OT - GOP is being carried to the extreme

User Forum Topic
Submitted by briansd1 on September 14, 2009 - 3:35pm

Some of the recent Internet activity seem to reflect the growing radicalization of the GOP.

I'm actually glad to see that happen. Perhaps people will wake up and realize that crazy marginal elements are taking over the GOP. The grass roots of the GOP are Palin worshipers if that isn't indication enough.

I hate all the bailouts but I don't think that a Republican administration would have done anything different.

------------------

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/...

Reporting from Washington - Amid a rebirth of conservative activism that could help Republicans win elections next year, some party insiders now fear that extreme rhetoric and conspiracy theories coming from the angry reaches of the conservative base are undermining the GOP's broader credibility and casting it as the party of the paranoid.

Such insiders point to theories running rampant on the Internet, such as the idea that Barack Obama was born in Kenya and is thus ineligible to be president, or that he is a communist, or that his allies want to set up Nazi-like detention camps for political opponents. Those theories, the insiders say, have stoked the GOP base and have created a "purist" climate in which a figure such as Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) is lionized for his "You lie!" outburst last week when Obama addressed Congress.

They are "wild accusations and the paranoid delusions coming from the fever swamps," said David Frum, a conservative author and speechwriter for President George W. Bush who is among the more vocal critics of the party base and of the conservative talk show hosts helping to fan the unrest.

Submitted by UCGal on September 14, 2009 - 4:29pm.

briansd1 wrote:

I hate all the bailouts but I don't think that a Republican administration would have done anything different.

I agree with this. And the proof is that the bailouts started in the form of the TARP plan - with the executive branch (GOP) telling the congress (Dem) that we'd have financial armageddon if we didn't bail out the banks.

Both parties are culpible in the bailouts.

One side wants to do stimulus.

The other side crafted tax cuts that were super slanted to the wealthy.

Neither party seems to worry about the deficit. Officials from both parties seem very beholden to corporate interests at the expense of the people.

I'm generically disgusted with politicians.

Submitted by DataAgent on September 14, 2009 - 4:31pm.

As I biked the PB boardwalk last weekend, I listened to radio reruns of Rush and Hannity. Hard to believe they both elevated Joe Wilson to sainthood for his outburst.

Submitted by Zeitgeist on September 14, 2009 - 4:38pm.

I am equally disgusted with the bailouts. Both sides have fringe elements. The left just cannot believe the right finally got off its collective a$$ and did something. The radical left is a minority. There are more conservatives in this country than leftists. Obama is just as corporate bought and paid for as Bush was. His ideology might look different, but scratch the surface and it is identical. Put down your Kool aid and look at the facts.

Submitted by svelte on September 14, 2009 - 4:40pm.

I've changed as the years have passed myself so it is hard to tell, but it sure feels like the Dems and Reps are more polarizing than they were in decades past...especially the Reps.

I'm really curious as to if that is true and, if so, why? Any thoughts?

Submitted by Zeitgeist on September 14, 2009 - 4:49pm.

Things have changed. People are not civil any more. Svelte, ask yourself, are drivers more rude than in the past? I think the answer is yes. It is a cultural change that is societal, not just political. People no longer respect the courts and show up in dirty, inappropriate clothing. They no longer respect the presidency and congress. Times have changed. The middle class was just behind the times.

Submitted by DataAgent on September 14, 2009 - 4:58pm.

svelte wrote:

I'm really curious as to if that is true and, if so, why? Any thoughts?

I noticed the same thing. For me, the polarization hit extreme levels just before the Iraq war in 2002. Loosely quoting GWB "either you're with us or you're with the terrorists." I was against the Iraq war from day 1 and was immediately christened as 'unpatriotic' by my Bush-loving peers. Prior to the Iraq war, I paid very little attention to politics at the national level.

Submitted by Casca on September 15, 2009 - 10:40am.

Until Nancy Pelosi beats Joe Wilson on the floor of the house with an ivory handled cane, we will not have reached the level of civility that preceeded the civil war.

Anyone who can't see a difference between the parties is simply ignorant. Would Bush have nationalized the banks and the auto companies as Obama has done? Given ownership to the unions? I doubt it. He acquiesed to TARP as professional courtesy to Obama. He did it because Obama asked him to do so, and he wanted to position Obama to execute a cohesive policy, no matter how wrong-headed.

Submitted by urbanrealtor on September 15, 2009 - 10:41am.

Zeitgeist wrote:
Things have changed. People are not civil any more. Svelte, ask yourself, are drivers more rude than in the past? I think the answer is yes. It is a cultural change that is societal, not just political. People no longer respect the courts and show up in dirty, inappropriate clothing. They no longer respect the presidency and congress. Times have changed. The middle class was just behind the times.

You damn whipper snappers!!!
Get off my lawn!.

You kids are ruining America!

Submitted by Casca on September 15, 2009 - 10:49am.

x

Submitted by Casca on September 15, 2009 - 10:49am.

DataAgent wrote:
I was against the Iraq war from day 1 and was immediately christened as 'unpatriotic' by my Bush-loving peers. Prior to the Iraq war, I paid very little attention to politics at the national level.

What would the world be like if Iran controlled half of the world's oil supply? If they got their hands on the oil in Iraq, they would. We don't dare let that happen, yet Obama may.

Submitted by briansd1 on September 15, 2009 - 12:19pm.

Casca wrote:
DataAgent wrote:
I was against the Iraq war from day 1 and was immediately christened as 'unpatriotic' by my Bush-loving peers. Prior to the Iraq war, I paid very little attention to politics at the national level.

What would the world be like if Iran controlled half of the world's oil supply? If they got their hands on the oil in Iraq, they would. We don't dare let that happen, yet Obama may.

What does Iran today have to do with the invasion of Iraq?

Paranoid? I think so.

Submitted by briansd1 on September 15, 2009 - 12:28pm.

Casca wrote:
Until Nancy Pelosi beats Joe Wilson on the floor of the house with an ivory handled cane, we will not have reached the level of civility that preceeded the civil war.

That I agree, the acrimony of that time has yet to be repeated.

Casca wrote:
Would Bush have nationalized the banks and the auto companies as Obama has done? Given ownership to the unions? I doubt it. He acquiesed to TARP as professional courtesy to Obama. He did it because Obama asked him to do so, and he wanted to position Obama to execute a cohesive policy, no matter how wrong-headed.

Partisan wishful thinking, Casca. Hank Paulson, Neel Kashkari, and Ben Bernanke developed and ran the whole bailout program. Obama didn't add anything new.

Bush was probably too dazed to understand what was going on. The complexity of the financial matters blew right over his head.

Submitted by Arraya on September 15, 2009 - 12:48pm.

Casca wrote:
DataAgent wrote:
I was against the Iraq war from day 1 and was immediately christened as 'unpatriotic' by my Bush-loving peers. Prior to the Iraq war, I paid very little attention to politics at the national level.

What would the world be like if Iran controlled half of the world's oil supply? If they got their hands on the oil in Iraq, they would. We don't dare let that happen, yet Obama may.

First of all, maybe they should have thought of that before going in and destabalizing the region.

What would happen if Iran controlled Iraqs oil? The dollar would cease to be the reserve currency and the US empire could not fund it's military or government because the petro dollar siphons off wealth of every country that has to buy oil. It was a great scam that is coming to an end. Obama is the transition team to Bushco's lame attempt at keeping the failed empire going.

Back in 99 Cheney gave a speech on how the west was running out of oil and the only prospects were in the ME, and that they were "working vigorously to gain access" around the same time him and his PNAC cohorts wrote a paper saying, in their words, "A New Pearl Harbor" was needed to solidify the people in supporting an ME invasion. About a year later he was caught with his hand in the cookie jar looking over maps of Iraqi oil feilds in his secretive "Energy task Force" meetings just a few months before they got that "New Pearl harbor" they were publicly wishing for. What an ironic twist of fate, don't ya think?

Now do you think him and his band of neo-con pranksters were really upset about getting what they wished for? Pretty convienient wasn't it?

Unfortunately, we have NO left in this country because the have been bought off and corporatized or bullyed away.

We have the demo-corps and the psychopaths.

Now we get to watch the rise of the Christain Jihadists. Good thing we kept gitmo open.

Submitted by GH on September 15, 2009 - 7:36pm.

The "You Lie" interruption is technically false, and certainly did not serve any positive purpose. That said, will the 12??? million illegals still be "illegal" in the future when the plan comes to fruition? That is part of the sister plan - "immigration reform". So from that perspective, while he was not lying he was using carefully chosen words and in effect lying by omission.

As for the bailouts, our banking friends are already setting up the next big crash and I am not sure we so much as opposed the bailouts, but the fact that those individuals responsible for the crash were not removed first. Instead they are all up to their old games and in a year or two we will be back in the same quandry - too big to fail!

Submitted by Zeitgeist on September 15, 2009 - 8:10pm.

It is the illegal bailout. Anything for the dems to buy votes and protect the failing social security system. What a joke!

Submitted by patb on September 16, 2009 - 8:47am.

Casca wrote:
Would Bush have nationalized the banks and the auto companies as Obama has done? Given ownership to the unions? I doubt it. He acquiesed to TARP as professional courtesy to Obama. He did it because Obama asked him to do so, and he wanted to position Obama to execute a cohesive policy, no matter how wrong-headed.

Sorry.

Bush gave the Autocompanies $20 Billion in cash, no questions asked.
At least with a nationalization, the taxpayers got the stock cheap.
hopefully it will be sold off soon

Bush gave 700 Billion in TARP to the Banks, whom we had no financial
duty to help.

Bush/Paulsen and the Fed gave 13 trillion in guarantees to the
major financial companies including the chinese holding all those
fannie mae bonds.

Submitted by patb on September 16, 2009 - 8:52am.

Casca wrote:
DataAgent wrote:
I was against the Iraq war from day 1 and was immediately christened as 'unpatriotic' by my Bush-loving peers. Prior to the Iraq war, I paid very little attention to politics at the national level.

What would the world be like if Iran controlled half of the world's oil supply? If they got their hands on the oil in Iraq, they would. We don't dare let that happen, yet Obama may.

Iraq in 2001 was strong enough to resist any iranian invasion.

Heck if the Iranians invaded we would just sell mustard gas,
nerve gas and even nukes to hussein to prevent that. We did it
before, we'd do it again.

Submitted by briansd1 on September 16, 2009 - 9:29am.

patb wrote:

Iraq in 2001 was strong enough to resist any iranian invasion.

Heck if the Iranians invaded we would just sell mustard gas,
nerve gas and even nukes to hussein to prevent that. We did it
before, we'd do it again.

Very good point patb. Without the invasion of Iraq (Iran's competitor in the region), Iran wouldn't be so strong today.

Bush miscalculated. Iraqis did not greet the American "liberators" with parades and flowers. We broke it so now we own it. Too bad for us.

I'm sure that the Bushies would argue that since we are now in Iraq, we are better positioned to prevent an Iranian expansion (prevention and preemption). I personally don't buy that.

I wonder why Republicans don't support the big gun approach of shock-and-awe when it comes to prevention and preemption in health care and unwanted pregnancies.

If we can fix Iraq with big weapons, can't we fix unwanted pregnancies by funding birth control and abortion?

Submitted by felix on September 16, 2009 - 12:36pm.

Both parties have radical elements. Both parties have those who have those who buy into extreme ideas and conspiratorial theories.

However, there is a difference between the parties with regard to extremism. The Republicans don't put those types in positions of power. The Democratic party being lead by Obama, Reid and Pelosi embraces extremism and even puts the like of Van Jones and others in charge of vast sums of money.

Obama asked that we judge him by the company he keeps close around him. So far that is getting more disturbing by the day.

Obama's botched choices for cabinet positions (folks with tax issues and the like)and his reliance on czars demonstrates he and his staff are in over their heads. It has raised more questions about Obama's real beliefs not the ones he implied while running for president.

Obama's relies on campaign instead of administration. He's given more speeches, been on more talk shows and given more soft interviews than any president in my life time and he's only been in office less than eight months. That has demonstrated what many but apparently not enough of us understood prior to his election. That is that he had no executive experience and that he doesn't know how to do anything but campaign.

Obama's ties to folks having extreme positions should have been common knowledge. It also should have been all over the front pages of the papers and lead the nightly news but that story was mostly ignored by the media. If it wasn't ignored we would all have known that he himself actually held many of these same positions.

Many in the media ignored Obama's past and his views because of their blind hate of our previous president. The media and Obama took advantage of many voters who have short attention spans or who were unwilling to do what it took to know who or what they were really voting for last November.

We are now watching this country take a huge step toward even a more massive government which will operate in the favor of those who don't work, who are not citizens or who belong to either our ruling class or unions.

These folks now running our country know many voters only have a long enough attention span to take in themes and slogans such as; "Hope and Change" and "Yes, we can". They know the pickings were easy if you knew how to not let a good catastrophe go to waste.

Lastly, as to the Freedomworks demonstration this past weekend in DC. I watched about a half an hour of the event on C-Span. The speakers were normal folks with normal concerns. Those who spoke weren't extremists. They didn't want more taxes or more government. They worked and took responsibility for their own children and their own health care. They didn't want our economy stifled by "Cap (tax) and trade", misguided "Stimulus" programs or takeovers of the private sector.

They also didn't like any of their very valid concerns being characterized as veiled racism.

Submitted by sdgrrl on September 16, 2009 - 12:31pm.

Zeitgeist wrote:
Things have changed. People are not civil any more. Svelte, ask yourself, are drivers more rude than in the past? I think the answer is yes. It is a cultural change that is societal, not just political. People no longer respect the courts and show up in dirty, inappropriate clothing. They no longer respect the presidency and congress. Times have changed. The middle class was just behind the times.

Things have changed and I think it depends on who you ask if the world is more rude today.

If you were a black man fifty years ago in the so called "good ole days" was the world a more civil place for them? Was America nicer as blacks were called niggers and grown men called Boy.

When my mother first moved here from Korea to a little town in Texas many people were awful to her for a long time and this was in the sixties.

As an American woman of Asian descent there is no other time than right now that I wish to exist.

I can do what I want, go where I want, marry, have or not have kids, work, be a stay at home, whatever. I am allowed my inalienable rights of life, liberty, and my own pursuit of happiness; with no social stigma.

I don't know if people are ruder or not. I don't see Americans sprayed with hoses and have dogs sicked on them. No one has called me a chink in a long time. No one is rounding up Native American children and "civilizing" them in federal schools. That seems much ruder than the driver that flips me off.

When I hear about the good ole days...I always think well if you were a white Anglo male they were probably good. If you were anything else it may not have always been so rosy.

I am so glad of the cultural change in America.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on September 16, 2009 - 12:39pm.

briansd1 wrote:
patb wrote:

Iraq in 2001 was strong enough to resist any iranian invasion.

Heck if the Iranians invaded we would just sell mustard gas,
nerve gas and even nukes to hussein to prevent that. We did it
before, we'd do it again.

Very good point patb. Without the invasion of Iraq (Iran's competitor in the region), Iran wouldn't be so strong today.

Bush miscalculated. Iraqis did not greet the American "liberators" with parades and flowers. We broke it so now we own it. Too bad for us.

I'm sure that the Bushies would argue that since we are now in Iraq, we are better positioned to prevent an Iranian expansion (prevention and preemption). I personally don't buy that.

I wonder why Republicans don't support the big gun approach of shock-and-awe when it comes to prevention and preemption in health care and unwanted pregnancies.

If we can fix Iraq with big weapons, can't we fix unwanted pregnancies by funding birth control and abortion?

Brian: Okay. Given all of that, where do you fall on Obama's stated position of negotiating with Iran and without preconditions? If you support it, why? If you don't support it, why?

I'm asking this because I'm genuinely curious. Also, how do you feel about Obama's position vis-a-vis the North Koreans and Syria? Again, just curious.

Submitted by felix on September 16, 2009 - 12:44pm.

My grandparents were from Poland and Italy. They also were called names and discriminated against. They also had a very difficult time.

This mean behavior isn't ever right but it's not only something that happens to those of color. And ignorance and meanness doesn't only flow in one direction as you imply. Folks of all colors demonstrate mean behavior.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on September 16, 2009 - 12:45pm.

Felix: As always, excellent post. Cogent and to the point.

One of the things I found most infuriating and largely from the left wing chattering class, was the implication that these protesters were "racist" and "extremist" and didn't represent "real America".

By and large, nearly every one of the folks that I saw interviewed were average, middle class Americans. They were justifiably concerned about the direction of this country, the policies of this Administration (and the Bush Administration, as well) and the general sense of things going into the ditch.

While I'm certain that there were elements of the lunatic fringe in attendance (with gatherings this large, its going to happen), these protests were civil, and behaved. It seems like either elitist arrogance or desperation to somehow accuse these average citizens, who are exercising their First Amendment rights, of racism and extremism ("Nazism" has been thrown out more than once).

Submitted by harvey on September 16, 2009 - 1:06pm.

"... where do you fall on Obama's stated position of negotiating with Iran and without preconditions?"

So what exactly is a "precondition?"

How do you agree on the preconditions? Do you have to negotiate them?

It's all a bunch of semantic nonsense.

Submitted by briansd1 on September 16, 2009 - 1:47pm.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:

Brian: Okay. Given all of that, where do you fall on Obama's stated position of negotiating with Iran and without preconditions? If you support it, why? If you don't support it, why?

I'm asking this because I'm genuinely curious. Also, how do you feel about Obama's position vis-a-vis the North Koreans and Syria? Again, just curious.

I believe that today's weakened position that we find ourselves in is a result of past Bush mistakes.

Our threats of retaliation are empty because we don't have the wherewithal to carry out our threats. The Koreans and Iranians know that.

Our economic strength waned so can't apply pressure on China, Russia and the European Union.

So we have no choice but to negotiate with Iran and Korea.

If you look back at Vietnam, would have been better off letting Ho Chi Minh unify the country in 1954. We would saved countless lives and treasure and we would now have a stronger ally to buffer China.

Our consumer goods and multi-nationals (Coke, Procter & Gamble, Levis, Citibank, Pricewaterhouse, IBM, etc..) were better at winning the Vietnam War than our GIs.

------

To draw the parallel to real estate, I know that sellers are running out of wherewithal. They won't be saved even by some nominal price increases because if they are under water, it matters not what they sell for. They will lose their investments.

But the sellers still try to get more than they have invested because that's they only way to save some skin.

I know that I can wait it out longer then the sellers can. The worse that can happen is that I will have to pay today's price, if I really want to buy. It's a win-win situation for me. I can pay less later or I can pay the same. It's very unlikely that I'll pay more.

The Iraqis and Koreans know that we have run out of options.

In Iraq, our wherewithal is thinning as were can hardly keep the place secure much less attack Iran.

In North Korea, the Chinese and even the South Koreans are going their own way. Russia is playing hardball. Japan, our strongest ally, just had a change of government.

Submitted by briansd1 on September 16, 2009 - 3:19pm.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:

By and large, nearly every one of the folks that I saw interviewed were average, middle class Americans. They were justifiably concerned about the direction of this country, the policies of this Administration (and the Bush Administration, as well) and the general sense of things going into the ditch.

While I'm certain that there were elements of the lunatic fringe in attendance (with gatherings this large, its going to happen), these protests were civil, and behaved. It seems like either elitist arrogance or desperation to somehow accuse these average citizens, who are exercising their First Amendment rights, of racism and extremism ("Nazism" has been thrown out more than once).

I would love to see polling organizations do "exit interviews" at those events to see the percentage of protesters that have health insurance.

Based on the number of missing teeth, I'm sure quite a few don't have dental coverage. Of course, medical coverage is not the same as dental coverage. That's why I'm curious.

Submitted by dbapig on September 16, 2009 - 3:37pm.

I mentioned in a post earlier but do these people really know what Nazism stood for?

Hitler would be rolling in his grave (although it officially doesn't exist) if he found out he's being compared equal to a half African man.

Stop calling Obama a Nazi. Some people obviously didn't learn much in high school...

Submitted by dbapig on September 16, 2009 - 3:39pm.

briansd1 wrote:

I would love to see polling organizations do "exit interviews" at those events to see the percentage of protesters that have health insurance.

Based on the number of missing teeth, I'm sure quite a few don't have dental coverage. Of course, medical coverage is not the same as dental coverage. That's why I'm curious.

I also would like to see how many of them really want to follow their heart and call for ending Medicare for the sake of saving $$$. Judging that many seemed pretty old enough to qualify for Medicare either now or very soon, I'd bet they want to keep Medicare as it is.

Submitted by Aecetia on September 16, 2009 - 3:39pm.

Sdgrrl-
Where is the quote about the good ole days? You are the only one saying that. Zeit said people are less civil today. You always attack posts from Zeit and constantly emotionally read into them. Try sticking to the facts. It was an observation that times have changed. No one but you said the old days were better. None of the women I know liked the double standard. No one I know thinks racism or sexism should be the norm. Most people I know do not think that people should be taxed if they do not want health insurance. Those times were not better. On the other hand, apparently Washington was left in the same condition it was found. It was not trashed. I think this is a good improvement and shows that some people care about the environment.

Submitted by dbapig on September 16, 2009 - 3:43pm.

felix wrote:
Both parties have radical elements. Both parties have those who have those who buy into extreme ideas and conspiratorial theories.

However, there is a difference between the parties with regard to extremism. The Republicans don't put those types in positions of power.

Who were Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove?

Ever heard of Rumsfeld and ASPARTAME? Google those 2 terms together.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.