Why the Gay Agenda May Tip The Scales for the GOP this Fall

[orogenicman]

"Wanting someone to shut up isn't hating them."

What it is is rude and obnoxious, and also undemocratic. If you don't hate her, then let her have her say. She has as much right to speak as you or anyone else.

 

[orogenicman]

"the only way to do that is to manufacture another big issue to distract the voting public "

Like Bush did with the Iraq war?

 

[Gipper]

"the only way to do that is to manufacture another big issue to distract the voting public "

Like Bush did with the Iraq war?

And again your knowledge of history comes into question. This is getting very repetitive, but typical of your kind.

You really think Bush started the war in Iraq to get re-elected. Please explain.

 

[orogenicman]

And again your knowledge of history comes into question. This is getting very repetitive, but typical of your kind.

You really think Bush started the war in Iraq to get re-elected. Please explain.

I think Bush got us in the war for a lot of reasons, none of which had anything to do with national security.

 

[Gipper]

I think Bush got us in the war for a lot of reasons, none of which had anything to do with national security.

But you asserted that Bush started the Iraq War to get re-elected. Are you changing your position now that you have been confronted?

 

[orogenicman]

But you asserted that Bush started the Iraq War to get re-elected. Are you changing your position now that you have been confronted?

No, I suggested that one of his reasons for starting the war was to distract the American people. And it did - for seven whole years. Way to go, George. You know, for a guy who claimed during his first presidential campaign that he wasn't into nation building, he certainly did a lot of that - everywhere but here.

 

[Gipper]

I am going to just assume you missed Sihouette's entire argument which was that the GOP was going to make "gay" issues and issue in the November election.


You took my comments and responded with a "what the hell are you talking about", and then repeated my point....

I said (basically a quote here) that Republicans have no upside to making the issue anything other than jobs/economy etc, and I will stick with that.



Republicans need to understand that a Texas conservative is different than a Maine conservative, and if we want to be a national party, we are going to have to accept that.



Castle has not stated he will run in any way, so I am not sure why he is even mentioned here...That said, Rove is right on the Delaware seat... it is lost, and it is lost solely because of who was nominated. What makes me mad about it is that it will hurt Republicans when it comes to committee breakdowns, and had Republicans retaken the Senate (which they won't at this point), it would have ensured that bills like Cap and Trade (which Castle might have voted for again) would never come to the floor.

Additionally, if I was the NRSC, I would offer no support to O'Donnell either. Why waste the money? There is only so much to go around, and there is no point to wasting it on a lost race.

That said, Crist and Murkowski ought to get out the races, I agree with you.



Expecting the entire Republican party to rush to the far right is unrealistic, unless we are going to be content to sit in the minority forever and have a progressive agenda rammed down our throats.

Sorry about my misunderstanding your post. I thought you were claiming the Dems too don't want the discussion moved from the economy.

Regarding the R party, sorry BR but I disagree with your entire premise. It is your thinking that has resulted in the Rs being a minority party and one that is looked at as Dem Light.

We have suffered under progressive leadership for decades with the Rs. Nixon and Ford were disgusting progressives. They did not believe in the Constitution or limited government any more than BJ Bubba or BO do. W and his daddy were progressives. We have a Marxist in the WH because of progressive Rs. The result is lost liberty and a huge tyrannical government.

Either the R party stands for certain identifiable principles, or it stands for nothing. The progressive wing of the R party must die or the entire party should die.

The D party has moved so far left in the past few years to now be considered the communist party. And, the Rs have followed them to the left...

Beyonce sings about it here...

 

[BigRob]

I'm with Gipper on this one... The Republicans need to purge the party of all Progressives. They push for Progressive policies under the "Conservative" banner. When those Progressive policies turn inevitably into disaster, it is "Conservatism" that gets blamed.

This is a response to Gipper as well.


Part of the problem I see is that many Republicans who represent more liberal districts are voting generally how their constituents want them to vote.

Take for example Congressman Cao. He voted for Obama's healthcare bill, but to be frank, his district probably supported that bill for the most part.

The question is this.. is a Congressman (or Senator) elected to represent the party platform, or to represent the views of their constituents? Remember here that their constituency is not America, but rather their state or district.

I don't hold it against Republicans when they vote their districts and not the party.

I would really like to see her win, I couldn't say the same about Castle.

I would like to see her win as well, but barring a miracle, she won't. I would rather have someone who I support on 80% of their votes, than someone I support on probably 0% of their votes.

Forever? Rebuild the party with basic Conservative principles (limited government, lower taxes, free markets), purge the party of all Progressives and go on from there.

Sure, the Republicans might not get back a majority right away but Americans will only take so much of the Progressive agenda. Democrats are sliding and the more they slide, the faster and harder they try to cram their agenda down our throats.

Elections matter. We can make a stand on principles, but (and especially this year at state levels) if we don't have at least some say we will just have districts redrawn to ensure we stay in the minority for the next ten years.

Eventually they will drive voters into the arms of Conservatives and Republicans will once again gain control of government.

Personally I think the Republicans should have sat this one out. They will retake the house and become scapegoats. Republicans will get blamed for any setbacks while Obama will get the credit for any improvements. With the Democrats in undisputed control of all three branches, they have nobody to blame and all the failures would fall squarely on the shoulders of Democrats.

I don't want to be the party that has to rely on the other side failing. We can present a limited government platform that can play across the whole country and include "moderate" Republicans.

Don't forget that the commercial real estate market is expected to crash in 2011.

With the Republicans having just taken over a majority in the House, who do you think will get blamed by Obama and the Media for that crisis? Republicans.

Now if the Republicans head off that crisis and take legislative action to avoid it becoming an issue, who do you think is going to get the credit? Democrats.

That is going to depend on how it plays out. If the House votes to repeal Obamacare and it dies in the Senate or gets vetoed, Republicans are not going to get blamed for that. It will all be in how they do it.

Seriously, I think the Republicans doing well in this election will cement the re-election of Obama.

Maybe, maybe not.

 

[Gipper]

I don't hold it against Republicans when they vote their districts and not the party.

The problem with your position is many Rs representing conservative districts/states STILL vote with the Dems or refuse to promote conservative policies. So, they do not vote with their constituents in many cases.

The USA has suffered under decades of failed progressive policies. We know this to be true. Yet, most Americans do not know this (partly because Rs refuse to tell them).

These failed progressive policies have destroyed a once great, free, and economically viable nation. Had conservative policies been implemented, this would never have happened. Yet, most Americans do not know what conservative policies are because Rs refuse to tell them. Many think W was a conservative, which proves the brand has been hijacked.

At any rate, maybe its all a moot point since voter fraud is everywhere and BO's corrupt Justice Dept does nothing and Rs do nothing too. We all know liberals/progressives believe the ends justify the means. So, they will just steal elections.

Local Tea Party group may have uncovered massive vote fraud in Texas
By: Mark Hemingway
Commentary Staff Writer
09/26/10 3:35 PM EDT

The Examiner’s Mark Tapscott wrote about this story over a week ago, but now Fox News is reporting on Tea Party activists in Texas uncovering vote fraud:

When Catherine Engelbrecht and her friends sat down and started talking politics several years ago, they soon agreed that talking wasn’t enough. They wanted to do more. So when the 2008 election came around, “about 50” of her friends volunteered to work at Houston’s polling places.

“What we saw shocked us,” she said. “There was no one checking IDs, judges would vote for people that asked for help. It was fraud, and we watched like deer in the headlights.”

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...e-fraud-in-texas-103823128.html#ixzz10jEb3b9I

 

[Gipper]

Crist, Murkowski and Castle should be roundly condemned by the Rs, but no. I for one am sick of these two faced bastards!!! The liberal wing of the R party must die NOW or America will!!!

This is so true...

"The refutation of Crist, Murkowski and Castle is a wonderful thing, regardless of how it plays out in November. ... In three primaries Republican voters decided they didn't like what they saw in the three candidates presented by the establishment. In all three cases, the instincts of the voters were completely confirmed -- by the subsequent actions of the hacks they drummed out of the party. Crist, Murkowski and Castle have made it abundantly clear they are devoid of anything resembling principles or party loyalty. All three have made something else clear as well: contempt for the average American has revealed itself to be far more 'bipartisan' than ever before. Such contempt has become so transparent and pervasive that the term 'ruling class' resonates like it never has: many Americans have become completely alienated from their representatives, regardless of party affiliation. Here's a scary thought for Democrats: think what's happening to the Republican party can't happen to yours? Think again. A Congress with an approval rating of 23.6% while your party's in charge can't be reassuring. In November, if the public purges Democrats from the majority less than two years after Democrat political strategist James Carville's proclaimed they would rule for the next forty, expect the kind of finger-pointing and blood-letting that will make the current Republican purge look tame by comparison. Americans may not agree about many things but one thing is certain: they are sick to death of selfish phonies selling themselves as 'servants of the people.'" --columnist Arnold Ahlert

 

[PLC1]

The question is this.. is a Congressman (or Senator) elected to represent the party platform, or to represent the views of their constituents? Remember here that their constituency is not America, but rather their state or district.

Now, there's the question of the week. It seems that Republicans want to represent Republicans, and Democrats want to represent Democrats. Maybe that's wrong, but that's the way it appears.

Representatives are supposed to be sent to Congress to represent their constituency. That's why we call them representatives. Senators aren't called representatives, but they are supposed to represent their constituency, too, not a party platform.

Hyper partisanship is a problem, not a solution.

 

[GenSeneca]

Hyper partisanship is a problem, not a solution.

Compromise is a problem, not a solution.

 

[PLC1]

Compromise is a problem, not a solution.

Compromising party platforms, or compromising the constituency?

 

[GenSeneca]

Compromising party platforms, or compromising the constituency?

Compromising on principles...

Tommy is a good for nothing street urchin who likes to lay around all day skipping stones at the creek. Billy is a hard working industrious boy who takes a paper route to earn money for a new bike.

Tommy wants a bike too, so he demands that Billy give him 100% of all his earnings. Billy tells Tommy to get a job.

Tommy runs to you (government) and complains. You catch up with Billy and tell him that he's being hyper-partisan on the issue and that the two boys should compromise.

You decide to pass an income tax and take away 50% of Billy's money and hand it over to Tommy and then pat yourself on the back for rising above the partisanship and finding a compromise.

You're happy, Tommy is happy, Billy got screwed - That's Compromise.

 

[PLC1]

Compromising on principles...

Tommy is a good for nothing street urchin who likes to lay around all day skipping stones at the creek. Billy is a hard working industrious boy who takes a paper route to earn money for a new bike.

Tommy wants a bike too, so he demands that Billy give him 100% of all his earnings. Billy tells Tommy to get a job.

Tommy runs to you (government) and complains. You catch up with Billy and tell him that he's being hyper-partisan on the issue and that the two boys should compromise.

You decide to pass an income tax and take away 50% of Billy's money and hand it over to Tommy and then pat yourself on the back for rising above the partisanship and finding a compromise.

You're happy, Tommy is happy, Billy got screwed - That's Compromise.

Is that about principles, or is it about representing the interests of Billy?