Why are Republicans Wrong about Everything?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 38821 - 38840 of total 52564 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Dr. F.

Ice climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 13, 2012 - 07:46pm PT
Conservative Sanity? Jindal Says It’s Time To End ‘Dumbed-Down Conservatism’


2012/11/13
By Justin Acuff
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/11/13/conservative-sanity-jindal-says-its-time-to-end-dumbed-down-conservatism/


In a startlingly intelligent move from a prominent conservative, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal says it’s time for the GOP to stop their tradition of anti-intellectualism, saying that Republicans need to “stop being the stupid party.”

Politico reports,
In his first interview since his party’s electoral thumping last week, Jindal urged Republicans to both reject anti-intellectualism and embrace a populist-tinged reform approach that he said would mitigate what exit polls show was one of President Barack Obama’s most effective lines of attack against Mitt Romney.


“We’ve got to make sure that we are not the party of big business, big banks, big Wall Street bailouts, big corporate loopholes, big anything,” Jindal told POLITICO in a 45-minute telephone interview. “We cannot be, we must not be, the party that simply protects the rich so they get to keep their toys.”

He also heavily criticized the GOP for allowing fools like Mourdock and Akin to voice their idiotic opinions uncontested, saying:


“It is no secret we had a number of Republicans damage our brand this year with offensive, bizarre comments — enough of that. It’s not going to be the last time anyone says something stupid within our party, but it can’t be tolerated within our party. We’ve also had enough of this dumbed-down conservatism. We need to stop being simplistic, we need to trust the intelligence of the American people and we need to stop insulting the intelligence of the voters.”

This seems to be a step in the right direction (left direction?) for the evermore out-of-touch GOP of recent times. Hopefully more of those on the right will be voices of sanity, explaining that you can have conservative political beliefs that don’t pander to an idiotic and bigoted base.

The question must be asked, though; with this many different talking points coming from the right wing, which will reign supreme? Or will the GOP fracture and split apart?


Jindal, you can forget it, the Republicans will always be the party of stupid, because their agenda, ideas, and social issues are stupid

If you want "not stupid", get smart and become a Democrat, and you will feel right at home
Dr. F.

Ice climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 13, 2012 - 07:51pm PT
What is damaging to Republicans more than any other thing???

Rush Limbaugh and Fox News
They have become a laughing stock because Rush and Fox define them, and their BS talking points.
Everything they say is suspect, every poll, every News Story: all tainted with Lies and Propaganda
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Nov 13, 2012 - 07:51pm PT
Ok jingy, you get a pat on the back. But can't you just be charitable without wanting to spray about your charity? Or does it just not feel that good if no one knows about your generousity?

 I agree I am a pathetic blow-hard.

Point taken.


P.S. Who gives a sh#t about what some jackass posts online to a climbing site anyway?
dogtown

Trad climber
Cheyenne, Wyoming and Marshall Islands atoll.
Nov 13, 2012 - 08:13pm PT
Republicans are the New Nazis
Undeniably fascist…

You are a fool Dr. F!

Watch our government go to hell under your Marxist leader. You’re dear leader President Obama is now taking apart our military leadership General by General if they don’t tow the line on Benghazi , where three navy seals, and our ambassador lost their lives. Only a moron would think that, attack was doing to a video. It was all a lie. You all need to get it in your mind that your dear leader is a Muslim despite what he says. And the Muslim world is at war with us whether we like it or not. And he is on their side.

P.S Get f*#king off the god damn Nazi, Fascist thing, if I disagree with a black man. I’m half Jewish and it’s a complete insult!
Dr. F.

Ice climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 13, 2012 - 08:17pm PT
Credit: Dr. F.


your dear leader is a Muslim despite what he says. And the Muslim world is at war with us whether we like it or not. And he is on their side.


The Generals took themselves out, Obama didn't have anything to do with it.

Should we Court Marshal them, like they did to so many others that did far less, and did not compromise the National Security of America when they committed Adultery
jghedge

climber
Nov 13, 2012 - 08:21pm PT
"...your dear leader is a Muslim despite what he says."

"P.S Get f*#king off the god damn Nazi, Fascist thing..."


Hahahahaha

Another genius

zBrown

Ice climber
chingadero de chula vista
Nov 13, 2012 - 08:28pm PT
When Obama couldnn't/didn't finish out the list it got me to wondering who the big military spenders were.



followed by

Japan
Saudi Arabia
India
Germany
Brazil
Italy
South Korea

jstan

climber
Nov 13, 2012 - 09:25pm PT
It is long, but interesting.



How Race Slipped Away From Romney
By Sara Murray and Patrick O'Connor | The Wall Street Journal – Thu, Nov 8, 2012 10:43 AM EST

BOSTON—Mitt Romney is one of the wealthiest men ever to run for president. And yet the lack of money earlier this year stalled his campaign, and he never really recovered.

The GOP nominee emerged late last spring from a long and bruising Republican primary season more damaged than commonly realized. His image with voters had eroded as he endured heavy attacks from Republicans over his business record. He also felt compelled to take a hard line on immigration—one that was the subject of debate among his advisers—that hurt his standing with Hispanic voters.

More than that, Mr. Romney had spent so much money winning the nomination that he was low on cash; aides, seeing the problem taking shape, had once considered accepting federal financing for the campaign rather than rely on private donations.

The campaign's fate led on Wednesday to second-guessing and recriminations among Republicans chagrined that a seemingly winnable race slipped away. Some Republicans wondered whether the Romney campaign had misjudged the power of President Barack Obama's coalition, while others were questioning Mr. Romney's and the party's approach to immigration.

Back in spring, the Romney campaign's biggest worry was money. So the campaign's finance chair, Spencer Zwick, huddled with political director Rich Beeson to craft a complex schedule that took Mr. Romney to the cities that were prime real estate for fundraising.

It meant visits to places like California, Texas and New York—none of which were important political battlegrounds—while only allowing for quick side trips to swing states that Mr. Romney would need to win to become president.

On one level the strategy worked: Mr. Romney ultimately garnered some $800 million or more, putting him in close competition with Mr. Obama's robust fundraising effort.

But Mr. Romney paid a deep political price. The fundraising marathon reduced his ability to deliver his own message to voters just as the Obama campaign was stepping in to define the Republican candidate on its terms. Mr. Romney's heavy wooing of conservative donors limited his ability to move his campaign positions to the center, to appeal to moderate and independent donors.

The search for cash led him to a Florida mansion for a private fundraiser where Mr. Romney would make the deeply damaging, secretly recorded remarks where he disparaged and dismissed the 47% of Americans who don't pay taxes.

In the end, Mr. Romney lost nearly every swing state. Other factors contributed to his defeat, of course, including difficulty making voters warm to him and a dearth of support among Hispanics.

But in the eyes of top aides in both campaigns, that early summer period when Mr. Romney was busy fundraising was perhaps the biggest single reason he lost the election.

The Obama campaign spent heavily while Mr. Romney couldn't, launched a range of effective attacks on the Republican nominee and drove up voters' negative perceptions of Mr. Romney.

The problem: Mr. Romney had burned through much of his money raised for the primaries, and by law, he couldn't begin spending his general-election funds until he accepted the GOP nomination late in the summer.

The money crunch didn't totally take the Romney camp by surprise. Long before Mr. Romney secured the nomination, his closest advisers began plotting what it would cost to wage an effective campaign against Mr. Obama in the general election. Mr. Zwick, his finance chief, assumed the best way to handle cash needs would be to raise money from private donors, rather than accept the public financing the government offers presidential candidates, advisers said.

Mr. Zwick looked at fundraising markets in every state and sketched out a schedule for Mr. Romney, his wife Ann, and his yet-to-be-named running mate. He decided the payoff from fundraising was worth the investment of the candidate's time. Analytical decisions like that one were the campaign's mantra. In interviews, staffers called it the "Bain way."

In August, when Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan was announced as Mr. Romney's vice presidential pick, Mr. Ryan's fundraising schedule was released the same day: 10 events by the end of the month.

Mr. Romney's finance team was vigilant in its efforts to ensure fundraising jaunts would be worth his time. Every other month the campaign's state finance chairmen met for a roughly four-hour meeting with Romney staffers. During the meeting, fundraisers had to stand in front of their peers and report whether they had hit their fundraising target.

If the local finance chairman fell short of their targets, the campaign sometimes canceled its fundraising stops there, a finance staffer said.

The real cost, though, was in the lost opportunity to use Mr. Romney to do other campaigning to introduce himself to general-election voters on his own terms. Aside from a five-day bus tour of six, mostly Midwestern states, Mr. Romney's highest profile summer campaign event was a problem-plagued overseas trip one aide called "total chaos." Even in that trip's schedule were nestled two fundraisers, one in London, another in Israel.

Meanwhile, the Obama campaign and a super PAC helping it, Priorities USA Action, had unveiled ads attacking the centerpiece of Mr. Romney's resume, his record as the head of private-equity firm Bain Capital. The ads portrayed Mr. Romney as the heartless leader of a company that gobbled up companies and then slashed jobs.

The cash shortfall hindered the Romney campaign's response; to get through the sparse time, the campaign took out a $20 million loan.

Bob White, a former Bain executive who has long followed Mr. Romney, formed a team to research Bain investments so the campaign was prepared with a rapid response whenever one was questioned. Mr. White sought out more than a dozen chief executives of companies that benefited from Bain Capital investments to offer narratives of prosperous investments to balance out the ones that had soured. The campaign posted more than a dozen of them on a website lauding Mr. Romney's "sterling business career." But they couldn't afford to air the testimonials in television ads, an adviser said.

Meanwhile, Mr. Romney's two top strategists, Russ Schriefer and his partner Stuart Stevens, started to craft an ad strategy around their slim bank account. In focus groups, swing voters kept asking: What would Mr. Romney would do if elected?

They prepared spots explaining what Mr. Romney would do in the opening days of his presidency: approve construction of an oil pipeline to Canada, cut taxes and replace Mr. Obama's health-care law with "common-sense reforms." Yet the team didn't even have enough money to air their ad in the Washington, D.C., media market, therefore ignoring the sprawling suburbs of Northern Virginia—a key to a swing state that Mr. Romney badly needed to win.

As Mr. Romney struggled, a group of flush Republican super PACs stepped in to lend the presumed GOP nominee air cover. The biggest, American Crossroads and its affiliate Crossroads GPS, realized early that the Obama team would front-load its advertising to attack Mr. Romney when he couldn't return fire.

Former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a Crossroads adviser, referred to this phase as "the interregnum," and he reminded the group and its donors that former President Bill Clinton used this phase to undercut then Sen. Bob Dole in 1996 before he became the Republican presidential nominee.

Between mid-April, when Mr. Romney effectively locked up the nomination, and the Republican convention at the end of August, the Obama campaign outspent the Romney camp $173 million to $75 million, according to data compiled by the Campaign Media Analysis Group.

But thanks in large measure to super PACs, Republicans outspent the Obama campaign and its Democratic allies over the same period by roughly $50 million, shelling out nearly $250 million compared with $198 million for Democrats, according to the same figures.

Still, the super PACs were better at attacking Mr. Obama than building up Mr. Romney, and the Republican's "likability" ratings with voters stayed low. With few public appearances and little to spend on ads, the campaign couldn't gain any momentum. An adviser described it as a campaign of "fits and starts."

Mr. Romney, meanwhile, kept making his conservative talking points to donors and never moved to the political center. It was during those months that Mr. Romney was filmed at a fundraiser in Florida dismissing 47% of Americans as Obama supporters because they receive government benefits or don't pay taxes and wouldn't be amenable to Mr. Romney's message of small government and lower tax rates. "My job is not to worry about those people," Mr. Romney said in the video. "I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

The campaign also never figured out how to get beyond a damaging policy position from the primary season, a tough line on overhauling immigration laws. Mr. Romney refused to embrace legislation that might give some illegal immigrants long in the U.S. a path to citizenship, and instead advocated what he called "self-deportation."

Struggling to win the primary, the campaign's political team decided Mr. Romney needed to draw a contrast on the immigration issue to differentiate himself from the other Republicans on stage. The candidate's hard-line stance alienated Hispanic voters, which would prove a critical failing in the fall general election.

By early September, the Romney campaign was slumping and trailing badly in the polls. The first presidential debate offered what might be its last shot at a turnaround.

On a dreary Tuesday in early September, Mr. Romney and his top brass descended on the remote Vermont estate of Kerry Healey, Mr. Romney's former Massachusetts lieutenant governor, for debate preparations.

Beth Myers, a senior campaign adviser who was managing preparations, decided Mr. Romney had better dive into debate preparations—which the candidate disliked—head first. After just one mock session, senior Romney staffers were blown away—with Rob Portman, the Ohio senator picked to portray Mr. Obama.

Mr. Portman mastered Mr. Obama's policies and mannerisms so completely that Romney aide Peter Flaherty referred to him as "Mr. President" even when they bumped into each other on the trail.

"It was game on," said Mr. Flaherty, who played each of the three debate moderators.

Mr. Romney, meanwhile, worked on compressing his responses into two-minute tidbits. Just days before the first debate, Messrs. Romney and Portman, dressed in suits, took the stage at the Back Bay Events Center in Boston for a final rehearsal. Aides there said Mr. Romney's answers were crisp, and he parried Mr. Portman's attacks with ease. Afterward, Lanhee Chen, the campaign policy director, called his wife and told her, "Mitt's ready."

Minutes into the first debate Romney advisers saw their candidate was poised and relaxed with an easy grasp of the facts behind his answers. Obama advisers could tell the president was off his game.

Throughout the debate, the Republican nominee highlighted his work with Democrats during his four-year stint as Massachusetts governor, reassuring voters he planned to reach across the aisle as president, too.

Romney advisers say he always intended to make that point, because it cut to the heart of voters' main complaint against Mr. Obama.

Ending partisan gridlock "was his biggest promise, and so therefore, it may be his biggest failure," Mr. Schriefer said.

The first debate reshuffled the race. Obama aides traded concerned emails about how to get their campaign back on track even before it concluded.

In the end, postdebate bumps in polls and money weren't enough to change his fate. On Tuesday, Mr. Romney managed to flip just two states Mr. Obama won in 2008, Indiana and North Carolina. (Florida remains too close to call.) Mr. Obama won the Electoral College contest easily.

By early evening Mr. Romney said he had only written one speech: A victory speech that stood at 1,118 words, unedited. Late that night, he delivered a concession speech that came in at just 646 words.

"I so wish that I had been able to fulfill your hopes," Mr. Romney told a somber crowd in a not-quite-full ballroom at the Boston convention center. "But the nation chose another leader."

The day after his loss, Mr. Romney stopped by headquarters to visit staffers and thank them for their efforts.

He didn't hint at what he would do next, only saying "I'm not going away," one staffer said.


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/how-race-slipped-away-from-romney.html?page=all




Here you go. Sasha Issenberg. Thanks Kerwin. Very good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcpcPOX56IM

klk

Trad climber
cali
Nov 13, 2012 - 09:48pm PT
the wsj piece is an attempt to help beat back the republican criticisms of the super pac and consultant campaign.

it focuses on messaging via tv ads and the infamous summer beatdown by chicago.

it'll be awhile before we have all the data. preliminary indicators are that boston didnt turn out the base the way they needed to-- especially for gotv. romney appears to have underperformed 42 among Mormons, amazingly.

issenberg's piece, as a supplement to his account of 08, victory lab, is still the best account we have of the radical differences in both tactical and strategic planning between chicago and boston.

if yr posting on this thread and havent read victory lab, you should. i guarantee you all the gop wonks are reading it.


Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 13, 2012 - 10:07pm PT
You all need to get it in your mind that your dear leader is a Muslim despite what he says.

Yeah, I'd run with that. Republicans must purge even more moderate party members from their ranks. The only reason the Republicans lost this year is because they weren't quite far enough to the right. See how that works out for you in 2016.

Curt
jghedge

climber
Nov 13, 2012 - 10:24pm PT
"the wsj piece is an attempt to help beat back the republican criticisms of the super pac and consultant campaign."

Like I said, the WSJ spent weeks prior to the election printing articles about how Romney was going to win.

Now they're writing articles about the reasons why he lost?

Hahahahaha

Part of the reason he lost is because the right-wing media (like the WSJ) spent weeks prior to the election printing articles about how Romney was going to win, and how wrong the polls were - and their readers believed it, and it kept them from turning out in bigger numbers, assured by the WSJ that the polls were wrong, and that Romney had it in the bag - which the WSJ printed, because they knew that's what their readers wanted to believe.

The article the WSJ really should be writing would explain this to their readers...but don't hold your breath.


jstan

climber
Nov 13, 2012 - 11:00pm PT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcpcPOX56IM

This stuff of Issenberg's is cutting edge.

Degaine

climber
Nov 13, 2012 - 11:03pm PT
JEleazarian wrote:
Degaine wrote:
Corporations didn't give me any of that, I f*#king paid (or worked) for it!
I assume you did so because you felt better off trading the money for the goods and services than you did keeping the money and letting the corporations keep their goods and services. (Or, alternatively, kept your work and let the corporations keep their money.)

Or are you saying that corporations are evil because they don't give you something for nothing, a sub silencio complaint that underlies the cartoon?

John

You see what you want to see, I suppose. Based on your own claims of being objective, centrist, and non-partisan, I'm surprised that you even have to ask the question.

Most post is pretty clear. Corporations did not give me anything.

And you totally misunderstood the cartoon. It wasn't trying to state that corporations are evil, it was making fun of the guy (read "tool") for blaming everything bad that has happened to him on the government, even though the government had nothing to do with his problems. Much like the Republican party's arguments during this last election, hell during the last 12 to 16 years.

In other words, if corporations are the sole proprietors and influencers of job creation, why the f*#k is the right blaming unemployment and the slow uptake in employment since 2008 on the government!

Cheers.

Degaine

climber
Nov 13, 2012 - 11:11pm PT
crackaddict wrote
While economic growth was strong in the 90s, it is absurd to attribute it to higher taxes. In the 1993 plan Capital gains taxes were also CUT by about 10%, so maybe we can attribute it to that?

It's even more absurd to claim that cutting taxes even more will solve all our problems when taxes are at a historical low point.

What the 1990s show is that raising taxes within a certain limit does not hurt the economy AND has the advantage of keeping government in a health financial state.


crackaddict wrote:
Another difference is the cost of Government. If we are going to raise taxes to 1993 levels, can we go back to 1993 levels of Government as a share of GDP?


Did you really just write that ignorant tripe? Two wars and huge tax cuts put us in this position.

But to go in your direction, you'd agree then that we should pull all troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, throw Medicare Part D away (and use the government's 500 pound gorilla status to heavily negotiate drug prices), and raise taxes enough to pay for the wars that we put on the credit card from 2001 until now - you're okay with that, right?
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Nov 14, 2012 - 06:48am PT
the rich are the job creators.... FAIL! Unemployment still exists.
Republigoons will "fight the good fight"... FAIL! They will do or say anything to get into office and bring down the USA one day at a time.
dirtbag

climber
Nov 14, 2012 - 06:53am PT

Watch our government go to hell under your Marxist leader. You’re dear leader President Obama is now taking apart our military leadership General by General if they don’t tow the line on Benghazi , where three navy seals, and our ambassador lost their lives. Only a moron would think that, attack was doing to a video. It was all a lie. You all need to get it in your mind that your dear leader is a Muslim despite what he says. And the Muslim world is at war with us whether we like it or not. And he is on their side.

Are you for real?

I laugh robustly at you.



bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Nov 14, 2012 - 07:08am PT
oh, the irony...


just a few companies announcing layoffs because of the costs of obamacare:

welch allyn...makes medical diagnostic equipment...10% of their workforce
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/09/welch_allyn_cutting_275_worldw.html

stryker...makes medical devices...96 jobs in ny, 5% globally
http://www.mmm-online.com/stryker-layoffs-blamed-on-obamacare-tax/article/247605/
(stryker ceo was one of barry's top 5 donors...now, why would anyone support a candidate whose signature legislation would force him to cut jobs?)

medtronic...makes medical devices...1,000 jobs over the next year
http://www.massdevice.com/news/layoffs-medtronic-cut-another-500-jobs-hopes-saving-125m-year

boston scientific...makes medical devices...cutting 1,400 jobs in america, hiring 1,000 in china
http://nation.foxnews.com/obamacare/2011/07/29/obamacare-fallout-boston-scientific-firing-1400-workers-hiring-1000-china




now, a brief lesson on supply and demand:

fewer employees making medical devices means fewer available medical devices which means higher prices for medical devices which means higher medical costs for EVERYONE...fewer people with jobs which means more people depending on the gov to provide medical care which means higher medical costs for EVERYONE


"we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it"--nancy pelosi


dirtbag

climber
Nov 14, 2012 - 07:11am PT
zzzzzzzzzzz...
dirtbag

climber
Nov 14, 2012 - 07:33am PT
Or to put it another way...

Bookie, you neo fascist nimrod, you lost. Suck it.
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Nov 14, 2012 - 07:43am PT
actually, dirt, we ALL lost...
Messages 38821 - 38840 of total 52564 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews