May You Live in Interesting Times...

[lilithu]

Politics used to be so boring. There was the GOP who knew how to win elections but did not know how to govern, and the Dems who did not even know how to win elections. Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Rove and Limbaugh and Colter. (shudder) And on the other side, Gore and Dean and Edwards and Kerry... (snore)

Now, we have Obama in the White House, a man who clearly knows how to win elections and get people mobilized. And he's dissing the Dem old timers like Dean. (Passed him up twice for Secretary of Health.)

And on the other side, we have the GOP's party chair, Steele, taking on Rush Limbaugh.

"Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer," Steele said during an interview Saturday night with CNN's D.L. Hughley. He then referred to the right-wing hero's popular radio talk show as "incendiary" and "ugly."

And when Hughley referred to Limbaugh as the "de facto leader of the Republican Party," a narrative that gleeful Democrats have been promoting for weeks, Steele bristled.

"No he's not," he said. "I'm the de facto leader of the Republican Party."

During his program Monday, Limbaugh, who used a nearly 1 1/2-hour speech before conservative activists in Washington Saturday to assert that Republicans should want Obama to fail, blasted back.

Steele-Limbaugh Spat: A Battle For GOP's Future? : NPR

What do folks make of this?

 

[Valjean]

Always refreshing to see a bit of a spat in a party usually so regimented and on-message.

I'm actually glad to see Limbaugh coming clean about wanting the administration to fail.
Republicans do not like government. They've been portraying government as incompetent and intrusive for nearly three decades; deliberately sabotaging agencies and programs then pointing to their failures as proof.

Competent, efficient government would belie thirty years of careful propaganda.

 

[lilithu]

Always refreshing to see a bit of a spat in a party usually so regimented and on-message.

I agree.

I'm actually glad to see Limbaugh coming clean about wanting the administration to fail.

Oh, he's been up front about it since the beginning. He urged his supporters to vote for Clinton so that Obama wouldn't be the Dem candidate. Then he did all that he could to help McCain. And now he's doing all that he can to keep Obama from succeeding. It almost makes one wonder why...

Republicans do not like government.

Its one thing to not like "big" govt and another to hope that govt fails when it's really trying to help people. Most Republicans are not like the latter group. I agree with you that the Bush administration deliberately sabotaged agencies like FEMA (causing untold misery that still continues), and Rush apparently wants to see the next Great Depression just so that Obama will be out of office in 4 years. And these kinds of people dare question our patriotism. :sarcastic

 

[Valjean]

Many Republicans believe government exists to protect people, not to help them.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Many Republicans believe government exists to protect people, not to help them.

True, but many Democrats believe the government exists to protect the people from themselves.

 

[Valjean]

We can be our own worst enemies.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

We can be our own worst enemies.

Aint that the truth!

 

[Panda]

To quote a great man

"In short, people are a problem"

 

[The Voice of Reason]

And on the other side, we have the GOP's party chair, Steele, taking on Rush Limbaugh.

Steele-Limbaugh Spat: A Battle For GOP's Future? : NPR

What do folks make of this?

The rest of your post is solid, but Steele was already kissing Limbaugh's ring by mid-day yesterday. He backpedaled on his assessment of Rush so fast that they are considering putting the event into the Olympics.

Limbuagh will continue to try to drive the wedge into the populace, and it will (IMO) weaken the Republican party even further.

If this keeps up, it will be one of the ugliest meltdowns in the history of mankind - and it couldn't happen to a nicer group of selfserving people.

 

[Frostbyte]

Its one thing to not like "big" govt and another to hope that govt fails when it's really trying to help people

Rush wants the president to fail, he said that and he meant it. However, that does not mean he wants the country to fail. It's completely different. Obama will bring, or attempt to bring, things into the country that (whether he's right or not is another story) Rush believes will harm the country. If Rush really believes the changes that Obama will bring will be detrimental to the nation, why would he want him to succeed?

In his speech at CPAC, he used a football analogy. He's a Steelers fan, and when they scored with time running out, and Arizona got the ball back, he wanted Kurt Warner to fail.

Oh, he's been up front about it since the beginning. He urged his supporters to vote for Clinton so that Obama wouldn't be the Dem candidate. Then he did all that he could to help McCain. And now he's doing all that he can to keep Obama from succeeding. It almost makes one wonder why...

Many democrats switched over in the primaries to vote for McCain to help ruin Republican chances of winning. Why would a conservative not do everything he could to help the (more) conservatvie candidate? He makes no claim of being a moderate or anything, he's up front about being a conservative, I don't see the problem with helping McCain.

Limbuagh will continue to try to drive the wedge into the populace, and it will (IMO) weaken the Republican party even further.

This remains to be seen, but I disagree. The republican party in the past eight years, and the candidate in this election, moved away from the conservative values that the party has succeeded on. John McCain was not a conservative. He was the more conservative option, obviously, but he was by no means a true conservative.

When the Republican party returns to conservatism, which I've seen in the last few weeks, and what I believe we'll see in the next elections, they will fair significantly better. The McCain campaign was poorly managed, he was not a conservative, and he was running against the most gifted speaker since Reagen. And he still got 46% of the popular vote.

 

[lilithu]

The rest of your post is solid, but Steele was already kissing Limbaugh's ring by mid-day yesterday. He backpedaled on his assessment of Rush so fast that they are considering putting the event into the Olympics.

Oh, I know he backed down. It says so later in the same article. But I think it's interesting that the assertions were made in the first place. It's the first time I've heard a prominent Republican say anything critical about Rush, even if he did not have the backbone to stand by it.

Rush wants the president to fail, he said that and he meant it. However, that does not mean he wants the country to fail. It's completely different. Obama will bring, or attempt to bring, things into the country that (whether he's right or not is another story) Rush believes will harm the country. If Rush really believes the changes that Obama will bring will be detrimental to the nation, why would he want him to succeed?

Because failure means a global depression, and lots of suffering for many Americans, many of the people who listen to Rush Limbaugh and made him a rich man.

People have a difference of agreement on what they think is best for the country. I can accept that. But if Obama succeeds, that means that his approach was the best one for the country. That's the empirical evidence. Rush, otoh, so does not want to have to admit that Obama could be right that he wants him to fail whether or his approach really was best for the country. Rush does not care about the people.

In his speech at CPAC, he used a football analogy. He's a Steelers fan, and when they scored with time running out, and Arizona got the ball back, he wanted Kurt Warner to fail.

If he truly thinks that what is at stake is no more important than a superbowl trophy then he is even more stupid than I thought.

Many democrats switched over in the primaries to vote for McCain to help ruin Republican chances of winning.

Please provide evidence of this claim. Otherwise, it's just an unfounded accusation.

Why would a conservative not do everything he could to help the (more) conservatvie candidate?

My bad. I thought that what we all cared about here was what was best for the country. I see that you and Rush just want your "team" to be in the White House.

 

[Frostbyte]

Because failure means a global depression, and lots of suffering for many Americans, many of the people who listen to Rush Limbaugh and made him a rich man.

He wants him to fix the economy, he did say that. He said that (rough quote) "If he wants to combine Reagan, FDR and Lincoln I'm fine with that"

He wants the economy to be fixed. He does not want national health care, expanded government, and drastic tax increases.

If he truly thinks that what is at stake is no more important than a superbowl trophy then he is even more stupid than I thought.

It's a metaphor. He certainly doesn't think that.

Please provide evidence of this claim. Otherwise, it's just an unfounded accusation.

This was in reference to a report on CNN Headline News, I believe. I can't find anything online, at the national level. There are reports of this happening in local races. Oh well.

My bad. I thought that what we all cared about here was what was best for the country. I see that you and Rush just want your "team" to be in the White House.

Yeah, because we believe our team is whats best for the country.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

This was in reference to a report on CNN Headline News, I believe. I can't find anything online, at the national level. There are reports of this happening in local races. Oh well.

Oh well? Is that an admission on your part that you pulled that accusation out of thin air?

Yeah, because we believe our team is whats best for the country.

Working from the premise that you and Rush aren't convinced by the last 30 years of the stupidity and futility of deficit spending, deregulation, and trickle down economics, just what type of empirical evidence might sway you?

 

[Frostbyte]

Oh well? Is that an admission on your part that you pulled that accusation out of thin air?

No, it's an admission that the internet does not contain everything ever written, uttered or thought.

Working from the premise that you and Rush aren't convinced by the last 30 years of the stupidity and futility of deficit spending, deregulation, and trickle down economics, just what type of empirical evidence might sway you?

You accuse me of pulling things out of Limbaugh's behind and here you are...

If there is such great evidence that the Republicans and conservatives are so terrible, why do so many people on all social, financial and political scales still vote that way? 46% of people voted against the Anointed One, Oh great messiah Obama. Why would they do that if the right wing is just a bunch of nut jobs?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

If there is such great evidence that the Republicans and conservatives are so terrible, why do so many people on all social, financial and political scales still vote that way? 46% of people voted against the Anointed One, Oh great messiah Obama. Why would they do that if the right wing is just a bunch of nut jobs?

OOOOOHHHHHHH. That was close.

You almost answered the question. What evidence would convince you that trickle down economics, deregulation, and deficit spending are (at best) ineffective?

As for your attempt to steer the discussion away from the disaster of the economic policies of the last 3 Republican administrations, I will turn your question back to you.

Why do you think that 54 percent of the population (representing all walks of life, all races, all income levels, and all religious persuasions) rejected the economic policies of the Republican party?

 

[Frostbyte]

Why do you think that 54 percent of the population (representing all walks of life, all races, all income levels, and all religious persuasions) rejected the economic policies of the Republican party?

I will first remind you, that 54% is not a mandate.

Secondly, many voters were uneducated, did not know anything about Obama.
YouTube - Howard Stern BUSTS on Harlem Blacks about Obama...
YouTube - Obama Is Going To Pay For My Gas And Mortgage!!!

But he can out talk just about anyone, and he did put more urgency into the discussion than did McCain.

There are a wide number of issues, and it is inaccurate to say that 54% of Americans voted for Obama as a rejection of the republican economic policy. Granted the economy was the largest issue, but to suggest that it was the only thing that determined the outcome of the election is completely inaccurate.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Secondly, many voters were uneducated, did not know anything about Obama.

There are a wide number of issues, and it is inaccurate to say that 54% of Americans voted for Obama as a rejection of the republican economic policy. Granted the economy was the largest issue, but to suggest that it was the only thing that determined the outcome of the election is completely inaccurate.

Whoops!!!!!

You must have skimmed right past it, for the second time in as many posts. Let me post the question for you again - for the THIRD time:
What evidence would convince you that trickle down economics, deregulation, and deficit spending are (at best) ineffective?

As for your assertion that some people voted for Obama were uneducated, you are quite correct. On the other hand, I hope you aren't trying to tell us that everyone that voted for McCain did so based on his policies, and none of them were "uneducated". Surely you don't think that there were no people that voted against Obama, simply because of his race - do you?

The bottom line, though is that this is America - and EVERY vote counts. You can't just count the votes that get the "Frostbyte Seal of Approval". You can't just count the votes that are cast by rednecks in a handful of states. You can't just count the votes from wealthy, white Americans.

You HAVE to count the votes cast by African Americans. You HAVE to count the votes cast by people that attend college - or even worse - that teach college. You HAVE to count the votes of people that live in Hollywood. You HAVE to count the votes of people that actually care about the quality of life that others have.

I know it's a pisser for you - but those are the rules, Frosty.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I will first remind you, that 54% is not a mandate.

Now isn't that odd. On November 3rd, 2004, Vice President Dick Cheney claimed "President Bush ran forthrightly on a clear agenda for this nation's future and the nation responded by giving him a mandate." - taken from Media Matters' website: Media Matters - Media echoed conservative claim on Bush "mandate"

I guess that mandate business is really tricky.

 

[lilithu]

Yeah, because we believe our team is whats best for the country.

Your "team" had the ball for eight years and look where the country is. In the crapper. Just as matter of REASON, you might start to question whether your team really is what is best for the country. Unless... in your view... what is best for the country has nothing to do with people being able to feed and house their families.

I will first remind you, that 54% is not a mandate.

I hope you were saying that four years ago as well, when Bush got 50.7% of the vote, and four years ago before that, when he got 47.9% of the vote. By your criterion, when was the last time a president had a mandate?

Btw, Obama is even more popular now than he was on election night, which means that people who did not vote for him then have been won over since.

Obama's Popularity Resonates Despite Economic Crisis, New WSJ/NBC Poll Finds - WSJ.com

 

[Frostbyte]

You HAVE to count the votes cast by African Americans. You HAVE to count the votes cast by people that attend college - or even worse - that teach college. You HAVE to count the votes of people that live in Hollywood. You HAVE to count the votes of people that actually care about the quality of life that others have.

So anyone that votes republican is obviously not college-educated and wants everyone to suffer? Right...Then why do conservatives give more than liberals?

Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election.

when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

conservatives are 18 percent more likely to donate blood.

ABC News: Who Gives and Who Doesn't?

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers
Study: Conservatives More Generous Than Liberals - Bright Hall

From Sea To Shining Sea: Proof Conservatives Donate More Than Liberals Do

"President Bush ran forthrightly on a clear agenda for this nation's future and the nation responded by giving him a mandate."

I hope you were saying that four years ago as well, when Bush got 50.7% of the vote, and four years ago before that, when he got 47.9% of the vote. By your criterion, when was the last time a president had a mandate?

Certainly those were not mandates, I agree. I think the claim was incorrect. I don't know the last time there was a mandate. Reagan and Nixon painted much of the country red. Reagan won just about everything when he was up for re-election. But in terms of popular vote it wasn't huge. If I'm not mistaken Reagan got a 60-40 win for his second term. Although I can't find a reliable site that lists percentages.

It doesn't really matter, however. This election was not a mandate and neither were the last two.

Btw, Obama is even more popular now than he was on election night, which means that people who did not vote for him then have been won over since.

Interesting. Many of the polls I've seen have Obama's approval rating dropping

Rasmussen Reports™: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data Anywhere

What evidence would convince you that trickle down economics, deregulation, and deficit spending are (at best) ineffective?

In 1980 Reagan's economic recovery campaign in that crisis (which he "inherited" from Jimmy Carter)

Peter Ferrara Says Barack Obama's Economic Policy, Guided By Liberal Ideology, Is Impeding Recovery - WSJ.com