopatra, a Black Samson and an ugly Delilah.  Or Mr and Ms Messiah both here to save the world.

I wish I could just retire and go to Montana or Idaho somewhere where there are no TVs radios or newspapers.

Do they need doctors in Figi?
3712  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / slight correction on: November 21, 2008, 02:51:56 PM
***I don't complete laissez faire is possible with human nature the way it is.***

correction, I don't think strict laissez faire is possible....
3713  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics on: November 21, 2008, 01:38:49 PM
Doug,

Until we start hearing about ideas to help us get out of our messes the Republicans will remain where they rightly find themselves."

Well I wasn't necessarily suggesting the government had to come up with *government* solutions.

But the main part of my initial premise is the rich keep getting richer and the rest stay in place.  It is a problem when something to the effect of 1% of the people have 95% of the wealth.

The solution to this for me is unknown.  But I recognize this as a problem.  I guess you don't.
I don't complete laissez faire is possible with human nature the way it is.
 
3714  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics on: November 21, 2008, 09:11:02 AM
I am not inclined to bailout the Big three.  The one thing that does bother me is the loss of manufacturing industry.  Could Detroit be consolidated and converted into a manufacturing force that will lead the world into making only fuel efficient cars akin to there bieng used to make tanks during WW2?
We are an economy of fast food and government employees.
I am not sure what this means.  Pat brings up some good concerns though I do not hear any ideas about what should be doing about it now.  Pat kind of strikes me as more finger pointing by the right.  I suspect most Americans are kind of tired about this.  We don't hear anything about solutions going forward.  Until we start hearing about ideas to help us get out of our messes the Republicans will remain where they rightly find themselves.     
 
Comments Who Killed Detroit?
by  Patrick J. Buchanan

11/21/2008  Print This
   
Who killed the U.S. auto industry?

To hear the media tell it, arrogant corporate chiefs failed to foresee the demand for small, fuel-efficient cars and made gas-guzzling road-hog SUVs no one wanted, while the clever, far-sighted Japanese, Germans and Koreans prepared and built for the future.

I dissent. What killed Detroit was Washington, the government of the United States, politicians, journalists and muckrakers who have long harbored a deep animus against the manufacturing class that ran the smokestack industries that won World War II.
As far back as the 1950s, an intellectual elite that produces mostly methane had its knives out for the auto industry of which Ike's treasury secretary, ex-GM chief Charles Wilson, had boasted, "What's good for America is good for General Motors, and vice versa."

"Engine Charlie" was relentlessly mocked, even in Al Capp's L'il Abner cartoon strip, where a bloviating "General Bullmoose" had as his motto, "What's good for Bullmoose is good for America!"

How did Big Government do in the U.S. auto industry?

Washington imposed a minimum wage higher than the average wage in war-devastated Germany and Japan. The Feds ordered that U.S. plants be made the healthiest and safest worksites in the world, creating OSHA to see to it. It enacted civil rights laws to ensure the labor force reflected our diversity. Environmental laws came next, to ensure U.S. factories became the most pollution-free on earth.

It then clamped fuel efficiency standards on the entire U.S. car fleet.

Next, Washington imposed a corporate tax rate of 35 percent, raking off another 15 percent of autoworkers' wages in Social Security payroll taxes

State governments imposed income and sales taxes, and local governments property taxes to subsidize services and schools.

The United Auto Workers struck repeatedly to win the highest wages and most generous benefits on earth -- vacations, holidays, work breaks, health care, pensions -- for workers and their families, and retirees.

Now there is nothing wrong with making U.S. plants the cleanest and safest on earth or having U.S. autoworkers the highest-paid wage earners.

That is the dream, what we all wanted for America.

And under the 14th Amendment, GM, Ford and Chrysler had to obey the same U.S. laws and pay at the same tax rates. Outside the United States, however, there was and is no equality of standards or taxes.

Thus when America was thrust into the Global Economy, GM and Ford had to compete with cars made overseas in factories in postwar Japan and Germany, then Korea, where health and safety standards were much lower, wages were a fraction of those paid U.S. workers, and taxes were and are often forgiven on exports to the United States.

All three nations built "export-driven" economies.

The Beetle and early Japanese imports were made in factories where wages were far beneath U.S. wages and working conditions would have gotten U.S. auto executives sent to prison.

The competition was manifestly unfair, like forcing Secretariat to carry 100 pounds in his saddlebags in the Derby.

Japan, China and South Korea do not believe in free trade as we understand it. To us, they are our "trading partners." To them, the relationship is not like that of Evans & Novak or Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. It is not even like the Redskins and Cowboys. For the Cowboys only want to defeat the Redskins. They do not want to put their franchise out of business and end the competition -- as the Japanese did to our TV industry by dumping Sonys here until they killed it.

While we think the Global Economy is about what is best for the consumer, they think about what is best for the nation.

Like Alexander Hamilton, they understand that manufacturing is the key to national power. And they manipulate currencies, grant tax rebates to their exporters and thieve our technology to win. Last year, as trade expert Bill Hawkins writes, South Korea exported 700,000 cars to us, while importing 5,000 cars from us.

That's Asia's idea of free trade.

How has this Global Economy profited or prospered America?

In the 1950s, we made all our own toys, clothes, shoes, bikes, furniture, motorcycles, cars, cameras, telephones, TVs, etc. You name it. We made it.

Are we better off now that these things are made by foreigners? Are we better off now that we have ceased to be self-sufficient? Are we better off now that the real wages of our workers and median income of our families no longer grow as they once did? Are we better off now that manufacturing, for the first time in U.S. history, employs fewer workers than government?

We no longer build commercial ships. We have but one airplane company, and it outsources. China produces our computers. And if GM goes Chapter 11, America will soon be out of the auto business.

Our politicians and pundits may not understand what is going on. Historians will have no problem explaining the decline and fall of the Americans.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Buchanan is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, "The Death of the West,", "The Great Betrayal," "A Republic, Not an Empire" and "Where the Right Went Wrong."

3715  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: November 21, 2008, 08:39:57 AM
Unfortunately, the grim picture this article paints is all too true.

***the public option will import Medicare's price controls into the private sector as it tries to manage the inevitable cost overruns. When that doesn't work, Congress will deal with the problem by capping overall spending and rationing care through politics (instead of prices) -- like Canada does today***

Medicare's price controls?  Is some cases Medicare is preferred by providers as opposed to some of the commercial carriers.

***The Baucus plan expects to make up more of the money with nips like better health technology and tucks such as "a national focus on wellness." But those don't come close to adding up to $150 billion -- or the health system would have made them already. As for the claim that centralizing health spending will lead to more "efficiency" . . . well, that is the triumph of hope over evidence.***

The idea that converting to electronic recods will cut the necessary inefficiencies out to the extent we are saved is a fantasy.

I got to laugh when Newt and others sit in front of the camera and say all we need to do is centralize the information and costs will stop increasing.  While I agree it is a good idea and must be done in some way I beg to differ that it will save the future of medical care.

As for "wellness" - there are some preventative things that are done that save long term costs and there are others that actually drive up long term costs.

Without rationing health care costs will continue to skyrocket.  Specialists who do procedures are whing because they can't charge the exorbitant fees they were bilking form the system for years. and those specialists who don't preform procedures have trouble paying bills.  As for primary care folks like me - well the whole field is collapsing.  You all may very well be seeing nurses instead of primary doctors from now on.

I spoke to one physician recently who was praying for total nationalization of health care.  He feels anything is better than dealing with multiple insurances, patients without coverage etc.  One national medical organization I know was ecstatic that Tom Daschle is picked for Sec of HHS.  They feel he is on their side with regards to saving primary care which may soon be as obsolete as GM,Ford,Chrysler.

I am still not for nationalization.  But the public I am afraid is not facing the truth about rationing.  They still want everything possible especially as long as someone else covers it.
 
3716  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Obama Phenomena on: November 19, 2008, 04:50:36 AM
From Howard Kurtz' surprising article.  Surprising because he documents quite clearly to a degree I never noticed him to do before how the MSM is and was biased for BO.  Of course I haven't made a study out of Kurtz' writings but everytime I have seen him review alleged bias by the MSM like the NYT he always seems to eventually conclude at the end that there was NO bias.
In this article he would agree that journalism is on hold.  Although I agree more with O'Reilly that it is gone forever as we knew it.  (Unless the repubs ever win back power wink)

But this part of Kurtz article I don't get:

***Bush, whose ego was threatened by any outburst of excellence in his vicinity, politicized all policymaking and centralized it in the White House. Obama, happily, has the opposite tendencies. He is intellectually confident, enjoys engaging with ideas, and inclines to pragmatism rather than partisanship. He can handle a Lincolnesque 'Team of Rivals' or a FDR-style brain trust. And he's going to need one.***

BO "inclines to pragmatism rather than partisanship"?

Why wasn't BO judged to be the MOST liberal and party loyal Senator?  There is nothing in his political background to suggest he has been anything other than a party hack.  Though of course he has denied it during his presidential campaign. 

And as far as Linconesque cabinet?  What I recall Lincoln did as written by the historians I've read decades ago was to pick men he thought were *the best qualified* for the job and not necessarily political rivals that would be taken out of the competition for his 1864 re-election bid.

3717  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for Reps/Conservatives on: November 19, 2008, 04:02:21 AM
From what other Republican [than Newt] do we hear such a logical discussion of the problem from the viewpoint of the right?
Wwhat Newt says certainly sounds logical.  And it certainly makes me wonder how Frank could still be in the House and in a position to attempt to fix the problems.
I guess we need a "Republican Soros" to fund a front organization at Frank's district and make his constituants more aware of what a corrupt official he is.
3718  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Obama Phenomena on: November 18, 2008, 02:15:31 PM
***If she takes it, she's under his thumb-- and she won't take it because to do so would mean that Bill would have to explain all kinds of shady money he has been receiving, so I seriously doubt she will take it.***

Why are the Clinton contributions to be so well scrutinized if she becomes SOS?
Why Bo has received hundreds of millions from donars we know nothing about.  Because he didn't accept Federal campaign contribtutions he doesn't have to report his donors?
Does anyone think many of these monies didn't come from overseas?


3719  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for Reps/Conservatives on: November 18, 2008, 02:05:09 PM
***That said, if you go back to the intellectual origins of Mussolini and Hitler's National SOCIALISM, you will see that fascism is a LEFT WING ideology, not right wing.  If you go back you will see that FDR's New Deal, which BO seeks to emulate and dramatically expand, was essentially FDR's take on what Mussolini was doing.

Although American Fascism, a.k.a. Liberalism, usually lacks the overtly violent tactics of Mussolini's Brown Shirts, its economic and social concepts and its goals are those of fascism***

Yes Crafty.  You stated in a better way exactly what I was thinking.  Somehow this nut job BO compares the US with "starting to appear uncomfortably close to Nazi Germany!".  This is what he said.  This guy is a nut job. It is exactly the *opposite* which is true!

They twisted around US conservatism to represent Naziism.  In fact Conservativsim is freedom and the liberal agenda is closer to Nazism with its increasing and expanding government control over all of us.
 
Number 1)  We do not have the spokes people, the MSM, around who will straigten this out in a way that appeals to most people IMO. 

Number 2) Additionally as Rove says Republicans need to address real time issues in real time ways that ordinary people talk about at the table.  Slogans about freedom, liberty, less government alone are not enough IMO.  How can this be relayed in a way that appeals to ordinary Americans and in a way that address our modern problems?  I don't know.

Hannity and Limbaugh do the first part in a crude way.  They have NO clue about the second at all IMO. 

3720  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Center for American Progress on: November 18, 2008, 11:36:54 AM
This center is really for pushing an agenda of government control of liberalism (ie "progress)

The radical left fights back with money and research.  They now have their perfect spokesperson and wolf in sheeps clothing.  My fellow Jews have for centuries knew that education, research and knowledge will ultimately win the day.  Probably that is why we lasted for millenium despite dozens of outside attempts at being conquered and wiped out.  I am proud of this.  Unfortunately their are too many of us enamored with ideas, ideals that are counter to my beliefs.  Soros is another Marx, Alinsky and all the rest who just love Obamanism.  BO is one of them.  Time will tell how much he can get away with.

Perhaps Palin can become a conduit for countering this radical threat but she is NOT intellectual enough to go up against this.

I don't know who is other then Newt at this time - David Horowitz and others do exist.  They are out there somewhere.  Joe the Plumber is nice but he won't work against this sort of thing.  This is a battle of ideals more akin to 1930's Europe IMHO.  What I havent quite figured out it how can Soros, a product of the holocaust be more on the side of the philosophy that is closer to Socialism.  Somehow Conservatism and the Republican party have become more alinged with Nazism, Marism?  I don't get how Soros thinks more and big pushy goernment is not like what created WW2?  Newt, could you explain this to me?  Anyone here have enough historical knowledge?   

****Bloomberg TV Bloomberg Radio Bloomberg Podcasts Bloomberg Press   

Soros-Funded Democratic Idea Factory Becomes Obama Policy Font

By Edwin Chen

 Nov. 18 (Bloomberg) -- Three blocks from the White House, on the 10th floor of a sleek glass building, young workers pound at computers, with giant flat-screen TVs overhead. It has the look and feel of a high-tech startup.

In many ways it is. The product is ideas.

Thanks in part to funding from benefactors such as billionaire George Soros, the Center for American Progress has become in just five years an intellectual wellspring for Democratic policy proposals, including many that are shaping the agenda of the new Obama administration.

Much as the Heritage Foundation provided intellectual heft for the Republican Party in the 1980s, CAP has been an incubator for liberal thought and helped build the platform that triumphed in the 2008 campaign.

``What CAP has done is recapture the role of ideas as an important political force, something the Republicans had been better at for 25 years,'' said Walter Isaacson, president of the Aspen Institute, a non-partisan policy-research organization in Washington.

CAP's president and founder, John Podesta, 59, former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, is one of three people running the transition team for president-elect Barack Obama, 47. A squadron of CAP experts is working with them.

Some of the group's recommendations already have been adopted by the president-elect.

Withdrawal of Troops

These include the center's call for a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and a buildup of forces in Afghanistan, a plan for universal health coverage through employer plans and proposals to create purchasing pools that allow small businesses to spread the cost among a larger group of workers. Obama has endorsed much of a CAP plan to create ``green jobs'' linked to alleviating global climate change.

CAP also is advocating the creation of a ``National Energy Council'' headed by an official with the stature of the national security adviser and who would be charged with ``transforming the energy base'' of the U.S. In addition, CAP urges the creation of a White House ``office of social entrepreneurship'' to spur new ideas for addressing social problems.

To help promote its ideas, CAP employs 11 full-time bloggers who contribute to two Web sites, ThinkProgress and the Wonk Room; others prepare daily feeds for radio stations. The center's policy briefings are standing-room only, packed with lobbyists, advocacy-group representatives and reporters looking for insights on where the Obama administration is headed.

`Premier Progressive'

``The center is the premier progressive think tank in Washington,'' said Mark Green, head of the New Democracy Project, an urban-affairs institute in New York.

Just eight days after the Nov. 4 election, CAP released a 300,000-word volume called ``Change for America: A Progressive Blueprint for the 44th President'' that offers advice on issues such as economic revival and fixing the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Work on the book began almost a year ago.

CAP, which has 180 staffers and a $27 million budget, devotes as much as half of its resources to promoting its ideas through blogs, events, publications and media outreach.

The center's future was far from certain in 2003, when wealthy donors such as Soros and film producer Stephen Bing gave $10 million or more to fill what they believed was an intellectual void in the Democratic Party and create a vehicle to produce an agenda for the party's eventual return to power.

Heritage Foundation

Podesta modeled the center on the Heritage Foundation, which became the go-to policy-research organization in 1981 when newly elected President Ronald Reagan embraced its conservative ideas embodied in a book called ``Mandate for Leadership.'' Heritage was just seven years old.

CAP and Heritage have something else in common.

``Others strive to be objective, we don't,'' said Jennifer Palmieri, CAP's vice president for communications.

Podesta likes to say, ``we're not a think tank, we're an action tank,'' said Dan Weiss, an environmental activist who joined CAP last year.

CAP isn't the only Democratic-leaning research organization in Washington with enhanced cachet after Obama's election.

The 92-year-old Brookings Institution, for example, has advisers in Obama's inner circle, including economist Jason Furman and foreign-policy expert Susan Rice. Others are working either part-time or full-time in the Obama transition.

Podesta's center isn't even among the biggest or best- funded. Brookings has a staff of more than 400 and an annual budget of $48 million. Heritage has a staff of 200 and a budget of $60 million. The American Enterprise Institute, which has close ties to the administration of President George W. Bush, has about 140 staffers, including Lynne Cheney, wife of Vice President Dick Cheney, and a budget of $28 million.

Influence

Yet CAP may be the most influential. In addition to Podesta, at least 10 other CAP experts are advising the incoming administration, including Melody Barnes, the center's executive vice president for policy who co-chairs the agency-review working group and Cassandra Butts, the senior vice president for domestic policy, who is now a senior transition staffer.

``John understood that ideas have power in this town, and he brought in super-bright people whose ideas have become essential reading,'' Isaacson said.

CAP's successes offer a lesson for Republican-leaning groups, said James McGann, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia who tracks policy groups.

``They've shown that one has to constantly innovate and be responsible to an ever-changing demographics and electorate, and have policies that are responsive to that,'' McGann said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Edwin Chen in Washington at echen32@bloomberg.net .****




 
3721  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Obama Phenomena on: November 18, 2008, 10:11:00 AM
On this I agree with Chris Matthews on this.  Many have been saying that BO is so wise to make Clinton his SOS and he will be taking out his chief Dem Political rival and control her and her team.  I say the opposite.  I say it *allows the Clintons to control BO* and keep in the game and the spotlight.  We will see ad nauseum photo shoots and soundbites of her meeting with this foreign dignitary and fixing our relationship with them or sticking up for our interests blah blah blah.  And Matthews against the apparant conventional wisdom agrees with me.  I say NEVER underestimate the political gamemanship of the CLintons. Anytime they can be kept out do it.  Thye will creep back like cancer otherwise.  Never give them an inch because they never give an inch. And, I don't see what all this talk of her being such a great SOS is all about anyway.  Again the Clinton spin.  What are her credentials oversees that makes her so great?


****Celebrity Sightings Page Six Magazine Cartoon Popwrap Michael Riedel 'HARDBALL' GUY DERAILS HILLARY
Comments: 25Read Comments Leave a Comment   November 18, 2008 --

"HARDBALL" host Chris Matthews and the other "castratos" at MSNBC shouldn't hold their breath waiting for a Hillary Clinton interview.

Matthews, who once opined that men who supported Clinton were "castratos in the eunuch chorus," forgot the cardinal rule for those who are often mentioned on Page Six - he didn't take a good look around on the Acela train from Philadelphia to Washington Saturday before he started bad-mouthing the New York senator.

Outrageous Political Impersonations Pop Video Quiz

An avowed Clinton lover who was sitting next to Matthews reports: "He was in business class wearing a red baseball hat that said Penn on the back, and the fat [bleep] fell asleep on the train and snored with his mouth open."

During the ride to DC, Matthews awoke from his nap. A fellow passenger asked him, "What's the news tomorrow?" - to which Matthews loudly started talking about President-elect Barack Obama possibly picking Hillary as his secretary of state.

"I don't understand it," Matthews bellowed. "Why would he pick her? I thought we were done with the Clintons. She'll just use it to build her power base. It's Machiavellian. And then we'll have Bill Clinton, too. I thought Obama didn't want drama. He's already got [chief of staff Rahm] Emanuel and [transition team leader John] Podesta. He'll have even more drama with her.

"She's just a soap opera. If he doesn't pick her, everyone will say she's been dissed again, we'll have to live through that again."

Matthews seems to be playing both sides of the fence. The host, who apologized to Clinton last year for claiming she got where she was because "her husband messed around," said on-air last Friday: "Look, I think that since she lost the fight for the nomination, [Clinton] has been not just a good soldier, she has sang the tune of [Obama]. She's been illustrious, she's been admirable . . . her spirit seems to be with him."

A rep for Clinton declined to comment while a rep for Matthews didn't return e-mails. ****




 
3722  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Coming Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: November 18, 2008, 09:02:36 AM
***Bush has left a mess with Russia and now, given Euro spinelessness, we have
no good options.    Bush's stupidity in recognizing Kosovo has enabled
Russia to take the two provinces in Georgia; the larger point of which is to
make clear that it can take the pipeline any time it wants.  The true issue
is access to central Asian gas and oil-- as we have discussed.  I like Jack
Wheeler's idea of building a pipeline from central Asia through Afg-Pak and
thus create a form of wealth generation that gives us true leverage in
Afg-Pak as well as undercutting Russia's chokehold on Euro energy.***

Crafty,

I like the parts about your fears of BO. Mine too.   I suspect BO is RADICAL left and is prepared to go as far left as he can get away with.  He might test the waters but he would obviously love going towards Pelosi et al.  He has hung around with many US hating raidcals and he occasionally slpis and lets out his tru feelings which include his resentment of America and what it has always stood for.  He will have us all driving electric minicars, he will run from Iraq ASAP, Iran will have nucs (though there IS NO political will in the US to stop this so its not totally BOs fault. etc.

With regards to the above could you expand on what W did wrong with Kosovo, Russia and what is this pipeline all about and how would expanding a pipeline through a dangerous part of the world help us?  Shouldn't we be drilling off our shores and get off foriegn oil?
3723  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / From the Economist on: November 17, 2008, 02:30:16 PM
 Reposted from another thread that was essentially of duplicate of this thread.

Future? of Republican party
« on: November 15, 2008, 08:06:02 AM » 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with some of the following though not all.  I think he is right on target at the Republican party's banckrupcy in ideas and inability to adapt.  Falling to the position that the reason for the failure of the party is due to its diverting from its core principles is hopefully not going to win out the minds of what is left of the  leadership and dircection of the party and dooming it to further defeat.  If Shawn Hannity and Rush are going to lead this party than whomever follows them goes the way of the pied piper.
If anyone questions the barren thoughtfulness of the party just witness that some in the party think that putting Palin at the forefront and labelling her a leader of the party is a good idea.  Anyone who now thinks this woman can attract anyone new to the right is dreaming.  She is turning into a total mindless cad inmo.  I am surely dissappointed and becoming quite embarassed by her.
I was wrong to think she has her own wisdom or ability to engage in real insightful conversation.

I really thought she would go back to Alaska, perhaps get Steven's Senate seat, or run for the Senate or Congress later and re-establish herself with more gravitas.  And if she would then spend the next couple years really LEARNING the issues so she could speak with some authority, sensibility, and logic rather than just run around with some by-gone party slogans.  Again I over-estimated her (or if I try to be kind - her "handlers").  The cans are relying on governors.  I guess because they are out of power they no longer have the floor to speak their views and establish themselves with cabinet posts, chairmanship seats, etc.

We need another Newt to rise from the Democratic controlled houses to lead the party back.  Why can't/won't Newt run again?
Amzing thing to see how our liberal University system honors a person like Ayers but despises a person like Newt.

   ***Ship of fools
Nov 13th 2008
From The Economist print edition

Political parties die from the head down

Illustration by KAL
JOHN STUART MILL once dismissed the British Conservative Party as the stupid party. Today the Conservative Party is run by Oxford-educated high-fliers who have been busy reinventing conservatism for a new era. As Lexington sees it, the title of the “stupid party” now belongs to the Tories’ transatlantic cousins, the Republicans.

There are any number of reasons for the Republican Party’s defeat on November 4th. But high on the list is the fact that the party lost the battle for brains. Barack Obama won college graduates by two points, a group that George Bush won by six points four years ago. He won voters with postgraduate degrees by 18 points. And he won voters with a household income of more than $200,000—many of whom will get thumped by his tax increases—by six points. John McCain did best among uneducated voters in Appalachia and the South.

 The Republicans lost the battle of ideas even more comprehensively than they lost the battle for educated votes, marching into the election armed with nothing more than slogans. Energy? Just drill, baby, drill. Global warming? Crack a joke about Ozone Al. Immigration? Send the bums home. Torture and Guantánamo? Wear a T-shirt saying you would rather be water-boarding. Ha ha. During the primary debates, three out of ten Republican candidates admitted that they did not believe in evolution.

The Republican Party’s divorce from the intelligentsia has been a while in the making. The born-again Mr Bush preferred listening to his “heart” rather than his “head”. He also filled the government with incompetent toadies like Michael “heck-of-a-job” Brown, who bungled the response to Hurricane Katrina. Mr McCain, once the chattering classes’ favourite Republican, refused to grapple with the intricacies of the financial meltdown, preferring instead to look for cartoonish villains. And in a desperate attempt to serve boob bait to Bubba, he appointed Sarah Palin to his ticket, a woman who took five years to get a degree in journalism, and who was apparently unaware of some of the most rudimentary facts about international politics.

Republicanism’s anti-intellectual turn is devastating for its future. The party’s electoral success from 1980 onwards was driven by its ability to link brains with brawn. The conservative intelligentsia not only helped to craft a message that resonated with working-class Democrats, a message that emphasised entrepreneurialism, law and order, and American pride. It also provided the party with a sweeping policy agenda. The party’s loss of brains leaves it rudderless, without a compelling agenda.

This is happening at a time when the American population is becoming more educated. More than a quarter of Americans now have university degrees. Twenty per cent of households earn more than $100,000 a year, up from 16% in 1996. Mark Penn, a Democratic pollster, notes that 69% call themselves “professionals”. McKinsey, a management consultancy, argues that the number of jobs requiring “tacit” intellectual skills has increased three times as fast as employment in general. The Republican Party’s current “redneck strategy” will leave it appealing to a shrinking and backward-looking portion of the electorate.

Why is this happening? One reason is that conservative brawn has lost patience with brains of all kinds, conservative or liberal. Many conservatives—particularly lower-income ones—are consumed with elemental fury about everything from immigration to liberal do-gooders. They take their opinions from talk-radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and the deeply unsubtle Sean Hannity. And they regard Mrs Palin’s apparent ignorance not as a problem but as a badge of honour.

Another reason is the degeneracy of the conservative intelligentsia itself, a modern-day version of the 1970s liberals it arose to do battle with: trapped in an ideological cocoon, defined by its outer fringes, ruled by dynasties and incapable of adjusting to a changed world. The movement has little to say about today’s pressing problems, such as global warming and the debacle in Iraq, and expends too much of its energy on xenophobia, homophobia and opposing stem-cell research.

Conservative intellectuals are also engaged in their own version of what Julian Benda dubbed la trahison des clercs, the treason of the learned. They have fallen into constructing cartoon images of “real Americans”, with their “volkish” wisdom and charming habit of dropping their “g”s. Mrs Palin was invented as a national political force by Beltway journalists from the Weekly Standard and the National Review who met her when they were on luxury cruises around Alaska, and then noisily championed her cause.

Time for reflection
How likely is it that the Republican Party will come to its senses? There are glimmers of hope. Business conservatives worry that the party has lost the business vote. Moderates complain that the Republicans are becoming the party of “white-trash pride”. Anonymous McCain aides complain that Mrs Palin was a campaign-destroying “whack job”. One of the most encouraging signs is the support for giving the chairmanship of the Republican Party to John Sununu, a sensible and clever man who has the added advantage of coming from the north-east (he lost his New Hampshire Senate seat on November 4th).

But the odds in favour of an imminent renaissance look long. Many conservatives continue to think they lost because they were not conservative or populist enough—Mr McCain, after all, was an amnesty-loving green who refused to make an issue out of Mr Obama’s associations with Jeremiah Wright. Richard Weaver, one of the founders of modern conservatism, once wrote a book entitled “Ideas have Consequences”; unfortunately, too many Republicans are still refusing to acknowledge that idiocy has consequences, too.***

 
 
  Logged 
 
 
 
Crafty_Dog
Global Moderator
Power User

Posts: 8269


   Re: Future? of Republican party
« Reply #1 on: November 15, 2008, 10:20:21 AM » 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCP:

Very interesting article. 

May I ask you to put it in this thread?
http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1736.0

thank you,
Marc
 
 
 
 
3724  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Obama Phenomena on: November 17, 2008, 12:31:20 PM
I guess another brilliant guy who would have been able to go head to head was Colin Powell.  But he never wanted to run and of course he is also, as we have just seen, both "had enough of Rebuplicans" and now enamored and charmed by the latest Lib Svengali.

 
3725  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Obama Phenomena on: November 17, 2008, 10:22:14 AM
The 60 minutes article with BO was more interesting than I thought.

Nothing new but again it highilights what cans are up against.  The only one on the can side in sight who could evn hold a intelligent debate with BO imo is Newt.

I guess the fact that 90% of the nations great universities professor are liberal makes it that much less likely that the cans will get truly thoughtful, reflective intellectuals to their side and to find one that can speak in a coherent rational manner is probably going to be rare.

Couple BO's ability to charm and sound sweet (while he is screwing half the nation) with his team of Clintonites who are masters of BS and spin and with an adoring MSM - well we get the picture - he is going to President for 8 years. 

Even Bill Buckleys son is endeared by BOs intellectualistic style.

The cans have no one but Newt in the same league.  And the Dems have the Clinton war machine waiting in the lurches just in case BO does learch so far to the left that he will lose support.  But anyone who gets their hopes up on this is a fool imho.  All his ideas will be tested and retested by polls, trial balloons, surveys, focus groups ala Clinton. 

3726  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Bailout the Detroit unions - forgettaboutit on: November 15, 2008, 11:59:49 AM
I've come around to Charles' view.  I now suspect the Dem push to bailout Detroit is a union ballout.  That said.  Let them declare bankruptcy and start over.

I am not in favor of tax money for this endless stream to industries that will make for ever bigger and bigger Democratic party machine government.  The Dems talk """bipartisanship""".   Now I realize why.  Because they need this deal now before the Carmakers run out of cash.  It can't wait till Jan 20.

Furthermore they can always blame the Reps if something goes wrong.  Come Jan 20 """bipartisanship""" calls and phrases will no longer be heard. 

****A lemon of a bailout

By Charles Krauthammer
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Finally, the outlines of a coherent debate on the federal bailout. This comes as welcome relief from a campaign season that gave us the House Republicans' know-nothing rejectionism, John McCain's mindless railing against "greed and corruption," and Barack Obama's detached enunciation of vacuous bailout "principles" that allowed him to be all things to all people.

Now clarity is emerging. The fault line is the auto industry bailout. The Democrats are pushing hard for it. The White House is resisting.

Underlying the policy differences is a philosophical divide. The Bush administration sees the $700 billion rescue as an emergency measure to save the financial sector on the grounds that finance is a utility. No government would let the electric companies go under and leave the country without power. By the same token, government must save the financial sector lest credit dry up and strangle the rest of the economy.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is willing to stretch the meaning of "bank" by extending protection to such entities as American Express. But fundamentally, he sees government as saving institutions that deal in money, not other stuff.

Democrats have a larger canvas, with government intervening in other sectors of the economy to prevent the cascade effect of mass unemployment leading to more mortgage defaults and business failures (as consumer spending plummets), in turn dragging down more businesses and financial institutions, producing more unemployment, etc. — the death spiral of the 1930s.

President Bush is trying to move the Libor or the TED spread, which measure credit flows. The Democrats' index is the unemployment rate.

With almost 5 million workers supported by the auto industry, Democrats are pressing for a federal rescue. But the problems are obvious.

First, the arbitrariness. Where do you stop? Once you've gone beyond the financial sector, every struggling industry will make a claim on the federal treasury. What are the grounds for saying yes or no?

The criteria will inevitably be arbitrary and political. The money will flow preferentially to industries with lines to Capitol Hill and the White House. To the companies heavily concentrated in the districts of committee chairmen. To clout. Is this not precisely the kind of lobby-driven policymaking that Obama ran against?

Second is the sheer inefficiency. Saving Detroit means saving it from bankruptcy. As we have seen with the airlines, bankruptcy can allow operations to continue while helping to shed fatally unsupportable obligations. For Detroit, this means release from ruinous wage deals with their astronomical benefits (the hourly cost of a Big Three worker: $73; of an American worker for Toyota: $48), massive pension obligations and unworkable work rules such as "job banks," a euphemism for paying vast numbers of employees not to work.

The point of the Democratic bailout is to protect the unions by preventing this kind of restructuring. Which will guarantee the continued failure of these companies, but now they will burn tens of billions of taxpayer dollars. It's the ultimate in lemon socialism.
Democrats are suggesting, however, an even more ambitious reason to nationalize. Once the government owns Detroit, it can remake it. The euphemism here is "retool" Detroit to make cars for the coming green economy.
Liberals have always wanted the auto companies to produce the kind of cars they insist everyone should drive: small, light, green and cute. Now they will have the power to do it.

In World War II, government had the auto companies turning out tanks. Now they would be made to turn out hybrids. The difference is that, in the middle of a world war, tanks have a buyer. Will hybrids? One of the reasons Detroit is in such difficulty is that consumers have been resisting the smaller, less powerful, less safe cars forced on the industry by fuel-efficiency mandates. Now Detroit would be forced to make even more of them.

If you think we have economic troubles today, consider the effects of nationalizing an industry of this size, but now run by bureaucrats issuing production quotas to fit five-year plans to meet politically mandated fuel-efficiency standards — to lift us to the sunny uplands of the coming green utopia.

Republican minimalism — saving the credit-issuing utilities — certainly risks not doing enough. But the Democratic drift toward massive industrial policy threatens to grow into the guaranteed inefficiencies of command-economy maximalism.

In this crisis, we agree to suspend the invisible hand of Adam Smith — but not in order to be crushed by the heavy hand of government.*** angry

3727  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Future? of Republican party on: November 15, 2008, 10:06:02 AM
I agree with some of the following though not all.  I think he is right on target at the Republican party's banckrupcy in ideas and inability to adapt.  Falling to the position that the reason for the failure of the party is due to its diverting from its core principles is hopefully not going to win out the minds of what is left of the  leadership and dircection of the party and dooming it to further defeat.  If Shawn Hannity and Rush are going to lead this party than they party follows them the way of the pied piper.
If anyone questions the barren thoughtfulness of the party just witness that some in the party think that putting Palin at the forefront and labelling her a leader of the party is a good idea.  Anyone who now thinks this woman can attract anyone new to the right is dreaming.  She is turning into a total mindless cad inmo.  I am surely dissappointed and becoming quite embarassed by her.
I was wrong to think she has her own wisdom or ability to engage in real insightful conversation.

***Ship of fools
Nov 13th 2008
From The Economist print edition

Political parties die from the head down

Illustration by KAL
JOHN STUART MILL once dismissed the British Conservative Party as the stupid party. Today the Conservative Party is run by Oxford-educated high-fliers who have been busy reinventing conservatism for a new era. As Lexington sees it, the title of the “stupid party” now belongs to the Tories’ transatlantic cousins, the Republicans.

There are any number of reasons for the Republican Party’s defeat on November 4th. But high on the list is the fact that the party lost the battle for brains. Barack Obama won college graduates by two points, a group that George Bush won by six points four years ago. He won voters with postgraduate degrees by 18 points. And he won voters with a household income of more than $200,000—many of whom will get thumped by his tax increases—by six points. John McCain did best among uneducated voters in Appalachia and the South.

 The Republicans lost the battle of ideas even more comprehensively than they lost the battle for educated votes, marching into the election armed with nothing more than slogans. Energy? Just drill, baby, drill. Global warming? Crack a joke about Ozone Al. Immigration? Send the bums home. Torture and Guantánamo? Wear a T-shirt saying you would rather be water-boarding. Ha ha. During the primary debates, three out of ten Republican candidates admitted that they did not believe in evolution.

The Republican Party’s divorce from the intelligentsia has been a while in the making. The born-again Mr Bush preferred listening to his “heart” rather than his “head”. He also filled the government with incompetent toadies like Michael “heck-of-a-job” Brown, who bungled the response to Hurricane Katrina. Mr McCain, once the chattering classes’ favourite Republican, refused to grapple with the intricacies of the financial meltdown, preferring instead to look for cartoonish villains. And in a desperate attempt to serve boob bait to Bubba, he appointed Sarah Palin to his ticket, a woman who took five years to get a degree in journalism, and who was apparently unaware of some of the most rudimentary facts about international politics.

Republicanism’s anti-intellectual turn is devastating for its future. The party’s electoral success from 1980 onwards was driven by its ability to link brains with brawn. The conservative intelligentsia not only helped to craft a message that resonated with working-class Democrats, a message that emphasised entrepreneurialism, law and order, and American pride. It also provided the party with a sweeping policy agenda. The party’s loss of brains leaves it rudderless, without a compelling agenda.

This is happening at a time when the American population is becoming more educated. More than a quarter of Americans now have university degrees. Twenty per cent of households earn more than $100,000 a year, up from 16% in 1996. Mark Penn, a Democratic pollster, notes that 69% call themselves “professionals”. McKinsey, a management consultancy, argues that the number of jobs requiring “tacit” intellectual skills has increased three times as fast as employment in general. The Republican Party’s current “redneck strategy” will leave it appealing to a shrinking and backward-looking portion of the electorate.

Why is this happening? One reason is that conservative brawn has lost patience with brains of all kinds, conservative or liberal. Many conservatives—particularly lower-income ones—are consumed with elemental fury about everything from immigration to liberal do-gooders. They take their opinions from talk-radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and the deeply unsubtle Sean Hannity. And they regard Mrs Palin’s apparent ignorance not as a problem but as a badge of honour.

Another reason is the degeneracy of the conservative intelligentsia itself, a modern-day version of the 1970s liberals it arose to do battle with: trapped in an ideological cocoon, defined by its outer fringes, ruled by dynasties and incapable of adjusting to a changed world. The movement has little to say about today’s pressing problems, such as global warming and the debacle in Iraq, and expends too much of its energy on xenophobia, homophobia and opposing stem-cell research.

Conservative intellectuals are also engaged in their own version of what Julian Benda dubbed la trahison des clercs, the treason of the learned. They have fallen into constructing cartoon images of “real Americans”, with their “volkish” wisdom and charming habit of dropping their “g”s. Mrs Palin was invented as a national political force by Beltway journalists from the Weekly Standard and the National Review who met her when they were on luxury cruises around Alaska, and then noisily championed her cause.

Time for reflection
How likely is it that the Republican Party will come to its senses? There are glimmers of hope. Business conservatives worry that the party has lost the business vote. Moderates complain that the Republicans are becoming the party of “white-trash pride”. Anonymous McCain aides complain that Mrs Palin was a campaign-destroying “whack job”. One of the most encouraging signs is the support for giving the chairmanship of the Republican Party to John Sununu, a sensible and clever man who has the added advantage of coming from the north-east (he lost his New Hampshire Senate seat on November 4th).

But the odds in favour of an imminent renaissance look long. Many conservatives continue to think they lost because they were not conservative or populist enough—Mr McCain, after all, was an amnesty-loving green who refused to make an issue out of Mr Obama’s associations with Jeremiah Wright. Richard Weaver, one of the founders of modern conservatism, once wrote a book entitled “Ideas have Consequences”; unfortunately, too many Republicans are still refusing to acknowledge that idiocy has consequences, too.***

3728  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: FNG Intro / Lament for a Maverick on: November 15, 2008, 08:49:52 AM
Hi Joe,
I welcome your thoughts and I think it safe (if I may be so bold) for me to say that all who like to post on the board  feel the same.
I would be curious to hear from someone who is Republican living in England as to your impression of the Brits reaction to the election?
If one here believes the mainstream media the impression is the Brits hate W, think he is a total buffoon and adore and admire Bama and look to him to save the world.
Do *you* find that to be the general consensus in England?  Or is it liberal media bias?
3729  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The Ukrainian holocaust on: November 14, 2008, 07:09:05 PM
An elderly patient of mine in her late 80s recently passed away.
Her son told me of her incredible story of survival in Ukraine in the 30s and 40s.  She watched her whole family starve to death before her eyes.  They worked as virtual slaves for Stalin and the saved what food they could only to have the Russians come in a steal it all for their troops.

She was later in Germany during the allied bombings and told stories of the firestorms.  She told her son this was bliss compared to how Russians treated them when they were later shipped to Siberia.

She came to this country in the 1950's.  She was grateful to be here and only asked for one thing.  A job to be able to pay her way.  She was not like the immigrants of today who come here and abuse our systems and expect amnesty and make up phoney social security numbers and then get outright indignant when anyone questions this.

Her son, also a patient of mine stated the Ukrains are terrible publicizers and chronicalers of history.  He rightly pointed out how Jews are great at reminding the world about what happened to them but no one ever hears about what was done to them. He said this in an admiring way.
But then I guess he didn't realize I am Jewish when he told me how one of the Russians generals, "a Jew", suggested to Stalin that the easiest way to deal with the Ukraines was to simply let them starve.   And Stalin took his advice.
 
I listened.   I thanked him for sharing his mother's story.  I suggested he write it all down.  Maybe he could send it to the Holocaust museum.
3730  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics on: November 14, 2008, 01:25:53 PM
I was originally for auto co. bailout but now that mayors are asking for money, and more and more companies coming forward and government can't even account for the billions already allocated for give aways I have changed my mine.  No more bailouts.  This has to stop.
If people who didn't belong in homes before may need to look for apartments and auto workers will need to retrain or their families will have to get health insurance from their own jobs or commerically than so be it.
Government cannot be trusted. 
I didn't want my savings to go to zero but I took that risk and now must face the consequences.
What is worse is paying for a lifeline for everyone else deserving or not.
And we all know billions will get stolen.
Just my rambling thoughts.
3731  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Surprise to me Not Bill but Hill on: November 14, 2008, 11:33:26 AM
I'm a little surprised about Hillary as SOS.
Actually I thought it was going to be Bill as the payoff for their support of BO at the end of the Pres campaign.
It looks like the CLintons are going to win big with all their people getting on the BO bandwagon and Hill set up for her run in 2012 or 2016 whenever BO leaves the stage.  We all know it won't be his VP - Biden - for 2012 or 16.

Amazing isn't it?  Practically my entire adult life I will have to put up with the Clintons.

At least we will not have to hear how she is the "first" SOS who is a broad and another "glass ceiling broken" blah blah blah be de blah.
3732  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Coming Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: November 14, 2008, 10:31:15 AM
My post on the coming of the next M Moore movie with a reported theme about the economy but in the context that America as an "empire" is over is on line with how BO thinks.  Both people have a deep resentment of our country and feel that American capitalism and democracy spreading around the globe is imperialism or emipire like.  And as those on this board know they will be sure to put a stop to that.
The 50 states of the union will become the US is one of the 195 states of the world.
I don't get why the US has to lead the world in a way that contributes to its own shrinking.

3733  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The 50 states of America no more.America is now one of 195 states around the wor on: November 14, 2008, 09:21:44 AM
Well I am not sure this is in the right thread.  My reasoning is that the "end of the empire" tone summarizes the attitude of the left.  The US has spread around the world like an empire and with it forcing on the world it's toxic mix of capatalizism, and democracy for the benefit of course of white men of European origin.  This is I think the thesis of BO and his supporters and the root how they will see to it that our country will now be relegated to bac seat status.  They claim that we should lead the world away from this.  Basically BO will bring the rest of the world to the front of the bus and the US can move to towrds the back of the bus.  so I feel the piece belings here as the left plans on making us into a weakened state equal to all others.  And I really do beleive BO has hated America every bit as much as MMoore.

****Michael Moore to tackle economy
Next doc to have an end-of-the-empire tone, sources say
By Steven Zeitchik

Nov 13, 2008, 01:00 AM ET

Updated: Nov 13, 2008, 02:33 PM ET

Michael Moore (Getty Images photo)
 
When Paramount Vantage and Overture announced Michael Moore's long-gestating follow-up to "Fahrenheit 9/11" in May, executives stressed the film's foreign-policy scope. "This is going to tackle what's going on in the world and America's place in it," Paramount Vantage chief Nick Meyer said.

But as the political winds shifted in the months before the election -- and gusted after it -- Moore subtly began reorienting his movie. Instead of foreign policy, the film's focus now is more on the global financial crisis and the U.S. economy.

The untitled movie will contain an end-of-the-empire tone, say those familiar with the project, and Moore no doubt hopes that this will give it a more general feel that will untether it from a specific political moment.

But some political and entertainment experts wonder how much Moore's incredulousness and occasional pessimism about the state of U.S. policy, which served the filmmaker well during the George W. Bush years, will play in the current hopeful climate brought on President-elect Barack Obama.

"If Moore offers a prescription for how to improve things, he may indeed find an audience that at this moment is eager for change," said Craig Minassian, an entertainment consultant and former Bill Clinton aide. "But it's going to be hard for him. What this election shows is what's right with America, and sometimes what Michael Moore does is highlight what's wrong with America."

In the meantime, a focus on the collapsing markets brings its own risk, Minassian said. "The problem with the financial crisis is that it's changing so quickly. I'm not sure how relevant is going to be in six months, and I'm not sure if people want to hear it; my sense is they already have a pretty good idea of a lot of the people who are to blame for it."

An election favoring the Democrats would remove some of the factors that put Moore in vogue both in the U.S. and abroad during the Bush years -- and pushed his three theatrical movies during that time to more than $300 million in worldwide boxoffice.

It's worth noting that Moore famously shoots a lot of footage and makes many critical decisions later in the production process, so the tone could still shift; it's tricky to know what any Moore movie will ultimately look like before he completes the film.

Overture and Vantage declined comment.

Still, Moore is feverishly shooting, and the movie is expected to come out as early as this spring, with Vantage and Overture hoping to capitalize on the current high levels of political awareness.

Moore has also said that in some ways he sees the movie less as a sequel to the Middle East-themed "Fahrenheit 9/11" than as a bookend to "Roger & Me," the director's breakthrough nearly two decades ago. That movie featured the U.S. economy and the auto industry at its center, and that, if nothing else, could again prove a timely theme.
Michael Moore to tackle economy
Next doc to have an end-of-the-empire tone, sources say
By Steven Zeitchik

Nov 13, 2008, 01:00 AM ET

Updated: Nov 13, 2008, 02:33 PM ET

When Paramount Vantage and Overture announced Michael Moore's long-gestating follow-up to "Fahrenheit 9/11" in May, executives stressed the film's foreign-policy scope. "This is going to tackle what's going on in the world and America's place in it," Paramount Vantage chief Nick Meyer said.

But as the political winds shifted in the months before the election -- and gusted after it -- Moore subtly began reorienting his movie. Instead of foreign policy, the film's focus now is more on the global financial crisis and the U.S. economy.

The untitled movie will contain an end-of-the-empire tone, say those familiar with the project, and Moore no doubt hopes that this will give it a more general feel that will untether it from a specific political moment.

But some political and entertainment experts wonder how much Moore's incredulousness and occasional pessimism about the state of U.S. policy, which served the filmmaker well during the George W. Bush years, will play in the current hopeful climate brought on President-elect Barack Obama.

"If Moore offers a prescription for how to improve things, he may indeed find an audience that at this moment is eager for change," said Craig Minassian, an entertainment consultant and former Bill Clinton aide. "But it's going to be hard for him. What this election shows is what's right with America, and sometimes what Michael Moore does is highlight what's wrong with America."

In the meantime, a focus on the collapsing markets brings its own risk, Minassian said. "The problem with the financial crisis is that it's changing so quickly. I'm not sure how relevant is going to be in six months, and I'm not sure if people want to hear it; my sense is they already have a pretty good idea of a lot of the people who are to blame for it."

An election favoring the Democrats would remove some of the factors that put Moore in vogue both in the U.S. and abroad during the Bush years -- and pushed his three theatrical movies during that time to more than $300 million in worldwide boxoffice.

It's worth noting that Moore famously shoots a lot of footage and makes many critical decisions later in the production process, so the tone could still shift; it's tricky to know what any Moore movie will ultimately look like before he completes the film.

Overture and Vantage declined comment.

Still, Moore is feverishly shooting, and the movie is expected to come out as early as this spring, with Vantage and Overture hoping to capitalize on the current high levels of political awareness.

Moore has also said that in some ways he sees the movie less as a sequel to the Middle East-themed "Fahrenheit 9/11" than as a bookend to "Roger & Me," the director's breakthrough nearly two decades ago. That movie featured the U.S. economy and the auto industry at its center, and that, if nothing else, could again prove a timely theme.****


3734  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Rants on: November 13, 2008, 05:30:56 PM
***The core values of our open society, the ability to think for oneself, to draw independent conclusions, to express dissent when judgment and common sense indicate something is wrong, to be self-critical, to challenge authority, to understand historical facts, to separate truth from lies, to advocate for change and to acknowledge that there are other views, different ways of being, that are morally and socially acceptable, are dying.***

I don't know about all this.  To some extent some of this gibberish.  So the proliferation of information has made us dumber?

How can anyone compare a Lincoln Douglas debate to present Presidential debates?  Why in those days few people other than educated white man voted!

And they didn't have ear catching slogans in the 1800s?  Whatever happened to "remember the Alamo"?

While times have certainly changed the more I read about the past the more I think humanity is the same now as thousands of years ago.  We don't change though we do change the world around us.
3735  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / There is no such thing as "bipartisanship in DC" on: November 13, 2008, 10:12:59 AM
Talk of "bipartisanship" is as always just that - talk.
OK here is another sign the Dems are all talk.   Lets bring Bush in to "investigate him" and his administration.   Does anyone think this is not just a ploy to deflect criticism of the incoming BO/Clinton administration from the mess we are facing?  Here we go again.  And BO who spoke of change during his campaign is bringing back all the "I want a job" Clinton hangers on from the 90s.   And we all know how partisan they all are.

If he does pick any "can" for a cabinet post it will only to take them out of the opposition and make him into a crat.  Anyone remember Cohen who basically became a hack for Clinton.
Is he still in politics?

By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: November 12, 2008
WASHINGTON — When a Congressional committee subpoenaed Harry S. Truman in 1953, nearly a year after he left office, he made a startling claim: Even though he was no longer president, the Constitution still empowered him to block subpoenas.

“If the doctrine of separation of powers and the independence of the presidency is to have any validity at all, it must be equally applicable to a president after his term of office has expired,” Truman wrote to the committee.

Congress backed down, establishing a precedent suggesting that former presidents wield lingering powers to keep matters from their administration secret. Now, as Congressional Democrats prepare to move forward with investigations of the Bush administration, they wonder whether that claim may be invoked again.

“The Bush administration overstepped in its exertion of executive privilege, and may very well try to continue to shield information from the American people after it leaves office,” said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, who sits on two committees, Judiciary and Intelligence, that are examining aspects of Mr. Bush’s policies.

Topics of open investigations include the harsh interrogation of detainees, the prosecution of former Gov. Don Siegelman of Alabama, secret legal memorandums from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel and the role of the former White House aides Karl Rove and Harriet E. Miers in the firing of federal prosecutors.

Mr. Bush has used his executive powers to block Congressional requests for executive branch documents and testimony from former aides. But investigators hope that the Obama administration will open the filing cabinets and withdraw assertions of executive privilege that Bush officials have invoked to keep from testifying.

“I intend to ensure that our outstanding subpoenas and document requests relating to the U.S. attorneys matter are enforced,” said Representative John Conyers Jr., Democrat of Michigan and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. “I am hopeful that progress can be made with the coming of the new administration.”

Also, two advocacy groups, the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights First, have prepared detailed reports for the new administration calling for criminal investigations into accusations of abuse of detainees.

It is not clear, though, how a President Barack Obama will handle such requests. Legal specialists said the pressure to investigate the Bush years would raise tough political and legal questions.

Because every president eventually leaves office, incoming chief executives have an incentive to quash investigations into their predecessor’s tenure. Mr. Bush used executive privilege for the first time in 2001, to block a subpoena by Congressional Republicans investigating the Clinton administration.

In addition, Mr. Obama has expressed worries about too many investigations. In April, he told The Philadelphia Daily News that people needed to distinguish “between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity.”

“If crimes have been committed, they should be investigated,” Mr. Obama said, but added, “I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we’ve got too many problems we’ve got to solve.”

But even if his administration rejects the calls for investigations, Mr. Obama cannot control what the courts or Congress do. Several lawsuits are seeking information about Bush policies, including an Islamic charity’s claim that it was illegally spied on by Mr. Bush’s program on wiretapping without warrants.

And Congressional Democrats say that they are determined to pursue their investigations — and that they expect career officials to disclose other issues after the Bush administration leaves. “We could spend the entire next four years investigating the Bush years,” Mr. Whitehouse said.

But if Mr. Obama decides to release information about his predecessor’s tenure, Mr. Bush could try to invoke executive privilege by filing a lawsuit, said Peter Shane, a law professor at Ohio State University.

In that case, an injunction would most likely be sought ordering the Obama administration not to release the Bush administration’s papers or enjoining Mr. Bush’s former aides from testifying. The dispute would probably go to the Supreme Court, Mr. Shane said.

The idea that ex-presidents may possess residual constitutional powers to keep information secret traces back to Truman.

In November 1953, after Dwight D. Eisenhower became president, the House Un-American Activities Committee subpoenaed Truman to testify about why he had appointed a suspected Communist to the International Monetary Fund.

Truman decided not to comply and asked his lawyer, Samuel I. Rosenman, for help. But there was little time for research.

Edward M. Cramer, a young associate at Mr. Rosenman’s law firm, recalled being summoned with two colleagues to their boss’s office at 6 p.m. and told to come up with something. The next morning, they helped dictate Truman’s letter telling the panel he did not have to testify — or even appear at the hearing.

“I think, legally, we were wrong” about whether Truman had to show up, Mr. Cramer, now 83, said in a phone interview from his home in New York.

But the committee did not call the former president’s bluff. It dropped the matter, and Truman’s hastily devised legal claim became a historical precedent.

In 1973, President Nixon cited Truman’s letter when he refused to testify or give documents to the committee investigating the Watergate scandal.

Mr. Cramer recalled, “Nixon used it, and we said ‘Oh, Jesus, what have we done?’ ”

The first judicial backing for the idea that former presidents wield executive privilege powers came in 1977, as part of a Supreme Court ruling in a case over who controlled Nixon’s White House files. The decision suggested that Nixon might be able to block the release of papers in the future. But it offered few details, and Nixon never sought to do so.

In 1989 and 1990, judges presiding over criminal trials related to the Iran-contra affair blocked requests by defendants to make former President Ronald Reagan testify and release his diaries.

But the Supreme Court has never made clear how far a former president may go in trying to block Congressional demands for documents and testimony — or what happens if a president disagrees with a predecessor about making information public.

“There is no relevant precedent on the books,” Mr. Shane said.
3736  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: November 10, 2008, 03:58:30 PM
Crafty,
Please carify.
Is the Ronen report more recent than the report from May? (no date noted on your post)
Does this mean that Malley was recently dispatched to the Middle East and was thus not really fired?
3737  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for Reps/Conservatives on: November 10, 2008, 03:49:06 PM
***The larger point is that tax cuts, a key strand of Reaganism, remain quite popular across the political spectrum***
True and
BO did disingeniusly steal Rep thunder with the rant about reducing taxes on 95%.

3738  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for Reps/Conservatives on: November 10, 2008, 11:26:13 AM
***Mr. Obama ran like Reagan. Will he be able to govern that way, too?***

Oh comon.  What spin.  He ran the opposite of Reagan.  First of all Reagan didn't want tax "cuts" to be only for certain chosen segment of the population nor did he expect that the other segments would be the ones to pay for them.

Reaganomics is trickle down and Bomonomics is build from the *bottom* and let it work up.

BO is huge government and soak the succesful to pay for it.

BO did not run on Reagan principles. 
3739  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Talking with Iran has been done for 30 years. on: November 10, 2008, 10:50:34 AM
I got this in the mail and here is a link to a position paper about the 30 year failure of negotiations with Iran.  BO is going to continue down the same path.   Iran may already even posses of bomb.  Of course Iran sees as as weak now.   Of course they will play the lets talk game.   They have been doing it for decades.   Yet "70%"  of Iranians are not happy with the Radicals in control.

http://www.hillsdale.edu/images/userImages/mvanderwei/Page_4221/ImprimisOct08.pdf
3740  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for Reps/Conservatives on: November 08, 2008, 10:43:45 AM
***These words bear re-reading-- especially with BO about to give driver licences to illegals, and the vote to anyone with a driver's license:***

Crafty,

and....?

I'm all ears.....

What do you prescribe?  Lets face it.  There is no political will to do anything about the illegals because as Lou Dobbs points out everyday they parites are afraid to lose votes.  Each party is ignoring this issue to get Latino votes.  The Democrats sold american citizens down the river years ago on this issue to bring in the Spanish who overwhelming vote for them.  The Republicans did not or could not stand up to this and W/Rove/et al must have felt it was too late fighting the tide and tried to also kiss up to those who just got here.  So they tried, and unfortunately, even that didn't work because the Dems won them over with more promises.

It doesn't help that Romenys own lawn guy was using illegals.  Though I think my lawn guy does to.  The cans did not seem willing to go after those in this country who employ illegals.  And of course it didn't help that it at least in some places it appears to have been made a crime for empolyers to even try to verify citizens status.  ("Why this is not a state or local problem" the local governments would scream - its up to the INS to do that).

Now the only party that would have had any will to do anything about it is out of power.

So what do you suggest?  I'm all ears because I am disgusted with seeing ever more people who obviously are not here legally all around me (and far from just Latinos - people from Asia, Africa, Europe) just walking in at their leisure and we sit here like dopes doing nothing.  All the while the left talks our own country down and now is going to use their prescription for winning over the world's love by ensuring we become a second rate country.


So did Rove et al make a mistake trying to win over the illegals?  I don't know.  I do know the Dems are happy to sell out US citizens who were born here or who are non citizens here LEGALLY to get and keep power.
Could Republicans have secured our border and improved standing among immigrants and Latinos in particular?  I guess Doug alluded to that question *I don't know to what extent securing borders offends how many Hispanics.*  I would think Rove looked into this and made his conclusions that led to his and W strategy regarding this.


3741  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: November 08, 2008, 09:32:00 AM
I assume its Matthews saying he will do everything he can to support and cover for BO "for the good of the country".
Of course when W was President he did everything he could to destroy the President, I assume, "for the good of our country".

Joe Scarborough laughed when Matthews claimed it was "his job" to do this.  "Your job" he asked.  "I thought you are a journalist?"

Matthews was already on MSNBC last night claiming BOs attempt at humor was "really really funny".  I guess he meant the "mutt" comment.
I am not sure if he was claiming BOs Nancy Reagan insult was also funny, because I changed the station.  I thought BOs discussion about the dog was a tangential waste of time.  The cheap shot at NR was just that.  Neither was really really funny but that was Matthews spin at making BO appear to be a raging success.  MSNBC states the USA is already getting dividends from the BO presidency(which by the way hasn't yet started) because Iran congratulated him and Iraq is elated the US will not pull out.

With regards to MSNBC I really don't recall a "MSM" outlet doing everything it can to humiliate and insult people who recently lost an election like they are doing to Palin, McCain, and the losing party in general.

As O'Reilly has pointed out, even any attempt at objective journalist in the USA is past history.  He made an off the cuff comment to Bernie Goldberg that "we are old and almost dead anyway".

I had an elderly patient in her 80s tell me her brother made a similar comment to the effect, "aren't you glad we are on the way out with what is going on today?."

Anyway I digress.

3742  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for Reps/Conservatives on: November 07, 2008, 03:53:28 PM
Doug,
Thanks for the thoughtful take.  I am happy to leave Coulter out of it.  I used to like her but she has lost me.

As for Reagan it is hard to keep him out of it when many conservative journalists, some of them posted here, keep bringing up his name as though he can come back from the dead to save the R party.

I would like to leave him in his rightful place in history within the pantheon of party greats  but move on in a forward not backward direction.

As for your point about the immigration thing there is probably a small *majority* of Americans (not only those on the "far right") who want the illegal immigration flood stopped.  And I agree with this stance.  I want to dispose of old laws that make it ok for people to come here illegally and utilize our hospitals to have babies who are thus legal citizens automatically.  Or for those who come here be able to bring 12 or what is it 18 relatives over to live here.  I bet more than 50% of Americans would still agree with this. 

But!!!  I question if it is not *too late* for this because the voting power of the immigrants and particularly the Latino immigrants is now so huge they can make or break national candidates.  Look at California, New Mexico, Colorado, and possibly NY and NJ etc.
These states have huge Latino voters. 

I feel we must be realists.  Some including Rove have felt if we get too strict with the Latinos we "will lose them for generations."
After seeing the Latino voting polls he appears to be right and that was even after W and McCain taking leniency.

Rove was pointing out how Latinos have conservative values with regards to work ethic and family and religion.  While that may be true I see them wanting government sponsored health care and many government programs.  If they loved Repub. ideals so much they would vote for that party.  But many love the big government the Dems offer. 
3743  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The 2008 Presidential Race on: November 07, 2008, 12:36:19 PM
Interesting take from Krauthammer.  He doesn't take the right's rebuke of McCain.  Indded, because McCain tried to please the right wing ideologues by picking Palin he made a devastating choice.
I thought Palin was a good pick but I was wrong.  The lesson - you can't take someone who is not prepared and throw them inot a PResidential race at the last minute.  BO was not experienced but he had years of preparation.  Palin did well considering she was thrown into the fire.  I am inclined to think BO may very well be great. It is the typical senerio wherein the opposition in their wishful thinking will underestimate their nemesis.  And he will have the adoring MSM on his side to spin everything tohis favor.
I can just hear it now - in four years - "Folks you need to re - elect me so we can finish the great work we have started".

From most though not all the right goes right back to its' pettiness, unwillingness to change or compromise.


****The Campaign Autopsy

By Charles Krauthammer

 http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | In my previous life, I witnessed far more difficult postmortems. This one is easy. The patient was fatally stricken on Sept. 15 — caught in the rubble when the roof fell in (at Lehman Brothers, according to the police report) — although he did linger until his final, rather quiet demise on Nov. 4.

In the excitement and decisiveness of Barack Obama's victory, we forget that in the first weeks of September, John McCain was actually ahead. Then Lehman collapsed, and the financial system went off a cliff.

This was not just a meltdown but a panic. For an agonizing few days, there was a collapse of faith in the entire financial system — a run on banks, panicky money-market withdrawals, flights to safety, the impulse to hide one's savings under a mattress.

This did not just have the obvious effect of turning people against the incumbent party, however great or tenuous its responsibility for the crisis. It had the more profound effect of making people seek shelter in government.

After all, if even Goldman Sachs was getting government protection, why not you? And offering the comfort and safety of government is the Democratic Party's vocation. With a Republican White House having partially nationalized the banks and just about everything else, McCain's final anti-Obama maneuver — Joe the Plumber spread-the-wealth charges of socialism — became almost comical.

We don't yet appreciate how unprecedented were the events of September and October. We have never had a full-fledged financial panic in the middle of a presidential campaign. Consider. If the S&P 500 were to close at the end of the year where it did on Election Day, it will have suffered this year its steepest drop since 1937. That is 71 years.

At the same time, the economy had suffered nine consecutive months of job losses. Considering the carnage to both capital and labor (which covers just about everybody), even a Ronald Reagan could not have survived. The fact that John McCain got 46 percent of the electorate when 75 percent said the country was going in the wrong direction is quite remarkable.

However crushing the external events, McCain did make two significant unforced errors. His suspension of the campaign during the economic meltdown was a long shot that not only failed, it created the McCain-the-erratic meme that deeply undermined his huge advantage over Obama in perception of leadership.

The choice of Sarah Palin was also a mistake. I'm talking here about its political effects, not the sideshow psychodrama of feminist rage and elite loathing that had little to do with politics and everything to do with cultural prejudices, resentments and affectations.

Palin was a mistake (" near suicidal," I wrote on the day of her selection) because she completely undercut McCain's principal case against Obama: his inexperience and unreadiness to lead. And her nomination not only intellectually undermined the readiness argument. It also changed the election dynamic by shifting attention, for days on end, to Palin's preparedness, fitness and experience — and away from Obama's.

McCain thought he could steal from Obama the "change" issue by running a Two Mavericks campaign. A fool's errand from the very beginning. It defied logic for the incumbent-party candidate to try to take "change" away from the opposition. Election Day exit polls bore that out with a vengeance. Voters seeking the "change candidate" went 89 to 9 for Obama.

Which is not to say that Obama did not run a brilliant general election campaign. He did. In its tactically perfect minimalism, it was as well conceived and well executed as the electrifying, highflying, magic carpet ride of his primary victory. By the time of his Denver convention, Obama understood that he had to dispense with the magic and make himself kitchen-table real, accessible and, above all, reassuring. He did that. And when the economic tsunami hit, he understood that all he had to do was get out of the way. He did that too.

With him we get a president with the political intelligence of a Bill Clinton harnessed to the steely self-discipline of a Vladimir Putin. (I say this admiringly.) With these qualities, Obama will now bestride the political stage as largely as did Reagan.

But before our old soldier fades away, it is worth acknowledging that McCain ran a valiant race against impossible odds. He will be — he should be — remembered as the most worthy presidential nominee ever to be denied the prize.****

3744  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: November 07, 2008, 10:32:17 AM
Thanks GM.
I meant some if not most Americans.
3745  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for Reps/Conservatives on: November 07, 2008, 10:31:00 AM
***Thanks to the greatest living Republican***

Obviously a mistatement.  I meant RR who is not alive.

And don't get me wrong.  I loved RR.  But lets not blindly put him on a pedestal and idolize his (though ok to idolize the man who is great one) policies as though he had all the answers to the world we live in today.

We need *new* ideas.  Or at least new applications of his ideas with *real* adjustments to the changing world.

We don't need a simple rehash of Reagonics or Reagan's lets let capitalism and free markets roll as though everything will take care of itself.   It obviously doesn't. Yet I certainly lean more towards Reaganomics and away from bomonomics.

We need great thinkers who can adjust what is wrong with Reaganomics and fine tune them.  Not simply declare we need to go back to them blindly and stupidly as though they are the answer to all.  Lets learn from history not cling to it.

I guess my views are not able to be heard.  I would be willing to bet there is a great mass of those who would agree with exactly what I am saying in this country. But all the far right cans are coming out with articles defending the hard themselves and villifying moderates like me. 
3746  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Israel warns of talks with Iran on: November 07, 2008, 10:15:00 AM
***Then Israel warned Obama last night that his claim that he was ready to open talks with Iran could be seen in the Middle East as a sign of weakness.***

Well The US has already been recognized as weak.  Why does anyone think the anti-Israeli crowd is delighted and supportive of BO.
That doesn't mean he will be weak but we will see...

Hopefully all the *liberal* (cough cough - I mean "progressives" wink) Jews who helped BO get elected will also see to it he doesn't sell Israel down the river.  But American Jews will have to continue standing up for Israel.  Because I don't believe that Americans will sad.

We know a McCain-Liberman block wouldn't have let Israel down, but that is now distant footnote worthy history .
3747  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for Reps/Conservatives on: November 07, 2008, 09:38:01 AM
The modern Republican Party has risen above its insecurities to achieve political success. Ronald Reagan, for example, held an unshakably positive vision of American capitalism. He didn't feel a need to qualify the meaning of his conservatism. He understood that big government was cruel and uncaring of individual aspirations. Small government conservatism was, by definition, compassionate -- offering every American a way up to self-determination and economic prosperity.

Do not every single poll out there show the majority of Americans believe the Democrats are better for the economy?

Total deregulation had led us to the savings and loan fiasco (thanks RR!) and now this.

And again I state the RR led us to the immigration mess we are in.

No mention of that from nonobjective RR lovers.

There will be a never ending fight from the wings of the political spectrum yanking America back and forth.

Real compromise and moderation is always torn by these two extremes.

I really feel like there is no place/party for me to go.  I am disgusted by both ends.

I am also disgusted by the rights blaming McCain.  Who in there right mind would not agree that the campaign process is not corrupt and yes controlled by special interest groups?  I can only hear the libertarians scream over this now.

Why we don't even have any clue where BO got his billion dollars from.  Does anyone really think this was from all small donors?

McCain was right about this.  But because the Cans held the fund raising advantage (at least in the past) they threw honesty out the window for party politics.

And McCain did come out for regulating Fanny and Freddie.  So what was he supposed to do let the market confidence completely crash now and not support the government credit ballout?

I don't want all my savings going to zero.

And people like Coulter who of course blame the loss on McCain.  Well who should have been the Can nominee?  Romney?  He has zero charisma.  He would have been wiped even more.  McCain is a great American hero.  Coulter is a great American embarassment.

Why W was the rights candidate in 2000 and 2004!  And W was right to reach out to immigrants and was McCain.  Thanks to the greatest living Republican we are left with that mess.  And they don't vote for RR's party!
That said Latinos sitll voted for crats by over 2 to 1.  Can anyone imagine if Romney was in there?  It would have been 10 to one.

I am now a reluctant member of the Can party.  I simply have no where else to go.  Many of these people don't speak for me.

BTW, I like and respect Dick Armey but I disagree with him and think he is to some extent out of touch.



3748  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Palin phenomenon on: November 06, 2008, 07:50:33 PM
The answer is apparantly yes but... not directly.

According to MSNBC.  Something to the effect she could resign and appoint or be repolaced by the leutenant governor to her position as governor.  Then he could replace Stevens post with her if he resigns or gets removed.
3749  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: November 06, 2008, 07:46:14 PM
I like the one from Jim Manzi (whoever he is).

That is preciesly my position as to where we need to go not just as a party but as a country.

We don't need more Ann Coulter's analysis whose shrill (as usual) discourse from her stonified position on the far right is beyond obnoxious.  I wouldn't bother to post it.  You all know where to go if you want to waste your time as I did reading it.

Her brand of exclusionism is exactly why so many in this country despise Republicans.

3750  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The 2008 Presidential Race on: November 06, 2008, 03:23:05 PM
Crafty,
I must disagree.  Bush seniors approval ratings went from 90%+ofter desert storm to a lot less because he didn't speak to the recession going on while Clinton did.  He just sat back at said a let the market take care of itself.  Meanwhile his poll numbers sank while Clinton's rose.  And to think Clinton who was a big underdog against a known entity with previously sky high approval ratings.

I don't follow your reasoning on McCain.  I think if McCain had run as a stricter conservative he would have lost by even bigger margins.  Romney would have gotten wiped all over the floor IMO.

I don't believe about these polls Hannity sites in *swing* states.
For goodness sakes the entire Northeast as well as the WEst and expanding into the Southwest is turning die hard Democrat.

What are the conservatives talking about? Open their eyes.

I mean I could be wrong but I don't see your conclusions at all.
Pages: 1 ... 73 74 [75] 76 77 ... 84
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!