Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and John Kerry (D-MA) recently penned a New York Times op-ed entitled “Yes We Can (Pass Climate Legislation).” In the article, the two Senators make a strong case for bipartisan legislation that tackles both climate change and energy security. They tout a new framework for bridging the partisan gap that has stymied climate legislation in the past.
This rare display of constructive bipartisanship has breathed new life into efforts to pass climate change legislation this year and dramatically changed the tone of the debate.
Suddenly, Democrats are uncharacteristically open to nuclear energy and additional offshore oil drilling.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) called the Graham/Kerry effort “encouraging” and added, “As a supporter of increased nuclear and domestic energy production, I think there is receptivity in the House to additional discussion on these issues.”
Environment and Public Works Committee chair Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who previously voted against a climate bill because it promoted nuclear energy, now appears willing to have a robust nuclear provision in her own climate bill.
On the Republican side, Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH)—a leader in the effort earlier this year to brand the House climate bill a “cap-and-tax” proposal—said the Graham/Kerry effort “could be a major step forward,” and Senators Murkowski, Corker, Collins, Isakson and McCain also offered positive comments.
This collaboration has also won Senator Graham praise in his home state from both the environmental and the business communities. Environmental groups called it a “game changer.” Otis Rawl , executive director of the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce, agreed that Graham’s effort to find legislative compromise “is in the best interest of business.”
These results show the impact that a bit of political courage can have in our increasingly polarized political environment.
Senator Graham has chosen to step forward and help solve real problems facing our nation at a time when too many Republicans are content to busy themselves with political gamesmanship, or pander to the tea-party crowd.
Graham’s bipartisan approach on climate change and energy security should also be a winner with voters. Polling has consistently shown that a majority of voters want action to reduce carbon emissions, less dependence on foreign sources of energy, and more bipartisan effort to solve the nation’s problems.
A poll conducted in Illinois earlier this year by Republican pollster Whit Ayres found that three-fourths of voters believe Republicans should work with Democrats to craft a bill to cut carbon emissions. That number included 54 percent of Republicans and 73 percent of Independents.
A nationwide Zogby poll in August found that 71 percent of voters indicated support for the climate bill passed by the House in June, including 45 percent of Republicans. Since it is safe to assume the respondents did not actually read the bill, the poll is simply another indicator that addressing climate change enjoys broad public support.
With public sentiment favoring more comity in Congress and action to address climate change, opposing climate legislation is not the best way for Republicans to distinguish themselves from the Democrats. A better approach is to work constructively to produce a bipartisan climate bill that is better than one crafted solely by Democrats—then point out how the GOP improved the outcome.
This constructive approach will pay more dividends on Election Day than one rooted primarily in denial and demagoguery.
Senator Graham understands this. He recognizes the value of problem-solving over gridlock and of statesmanship over partisanship. In short, he is adhering to the old McCain campaign slogan: “Country First.”
Of course none of this will matter to the loudest voices on the right who are blinded by partisanship and a radicalized world view. Senator Graham will now become the target du jour of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, as does any Republican with the audacity to seek bipartisan solutions to our current problems.
For the sake of our nation, our party and our planet, other Republican Senators need to ignore the voices of polarization and roll up their sleeves like Senator Graham.
When asked about the prospect of addressing climate change and giving Obama a victory Graham said:
I think CO2 emissions are damaging the environment and this dependence on foreign oil is a natural disaster in the making. Let’s do something about it. I’d like to solve a problem, and if it’s on President Obama’s watch, it doesn’t bother me one bit if it makes the country better off.
I’ll vote for that.
140 responses so far
1 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 19, 2009 at 11:22 pm
This guy defines pandering as doing what the people that elected you want you to do.
This article is the perfect example is why NewMajority will never have any influence.
He puts down the conservative base and people who go to tea parties.
He approves of Lindsey Graham, one of the most unpopular Republicans, “reaching out” and supporting far Left environmental legislation like cap and tax that the far left John Kerry supports.
This guy sees “Country First” as whatever the hell liberal Democrats want. I’m of the opinion that Graham needs to resign and run for election as a Democrat. I don’t think you need to worry about Graham “pandering” to the people he is supposed to represent…..he’s been flipping off conservatives his entire career.
2 rbottoms // Oct 20, 2009 at 2:55 am
Moose & Squirrel 2012.
It’s going to be wonderfully fun to watch.
3 joedee1969 // Oct 20, 2009 at 6:27 am
The guy defines generational debt if you ask me:
http://americaspeaksink.com/2009/10/baby-boomers-the-virus/
4 Stewardship // Oct 20, 2009 at 9:04 am
Senator Graham profoundly understands the difference between politics and governing. In the end, voters will flock to a candidate who exhibits the ability to govern.
Generational debt is an interesting way to define climate protection legislation. There is a cost to dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. No generation has properly paid that cost–they keep punting it down field to future generations. It is no different than enormous budget deficits. Neither piling up the national debt or overloading the atmosphere with carbon emissions is conservative.
5 MI-GOPer // Oct 20, 2009 at 9:21 am
Graham, like McCain and Bush and many, many others before him, are destined to repeat the past mistakes of calculating the impact of the far Right and conservatives on enviromental issues or immigration reform or education reform.
The lesson is that BEFORE you extend an olive branch to the other side of the aisle –and we’ll skip the lecture about who you extend that olive branch to (Kerry? ugh)– is that you have something tangible, concrete and, at the very least, an “understanding of the minds” on some enviromental issue that conservatives want to move forward on to balance the appearance of movement toward the left. And those two items move lock-step, tie-barred forward or the concensus is destroyed on both issues.
Like, in this case, having Graham and Kerry (still ugh) announce the effort to move forward on carbon emission reduction plus energy independence by lessening restrictions on in-country natural gas harvesting, off shore oil drilling, low sulfur coal extraction, new nuke permitting, logging on natl land, etc.
To do as you suggest, Mr Jenkins, is to fail in learning the recent lessons of Pragmatic Politics 101 >get something for YOUR side to offset any perception of a tilt toward the Left.
Conservatives shouldn’t be discounted on this point anymore than Mr Graham’s effort at bridging the partisan divide on carbon emission reductions. The crime is not having something for OUR side in the bargain of ideas. The crime rests in miscalculating the reasonableness of the Right to accept carbon emission reductions in exchange for something they want on enviromental/energy policy.
6 Derek // Oct 20, 2009 at 9:23 am
I hate to break it to you but bipartisanship is dead, at least for now. The right is trying to purify their party by driving moderates out in a kind of cleansing ritual. The Left doesn’t have much love for moderates either. However, the Democrats are still courting them, and seem intent on trying to build a tent where moderates and the Left can coexist. Graham is showing some courage here but he is in a band of 1 or 2 people.
7 sinz54 // Oct 20, 2009 at 9:27 am
mi-goper:
The GOP base is not “reasonable” on the carbon emission issue.
It is an article of faith among nearly all of them that anthropogenic global warming is not happening. (cf. Redstate.com) And hence there is no need for carbon emission reduction.
Any Republicans who want to work on carbon emission reduction–even if it includes support for nuclear power and natural gas and nuclear fusion research as I would like to see–are going to end up bucking their own party’s base. Lindsey Graham is being slammed daily on Redstate.com for even daring to suggest that anthropogenic global warming is a real phenomenon.
But polls show that America’s youth are very much pro-science and accept anthropogenic global warming as real. The Republican party is going to lose the next generation of voters, if it keeps pandering to its Deep South base.
8 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 20, 2009 at 9:59 am
“Generational debt is an interesting way to define climate protection legislation. There is a cost to dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. No generation has properly paid that cost–they keep punting it down field to future generations. It is no different than enormous budget deficits. Neither piling up the national debt or overloading the atmosphere with carbon emissions is conservative.”
This is a strawdog. There is no cost to dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. There is no global warming occuring…..you can’t keep denying the global cooling trend if you want people to take you seriously. If the GOP wanted to jump on the global warming bandwagon, they should have done back in the 1990’s. It’s absurd to do so now.
9 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 20, 2009 at 10:01 am
Nearly everybody in South Carolina, Graham’s state, already supports nuclear power. There are four nuclear power plants in the state, and Duke Energy wants to build another one. Most of you leftwingers have opposed nuclear power for years…..you finally coming around on it bcause of your delusional belief that CO2 is some threat to humanity.
10 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 20, 2009 at 10:04 am
The fact of the matter is Democrats dont’ need bipartisan ship…Republicans can’t stop them…Democrats have absolute power right now. This is just another strawdog.
Liberals like the author of this tread define bipartishap as Republicans, whose job is to represent the people that elect them, caving in to the liberal Democrat agenda. Graham was not elected to advance Democratic causes…he was elected to represent his voters.
11 MI-GOPer // Oct 20, 2009 at 10:07 am
sinz54, thanks for that especially dire outlook on the reasonableness of the Right to accept carbon emission reductions IF they get something on the enviro/energy policy that they really want.
Slamming away at the Right won’t help advance the debate, although it might soothe your partisan passions. I’d rather keep the focus on why Mr Graham’s approach is wrong and doomed to failure because he violated the most recent lesson of Pragmatic Politics… get something YOUR side wants if you give them something THEIR side wants.
Kind of like Obama unilaterally ending the eastern Europe Defense Shield implacements and getting zip in return from the Russians. Stupid on his part; stupid for Graham to do the same on carbon emission reductions.
I get it that you’ll never grant the Right any quarter of “reasonableness”. For you it’s quite clear that the debate on the science of global warming is finished… as is the debate over whether or not to act decisively. But where Mr Graham erred was in not securing meaningful, tangible, tie-barred policy change that conservatives might embrace in exchange for giving Left Democrats some of what they want on carbon emission reductions.
Your position and seeming “monopoly on the truth” on this issue puts you in the same partisan, passionately unreasonable spot that you think far Right global deniers are located… you’re both part of the problem, not part of the solution.
12 MI-GOPer // Oct 20, 2009 at 10:18 am
C-I writes: “The fact of the matter is Democrats dont’ need bipartisan ship…Republicans can’t stop them…Democrats have absolute power right now. This is just another strawdog”.
C-I, you sure like using the word strawdog… is some group paying you for each time you use to seemingly discredit someone else’s opinion? BTW, it ain’t working.
Republicans don’t have to stop anything. Republicans need only to keep driving down Democrat favorables and outlining where Democrats have “dangerously incompetent” ideas… like with advancing new taxes on gas, heating oil, manufacturing, assembly facilities, etc. Like with the Public Option. Like with more deficit spending on a new Stimulus Spending Spree bill. Like with losing the Wars that Bush was winning.
Keep the strawmen for your front porch at Halloween, ok?
13 ottovbvs // Oct 20, 2009 at 10:19 am
…….More boilerplate from the usual right wing kamikazis………..the NO men…….the problem for Republicans is that these folks are essentially in control of the GOP……..CI is off the wall but he’s right about one thing and that’s the relative inflence of people like Frum, Brooks, et al and blogs like this. They have zero influence with the movement conservatives who are calling the shots and have ridden the Republican party off into an electoral canyon although they are in complete denial about it.
………..David Frum’s problem (and that of all the other “enlightened” conservatives) is he wants to have it both ways……….He points up the dangers of letting drummers like Beck and Limbaugh, or obvious nonentities like Palin, be the face of the GOP. He even occasionally recognizes that Obama may have made some shrewd moves (eg. backloading the stimulus spending) but most of the time he joins in the kneejerk standard boilerplate about Nobels, Olympic Games, Obama as weakling, Israel can do no wrong, etc etc………The consequence of all this at these folks are perceived as traitors on the right and erratic or opportunist on the left………David did delineate the GOP’s predicament very well a few months back when he said the party is in the grip of a fever which is a well nigh perfect metaphor………until the fever breaks he’s wasting his time really…….since the fever breaking is clearly going to take a long time and will only come from electoral marginalization, probably as long as we would have to be in Afghanistan to make it work, he and the rest of his group are going to have to decide whether they revert back to extreme movement conservatism which is where they came from in the first place or tack hard for the center and embrace what are essentially moderate center right ideas which don’t look too different from conservative Democratic ideas.
……….This dilemma for some of the conservative intelligentsia (along with Graham’s fairly brave apostasy on climate change) is just one symptom of the fracturing of the GOP that is currently taking place. Btw just in case the kamikazi’s think this apostasy is limited to politicians they should take a look at what’s happening at the Chamber of Commerce (one of the GOP’s traditional paymasters) and the same phenomenon can be observed in the healthcare industry debate. Similarly the desire of movement conservatives to “purge” the party of RINO’s etc. It’s a process that has to be gone through. Although essentially a Keynesian in economic outlook there’s no doubt that there are aspects of conservative economic theory that have merit and one of these is Schumpeter’s creative destruction theorem which ironically applies with massive force to today’s Republican party.
14 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 20, 2009 at 10:27 am
mi-goper.
Why do you want to dictate what word I choose to use in a debate? It’s like you want to ration the word strawdog. I’ll use any word as much as I want.
I have discredited this guy’s opinion. You can bitch about it if you want.
15 MI-GOPer // Oct 20, 2009 at 10:27 am
ottvbvs writes: “More boilerplate from the usual right wing kamikazis”.
Nope otto, I think you’re projecting a wee bit more with that opening line than you might have intended because your entire comment is nothing more than garden variety boilerplate drivel anyone can read at DailyKos any day of the week on just about any issue.
Otto-the-Projector, wow.
16 ottovbvs // Oct 20, 2009 at 10:29 am
mi-goper // Oct 20, 2009 at 10:18 am
“Republicans don’t have to stop anything. Republicans need only to keep driving down Democrat favorables and outlining where Democrats have “dangerously incompetent” ideas… like with advancing new taxes on gas, heating oil, manufacturing, assembly facilities, etc. Like with the Public Option. Like with more deficit spending on a new Stimulus Spending Spree bill. Like with losing the Wars that Bush was winning.”
………..The movement conservative’s worldview……….when ignorance is bliss, wisdom is folly……as someone who thinks the Republican party needs to go through a period of creative destruction before revival is even a possibility I can only say more power to your elbow mi-goper
17 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 20, 2009 at 10:30 am
Why does this otto hack keep lecturing Repubilcans on what they need to do? He voted for Obama…he’s a leftwinger. I’m not lecturing Democrats on what they should support.
18 sinz54 // Oct 20, 2009 at 10:33 am
mi-goper:
It is finished, as far as virtually all the scientific and climatological societies of all the Western nations are concerned.
Anthropogenic global warming is now a proven scientific fact. Period.
The rear-guard action being fought against this fact, is strikingly reminiscent of the rear-guard action fought against the hole in the ozone layer in the 1990s, and even the connection between smoking and cancer in 1960s and 1970s. It’s just as wrong, and it’s just as corrupt, being heavily funded by those industries that stand to lose the most from the theory being true.
Dr. Roy Spencer, one of the VERY FEW climatologists disputing global warming, also disputes Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. That’s an example of the caliber of the very few dissenters who are constantly cherry-picked by the Right-wing to reinforce their own preconceived notions.
19 MI-GOPer // Oct 20, 2009 at 10:33 am
C-I inquires: “Why do you want to dictate what word I choose to use in a debate? It’s like you want to ration the word strawdog. I’ll use any word as much as I want.”
I’m trying to point out to you that you’re dismissal of the argument isn’t compelling or convincing. First, it isn’t a strawman or strawdog or strawhyena for that matter. Second, you wrote that the Democrats don’t need bipartisanship… you’re wrong.
On an issue like carbon emission reductions, they will need a bipartisan platform to move forward. I think they’ll need the same platform to move forward on other issues, as well. It isn’t a strawman, strawdog or strawhyena… it’s just not true. Period.
20 MI-GOPer // Oct 20, 2009 at 10:34 am
sinz54, welcome to the same spot on the continuum we find global deniers. You deserve them.
21 MI-GOPer // Oct 20, 2009 at 10:37 am
otto-the-projector: “when ignorance is bliss, wisdom is folly”. You and sinz54 need to find a private booth and have lunch. Yeow! Shudder.
22 sinz54 // Oct 20, 2009 at 10:39 am
mi-goper:
The bill that Graham and Kerry are working on, would provide for nuclear power. Any climate change bill that has a remote chance of getting some Republicans on board will have to emphasize energy production.
But as I keep telling you, those Republicans are going to be slammed as RINOs and traitors and sellouts anyway. Because the GOP base is just like our very own “conservative-intellectual”–they’ve accepted as axiomatic that anthropogenic global warming is not happening.
The problem is NOT with the Republicans in Congress. They will make sure that a climate change bill provides for energy production.
The problem is with a GOP base that takes its direction–even on scientific issues like global warming and Darwin’s Theory of Evolution–from talk-show hosts and base favorites like Sarah Palin with a demonstrated ignorance of such complex issues.
If 99.5% of all the world’s climatologists say global warming is real, but Rush Limbaugh says it is not, the GOP base is going to believe Limbaugh and not the scientists. THAT is the problem, right there.
23 sinz54 // Oct 20, 2009 at 10:47 am
conservative-intellectual:
OK, how about me?
I voted for: Nixon, Ford, Reagan twice, Bush 41 twice, and Bush 43 twice.
I now live in Massachusetts, where I voted for Bill Weld and Mitt Romney.
That should be enough to establish my bona fides as a supporter of Republican candidates–when they’re better than their Dem opponents.
So why am I so disgusted with the current GOP?
And do you think I’m alone in this?
The reason I’m disgusted with the current GOP, is that someone with my center-right views is no longer welcome in it. The GOP is being driven to the hard right, as the few remaining RINOs are purged.
I don’t want to be part of a hard-right party whose center of gravity is in the Deep South. I want to be part of a CENTER-RIGHT party with a vibrant presence in the Northeast. Because I live there.
And a Republican candidate with your views couldn’t get elected in Massachusetts. Bill Weld got elected Governor. But he’s further to the left than almost all the Republicans in Congress today.
So what’s your plan? Write off the Northeast and shrink the GOP back to a regional party of the South and Mountain States? In that case, you’ve written ME off, because I live in the Northeast and I have no intention whatsoever of moving to Mississippi.
Now you understand why I’m disgusted with the current GOP?
24 ottovbvs // Oct 20, 2009 at 10:51 am
conservative-intellectual // Oct 20, 2009 at 10:30 am
“Why does this otto hack keep lecturing Repubilcans on what they need to do?”
……….I know you skipped the comprehension classes but I’m not lecturing anyone on what they should do…….just describing a process that is taking place and the dilemmas it creates for some people like Frum…….an “engineer” should be able to to discern the difference between process and proposals (of which I advanced none!)……..As it happens I think the die is almost certainly cast……..nothing can really stop the sequence of events that are going to unfold within the Republican party because the institutional forces and fissiparious interest groups that have been created are too powerful, there is no unifying leader remotely on the horizon to stop the process and heed the societal changes in America have been building for years……when you get beyond the weeds and media non fixtion script writing, and look at the GOP strategically they are in dire trouble.
25 balconesfault // Oct 20, 2009 at 10:53 am
I don’t want to be part of a hard-right party whose center of gravity is in the Deep South.
There’s a reason why Lynyrd Skynyrd has been the house band for the Republican Party in recent years, Sinz…
Southern Man don’t need him around, anyhow…
They’re speaking to you, as well as Neil
26 ottovbvs // Oct 20, 2009 at 10:54 am
mi-goper // Oct 20, 2009 at 10:37 am
“otto-the-projector: “when ignorance is bliss, wisdom is folly”. You and sinz54 need to find a private booth and have lunch. Yeow! Shudder.”
……..The current movement conservative’s idea of analysis…….is it any wonder they are in trouble……they’ve simply lost the capacity to think.
27 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 20, 2009 at 10:57 am
On an issue like carbon emission reductions, they will need a bipartisan platform to move forward. I think they’ll need the same platform to move forward on other issues, as well. It isn’t a strawman, strawdog or strawhyena… it’s just not true. Period.
They dont’ need a bipartisanship platform. Republicans don’t have the votes to stop them. You are putting forth a strawman. Period.
It is ignorant to assert otherwise. You dont’ know what you are talking about
28 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 20, 2009 at 11:00 am
The problem with otto is that he apparently does not see all the opposition to Obama’s policies…..majority of American oppose Obama’s government run healthcare attempt, and Obama’s been sliding in the polls big time. He keeps putting down conservatives, but the REpublicans are poised to win a whole pile of seats in 2010, and if the economy doesn’t get turned around soon, Obama will be defeated in 2012 no matter who the GOP candidate is. Obama is losing the precious indepedents and moderates because they had no idea how far left this guy is when they voted for him. .
29 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 20, 2009 at 11:02 am
Lynyrd Skynyrd was calling out Neil Young for stereotyping southern people as racists, something liberal Democrats continue to do today. This is a major reason why Gore and Kerry could not win one state in the South….liberals constantly put down people in the South, which is funny, given the fact that so many Northerners have moved down to the south. The demographics of the South has changed a lot since the 1960’s.
30 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 20, 2009 at 11:05 am
Sinz, that’s fine if you dont’ want to be party of a conservative Republican party. You do need to accept that you hold a small minority view among Republicans on most every issue, and if you don’t like that, vote for the Democrats or another party. I personally think you have never voted REpublican in your life…you are just a smarmy little guy that knows Republicans can’t win if they go Democrat-lite. McCain proves this to be the case.
31 sinz54 // Oct 20, 2009 at 11:08 am
This was just published in “Science,” the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science:
If this is verified by other scientists, it would mean that there is now as much CO2 in our atmosphere as there was 15 million years ago!
15 million years ago, there were almost no polar ice caps, Antarctica was forested, sea levels were much higher–and the climate was a lot warmer. Rhinoceroses roamed North America. And what we now call Florida was completely submerged. South America, cut off from North America by rising sea levels that had submerged Central America, was a giant island like Australia is today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Neogene-MioceneGlobal.jpg
Do you really want to take a chance on going back to that scenario?
32 balconesfault // Oct 20, 2009 at 11:11 am
majority of American oppose Obama’s government run healthcare attempt
Please refer me to the poll where a majority of Americans oppose the option for the public to be able to buy into a Medicare-like government run insurance plan.
The demographics of the South has changed a lot since the 1960’s.
Yes indeed. And you’ll note that with Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida all voting for Obama in 2008, the South is also getting smaller.
33 balconesfault // Oct 20, 2009 at 11:14 am
Do you really want to take a chance on going back to that scenario?
To a certain extent, denialists have a point – the earth will do what the earth will do.
The danger to us is the rate of change that’s being artificially induced by human beings pumping CO2 into the atmosphere as fast as we can. That rate of change is the thing that will be extremely difficult to deal with in the coming decades, as huge concurrent population migrations take place not over a number of generations – but will be taking place within a single generation.
34 anniemargret // Oct 20, 2009 at 11:17 am
The new WaPo-ABC poll out yesterday shows a clear majority, 57% support a public option. The same polls showed only 20% identified themselves as Republicans.
Sinz: I think you have guts. The party is no longer able to centralize themselves. I am a left of center Democrat who visits this site because I think center right and center left Americans can learn something from each other and also effect change. Change for the common good, change to make America better.
From some of the bloggers here, and just listening to the majority of Republicans who write into the local papers, or on radio, TV, Net, etc…. I get the feeling that they are not really that interested in ‘winning.’ They are more interested in tearing down President Obama, no matter what he does or doesn’t do, even if that means it hurts the nation at large. There is something radically sick about people who want this to happen. They also prefer a ‘war’ with Democrats, liberals, even individuals like myself, people in and around the center on most issues, than finding a solution for their party on the national stage.
I have never thought it was good to have either party in total control of power. It is best to have some push-pull in politics and it is always best for America when there is such a thing as ‘bipartisanship’ which requires adults, not adolescents.
My hat is off for Lindsey Graham. He is more of a patriot than a party partisan, and that’s a good thing, from my perspective.
I am OK with nuclear power plants, as long as they come under strict standards in case of terrorist bombings… I am also an advocate for other sources of energy, and support T. Boone Pickens in his efforts to use natural gas and green energy to get us away from the petro-dictators.
35 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 20, 2009 at 11:17 am
“Please refer me to the poll where a majority of Americans oppose the option for the public to be able to buy into a Medicare-like government run insurance plan.”
Almost every poll that I’ve seen. You need to cite any respected poll that shows a majority of Americans support it. If the American people wanted healthcare, Obama would have it passed by now. It’s a significant number of Democrats that are standing in the way. Republicans don’t have the votes to stop it.
Obama squeaked out wins in Virginia and NC despite minorities en bloc voting for him. His poll numbers in boths states are in the toilet right now, and a Republican is leading the Democrat by 10 points in the polls in the governorship race. Obama is not even campaigning for him and Virginia is his back yard. I think Virginia and NC flip back to Republicans in 2012, and most likely Florida and Ohio.
36 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 20, 2009 at 11:19 am
“The new WaPo-ABC poll out yesterday shows a clear majority, 57% support a public option. The same polls showed only 20% identified themselves as Republicans. ”
If the same poll that shows 57% support a public option with only 20% identifying as Republicans, that is not a legit poll…..it oversampled Democrats to get the result it wanted. Every legit poll that I’ve seen has it about 57% against government run healthcare.
37 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 20, 2009 at 11:20 am
“South is also getting smaller.”
The South is booming….tons of people moving to the South…..new growth everywhere. You dont’ know jack about the South so stop running off at the mouth about it.
38 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 20, 2009 at 11:22 am
Global cooling trend since 1998 despite CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere. Record cold temperatures last two years. Even NY Times and BBC are asking, Where Has the Global Warming Gone? You have no explanation, so you resort to just mindless repetition that ignores this reality.
39 balconesfault // Oct 20, 2009 at 11:58 am
CI: Every legit poll that I’ve seen has it about 57% against government run healthcare.
Pony up, big boy. Show us your cards.
I add the following to the WaPo poll Annie referred to, knowing that CI will likely be as impervious to this data as he is to any data which contradicts what he inherently knows to be true.
http://www.pollingreport.com/health.htm
Ipsos/McClatchy Poll conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs. Oct. 1-5, 2009. N=1,296 adults nationwide. MoE ± 2.7.
“One of the points being debated is whether or not the government should create a public health insurance plan as an alternative to private insurance plans. Which of the following is closest to your opinion? It is necessary to create a public health insurance plan to make sure that all Americans have access to quality health care. Access to quality health care for all Americans can be achieved without having to create a public health insurance plan.”
Public Plan Is Necessary 54%
Public Plan Is Not Necessary 42%
Quinnipiac University Poll. Sept. 29-Oct. 5, 2009. N=2,630 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 1.9
“Do you support or oppose giving people the option of being covered by a government health insurance plan that would compete with private plans?”
Support 61%
Oppose 34%
Pew Research Center Poll. Sept. 30-Oct. 4, 2009. N=1,500 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).
“Now I’d like to ask you about some of the specific proposals being considered to address health care. Would you favor or oppose [see below]?”
“A government health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans”
Support 55%
Oppose 38%
NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). Sept. 17-20, 2009. N=1,005 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1 (for all adults).
“And thinking about one aspect of the debate on health care legislation — In any health care proposal, how important do you feel it is to give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance: extremely important, quite important, not that important, or not at all important?” Half sample (Form A), MoE ± 4.4
Extremely Important 48%
Quite Important 25%
Not That Important 8%
Not at All Important 15%
40 balconesfault // Oct 20, 2009 at 11:58 am
You dont’ know jack about the South so stop running off at the mouth about it.
I’ll bet I live farther south than you do.
41 balconesfault // Oct 20, 2009 at 11:59 am
Record cold temperatures last two years.
Says the man who trusts George Will and Jeff Jacoby over NASA when it comes to climate science.
42 Reason60 // Oct 20, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Again, this points to the ever shrinking conservative universe.
As a Reagan/ Bush I/ Dole voter I am horrified watching the GOP mimic the trajectory of the Democrats circa 1972, being taken over by the most fevered incoherent radicals.
All parties have an authoritarian wing. The Dems had the Weathermen, the New Left who overtook the New Dealers after the 1968 convention. There is in both parties a segment that insists on ideological purity, a Stalinist rigidity of loyalty and groupthink, and sees everything through the prism of political advantage rather than reason and compromise.
Usually these wings are subordinated to the majority, kept around to be agitated during election cycles, but never given the levers of power. The party purges that are going on now would be familiar to readers of Animal Farm. Lindsey Graham is not “wrong” in their book- he is a traitor, an evil backstabber who must be purged.
Is this hyperbolic? I don’t think so. The Carville report on the Tea Party crowd hit the nail on the head; what motivates the Tea Party is anger, fear, resentment, and the cultish faith that they alone have access to secret knowledge that there is a Communist coup occuring, and anyone outside the cult is a fellow-traveler or dupe. They have their own science,which demonstrates Intelligent Design and Global Cooling, they have their own economists who demonstrate the superiority of Supply Side policies, and so on; There is no logic that can penetrate the bubble.
I honestly think the GOP is splitting into at least two factions, and I doubt they will be able to reconcile. Given that the Tea Party is only capable- in fact, only WANTS- to appeal to older white Christians, it is headed for the fate of the Whigs.
43 djenkins // Oct 20, 2009 at 12:12 pm
“CI” surely you can recognize the difference between climate and weather. If you look at the warming trend over 100 years, you will see ocassional multi-year dips even though the long-term trend is continuing. That is because weather patterns can create factors that temporarily trump the trend. For example, a cold front that creates a record low of 5 degrees might seem to contradict the warming trend, but you have no way of knowing if that record low would have been 5 below absent the warming trend.
Since you are so willing to dismiss the findings of climate experts, I wonder if you are equally prone to ignoring the warnings of your doctor? What evidence would it take for you to change your mind on this and believe the scientists?
44 ottovbvs // Oct 20, 2009 at 12:23 pm
conservative-intellectual // Oct 20, 2009 at 11:00 am
” The problem with otto is that he apparently does not see all the opposition to Obama’s policies”
……..The problem is you can’t see the wood for the trees……As I’ve pointed out to you several times if you look at the Pollster averages which I always use because they contain the good, the bad and the ugly, Obama’s appro is at the same level 54.6% as it was when he was elected, Republican id is at levels last seen when FDR was president….. Democratic congressional approval is only in the low forties but
it’s about six points ahead of Republican congressional approval……. and on all the broad major issues on voters minds like managing the economy, healthcare reform, managing Afghanistan, etc Obama is trusted ahead of the GOP by 10-25 points…….most of these narrow issue polls you mention are utterly worthless as anyone with any knowledge of market research knows and I’d say that even if they produce results favorable to Obama…….you may think Obama has opposition but it pales into insignificance by comparison with that faced by the Republicans.
“If the same poll that shows 57% support a public option with only 20% identifying as Republicans, that is not a legit poll”
…………….Do you really have to tell us how little you know all the time……I’m not familiar with that poll but conceptually that’s how polls work……in simplistic terms if there’s only 20% Republican national id that’s how many they poll
“The South is booming….tons of people moving to the South…..new growth everywhere. You dont’ know jack about the South so stop running off at the mouth about it.
…….I had a house in the south for many years so I know exactly how it works…….it certainly isn’t booming any more than the rest of the country is………over the past forty years there has been a lot of movement of manufacturing industry into the region but conversely traditional industries like textiles or furniture making have collapsed…….in overall terms it remains a Federal pensioner……Texas, and possibly Florida, are the only southern states who not net beneficiaries of federal dollars…..In other words Sinz (and myself) are subsidizing govt aid for your state CI if you’re not in Texas or Florida
45 sinz54 // Oct 20, 2009 at 12:25 pm
djenkins:
With non-scientists, I have found that their rejection of certain scientific theories has little to do with the scientific evidence. You can present mountains of scientific evidence and it won’t matter.
Because what’s REALLY bothering them isn’t whether the theory is right–it’s the implications for society, America, and themselves if the theory is right.
What’s REALLY bothering conservatives like “conservative-intellectual” and RedState.com is that IF anthropogenic global warming is real, and America has to undertake draconian cuts in CO2 emissions, America’s economy and way of life might be wrecked.
America is not Europe. Honolulu is 5,000 miles from Maine. The American way of life is built around suburbia and mobility; 70% of our energy needs go for transportation. And neither they nor I want to return to the Carterite “solution” of driving 55 mph, turning down our thermostats, wearing cardigan sweaters, turning off our lights, and shivering in the dark. Nor will we accept the GreenPeace solution of abandoning suburbia and going back to living on small family farms.
So I think what is needed is NOT more scientific evidence about global warming. It’s a plan to cut CO2 emissions in a way that does NOT sacrifice our economy, or standard of living, or way of life. And to me, that can only be done with nuclear power. Currently, less than 1% of our energy comes from solar or wind. Even if that were to triple over the next 10 years, it would still be a drop in the bucket.
For the long run (50-100 years), the most viable solution is space-based solar power–the so-called “PowerSats.” A constellation of PowerSats in Earth orbit would supply massive solar power 24×7.
46 ottovbvs // Oct 20, 2009 at 12:30 pm
djenkins // Oct 20, 2009 at 12:12 pm
“CI” surely you can recognize the difference between climate and weather.”
……….I rather doubt it….. he doesn’t discern the difference between process and remedies…….and thinks evolution an umproven theory.
47 sinz54 // Oct 20, 2009 at 12:35 pm
anniemargaret:
I agree!
I would like to see nuclear power plants constructed in relatively UNPOPULATED areas, so that a terrorist attack on a nuclear plant would cause little collateral damage. Together with an upgraded electric grid, perhaps using superconductors, to transmit that power efficiently anywhere with little insertion loss.
Here in Massachusetts where I live, we’ve already got buses running on natural gas.
BTW: you are right about the “petro-dictators” too. Last year, Ahmedinijad’s own economists told him that a military strike on Iran by either the U.S. and/or Israel, leading to a wider war, would send oil prices as high as $300 a barrel or more (which would destroy the American economy). Hence Ahmedinijad regards all the posturing by Israel and America as a bluff.
48 ottovbvs // Oct 20, 2009 at 12:38 pm
reason60 // Oct 20, 2009 at 12:03 pm
“The Carville report on the Tea Party crowd hit the nail on the head; what motivates the Tea Party is anger, fear, resentment, and the cultish faith ”
……….I published a link to this a couple of days ago…….CI, mi goper and others here are exhibit A for it’s accuracy……if this isn’t causing the Republican leadership and strategists to wet their pants I don’t know what will…..the problem is a large part of the Republican leadership share these views because they are the dominant outlook in the party…….this is a partythat is fracturing and while one can never say, never, I see nothing that is going to stop this process from continuing…….as of now it’s ineluctable…….like a Hardy novel
49 sinz54 // Oct 20, 2009 at 12:40 pm
ottovbs:
He’s not alone:
50 ottovbvs // Oct 20, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Sinz:
“Hence Ahmedinijad regards all the posturing by Israel and America as a bluff.”
………of course it’s bluff…….it always was bluff……even Bush wasn’t stupid enough to participate in or sanction an Israeli attack on Iran……it’s only these nitwits who believe it
………and for once I agree with you about nuclear power…..it’s an essential part of the mix
……….and on a social note whatever happened to Mr Stage Directions (snuffle, snap, crackle, and pop)…..can’t even remember his name
51 balconesfault // Oct 20, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Here in Massachusetts where I live, we’ve already got buses running on natural gas.
You want to see REALLY cutting edge busses? Ultracapacitor busses
This is what “conservatism” has brought us t0 – cutting edge wind turbine technology was developed in Spain and Denmark. Cutting edge hybrid vehicle technology was developed in Japan. Cutting edge energy storage technology is being developed in China. We’re finding it progressive to be a generation behind, licensing technology developed elsewhere.
52 anniemargret // Oct 20, 2009 at 12:48 pm
The only other concern I have about an all out nuclear power as the answer is that it requires waste-dumping. With non-nuclear sources, such as wind and solar, there is not waste to leave for future generations to clean up. Ultimately, it is not ‘clean.’ And that is always a problem with nuclear.
And of course, there is always a possibility of a meltdown, especially since global terrorists have already raised the possibility of bombing reactors. I do agree most nuclear sites are well protected and are efficient, but I think a ‘can-do’ attitude on the part of industry can make this nuclear/green energy scenario a viable alternative to what is happening now. There is such a thing as peak oil, and as we get nearer the center of it, there will be more wars for it. I for one do not want my children and future grandchildren fighting for oil, if there are other alternatives available, except for those that are so ‘fossilized’ they can’t think past the status quo.
Sinz: “Currently, less than 1% of our energy comes from solar or wind or hydro. Even if that were to triple over the next 10 years, it would still be a drop in the bucket.”
China is moving ahead, acknowledging that it is an ambitious project, given the size of the country, and its overwhelming need for energy:
http://www.ecoworld.com/fuels/chinas-renewable-energy.html
To me, this just signifies even more that the U.S. not only has the capacity, but we be the leader of the free world in this effort.
53 ottovbvs // Oct 20, 2009 at 12:53 pm
sinz54 // Oct 20, 2009 at 12:40 pm
“Republicans: 30% believe in evolution, 68% do not”
……….Interesting how these numbers gibe with the 70% of the GOP that Carville says is “movement conservative” and buys into all the paranoia and misinformation. I read Carville’s report and the Republican leadership like McConnell and co should be in a state of shock……Steele wouldn’t get it…….I’ve come to conclusion old pros like McConnell have decided to hunker down, go through the motions and hope the storm passes fairly quickly…….they know the train is heading down the track and they can’t do much about it so just hang onto the perks until retirement or better times come.
54 balconesfault // Oct 20, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Sinz: BTW: you are right about the “petro-dictators” too. Last year, Ahmedinijad’s own economists told him that a military strike on Iran by either the U.S. and/or Israel, leading to a wider war, would send oil prices as high as $300 a barrel or more
I don’t remember which pundit said it … but years ago I remember someone commenting that George Bush’s biggest failure as a President may well have been not coming out right after 9/11 and declaring that America’s security was intertwined with us reducing our consumption of oil – and asking Americans to conserve and to support funding of alternatives. He had America in his palm, he could have asked for anything, and Americans willingness to sacrifice and desire to do something at that time was so strong that we could have made a decades worth of progress in a couple years.
Instead … we had a call to spend, and small business tax credits for Hummers. More than anything, that decision … or lack of a decision … by Bush made it a sure thing that any future attempts to reduce oil consumption would largely be a partisan battle. And that’s where we are today, with much of the Republican Party opposing any move towards reducing oil dependence on a combination of ideological grounds (opposition to government involvement in the economy), strategic grounds (big Oil has been a very reliable contributor to the Republican coffers), and just plain contrarian grounds (if Democrats support it, it is necessary to oppose it).
55 balconesfault // Oct 20, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Sinz: “Currently, less than 1% of our energy comes from solar or wind or hydro. Even if that were to triple over the next 10 years, it would still be a drop in the bucket.”
The working DOE plan right now is 20% wind energy nationwide by 2030.
http://www.20percentwind.org
56 anniemargret // Oct 20, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Sinz: I wrote before I read your response, and I agree. I have nothing against nuclear reactors, other than my concerns above. Surely a methodology that would include nuclear reactors being built away from populated areas as you suggest, would be the answer. And….!…. more research and development into ‘green’ ‘clean’ ‘renewable’ energy sources, such as solar, as you suggest, wind and hydro. Picken’s argument for natural gas was good too, as there is a plentiful supply.
The winds of change grind slowly…… or……
The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step (I think it was Confucius?)
Can-Do!
57 anniemargret // Oct 20, 2009 at 12:59 pm
We’ve got thousands of graduates like my middle child, one of my sons who just got his ‘green energy’ builder’s license, for commercial and residential builders and a degree in business. He is thinking about a future in this new industry. We’ve got brainy kids and we are not directing them enough in science and math – we can’t let other countries lead us by the nose in this area.
58 ottovbvs // Oct 20, 2009 at 12:59 pm
balconesfault // Oct 20, 2009 at 12:44 pm
” We’re finding it progressive to be a generation behind, licensing technology developed elsewhere.”
………I’m afraid a lot of chumps just don’t get that there are loads of 21st century technologies that need to be nurtured domestically……..for example in 2050 this country is going ot have about 500 million people…….does anyone think mass transit is NOT going to a major part of the transportation system…….and yet we are way behind the eight ball on this because of fanatical resistance to public transport systems by Republicans and so the major long term beneficiaries will be Siemens, Bombardier, Mitsubishi.
59 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 20, 2009 at 1:03 pm
I have to laugh when some liberal arts major suggests that I’m am anti-science and a non-scientist. I’m a mechanical engineer working on the design of the first nuclear power plant to be built in the United States like 30 years or so (Calvert Cliffs in Maryland). Engineering is the application of science, and you can’t apply science if you dont’ understand it.
The fact of the matter is….most Americans don’t support governmnet run healthcare, or Obama would have passed it by now. You can cherrypick polls all day that agree with your side, but pollsters tend to be Democrats that oversample liberals. I’ve seen numerous polls that show that most Americans oppose it, but I think that is irrelavant….the fact is Obama has a Democrat controlled Congress, and it’s Democrats that have blocked him thus far on this issue because they know there’s not a whole lot of support for a governmnet takeover of the healthcare industry.
There is no proof of cross species evolution. Liberals conflate natural selection and microevolution with macroevolution because they are ignorant. Natural selection can only perserve or eliminate traits that already exists in a creature. Therefore, it follows that natural selection cannot be a mechanism of the orgination of one species from another….natural selection decreases the gene poll…..it does not increase it.
Darwin himself admitted there is no evidence of cross species evolution and he admitted it’s just a theory he “fancies”. That’s not science, my libearl friends, you self annointed Guardians of Science.
60 ottovbvs // Oct 20, 2009 at 1:04 pm
anniemargret // Oct 20, 2009 at 12:57 pm
” The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step (I think it was Confucius?)”
………I’ve always seen it ascribed to Mao…….but he was a Chinese, and a communist, and a poet, so we have absolutely nothing whatever to learn from that man
61 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 20, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Leftwingers have opposed nuclear power, and nothing is more “progressive” and “science” than nuclear power. They oppose nuclear power out of a ignorant irrational fear.
62 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 20, 2009 at 1:06 pm
It’s funny that we know have two Obama officials citing Mao with approval. But Obama isn’t a leftwing radical.
63 ottovbvs // Oct 20, 2009 at 1:14 pm
conservative-intellectual // Oct 20, 2009 at 1:03 pm
“I have to laugh when some liberal arts major suggests that I’m am anti-science and a non-scientist.”
……..You may have an engineering degree but you are also a doctrinaire conservative who denies evolution and tries to muddy the water by taking some tiny bit of the theorem as “proof” it’s innaccurate…….just as you accuse of cherry picking polls when Pollster’s averages are the absolute reverse of cherry picking……then you demonstrate you don’t the first thing about polling practice…….then you demonstrate you don’t know the difference between you don’t know the difference between process and remedy……..I don’t for a moment doubt you’re a very typical representative of the current predominant Republican world view……..You think this has majority electoral appeal……I don’t…….so we’ll see who is right.
64 balconesfault // Oct 20, 2009 at 1:19 pm
I have to laugh when some liberal arts major suggests that I’m am anti-science and a non-scientist.
Care to tell us which liberal arts majors you’re discussing here?
The fact of the matter is….most Americans don’t support governmnet run healthcare, or Obama would have passed it by now.
So is the reason that we don’t have a lot more nuclear reactors in America because Americans don’t support nuclear power?
Clearly, someone is able to understand how the political process works when that understanding suits his bias, but can appear wholly ignorant about how politics works when ignorance is bliss.
I’ve seen numerous polls that show that most Americans oppose it, but I think that is irrelavant
Of course it is – since you can’t cite one.
Therefore, it follows that natural selection cannot be a mechanism of the orgination of one species from another….natural selection decreases the gene poll…..it does not increase it.
Wow – talking about ignorance!
Leftwingers have opposed nuclear power, and nothing is more “progressive” and “science” than nuclear power. They oppose nuclear power out of a ignorant irrational fear.
So you’re good with a definition that anyone who does not oppose nuclear power is not a “leftwinger”?
I’m good with that.
65 ottovbvs // Oct 20, 2009 at 1:20 pm
conservative-intellectual // Oct 20, 2009 at 1:06 pm
“It’s funny that we know have two Obama officials citing Mao with approval. But Obama isn’t a leftwing radical.”
………You’re also obviously unfamiliar with the opinion of General Booth the founder of the Salvation Army who said “Even the devil has some good tunes.”……….I wonder why we used all those German engineers to design our rockets?……….I will say this……. your crassness has entertained me enormously
66 MI-GOPer // Oct 20, 2009 at 1:29 pm
With no offense to the Democrat trolls declaring that they’ve voted GOP in the past –didn’t someone here say they even voted for Nixon through Bush 43? yeah, right– it’s a old play that gets busted fairly quickly. To wit, trying to curry some standing for your “concern” over the plight of the GOP because you are a bona fided GOP-voting person who is just disgusted with the Party now… and then, after that fake-confession, you’re off to the races with typical Daily-Kos HuffPo pronouncements about every issue under the Sun.
Bunk. Utter, flat-out bunk. If you want to convince people here about the validity of your opinions, keep the fake vote records out of your commentaries.
I’m a moderate to progressive GOP activist. I think in my entire life I’ve voted for one, a single, Democrat. That’s it. That’s typical for people who consider themselves Party activists on either side of the aisle… and it’s certainly true for people who engage in the kind of opinion-spinning we find on this site. If you want to declare yourself as Independent here, have at it. It’s equally unconvincing.
But drop the nonsense about “I voted for Geo Bush 43″ –it don’t cut it. Unless you’re the President and away from a joint meeting of Congress where someone will call you on your lies. Or is that your game plan… follow the President’s lead with lots of lies and pledges and promises you HOPE no one will notice you CHANGE?
This isn’t a debate about global change or the need for action. It’s a thread about Mr Graham having failed to learn a lesson of recent political history… when you, a GOPer, is going Left, make sure you get something in the exchange that conservatives will think worthy of the “bargain with the Devil”. A promise to explore expanding nuke power facilities in the US and working on research to solve the toxic waste storage issue isn’t enough of a bone. In fact, Mr Graham’s contention that it’s something special is as hollow as Obama’s promise to bring competition to health insurance by having the federal govt take it over.
And I strongly disagree with the people here (wink wink C-I) who think the GOP Senate or GOP House members “have no power”. If you think that, you don’t know legislative politics and haven’t learned anything about governing from the minority status. We’re in the minority status because of conservatives who thought they had a mandate for life as Reagan’s legacy… nothing could be less true or more apparent. We can gain “majority” status on any bill, any day IF we’re willing to work with moderate and conservative Democrats who have voters pressing them back home to change the culture of corruption and political impasse in DC.
67 anniemargret // Oct 20, 2009 at 1:31 pm
otto: “..” The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step (I think it was Confucius?)”
………I’ve always seen it ascribed to Mao…….but he was a Chinese, and a communist, and a poet, so we have absolutely nothing whatever to learn from that man.”
Hee.
68 MI-GOPer // Oct 20, 2009 at 1:34 pm
balconesfault writes: “So you’re good with a definition that anyone who does not oppose nuclear power is not a “leftwinger”? I’m good with that.”
OK, are we now going to debate how many angels can stand on a pin’s head, pinhead? Drop the kiddie-debate tactics that Daily Kos-sacks train under and try, really really really try to stay on topic. What passes for debate points on the Left has fallen to new lows around here.
69 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 20, 2009 at 1:37 pm
recent Rasmussen Reports poll finds that, despite the bull being peddled by President Obama and his liberal minions on television and at town halls across America, the American people get it:
Thirty-two percent (32%) of voters nationwide favor a single-payer health care system where the federal government provides coverage for everyone. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% are opposed to a single-payer plan.
Fifty-two percent (52%) believe such a system would lead to a lower quality of care while 13% believe care would improve.
70 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 20, 2009 at 1:39 pm
As health care legislation moves out of the Senate Finance Committee, a majority of Americans says they oppose the reforms being considered. A Fox News poll released Thursday finds that by 54 percent to 35 percent, Americans oppose the reforms.
In addition, more Americans disapprove, 50 percent, than approve, 42 percent, of the job President Obama is doing on health care.
Predictably, a 65 percent majority of Democrats favors the legislation, while 86 percent of Republicans oppose it. Independents oppose the reforms by 62 percent to 23 percent.
Furthermore, when asked to choose between the current health care system and the plan proposed by Democrats in Congress, more Americans say they would prefer the current health care system by a 17 percentage point margin — 51 percent to 34 percent.
Many Americans fail to see an upside to the health care reforms. The biggest portion of the public — 40 percent — says the reforms would not make much of a difference to their family. A similar number –36 percent — thinks their family would be worse off under the reforms.
Less than one of five Americans,18 percent, think their family would be better off under the plans being considered. Furthermore, the public does not see reforming health care as the priority right now.
Creating jobs tops the list with 40 percent as the most important issue for the government to be working on, followed by reducing the deficit and government spending, which earned 25 percent.
Thirteen percent say reforming health care is the top issue, and 9 percent say fighting terrorism.
The Senate Finance Committee approved a health care bill on Tuesday, although a vote on a final bill is still considered to be weeks away. The poll was conducted after the committee vote.
71 anniemargret // Oct 20, 2009 at 1:45 pm
I have the highest respect for engineers…I was married to one for almost 20 years. I have the highest respect for anyone who can think outside a box.
It doesn’t matter a whit if you have a degree or not to understand the problems and address the problems that require critical thinking skills coupled with an ability to work with the opposition team. It’s called good gamesmanship and it produces results instead of internal ‘wars.’ My Dad had a high school education, a blue collar federal government worker for 35 years and an autodidactic. And a Republican to boot. But he was not rigid. Never. I learned more from him as a father and a decent family man and I am blessed to say so.
Of course, we ‘trolls’ are just chomping at the bit to cause friction here. If I wanted a pat on the back every time I would stay glued to Kos or Huffpo. I like to read and listen to others with opposing views, as long as simple common courtesy prevails, instead of ad hominem attacks.
72 Reason60 // Oct 20, 2009 at 1:47 pm
I am waiting for the day when I hear Fox News talking about the “So-called Round Ear.th Theory”
What is interesting is the reaction o fthe business community to environmental concerns. I am an architect, and went to GreenBuild, a yearly conference of homebuilders, manufacturers, and designers. The overwhelming majority of the architecture/Engineering/ Construction industry is embracing sustainable design and methods.
These are not Marxists, this isn’t motivated by ideology, but cold pragmatism. I saw everyone from KB Homes, to Dow, to Apple at the conference. As energy costs escalate, buildings are going to be forced by the marketplace to become more efficient- currently 60% of the energy used in America is used by buildings, not cars.
For references, check out the US Green Building Council’s website http://www.usgbc.com
Also, check out The Natural Step http://www.naturalstep.org/ which has as its premise, that the same engineers and scientists who helped create envrionmentally damaging processes, are the ones to engineer solutions to create a prosperous, sustainable, healthier way of living. Note that it has as its emphasis, a business-centered approach.
In other words, it isn’t just about global warming, or cap and trade. The business community is changing, and embracing the view that profit-taking and environmentally sustainable processes are not exclusive.
73 MI-GOPer // Oct 20, 2009 at 1:50 pm
anniemargaret writes: “I’ve always seen it ascribed to Mao…….but he was a Chinese, and a communist, and a poet, so we have absolutely nothing whatever to learn from that man. Hee”
annie, it might be better in the future if you spend some time learning who said what famous sayings you claim drive your life instead of opening your mouth and proving yourself to be the new village idiot.
Chairman Mao tse-Tung was a blood-thirsty, ruthless tyrant whose policies, programs and purges are estimated to have killed between 40-60 million people in his lifetime. My family lost 17 good friends in one of the Chairman’s last purges… each of them was tortured, made to sign fake confessions which were posted in their village markets and their bodies burned without even the decency of a humane burial. Good God, woman.
Be careful who you want to admire or who YOU think we can learn from; Chairman Mao tse-Tung surely isn’t any more one of them than Saddam Hussein or General Pol Pot.
74 anniemargret // Oct 20, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Oh, fer cryin out loud. Now I’m a complete dunce because I quoted a widely used phrase about starting a large project with a ’single step?”
Btw….. the quote is from Confucius…look it up.
I know about Mao and you don’t have to give me a college lecture. As usual you right wingers will flip every trick in the book to ascribe some evil to a casual statement. I was giggling at Otto’s sarcasm… don’t read more into it than that.
Read my quote above; it has to do with striving to get a new renewable energy off the planning stages and into the books so our country continues to stay a ’superpower.’
good grief.
75 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 20, 2009 at 1:56 pm
The consulting firms embracing LEED are doing so because there are clients that want it, and they are willing to pay more for “sustainable design”. Most engineers think it’s nonsense, but we will happily take the treehugger’s money. This is capitalism, not an embrace of global warming.
76 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 20, 2009 at 1:57 pm
WIRE: Higher jobless rates could be new normal…
Welcome to Obama’s America…..where economic failure is the “new normal”.
77 MI-GOPer // Oct 20, 2009 at 1:59 pm
annie writes: “Of course, we ‘trolls’ are just chomping at the bit to cause friction here. If I wanted a pat on the back every time I would stay glued to Kos or Huffpo. I like to read and listen to others with opposing views, as long as simple common courtesy prevails, instead of ad hominem attacks.”
Bzzzt, got ya there ol’ annie girl. One of your Daily Kos pals who posts here, Mr Richard Bottoms, was recently blocked at another moderate-right political blog for exactly what you CLAIM you aren’t here to do… create friction. Troll you are; convicted.
For someone who plays the role of village idiot, you have a strange way of responding once caught in your lies and games of partisan agitation. “Oh no, not me, not me.”
Weren’t you the commenter who slipped just a few threads ago and exposed yourself as being a Chairman Mao disciple… but somehow not knowing what he said or why and confusing him for Confucius? And then you tittered away, like a school girl caught stealing a lunch room cookie, with the nonsense that you don’t know why we can’t all learn from the Chairman?
Now, that might be ok conversation over at the Obama WH these days with all the other Democrat Party hotshot thugs and Chairman Mao worshiping O-bots… but in polite, patriotic society it’s not cool.
78 MI-GOPer // Oct 20, 2009 at 2:07 pm
annie writes: “I know about Mao and you don’t have to give me a college lecture. As usual you right wingers will flip every trick in the book to ascribe some evil to a casual statement. I was giggling at Otto’s sarcasm… don’t read more into it than that.”
Well, annie, you have a strange way of proving that. Clearly you don’t know about Chairman Mao tse-Tung’s despotic rule. You seem to have more than a casual appreciation for things philosophical and Chinese.
I point out that Chairman Mao isn’t some one who any decent person would think to emulate and you say it’s a lecture? Don’t you think that’s a touch sensitive for a professional agitator like you, eh? I think it would be far better if you remained at the Daily-Kos with all your O-bot pals Bashing Bush or Cheney or Rove non-stop. It’d be more productive than coming on here and repeatedly proving you are our new Village Idiot.
79 anniemargret // Oct 20, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Oh…puuuuhhhllease. What utter spill. Not a ‘troll’ – not a ‘communist’ – I’m as red white and blue as you. Not an ‘O-bot’ or any other insult you want to throw around.
I laughed because we should be paying to the ‘Chinese’ who are ahead of us in renewable energy sources….and had nothing to do with communism.
I’m a left of center registered Democrat – take it or leave it.
80 sinz54 // Oct 20, 2009 at 2:25 pm
mi-goper:
Not all dissenters are “trolls.”
I agree that “rbottoms” acts like a troll. He never has anything constructive to offer–not even constructive criticism–and just continues to hurl epithets and chip-on-the-shoulder claims.
But I don’t consider “anniemargaret” to be a troll. Are her views different from those of David Frum? Definitely. But does she try to defend her position with logic and evidence? Yes.
We should not be so afraid of dissenting views that we ban them solely for disagreeing with us. “rbottoms” should be banned, and I’m probably going to complain to the moderator about him at some point. But “anniemargaret,” despite having views that differ from conservatives, has added usefully to our discussions.
81 anniemargret // Oct 20, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Thank you, sinz. I am not a ‘troll.’ I was invited by David Frum to join the discussion after I wrote to him that I thought he had some good ideas. One of the best reasons I would think to invite people with dissenting views here is that you *might* get converts. I don’t see myself voting Republican any time soon but I come from a Republican family and I don’t think all conservatives are wrong on every issue, just like I don’t think liberals are always correct too.
I have already dissented on this blog on a number of topics including supporting Obama’s foray further into the Afghanistan war, which doesn’t exactly mean I’m a ‘O-bot.’
I don’t know anyone on this blog and come to learn, listen and yes, dissent. By all means, debate me on the issues – I sure don’t have all the answers to our country’s problems – and if I am wrong, I think I’m adult enough to admit it.
82 sinz54 // Oct 20, 2009 at 2:32 pm
balconesfault:
It’s a pipe dream.
There’s not a snowball’s chance in hell of reaching that target. Unless you think that liberals are going to be running the entire Federal government for the next 20 years, without interruption.
The moment we get a more conservative Congress than Pelosi would like, or a more conservative White House than you would like, that DoE plan will be trashed.
Because unlike the bipartisan commitment of the 1960s to land a man on the moon in 10 years, there is no bipartisan support for green power.
Anything that takes 20 years to accomplish MUST have buy-in from BOTH political parties. Otherwise it’s worthless.
83 sinz54 // Oct 20, 2009 at 2:41 pm
anniemargaret:
Not really.
Nuclear reprocessing can convert most of that waste into more fuel for reactors. France has been doing reprocessing for years.
Here in America, the Democrat President, Jimmy Carter, unilaterally abandoned reprocessing to try to set a good example for the rest of the world. The only reprocessing plant we ever built, in New York State, was shut down permanently.
Indira Gandhi ignored him and test-fired India’s first nuclear bomb anyway. Carter protested; Gandhi told him to shove it. And after India got the bomb, so did Pakistan, of course. So much for setting a good example.
We can’t restart reprocessing because folks on YOUR side of the political fence, who are hysterically anti-nuclear (they equate nuclear power with nuclear weapons, which is like equating gasoline-powered cars with napalm), keep blocking it.
There needs to be a Grand Bargain here: We conservatives will support reasonable energy conservation measures and green power, but ONLY IF you liberals agree to support nuclear reprocessing using French methods and a new generation of much safer nuclear reactors.
IOW: We’ll stop taking direction from Rush Limbaugh, if you liberals agree to stop taking direction from Greenpeace.
Deal?
84 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 20, 2009 at 2:44 pm
I don’t think some leftwinger like Sinz is any position to say who we listen to (Rush Limbaugh), pro-nuclear power or not. You are only pro-nuclear because you are a global warming nut.
85 balconesfault // Oct 20, 2009 at 3:19 pm
mi-goperbalconesfault writes: “So you’re good with a definition that anyone who does not oppose nuclear power is not a “leftwinger”? I’m good with that.”
OK, are we now going to debate how many angels can stand on a pin’s head, pinhead?
First, name calling is a sign of desperation.
Second, I believe you have quarrel with CI labelling opposition to nuclear power as coming from “leftwingers”. He is the one who immediately painted partisan stripes on the issue. If we’re going to be adults and talk about issues from a respectful point of view, I’m game. It’s why I’m here, and not simply talking to like-minded souls elsewhere.
86 balconesfault // Oct 20, 2009 at 3:24 pm
As health care legislation moves out of the Senate Finance Committee, a majority of Americans says they oppose the reforms being considered. A Fox News poll released Thursday finds that by 54 percent to 35 percent, Americans oppose the reforms.
As I have said before – I consider any poll irrelevant at this point which does not specifically ask whether or not the respondent favors a federally run option akin to Medicare that individuals can buy into . For example – the “reforms” that are coming out of the Senate Finance Committee do not have a public option included – so polling on this is irrelevant to the discussion of the public option. In fact, I know a number of progressives who are opposed to the Senate Finance Committee bill specifically on this ground, and thus would be included in the 54%.
If you want to deny that the public option is popular – bring me a poll which specifically addresses the public option. There are plenty of them to choose from.
87 balconesfault // Oct 20, 2009 at 3:27 pm
CI: The consulting firms embracing LEED are doing so because there are clients that want it, and they are willing to pay more for “sustainable design”. Most engineers think it’s nonsense
As an engineer working in the industry – I respectfully say you are speaking out of your ass here. Perhaps the engineers who associate with you, but certainly there is no evidence whatsoever that “most engineers thing it’s nonsense”.
Perhaps you read that in a Jeff Jacoby article?
88 Reason60 // Oct 20, 2009 at 3:31 pm
@CI in #75:
Yes, you are correct, it IS capitalism. It has been shown conclusively that energy-efficient buildings have lower lifecycle costs of operation and maintenance. My company is building its own office building, and as owners and operators of the building, we are designing it to have natural daylighting, passive heating and cooling, and overall LEED rating.
Despite being radical card-carrying Bolshevik Marxists, we also are investors and profit-takers and insist on having our building be cost and energy efficient.
A good example is the Bank of America building in Manhattan; it was LEED rated, and will provide lower costs and higher investment returns to its owners.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_America_Tower,_New_York_City
As energy and natural resource costs rise, buildings that conserve will become simply the way things are done, nothing more radical than being efficient and thrifty.
89 balconesfault // Oct 20, 2009 at 3:33 pm
sinz: There’s not a snowball’s chance in hell of reaching that target. Unless you think that liberals are going to be running the entire Federal government for the next 20 years, without interruption.
The moment we get a more conservative Congress than Pelosi would like, or a more conservative White House than you would like, that DoE plan will be trashed.
FYI – the 20% wind energy nationwide by 2030 plan was actually developed by Bush’s Department of Energy, as part of Bush’s Advanced Energy Initiative which was announced in 2006.
The sad part is that the Republican Party is locked in denialist and obstructionist mode, and has positioned themselves to lose partisan ground from an issue that they were well positioned to champion and take credit for.
90 sdspringy // Oct 20, 2009 at 4:28 pm
I will attempt to reply to the various “cap & trade”, “climate change” posts.
First the science is NOT settled on climate change. Since the activities on mankind as compared to the entire planet and it’s interaction with the sun are relatively small. The ability to supply links supporting my opinion will not change yours, so please refrain from trying to change mine.
Thus any attempt, especially the feeble “cap & trade” , will provide no reduction in CO2. That science is settled, having been tried and failed in every European country.
If you are trying to promote nuclear energy or domestic sources fine, alls good, and everyone is on board. But to tie that into a tax scheme, it should be fought at every level.
However the so called “green jobs” is a fraud. As conservative, center, center-right, moderates, independents, and even those goofy lefties should realize that federal subsidized jobs are like welfare. And will never be able to succeed.
Your examples of LEED rating support a conservative approach since those design approaches are used at no government subsidized urgings. They are in fact cost based and are able to provide a real cost benefit to the people involved
91 balconesfault // Oct 20, 2009 at 4:34 pm
However the so called “green jobs” is a fraud. As conservative, center, center-right, moderates, independents, and even those goofy lefties should realize that federal subsidized jobs are like welfare.
Well, that at least sounds like traditional conservatism, vis a vis Dwight D. Eisenhower.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. … The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
92 anniemargret // Oct 20, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Sinz: Deal.
If I -or you – had the power to make it so.
I agree Democrats have been far too hysterical about nuclear power since the “China Syndrome” scared everyone to death. I think France is a good example. I think there should be combo of both frankly. No renewable “green” energy solution will happen quickly enough to supply all our needs, so I am perfectly happy to see both. And I have faith in the nuclear engineers to know enough about disposable waste and enough concern about a terrorist attack that I would sleep well at night.
My sole concern was, and still is, backward thinking on this problem. A dependence on foreign oil is not the solution anymore and it will take some major re-thinking and re-shaping of our national psyches on this subject. And that’s a Big Job.
93 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 20, 2009 at 4:43 pm
“As an engineer working in the industry – I respectfully say you are speaking out of your ass here. Perhaps the engineers who associate with you, but certainly there is no evidence whatsoever that “most engineers thing it’s nonsense”.”
Balcone is suddenly an engineer working in the building system design industry, because that is my background.
LEED is something some clients want…makes them feel good…they think they are saving the planet and saving a lot of money, but the reality is they are doing neither. In most cases, they never recover in energy savings the up front cost of a LEED certified building. I’m all about designing things to be energy efficient, but I also think you need to look at the cost vs benefit aspect of things.
94 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 20, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Most oppostition IS from leftwingers…the state of Maryland is doing their best to kill the new nuclear power plant project at Calvert Cliffs, and this is the land of Obamabots.
These leftwingers that think a majority of Americans don’t like their insurance they get through their companeis and want to go on some crappy government plan are smoking something. That defies common sense.
95 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 20, 2009 at 4:58 pm
THE green-building craze sweeping the nation isn’t so much a movement as a highly lucrative regime of payouts and misinformation. You could call it a moral-protection racket.
In fact, “green” buildings don’t even use less electricity.
In less than a decade, the US Green Building Council’s green-rating system, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design,or LEED, has become a dominant force. Whenever you see a plaque on a building claiming it to be green, that’s LEED.
This month, Gov. Paterson signed a bill mandating that all new state construction projects and major renovations conform to LEED-developed standards. In 2005, Mayor Bloomberg approved a bill (allegedly at the insistence of then-City Council Speaker Gifford Miller) imposing LEED on billions of dollars of public projects. The Obama administration is even drawing up a plan to get the White House qualified under LEED.
Overall, LEED regulations are now on the books in 45 states, including more than 100 cities. The USGBC has certified more than 3,000 commercial buildings, with another 25,000 projects in the pipeline.
But here’s the problem: LEED buildings don’t conserve energy. In fact, a LEED study commissioned by the USGBC suggests that certified buildings often use more energy.
Much credit for this discovery goes to a Manhattan building-energy consultant, Henry Gifford, who was the first to blow the whistle on the USGBC’s bogus promises of energy savings.
The USGBC claims LEED buildings are 25 percent to 30 percent more energy efficient, a figure based on a 2007 study it commissioned from the New Buildings Institute. But Gifford figured out that USGBC fudged the study by comparing the me dian energy usage of a LEED sample to the mean (or average) usage of non-LEED buildings. By taking the mean value of both distributions, he found the same data indicated that LEED projects use 29 percent more energy than non-LEED buildings.
No one knows for sure why, but clearly, the group’s energy-modeling tools and arcane point system fail to predict how real-life mechanical systems function and tenants behave. For example, Gifford’s report showed a picture of the Hearst Tower on 57th Street — billed as New York’s first green skyscraper — with its lights blazing at night.
Follow-up reviews of the study have confirmed the inaccuracy of the USGBC’s claims. “There is no justification for USGBC claims that LEED Certified commercial buildings are using significantly less electricity or have significantly lower greenhouse-gas emission associated with their operations than do conventional buildings,” wrote Oberlin College researcher John Scofield in a paper last month.
So why is LEED so popular? Well, it lets politicians cloak themselves in the garb of environmental activism without upsetting real-estate interests. Thus, when city and state lawmakers imposed their sweeping regulations here in New York, they never bothered to check LEED’s claims.
For developers, LEED is a source of tax credits, a potent marketing tool and protection from environmental criticism. It has given rise to a whole new industry of “accredited” consultants — a constituency that’s grown to over 100,000 who get paid to advise developers on how to get their project certified and to assess buildings.
And the program has been good for the “nonprofit” USGBC, which reported a 300 percent growth in revenue from 2005 to 2007. The group rakes in tens of millions of dollars each year from examination and conference fees, member dues and speaking engagements. Many of the same people who developed the USGBC rules make money as private LEED consultants, members say.
But there’s a hefty cost here. While estimates vary, developers and officials say LEED often adds 5 percent or more to project costs — an expense that’s passed on to the tenant or (in the case of public works) to the taxpayer.
Gifford says it’s possible to make buildings efficient cheaply. In the short term, government LEED mandates and subsidies, resistance from the USGBC and a lack of practical expertise make that difficult.
Bottom line: As long as the builders, the designers, the engineers and the tenants have a stronger incentive to appear green than to actually achieve energy efficiency, phony systems such as LEED will dominate.
USGBC says it’s now requiring buildings going forward to report their energy usage — it won’t say what it will do with that data.
Meanwhile, the green industry will keep on patting itself on the back with one hand and pocketing tax dollars with the other.
96 MI-GOPer // Oct 20, 2009 at 5:13 pm
sinz54 offers: “Not all dissenters are “trolls.””
Of course not. And no one said that was the case, but I have to give you props for trying to reduce my point to that silliness. Kind of trollish of you, sinz54.
What’s a troll? It’s a person with political views that are more at home on other sites sticking around sites contrary to their views to bait, goad, agitate, irritate and snark.
rbottoms admitted to all on another site that he did this kind of stuff for “recreation” –like taking a break for a smoke, was his line. annie comes on this thread waggishly misquoting Mao, irritating for no defensible reason, quoting a discredited and facetious poll purportedly showing all Love the Public Option, Hail the Obama!
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/20/wapoabc-poll-uses-skewed-sample-to-show-public-option-support/
You try to dismiss her trollish behavior by tossing another troll under the bus? How very Obama-like of you sinz54.
Sorry, annie and her Chairman Mao tse-Tung quoting days as the tolerated troll are over. She’s earned the Village Idiot hat. Not calling names, just being accurate.
97 MI-GOPer // Oct 20, 2009 at 5:23 pm
C-I, I’m no engineer but I know something about the construction industry and govt programs meant to provide low income affordable housing to seniors and families. I can tell you, without reservation, since our state’s regulatory agency adopted LEED and GoGreen standards of design, we’ve added about 7% onto the cost of every single affordable housing unit built in Michigan. And since those units are funded by a program with finite resources, it’s meant that more money goes to build fewer units.
The standards aren’t all that great and not particularly well-subscribed by residents of those units, either. For instance, when “upgrading” existing non-compliant units, residents are asked if they would support a rent increase of 3% to offset the installation of specifc, post development LEED and GoGreen standards worth $4,500 on average. The answer? In 94% of the cases in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 1st Q… no.
Developers don’t want them either because it means higher construction costs, fewer units built and getting our state agency to “certify” the standards have been met can take 9-11 added days for each of the 14 “visits” for certification.
Yeah, gotta love those enviromentalists cum bureaucrats and “other peoples money”… is there anyone who thinks govt can successfully manage health care insurance?
98 Arch // Oct 20, 2009 at 5:27 pm
What’s a troll? It’s a person with political views that are more at home on other sites sticking around sites contrary to their views to bait, goad, agitate, irritate and snark.
Sounds more like CI (and Escape Velocity) since most of us are here to try to find a way to bring the GOP to more than 20% of the population. Annie has at least engaged in rational debate. CI continues to state polls says such and such but doesn’t provide links, in the face of a handful of links to the contrary. The conservative obstinacy about climate change is going to kill us (politically, not (at least not quickly) literally.)
99 ottovbvs // Oct 20, 2009 at 5:47 pm
…….I see a screaming match broke out at a meeting in NY 23 between a Weekly Standard reporter and the official Republican candidate…….Bill Kristol has issued a statement standing by his man…….this is a party fracturing between the CI’s and Mi gopers who represent a clear majority and the roughly 30% who are a bit more rational and who are typified by Frum…….have at it guys
mi-goper // Oct 20, 2009 at 5:23 pm
……..Given your previous objectivity excuse me if treat your stories with some scepticism
100 spikeytx86 // Oct 20, 2009 at 6:15 pm
“There needs to be a Grand Bargain here: We conservatives will support reasonable energy conservation measures and green power, but ONLY IF you liberals agree to support nuclear reprocessing using French methods and a new generation of much safer nuclear reactors.”
That is a grand bargain I can get behind!
I live in Texas. We could easily get 80% of our energy from nuke plants, and have the plants in mostly unpopulated areas. We could easily get the other 20% of energy from Wind and Solar.
Since most of the energy consumption in our state is in a Triangle from DFW down 35 to Austin and San Antonio and east over to Houston, the plants could be set hundreds of miles west in the desolate West-Central portion of the state.
101 spikeytx86 // Oct 20, 2009 at 6:16 pm
anniemargret!
I have only been posting here a few days after “lurking” for a while but I have very much enjoyed debating you!
Keep on keeping on!
102 anniemargret // Oct 20, 2009 at 6:23 pm
mi-groper: I apologize to you and everyone here if I was misunderstood. I was not supporting Mao or any other monstrous dictator. It was a knee-jerk and silly, I see now, of what I thought was support for the ‘Chinese’ – given I had just made several arguments about how China was developing and ahead with renewable energy sources.
I assure you I am no ‘professional agitator’ but just a little nobody who is at the worst, a political junkie. I read everything and everyone because I like to hear what people have to say. I won’t apologize, however, for being a left of center Democrat, and if you had been reading enough my posts here, you would understand that my love for this country equals yours – I just have some differing opinions.
I especially liked to visit Frum’s site because I found much of the bloggers here intelligent and thoughtful on the issues, despite my disagreement with them, although I have agreed at times as well. If you read anything more on this, you are dead wrong.
I’m getting the feeling I’m disinvited. If so, so be it. If you wish to believe I’m your enemy there is nothing I can do about that, nor if you insist on my views here being under some nefarious ‘troll’ heading that just ain’t so. But I can’t keep defending myself either. This is a conversative blog to hash out your differences, and rightly so, I guess us liberals ought not join in.
Best!
103 MI-GOPer // Oct 20, 2009 at 6:45 pm
I’m not sure what you’re smoking these days, otto-the-projector, but it must be some pretty awesome stuff for you to believe even 1/2 of what you write here… I know how you dislike facts, but there you go. Now, you could say, like other trolls here, “please provide us a citation for your claims or we get to dismiss them as non-extant”. The problem is, we don’t care much what you think… like with annie, when you resort to silliness and get nailed for it, step back and apologize. After growing to appreciate the untenable nature of her silliness in ascribing “learned status” to Chairman Mao, she recanted. It was an untenable, inhumane, terribly indecent position and –unlike a number of current and ex-czars in ObamaLand– annie got out of Dodge, albeit indelicately.
You’ve got that problem that lots of far Left trolls have… you take the Daily Kos speaking points, repackage them and touch ‘em up with your leftward spin, then try reselling them as your ideas on pro-GOP sites… it’s a tired, old game you and others here play.
I’m a moderate-to-progressive Republican, otto-the-projector. Posting comments on a moderate to liberal site. You’re a far Left troll, like rbottoms, here to irritate… and take delight in getting a rise from those you think it is your right and obligation to prick.
It’s really quite simple once one understands the inferiority complex that drives your base pathological and anti-social behavior. That you don’t like it, doesn’t much matter.
104 MI-GOPer // Oct 20, 2009 at 6:52 pm
arch offers: “Sounds more like CI (and Escape Velocity) since most of us are here to try to find a way to bring the GOP to more than 20% of the population”.
I’m thinking you think that we all think you’re being sincere in your concern over the plight of the GOP, arch? But the trollish line that gives you away is “find a way to bring the GOP to more than 20% of the population”.
Really? 20% is it now? Try something on the order reality because your most convincing argument, ie you’re concerned about the plight of the GOP, took a nosedive into the shallow end of the pool with that “fact” stratight from from Left Field, DNC HdQtrs.
Gosh, you guys can’t even do “troll” well –although you do have Village Idiot down pat.
105 ottovbvs // Oct 20, 2009 at 7:28 pm
mi-goper // Oct 20, 2009 at 6:45 pm
…….Mao tse Tung…..a guy that founded a nation that is now rapidly challenging the US……what of we got to learn from this jerk
………It’s because I know you are so representative of mainstream Republican opinion these days, although you describe yourself as moderate, I know that this is a party that is well on the road to being marginalized as a southern, rural, mormon corridor entity…….there’s going to a bit a bit of a civil war first of course……it’s already breaking out as is reported elsewhere on this blog……..but it’s inevitable……in the meantime give us all the playground college Republican stuff you like…..it’s awfully juvenile but occasionally amusing ……and that 20% Republican ID? take a look at the pollster average not to mention the WAPO’S poll yesterday……sure I can see you REALLY believe in facts.
106 spikeytx86 // Oct 20, 2009 at 7:35 pm
anniemargret!
Just ignore guys looking for a flame war. If someone has nothing constructive to say to you just skip over their posts!
107 anniemargret // Oct 20, 2009 at 7:44 pm
spikey! Thanks, but it is time for me to ‘get out of Dodge”. My husband keeps asking me why I post here since I’m a liberal on a conservative blog, and I told him I was just masochistic.
All kidding aside, I truly am sorry for offending, when I didn’t mean to, and Mi-Goper was correct that making such a gaffe was very hurtful. I am not a typically offensive person, but what can I say other than apologize?
The problem with blogs of course is that people are always in a one-upmanship mode and it’s easy to make gaffes, or say something you wish you didn’t say.
All in all, though, I am not sure I am contributing a whole lot other than to make others upset or angry. I do think it is probably not right that a liberal should be ‘lurking’ (I’m out in the open though!) on conservative blogs when they are not conservative.
One thing I will leave with though…and that is this is a good blog. Precisely because you are all addressing the issues. One of the primary reasons I found this intellectually stimulating is that ‘partisan’ sites such as redstate, kos, huffpo, etc…. tend to pat each other on the back…too much. It’s healthy to hear differing opinions, I think.
That said…. I’m getting out of Dodge. I sincerely apologize for any stupid gaffes I’ve made here in the past months, I have no desire to see our country continuing to be overly fractured with partisan politics.
I wish you all the best! (spikey- the south is beautiful. I am a transplanted New Yorker living in NC- gorgeous state, wonderful people – I work with a Texan – we spar all day long! )
108 ottovbvs // Oct 20, 2009 at 7:50 pm
…….For mi goper and the factually challenged
“Morning Fix: A premature celebration for the GOP
Republicans in Washington can barely contain their glee at the turn of President Obama’s political fortunes in the first nine months of the year but a new Washington Post/ABC News poll suggests the GOP still faces serious perception problems in the eyes of the American public.
Less than one in five voters (19 percent) expressed confidence in Republicans’ ability to make the right decisions for America’s future while a whopping 79 percent lacked that confidence.
Among independent voters, who went heavily for Obama in 2008 and congressional Democrats in 2006, the numbers for Republicans on the confidence questions were even more worse. Just 17 percent of independents expressed confidence in Republicans’ ability to make the right decision while 83 percent said they did not have that confidence.
(While Obama’s numbers on the confidence question weren’t amazing — 49 percent confident/50 percent not confident — they were far stronger than those for Republicans.)
On the generic ballot question, 51 percent of the sample said they would cast a vote for a Democratic candidate in their congressional district next fall while just 39 percent said they would opt for a GOP candidate. (As late as this summer, Republicans had seemingly narrowed the wide generic ballot lead Democrats enjoyed for much of the last two election cycles.)
And, perhaps most troubling for GOP hopes is the fact that just 20 percent of the Post sample identified themselves as Republicans, the lowest that number has been in Post polling since 1983. (No, that is not a typo.)
These numbers, coming roughly one year before the 2010 midterm elections, show that any celebration on the GOP’s behalf is premature as the party has yet to convince most voters that it can be a viable alternative to Democratic control in Washington today.”
………And this inside the beltway script writer is bending over backwards to be unbiassed…….mi goper thinks this is great news for the Republicans……..it’s about as good a news as the black death
109 spikeytx86 // Oct 20, 2009 at 8:11 pm
anniemargret!
I do hope you stay but if not at least check this place out.
http://www.commongroundpolitics.net
It’s a political forum where folks from the left-right and all that is in between can discuss politics civilly.
Hope to see you there sometime, I post under the same screen name there! If you do join just drop me a line through the board!
And LOL! I am a transplanted New Yorker too! I was born in Upstate NY until I was 10 then moved to the Tidewater Area of Virginia then to Texas when I was 17.
110 anniemargret // Oct 20, 2009 at 8:14 pm
HA! My husband is from Cooperstown, I’m from the northeast Bronx! Seeyouoverthere!
111 spikeytx86 // Oct 20, 2009 at 8:55 pm
I was born in Saratoga Springs, NY and lived their, Wilton, and Balston Spa.
Cooperstown is an awesome town. I used to camp in the area and visit the Hall of Fame all the time growing up.
The only part of the Bronx I have been to is Yankee Stadium (the original one). The last time I went in 2003 the area looked like it had cleaned up dramatically. A lot of really nice locally owned restaurants and such (and great food)!
112 MI-GOPer // Oct 21, 2009 at 7:53 am
ottovbvs offers: “… a new Washington Post/ABC News poll suggests the GOP still faces serious perception problems in the eyes of the American public.”
Ummm, ottovbvs, newsflash for ya pal… it isn’t a “new” poll; it’s been discussed in this thread already and widely discredited throughout the Net… the survey instrument was weighted heavily toward democrat and liberal respondents… when did you give up reading? I’m betting it was about the same time you thought you’d head over to some conservative GOP blogs and try baiting, irritating, agitating and flaming? Yep?
Thought so.
113 sinz54 // Oct 21, 2009 at 9:21 am
mi-goper:
What EVIDENCE is there that “anniemargaret” is on New Majority to “bait, goad, agitate, irritate and snark”???
As far as I can see, she’s here to state her views sincerely and honestly, and to disagree sincerely with some of the more conservative positions taken here.
Not all dissenters are “trolls.” And I don’t like blogs that summarily ban dissenting points of view. How do you suppose I got banned from RedState.com? Because I dared to dissent from a couple of their hard-right positions.
114 sinz54 // Oct 21, 2009 at 9:28 am
conservative-intellectual:
Yes. Even “anniemargaret” admits that.
The anti-nuclear movement was started by left-wing peace activists after the Vietnam War started winding down and they needed a new cause. They have worked very hard to associate nuclear power and nuclear weapons in the public mind, which is like associating airliners with strategic bombing just because Boeing built both the 707 and the B-52. It’s a clever and cynical (and specious) way to advance their real agenda, which has always been unilateral U.S. disarmament.
115 sinz54 // Oct 21, 2009 at 9:38 am
aninemargaret:
Well, I’m glad you’re here.
Your posts prove that there can still be some common ground between you liberals and us conservatives who don’t believe we’re fighting Civil War II. What clearly distinguishes liberals like you and conservatives like me from “rbottoms” and “conservative-intellectual” is that you and I don’t see each other as “the enemy.” Rather, we’re just a couple of Americans with sincerely different points of view.
I used to pride myself on having friends from all across the political spectrum. I had a friend who was a near-socialist (she insisted on voting for Ralph Nader instead of the Dem and Repub candidates). And I had a friend who was a hard-right libertarian; and I had friends in between. That we disagreed on issues didn’t stop us from going to lunch or dinner together, commiserating about personal issues together, or going to movies together.
I can’t see “rbottoms” ever inviting “conservative-intellectual” to dinner. The mutual contempt and hatred is just too great. To them, it’s not a debate, it’s a civil war to the death.
116 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 21, 2009 at 9:56 am
“I can’t see “rbottoms” ever inviting “conservative-intellectual” to dinner. The mutual contempt and hatred is just too great. To them, it’s not a debate, it’s a civil war to the death.”
I can’t see me caring if you don’t invite me to dinner. You simply are not a conservative in anyway, and all you do is show contempt for the conservative base of the Republican party. If you are even a Republican voter, something I doubt (I think i saw you said you voted for Obama), you are a tiny minority within the Republican party. McCain was your type of Republican, and he got blown out by Obama. We can continue to lose elections by being Democrat-lite and pandering on issues like global warming, or we can start nominating conservative politicians in the mold of Reagan who stomped both Jimmy Carter and Mondale in two landslide elections.
117 sinz54 // Oct 21, 2009 at 10:02 am
conservative-intellectual:
I did not vote for Obama.
I had voted for Reagan. Twice. Enthusiastically.
But that was back when the Republican Party had moderates and even a few liberals (like Jacob Javits). Back then, the GOP didn’t think that the road to victory was by purging in the name of ideological purity.
Reagan won most of the states in the Northeast. That’s because moderate Republicans in the Northeast supported his candidacy and helped persuade their own constituents that Reagan was not a threat to them. They helped Reagan win over many moderate and even a few liberal voters.
I was there. Where were you?
118 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 21, 2009 at 10:09 am
Reagan won by campaiging as a conservative. He was extremely pro-life….he was able to obtain the votes of the blue collar Democrats that don’t like the liberal position on social issues
Reagan did not run as a moderate Republican…he ran as a conservative Republican. You can try to re-write history all you want. Bush Sr, Dole, and McCain were all liberal Repubilcans, and they all lost.
No one is trying to purge anybody….not sure how that would be possible. You are free to vote for whoever you want, but the fact is, you side with liberal Democrats on the vast majority of issues. It would make sense for you to vote for them, and lecture them on the few issues you disagree with them on.
119 sinz54 // Oct 21, 2009 at 10:10 am
conservative-intellectual:
The conservative base of the Republican party refuses to share the party with anyone who is culturally and politically different from them. They may tolerate such a person if he’s seen but not heard–but if that person tries to offer policy changes, he’s instantly ostracized, and eventually excommunicated.
You say I show contempt for them??? When they constantly hurl insults and epithets like “RINO” at people like me, and openly proclaim it’s better for the GOP candidate to lose to the Dem candidate if the GOP candidate is perceived by them as insufficiently conservative? They, and YOU, have made it very clear that you want to throw people like me out. That you prefer a small ideologically focused party to a more ideologically diverse “big tent” party.
And you’re all WRONG!
I’m going to stick around and I’m going to continue to point out the WRONG things you and they are doing. I’m going to continue to suggest changes in policy that I believe will broaden the GOP’s appeal.
In a two-party system, ideological purity can NEVER win a national election. The purer the party, the smaller it will be. And I’m going to continue to remind folks of that, again and again and again–and again.
120 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 21, 2009 at 10:11 am
Your constant snearing at the conservative base is not the way to persaude anybody. This is the Frum approach, and it’s why nobody in the conservative movement likes him.
121 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 21, 2009 at 10:13 am
You are a RINO. You are not advocating anything that will increase the GOP’s appeal. The GOP can’t win without the conservative base, and you want to throw the conservative base under the bus in the name of pandering to leftwing voters. This is a mindless political strategy that just plays right into the hands of the Democrats.
122 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 21, 2009 at 10:19 am
I’d be curious exactly who the Democrats reach out to. I don’t seem them pandering to anybody, and no pro-life Democrat is welecomed in their party. They booted Joe Lieberman for simply being for the Iraq war and a more hawkish forieng policy. The Democrats are all about idealogical purity, yet you have no lectures for them, and they just won easily against a RINO in McCain.
123 sinz54 // Oct 21, 2009 at 11:10 am
conservative-intellectual:
I just looked at Scofield’s paper. (Did you?)
http://www.oberlin.edu/physics/Scofield/pdf_files/Scofield%20IEPEC%20paper.pdf
What Scofield is saying, is NOT that the buildings wouldn’t save on greenhouse gas emissions at the building site . It’s that the type of energy they are using causes more greenhouse gas emissions at the power plant site.
For example, a newer LEED building may use electric resistive heat rather than oil heat. That’s more efficient for the building’s owner. But that electricity has to come from somewhere. It may well come from a coal-burning power plant, which generates even more greenhouse gases than the oil would have.
And that’s true. If you live in Ohio, you’ll generate less total greenhouse gases with oil heat (and even less with natural gas) than with electric heat. There won’t be any greenhouse gases coming up your chimney with electric heat. But there will be plenty coming out of the coal power plant your electric utility likely uses.
Dr. Scofield is right about one thing: If you want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by buildings, you have to rebuild the energy infrastructure, not the energy users. That’s the opposite of the case from transportation, where the greenhouse gases are emitted directly by the users of the energy (cars and trucks), rather than by the oil refinery that produced the gasoline.
124 sinz54 // Oct 21, 2009 at 11:15 am
conservative-intellectual:
In 2006 and 2008, Daily KOS supported so-called “Fighting Dem” candidates–moderate Dems with military backgrounds, like James Webb and retired admiral Shostak (who is now running for PA senator). This despite the Daily KOS’s own strong antiwar stance. They recognized that peacenik Dems can’t win in moderate and conservative districts–so they ran candidates who were definitely not peaceniks. They also supported “Blue Dog” Dems who were economic moderates.
Indeed, part of the reason that the health care bill got stalled is that these moderate Dems got elected but then showed that they’re not taking direction from Pelosi.
125 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 21, 2009 at 11:21 am
LEED is a perfect example of the diminishing rate of return principle. Clients are spend a lot more up front for slight increase in energy efficiency and operational costs over the years.
Good engineers have always designed buildings to be energy efficient….the requirements and costs of a LEED certification are just not worth it. It’s kind of like paying 50 dollars more for Nike when you can get a pair of shoes of the same quality at the lower price. People are just pay more for the LEED certification because they think, or they want other people to think that they are helping to “save the planet”.
126 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 21, 2009 at 11:24 am
A lot of the Blue Dog Democrats just ran as conservatives to get elected in conservative districts.
If I’m not mistaken, Webb was against the Iraq War. Webb’s no conservative, but he knows he has to pretend to be on at least some of the issues to win elections. Democrats always lie about their liberal beliefs in elections. This is the epitome of dishonesty, and if people will lie to get elected, they will lie once they are in power.
127 Arch // Oct 21, 2009 at 11:57 am
CI, if you were correct and the Blue Dogs were just as liberal as the other democrats they would have already forced through health care reform with a public option. It hasn’t been the Republicans stopping them, it’s been the Blue Dogs.
128 sinz54 // Oct 21, 2009 at 12:16 pm
conservative-intellectual:
You do agree that Webb is NOT a Pelosi-type liberal, right?
You do agree that Ben Nelson (Nebraska) is NOT a Pelosi-type liberal, right?
If the Dems can win in Red State areas with candidates who are not liberals, why can’t the GOP win in Blue State areas with candidates who are not conservatives?
Just today, Michelle Malkin demanded that Newt Gingrich leave the GOP as a “RINO” and a sellout. When you guys start turning on Gingrich, architect of the biggest GOP sweep of Congress in generations, you’re in more trouble than you know.
129 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 21, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Some of the liberals that ran as fiscal conservative ARE supporting government run healthcare, which means they lied. I think Webb is a Pelosi type liberal…..does he oppose nationalized healthcare and cap and trade? Didn’t think so.
Newt Gingrich is backing a liberal Republican against a conservative one in that race. He’s been a sellout for a long time now. He did a commerical with Pelosi, WHO YOU JUST ADMITTED IS A LEFTWINGER TO MAKE ANOTHER POINT, on global warming. He’s going around with the insane leftwing riot inciting race hustler Al Sharpton to promote educational reforms that Sharpton supports.
People change. Newt has. That’s fine, but he’s not going to get credit for being a conservative back in 1994.
I note that you could not refute my slapdown of your mindless belief that the GOP can win without the conservative base.
130 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 21, 2009 at 12:57 pm
From some blog called Blue Virgnia:
Sen. Jim Webb also likes the idea of a competitive public plan because it may be the only way to cover the more than 47 million Americans without health insurance.
“There is no reason to believe that private insurers alone will meet the public purpose of ensuring coverage for all American at an affordable price for taxpayers,” Webb and 15 other senators wrote in an April letter urging that a public option be approved.
131 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 21, 2009 at 1:07 pm
From Allahpundit over at Hotair.com
“In other words, he’s treating this race as a litmus test to prove how big-tent the GOP can be. But … why? There’s no good reason to make this district, which should be a safe Republican seat, into a bellwether. Get a conservative elected and then find some socially liberal libertarians in purple districts to champion next year. Like Ace says, Scozzafava is so questionable that it’s not clear whether she’d be better than the Democrat, and since this is a special election, she’s probably looking at another challenge from Doug Hoffman a year from now anyway. I don’t get why Gingrich is digging in here: If he runs for president, this’ll be used against him by Romney et al., and if he doesn’t run for president, it’ll hurt his standing among conservatives as a senior statesman/spokesman for the party. Mystifying.”
132 sinz54 // Oct 21, 2009 at 5:31 pm
conservative-intellectual:
The only way you’re going to learn that your way isn’t working, is to try it EXACTLY your way, with no hedging or qualifications–and see what happens.
Nominate Sarah Palin for President in 2012. She can choose Tom Tancredo as her running mate.
If that ticket wins, then more power to you. I will admit right here on this blog that I was wrong.
But if that ticket loses big (as I suspect it will), maybe then you will be willing to give my way a try.
133 MI-GOPer // Oct 21, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Frankly, as a longtime GOP activist I shudder at the thought of a Palin-Tancredo ticket anywhere outside the Libertarian Party –and I wouldn’t wish that plague even on them.
The GOP has already tried the hard conservative road of the TommieDelay automatons… we pushed their issues on English Only, Saving the Flag, protecting Teri Schiavo, defending marriage and lots of other issues… it didn’t work, the GOP brand got ruined and when the little snots couldn’t have the dream ticket they demanded –I think that was Freddie Thompson at the top– they stayed home on Election Day in a spiteful snit and gave America our Magic Barack, a 60 Dem majority in the Senate, NancyBoTox for another 2 yrs or more and Ms Sotomayor on SCOTUS… permanently dumbing down the last great institution of our republic.
I’d think by now every conservative wannabe could see that doing the same “Stuck on Stupid” tricks ain’t going to work for the GOP… we don’t need a test team to prove that conservatives aren’t very good at governing. Moderates are. We need informed managers, not people who lob positions on issues like they’re grenades at a simulated war battle.
134 Conservative Intellectual // Oct 21, 2009 at 8:19 pm
“A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.
I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.” Ronald Reagan
What the GOP needs is more people like Reagan and to purge sinz and mi-goper, who I believe voted Obama anyway.
135 sinz54 // Oct 22, 2009 at 10:37 am
conservative-independent:
You have nothing to worry about.
You guys “purged” me out of the GOP years ago. I’m a registered Independent now.
Guys like you “purged” me out of RedState.com too. Heaven forbid any outside ideas should penetrate their right-wing echo chamber.
Satisfied?
This is America. Whom I voted for is none of your business. But I told you I did not vote for Obama. I told you this as a courtesy. But you ideologues don’t respect courtesy, mutual respect, or the ability to disagree without being disagreeable. You want Civil War II.
136 sinz54 // Oct 22, 2009 at 10:38 am
mi-goper:
You would be wrong.
Surf on over to RedState.com where they are still adoring Cheney and Palin.
137 sinz54 // Oct 22, 2009 at 10:45 am
conservative-intellectual:
Newt hasn’t changed.
His party has.
Newt wasn’t just a “conservative” in 1994. He was also a visionary with independent, creative ideas. He has a technocrat’s attitude of letting the facts speak for themselves. Today, Newt accepts that global warming is a scientific reality. He accepts that such externalities as pollution and global warming are not cost-accounted by traditional free market economics.
The people whom Newt’s ideas appealed to–people like me north of the Mason-Dixon Line–have since fled the GOP and become registered Independents.
What’s left is a rump party dominated by white Southern ideologues. I read their stuff on RedState.com, and I’m stunned at how out of phase they are with the rest of the country. Some of them are still sorry the South lost the Civil War–and they reassert the right of states to secede from the Union today if Obama gets to be what they consider to be “too socialist.”
And without any background in science, without any appreciation for the scientific method, they conclude that global warming is an Al Gore hoax and that Darwin’s theory of evolution is unproven.
People like me don’t want to be part of a group like that. We just don’t fit in.
138 MI-GOPer // Oct 22, 2009 at 1:32 pm
C-I offers: “What the GOP needs is more people like Reagan and to purge sinz and mi-goper, who I believe voted Obama anyway.”
Now why go an act like an asshat, C-I? I’m a Party activist; I don’t just rely on my vote to describe me -like you might- I work within the Party as a volunteer; I worked for Romney & McCain & Bush and Bush41 & Reagan & Dole & Alexander and hundreds of candidates through the yrs. I’m betting you’re one of those angry white guys sitting on the sofa bitching at the TV news show as “proof” of your conservative bona fides. Hey buddy, do us all a favor and go start in on your second bag of prok rinds, ok?
While you may think a purge is your best, most-twisted recipe for the New Conservative Society of Pure Thinkers Thinkin’ da Pure Thoughts within the GOP, our side of the coin has been tossing your types out of power positions faster than the Club4Greed can write checks… which is pretty fast. Ron Reagan knew he needed a broad base to win election… it’s why he pushed his tax-cut, small govt credentials long, long, long before he pushed the social conservatism you wrongly think best describes him.
Look, my side doesn’t mind you guys being a part of the electorate who help the GOP regain its lost ground with voters driven away by your TommieDelay automaton litmus test issues… and we don’t have to stand in the public square and repudiate each of the Stuck on Stupid policies your side forced on us… but you ain’t getting near the gears or levers of power again. Ever. You had your chance; you ruined the Party’s brand. Conservatives; not RINOs. You already had a chance at purging the Party and it hasn’t worked out very well.
You guys & your short-sighted attitudes gave us NannyBoTox, HairyGreed, Magic Barack and a 60 Dem majority in the Senate. What, you want to keep going down this track until you’ve made the GOP as meaningless as the Libertarian Party? I don’t think so, sister.
Ron Reagan was a man of incredible contradictions but I admired his ability to see the pragmatic side of politics in spite of being driven to the Far far far Righthand side of the road by whacko conservatives seeking some 4th Reich of Conservatism. If he were here, he’d spit in your eye for using him as justification for your political lunacy.
139 MI-GOPer // Oct 22, 2009 at 1:43 pm
sinz54 offers: “You would be wrong. Surf on over to RedState.com where they are still adoring Cheney and Palin.”
First off, sinz, you’ve got an axe to grind with RedState for getting banned, go to it. Have at it.
You got a beef to tenderizer with conservatives still Stuck on Stupid inside the GOP, go at it. Pound away. Unlike Magic Barack and his thuggery Administration, I respect your 1st amendment rights and you’re free to assail away at all those boogey-men that still habit your pumpkin patch.
I don’t agree with you that former Veep Cheney is anything like a Stuck on Stupid conservative. In fact, he’s a brilliant political tactician and skilled public leader who has already handed the Magic Barack team it’s own head twice now… and, it looks from his comments before the Center for Security Policy, a 3rd time is simply sublime M-A-G-I-C.
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p18209.xml
Grind that axe of your’s against RedState all you want for banning you from commentary. Argue away the day on why conservatives are hurting the GOP.
But leave Veep Cheney alone. He’s way, way, way out of your league.
140 sinz54 // Oct 23, 2009 at 6:22 pm
mi-goper:
I never claimed he was.
What I do claim, is that Cheney’s national approval rating is even lower than Sarah Palin’s. What I am claiming is that the GOP base is in love with certain public figures whom the rest of the country frankly wants nothing to do with. The rest of the nation outside the GOP strongholds is glad that Bush and Cheney have retired to private life.
It’s all part of the same syndrome: The views, attitudes, and political figures backed by the GOP base these days are out of phase with those of the rest of the nation. That’s because the GOP base is mostly white Southerners and Mountain State types and Utahns. Culturally they are very different from, say, Northeastern suburbanites.
You must log in to post a comment.