The Republican Thread

[Balta1701]

DePauw has a poll out showing the Lugar race turning into a 10 point deficit for the Senator. Lugar sounds like he's desperately begging for help.

“Every person in Indiana who wants me to continue, every person wherever they might be at this point, I encourage them to come out,” he said. “Come out immediately, as fast as you can.”

I seriously don't want to believe you guys will get rid of Senator Lugar.

[southsider2k5]

http://news.yahoo.com/real-joe-biden-vs-on...cGFnZQ--;_ylv=3

 

Joe Biden or the Onion. Take the quiz.

[Rex Kickass]

http://news.yahoo.com/real-joe-biden-vs-on...cGFnZQ--;_ylv=3

 

Joe Biden or the Onion. Take the quiz.

 

I got the one about the 1983 Pontiac wrong.

[The Sir]

DePauw has a poll out showing the Lugar race turning into a 10 point deficit for the Senator. Lugar sounds like he's desperately begging for help.

 

I seriously don't want to believe you guys will get rid of Senator Lugar.

 

Of course you want us to keep him around. He's one of you in our clothing.

[Rex Kickass]

Of course you want us to keep him around. He's one of you in our clothing.

I think Dick Lugar is a pretty good man, and adds a breath of moderation to an ever more extreme Republican party. I probably wouldn't vote for him in the General Election, but in this primary I absolutely would (if I still lived in Indiana.) Much as ideological purity can be attractive, we need people on both sides of the aisle who are willing to bend for the sake of making our government work. Lugar has been one of those men - and on the GOP side, they've been in pretty short supply the last few years.

[Balta1701]

I think Dick Lugar is a pretty good man, and adds a breath of moderation to an ever more extreme Republican party. I probably wouldn't vote for him in the General Election, but in this primary I absolutely would (if I still lived in Indiana.) Much as ideological purity can be attractive, we need people on both sides of the aisle who are willing to bend for the sake of making our government work. Lugar has been one of those men - and on the GOP side, they've been in pretty short supply the last few years.

His voting record is extremely conservative, but my admiration for him stems from the fact that he has actually made this country a safer place through his effective work on the Senate Foreign Relations committee. Can't stand any of the dude's major votes, but "Making sure Russian nuclear materials are controlled" is a fairly nice hot button for me.

[Rex Kickass]

His voting record is extremely conservative, but my admiration for him stems from the fact that he has actually made this country a safer place through his effective work on the Senate Foreign Relations committee. Can't stand any of the dude's major votes, but "Making sure Russian nuclear materials are controlled" is a fairly nice hot button for me.

You can have a strong conservative voice in the Senate as long as that voice will do its job as a Senator, like not block everything from passage. Like actually agree to allow votes on nominees. I respect Lugar for his willingness to do what's necessary to keep the government moving - and also for his willingness to do a lot of the foreign policy dirty work too.

[mr_genius]

I respect Lugar for his willingness to do what's necessary to keep the government moving - and also for his willingness to do a lot of the foreign policy dirty work too.

 

I have no respect for Lugar and have contributed to his ousting. Time for him to go.

[Balta1701]

I have no respect for Lugar and have contributed to his ousting. Time for him to go.

Well, I can say that I have a couple of Republican college friends who regularly defend both Lugar and their party, and I'm expecting Tuesday evening I'll get to go to them and say "so, tell me again how the Republican party hasn't gone completely nuts" and they'll have zero reply.

[mr_genius]

Well, I can say that I have a couple of Republican college friends who regularly defend both Lugar and their party, and I'm expecting Tuesday evening I'll get to go to them and say "so, tell me again how the Republican party hasn't gone completely nuts" and they'll have zero reply.

 

oh no!

[Balta1701]

oh no!

Keep in mind, for most of the other seats (i.e. Nevada and Delaware in 2010) I'd be cheering you guys on for doing this, because you're giving us a legit chance to pick up this seat.

[mr_genius]

Keep in mind, for most of the other seats (i.e. Nevada and Delaware in 2010) I'd be cheering you guys on for doing this, because you're giving us a legit chance to pick up this seat.

 

doesn't really matter. if the Republican is as bad as a Democrat who cares. not me.

 

but Democrats don't understand that. They just vote on campaign slogans and logos. They are loyal to brand Democrat. No matter what the brand Democrat politician does after elected, he still has the donkey logo. It's why partisanship is so bad, Democrats have no ethics or policies but they have people that vote for them no matter what. It's all about my team vs yours. Even if your team is proposing things that will negatively effect the country; as long as the politician is brand Democrat they support it.

[The Sir]

I think Dick Lugar is a pretty good man, and adds a breath of moderation to an ever more extreme Republican party. I probably wouldn't vote for him in the General Election, but in this primary I absolutely would (if I still lived in Indiana.) Much as ideological purity can be attractive, we need people on both sides of the aisle who are willing to bend for the sake of making our government work. Lugar has been one of those men - and on the GOP side, they've been in pretty short supply the last few years.

 

Why is the Republican Party ever more extreme? Because we are purging the Olympia Snowes, the Charlie Crists and the Dick Lugars? You talk about needing people on both sides of the aisle who bend...where are the Democrats who do so? Is there anyone in Congress closer to the ideological extreme than, say, Raul Grijalva or Jan Schakowsky? By purging the traitors and the frauds, the GOP is merely moving to be as ideologically pure as your party is.

 

You don't really want both sides to bend. You want Republicans to bend so that liberalism can prevail in a democratic fashion. That's understandable. You want to win. So do I. But don't be surprised when, in our efforts to move the country to the right, we reject politicians who only marginally or, in some cases, don't at all support said efforts.

[Rex Kickass]

Why is the Republican Party ever more extreme? Because we are purging the Olympia Snowes, the Charlie Crists and the Dick Lugars? You talk about needing people on both sides of the aisle who bend...where are the Democrats who do so? Is there anyone in Congress closer to the ideological extreme than, say, Raul Grijalva or Jan Schakowsky? By purging the traitors and the frauds, the GOP is merely moving to be as ideologically pure as your party is.

 

You don't really want both sides to bend. You want Republicans to bend so that liberalism can prevail in a democratic fashion. That's understandable. You want to win. So do I. But don't be surprised when, in our efforts to move the country to the right, we reject politicians who only marginally or, in some cases, don't at all support said efforts.

You really wanna go there?

 

Obamacare was modeled after Romneycare. Last I checked Mitt Romney was a Republican.

The idea for the individual insurance mandate came from Richard Nixon's presidency. Last I checked Richard Nixon was a Republican President.

Why don't you ask what Senator Manchin thinks about Cap and Trade? He's in line with GOP caucus on that issue. Which is funny, because I believe that was originally a GOP proposal as well.

The Obama administration was willing to put Medicare and Social Security on the table to talk about 4 trillion dollars in deficit reduction. Exactly how many Republicans put forward a serious discussion on tax increases?

 

I love how you consistently bring up House back benchers with no real power when you talk about non-compromising Democrats, but you fail to mention Harry Reid. You fail to mention Dianne Feinstein. You fail to mention Ben Nelson. You fail to mention Joe Donnelly. You fail to mention Joe Manchin. You fail to mention Max Baucus, Jim Webb, and Jon Tester. Every single one of them is a pain in the ass for polemics, because they aren't as progressive as many people - myself included - but they serve a purpose. They help our government function.

 

Your Republican in name only has a 100% rating from Right to Life. A 100% rating from the Christian Coalition. A 100% rating from NFIB. That's pretty damn conservative. But he's also sane. He also understands that the best way to oppose things is not always to obstruct every single nomination, although he's helped to obstruct quite a few of them. He understands that many issues of national security, including the securing of loose fissile material should be above partisan politics. But hey, I guess he doesn't fit the mold of today's Republican party. That says a lot for this party, and frankly - it doesn't say a lot that's very good.

[StrangeSox]

I like the "purging the traitors" rhetoric in a post meant to defend against calls of increasing ideological extremism.

 

We need more alan wests in congress!

Edited May 5, 2012 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

Keep in mind, for most of the other seats (i.e. Nevada and Delaware in 2010) I'd be cheering you guys on for doing this, because you're giving us a legit chance to pick up this seat.

 

Donnelly won't beat Mourdock.

[The Sir]

Obamacare was modeled after Romneycare. Last I checked Mitt Romney was a Republican.

The idea for the individual insurance mandate came from Richard Nixon's presidency. Last I checked Richard Nixon was a Republican President.

 

I'd look at these as signs that the Republican Party failed. I am not a Republican. I am a right-wing conservative. That means I generally support Republicans, yes, but my opinions don't simply mirror theirs. I support small, accountable government, and limited intrusion into the lives of citizens. Yes, Obama got the healthcare idea from Romney (Romney would justify it by saying its acceptable at the state level but not the federal one...I personally don't find it justified at either, but whatever), and I don't know the history of the individual mandate, but I'll take your word for it. These still aren't conservative concepts, at least not if we agree on the definition of conservatism as stated above. It's sad to me that the GOP created these liberal concepts. Frankly, the idea that they did so is evidence for my previous point: the Republican Party is the much less ideologically pure one.

 

I love how you consistently bring up House back benchers with no real power when you talk about non-compromising Democrats, but you fail to mention Harry Reid. You fail to mention Dianne Feinstein. You fail to mention Ben Nelson. You fail to mention Joe Donnelly. You fail to mention Joe Manchin. You fail to mention Max Baucus, Jim Webb, and Jon Tester. Every single one of them is a pain in the ass for polemics, because they aren't as progressive as many people - myself included - but they serve a purpose. They help our government function.

 

Fine. Raul Grijalva and Jan Schakowsky are back benchers. How about Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer and Debbie Wasserman Schultz? Those are all Dem leaders who hold pretty solid liberal beliefs, at least as much as Allen West and Marco Rubio hold conservative ones. And why don't you take a look at our leadership? Eric Cantor's pretty damn conservative, and John Boehner is, but less so. But Mitch McConnell? And Dick Lugar (F from the NRA and supporter of the DREAM Act for starters)? Conservative in some issues, wishy washy in others. Not exactly "ideologically pure" or "extreme".

[mr_genius]

What do you guys think about the idea of Huckabee being Romney's VP pick?

[kapkomet]

where's my puke smiley?

 

[mr_genius]

I was checking some data on key swing states and now watching Biden on Meet the Press. It really doesn't look good for Obama.

Edited May 6, 2012 by mr_genius

[Rex Kickass]

Fine. Raul Grijalva and Jan Schakowsky are back benchers. How about Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer and Debbie Wasserman Schultz? Those are all Dem leaders who hold pretty solid liberal beliefs, at least as much as Allen West and Marco Rubio hold conservative ones. And why don't you take a look at our leadership? Eric Cantor's pretty damn conservative, and John Boehner is, but less so. But Mitch McConnell? And Dick Lugar (F from the NRA and supporter of the DREAM Act for starters)? Conservative in some issues, wishy washy in others. Not exactly "ideologically pure" or "extreme".

 

John Boehner and Eric Cantor are in a pissing match and are controlled by their back bench at the moment. Case in point: we very nearly went bankrupt as a country because the John Boehner led Congress blocked passage of an increase in the debt limit to pay for the very things that the Republican Congress voted to pay for in the months previous.

 

The NRA chose not to support Dick Lugar because he voted to require gun manufacturers to provide trigger locks on new weapons and because he voted to require back ground checks on gun sales. And because he took his role to "advise and consent" on Supreme Court justices seriously, instead of choosing to say no because his party said so. That's how he got an F.

 

 

[The Sir]

John Boehner and Eric Cantor are in a pissing match and are controlled by their back bench at the moment. Case in point: we very nearly went bankrupt as a country because the John Boehner led Congress blocked passage of an increase in the debt limit to pay for the very things that the Republican Congress voted to pay for in the months previous.

 

Yeah, we nearly went broke because of the debt ceiling fight, and not because we've spent the last 40 years spending money on asinine s***. Like $16 trillion to the War on Poverty that didn't eliminate poverty. Keep telling yourself that.

[kapkomet]

Yeah, we nearly went broke because of the debt ceiling fight, and not because we've spent the last 40 years spending money on asinine s***. Like $16 trillion to the War on Poverty that didn't eliminate poverty. Keep telling yourself that.

 

No. no.... no.... we didn't tax (the rich) enough. It has nothing to do with spending. Keep telling yourself that.

 

There's no place like home.

 

There's no place like home.

 

There's no place like home...

[StrangeSox]

Using that logic, we better end the War on Terror and the War on Drugs, too!

[southsider2k5]

Using that logic, we better end the War on Terror and the War on Drugs, too!

 

Because the original purpose of the federal government wasn't national security or anything.