The Republican Thread

[mr_genius]

Yeah, wow...taking the good policies and ideas of past presidents and somehow making it relevant to todays world. He isn't douchey, he's the first one who has a staff smart enough to do it.

 

after Romney wins, you are really going to like what we write on those biographies.

[StrangeSox]

after Romney wins, you are really going to like what we write on those biographies.

He won't know what he wrote, but he'll stand by it.

[mr_genius]

He won't know what he wrote, but he'll stand by it.

 

uh ok.

[southsider2k5]

after Romney wins, you are really going to like what we write on those biographies.

 

Romney won't win. He has no chance.

[kapkomet]

Romney won't win. He has no chance.

 

 

I agree. He's going to get bubba pounded and not know what happened the morning after the election.

 

Then our country is going to get bubba pounded and not know what happened.

[southsider2k5]

I agree. He's going to get bubba pounded and not know what happened the morning after the election.

 

Then our country is going to get bubba pounded and not know what happened.

 

It has already started. He is on the defensive all of the time. Anytime someone tries to shift it back to Obama, they get savaged in the media.

[mr_genius]

Romney won't win. He has no chance.

 

well, i don't agree with that. it should be very close.

[southsider2k5]

well, i don't agree with that. it should be very close.

 

Not a chance.

[bigruss]

Not trying to upset people in this thread but looking for some insight from some conservatives to help answer a question that's been bugging me.

 

So my dad and I have been talking some politics and some stories came up between the two of us:

 

1) A high school teacher of mine, who was highly conservative and made in fun of liberals all the time during class (actually really liked her) and she made it a point to give her conservative position to what was mostly a liberal high school. But when the teacher's union threatened to go on strike to keep or raise health benefits (can't remember which) she was fully supportive for the union and advocated for them plenty. Now, wouldn't a staunch conservative be against unions?

 

2) My dad's sister had a neighbor that would hang out at my aunt's place for super bowl parties and the such, and he always was talking up conservative points and made it a point that he was strongly conservative, and especially knocked government help programs. But when he started losing his house he applied for federal aid. Wouldn't someone who didn't believe in these programs not use them?

 

Im not trying to be a dick about this, I'm just starting to think that too many people knock too many government programs or departments just because it doesn't pertain to them at that moment, but once it does then they are all for it. It's just hypocritical. I completely understand thinking that government is wasteful, and not the magic solution to all the world's problems, but these kind of people just make me shake my head.

[BigSqwert]

Im not trying to be a dick about this, I'm just starting to think that too many people knock too many government programs or departments just because it doesn't pertain to them at that moment, but once it does then they are all for it. It's just hypocritical. I completely understand thinking that government is wasteful, and not the magic solution to all the world's problems, but these kind of people just make me shake my head.

 

See:

[mr_genius]

Not trying to upset people in this thread but looking for some insight from some conservatives to help answer a question that's been bugging me.

 

So my dad and I have been talking some politics and some stories came up between the two of us:

 

1) A high school teacher of mine, who was highly conservative and made in fun of liberals all the time during class (actually really liked her) and she made it a point to give her conservative position to what was mostly a liberal high school. But when the teacher's union threatened to go on strike to keep or raise health benefits (can't remember which) she was fully supportive for the union and advocated for them plenty. Now, wouldn't a staunch conservative be against unions?

 

2) My dad's sister had a neighbor that would hang out at my aunt's place for super bowl parties and the such, and he always was talking up conservative points and made it a point that he was strongly conservative, and especially knocked government help programs. But when he started losing his house he applied for federal aid. Wouldn't someone who didn't believe in these programs not use them?

 

Im not trying to be a dick about this, I'm just starting to think that too many people knock too many government programs or departments just because it doesn't pertain to them at that moment, but once it does then they are all for it. It's just hypocritical. I completely understand thinking that government is wasteful, and not the magic solution to all the world's problems, but these kind of people just make me shake my head.

 

same thing as liberals that want to raise taxes, but are epic tax cheats themselves. you will have people that don't practice what the preach, per say.

 

but anyways, there isn't anything necessarily "non-conservative" about being in a union or using a government program you are forced to pay for with taxes.

Edited May 21, 2012 by mr_genius

[southsider2k5]

same thing as liberals that want to raise taxes on, but are epic tax cheats themselves. you will have people that don't practice what the preach, per say.

 

but anyways, there isn't anything "non-conservative" about being in a union or using a government program you are forced to pay for with taxes.

 

Such as Warren Buffet getting a tax law named after him, but fighting taxes with BRK.

[mr_genius]

See:

 

haha

[bigruss]

same thing as liberals that want to raise taxes, but are epic tax cheats themselves. you will have people that don't practice what the preach, per say.

 

but anyways, there isn't anything necessarily "non-conservative" about being in a union or using a government program you are forced to pay for with taxes.

Oh I know it goes both ways, it's just sad so many people say one thing and berate others for doing that thing then go ahead and do it themselves.

 

Isn't advocating for unions about as liberal as you can get? I mean it's completely anti big business and limits the free market.

 

In regards to the paying for that program already defense, many times these people I have met berate those that use the programs, they call them freeloaders, etc. Yet when it comes to their turn to use it they gladly do.

[StrangeSox]

FWIW libertarians typically aren't fans of unions but they aren't fans against right-to-work states, either, because it's statist intervention to limit the free-contracting ability of workers and capital.

[cabiness42]

Not trying to upset people in this thread but looking for some insight from some conservatives to help answer a question that's been bugging me.

 

So my dad and I have been talking some politics and some stories came up between the two of us:

 

1) A high school teacher of mine, who was highly conservative and made in fun of liberals all the time during class (actually really liked her) and she made it a point to give her conservative position to what was mostly a liberal high school. But when the teacher's union threatened to go on strike to keep or raise health benefits (can't remember which) she was fully supportive for the union and advocated for them plenty. Now, wouldn't a staunch conservative be against unions?

 

2) My dad's sister had a neighbor that would hang out at my aunt's place for super bowl parties and the such, and he always was talking up conservative points and made it a point that he was strongly conservative, and especially knocked government help programs. But when he started losing his house he applied for federal aid. Wouldn't someone who didn't believe in these programs not use them?

 

Im not trying to be a dick about this, I'm just starting to think that too many people knock too many government programs or departments just because it doesn't pertain to them at that moment, but once it does then they are all for it. It's just hypocritical. I completely understand thinking that government is wasteful, and not the magic solution to all the world's problems, but these kind of people just make me shake my head.

 

I think people from both parties are a bit hypocritical when it comes applying the rules to themselves, partly because it's human nature to be selfish and partly because the vast majority of people are quoting talking points from FoxNews/Rush Limbaugh or NYTimes/MSNBC and don't really understand what they are saying.

 

Specific to situation 1), I was a public school teacher for a year, and I refused to join the union because a good chunk of the union's money goes to supporting pro-choice political candidates. There was no threat of a strike at my school, but had there been one I would have refused to participate.

 

[cabiness42]

Isn't advocating for unions about as liberal as you can get? I mean it's completely anti big business and limits the free market.

 

I guess it depends on what you mean by 'advocating for unions'.

 

In the public sector, I think unions are a terrible idea because the employer (government) has no real bargaining power with regards to the employees, since they are required by law to provide their service and the people footing the bill (taxpayers) have no real way to reign in the union.

 

In the private sector, companies have to weigh profits against employee satisfaction and morale, and so long as government regulations don't tilt the playing field too far in either direction, the economics of the situation create a natural balance between the two sides.

[HuskyCaucasian]

See:

Maybe I misunderstood the argument, but isnt food stamps and welfare the definition of someone being helped?

[BigSqwert]

Maybe I misunderstood the argument, but isnt food stamps and welfare the definition of someone being helped?

Yes. He is a boob.

[southsider2k5]

The Senate race getting some real attention. Marco Rubio is appearing with Mourdock in Merrillville for a fund raiser, and Harry Reid is hosting a fund raiser for Donnelly in Washington DC.

[StrangeSox]

Both sides think its vulnerable?

[Balta1701]

Both sides think its vulnerable?

Yes. That was known the moment Lugar lost.

 

Polling from just after the primary has it at 40/40.

[mr_genius]

Yes. That was known the moment Lugar lost.

 

Polling from just after the primary has it at 40/40.

 

good. i hope the Dems put a bunch of resources into it.

[Texsox]

. San Diego, California (CNN) -- In Texas, where voters will go to the polls on Tuesday, politics can be brutal.

 

Case in point: the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. It's rough and dirty and personal. And, whether it ends Tuesday or continues on to a run-off on July 28, it could blow up all the bridges that Republicans in Texas built over the years to Hispanic voters.

 

This is because, in the 11th hour, the primary went down a muddy road. That is, if you think that accusing a candidate with a Spanish surname of favoring "amnesty" for illegal immigrants -- with no evidence to back it up -- is hitting below the belt because it raises questions about divided loyalties and feeds into the perception that all Hispanics favor open borders and unlimited immigration.

 

Ruben Navarrette Jr.No kidding. There are those Americans who are convinced that Hispanics are working behind lines to help Mexico reclaim the Southwest in an elaborate "reconquista."

 

I remember the reader who, sweet as you please, wrote to tell me: "I think most people who read your columns understand that you're pro-Mexican invasion because you're Mexican."

 

U.S. Senate candidate Ted Cruz is not Mexican. Nor is he Mexican-American. He is Cuban-American. And a funny thing happened to him on his way to Washington.After months of campaigning as a generic, run-of-the-mill, appeal-to-the-base Republican, Cruz was hit by a negative radio ad put up by a super PAC that supports his opponent, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst. The spot claimed that Cruz supports giving the undocumented a pathway to earned legal status ("amnesty" in right-wing parlance) as evidenced by the fact that he sits on the advisory boards of two business groups that support that view.

 

The ad charges: "Cruz helps run two national organizations that have been leading the push to give amnesty to illegal immigrants."

 

That sounds awfully thin. I've known Cruz for about 10 years, and I couldn't tell you what his immigration views are. I do know that, during this campaign, he has lurched to the right in order to snuggle up to the tea party and that he said during one interview that he "categorically opposes amnesty."

 

But what does that mean, anyway? According to polls, most Americans oppose amnesty. The concept is all about getting something for nothing. Most of the immigration proposals being bandied about in Washington offer something in exchange for something else.

 

For me, the bigger issue is why this accusation was leveled at Cruz in the first place, let alone in the closing days of the GOP primary, when he couldn't do much to respond. It's not like the former Texas solicitor general and graduate of Harvard Law School is considered soft on illegal immigration by any means. Rather, he is pro enforcement with a capital "p."

 

In fact, while serving as the state's chief litigator, Cruz took on the George W. Bush administration, the World Court, and 90 foreign nations who challenged Texas' right to execute an illegal immigrant who had raped and murdered two teenagers in the state -- and he won.

 

So why target Cruz with this kind of slimy attack? The only explanation is that someone at the pro-Dewhurst super PAC cynically thought an accusation of being "pro-amnesty" would be especially explosive aimed at a Hispanic candidate because it feeds into existing prejudices.

 

That might well be, but this is short-term thinking. I doubt that the strategist thought about the effect an ad like this is likely to have on any Hispanics who might be considering voting Republican. It makes it less likely.

 

That's what makes this story so perplexing. This is Texas, after all, where Republicans can't figure out whether they want to reach out to Latino voters -- or repel them.

 

In one camp, you have Republicans like George W Bush, who achieved historic inroads with Hispanic voters both as governor and president and fought members of his own party to open the debate on immigration reform, and Rick Perry, who signed a law allowing undocumented students to pay in-state tuition at public colleges and universities and defended that decision on the national stage while running for president.

 

In the other camp, you have the folks behind this ad, which could well include Dewhurst, who hasn't disavowed the spot.

 

Republicans aren't unified, either on immigration policy or on the need to attract Hispanic voters. And they're not doing themselves any favors with lame stunts like this. They only wind up portraying themselves as unfriendly and unwelcoming. Whereas the GOP was once described as a big tent, today the party is more like a private club. And there is a guard at the door.

 

That's true in Texas, but it's also true across the country. Republicans have to figure out -- and fast -- whether they see Hispanics as a foil or as their future. If they want to survive in a country that is becoming more Hispanic by the day, they had better choose the latter.

[EvilMonkey]

There are those Americans who are convinced that Hispanics are working behind lines to help Mexico reclaim the Southwest in an elaborate "reconquista."

When that is one of the stated goals of LaRaza, and when LaRaza continues to gain mainstream acceptance and positive news in the media, you can see where some people just might get that idea.