(10-15-2009 10:28 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  No, No, No they have chosen 1 and 2. Just because all their input is being rejected, you cannot make the leap that they are obstructionist party, though you have no trouble espousing the liberal talking points. Really that all this thread is about. That and bashing the GOP. How about the DNC support of the criminal organization ACORN, or the criminal corruption in the White House and the Congress. Obama's promice of a departure from Lobbyists in the White House. Transparency, that was promised. Read the BILL. . That you don't care to talk about.

Sum: What liberal talking points have I been espousing? That the GOP has largely been obstructionist? OK, if you say so. But for the record, I think the Democrats have proven to be totally incapable of producing anything worth taking action on and seem hell-bent on doing what they feel is right with total disregard for consequences.

Does that mean I'm not espousing conservative talking points?

Honestly, my intention on this thread was to NOT discuss the Democrats. Instead, I was interested in looking at the GOP strategy.

As for their input being rejected, that's understood. And it's not the first time the majority party has shut the minority party out of a discussion. But the real battle, I think, is for public opinion. And that isn't waged in the back rooms of Capitol Hill. And, IMO, the GOP has done a pi**-poor job of framing its plan for health care, the economy or anything else.

And that has nothing to do with what the Democrats are doing, which is my point. Forget all the nonsense about ACORN, the Nobel Prize, etc. What does the GOP stand for? What are the core strategies they believe are critical to moving the country forward?

its impossible for the GOP to obstruct, Dems have Filibuster proof majorities.

Quote:What does the GOP stand for? What are the core strategies they believe are critical to moving the country forward?

Idealistically or Politically?

(10-15-2009 12:51 PM)GGniner Wrote:  its impossible for the GOP to obstruct, Dems have Filibuster proof majorities.

Maybe that's the wrong term, then.

(10-15-2009 12:51 PM)GGniner Wrote:  

Quote:What does the GOP stand for? What are the core strategies they believe are critical to moving the country forward?

Idealistically or Politically?

Pragmatically. The current health care reform bill s**ks. I get that. What's the alternative? More specifically, what the key components of the GOP alternative?

On the economy, I thought the administration did a horrific job of explaining why they thought the stimulus was needed and why it need to be so big. I would have loved, LOVED, for another voice - "here, SPECIFICALLY, is what should be done INSTEAD of this debt-inducing, pork-laden spending spree."

Pragmatically is Politically

On healthcare they have proposed Tort Reform an buying insuracne across State lines off top of my head.

GOP and Conservatism has a problem internally, Ideological Purist of various stripes are having a hissy fit against the Political/Pragmatist.

(10-15-2009 01:18 PM)GGniner Wrote:  Pragmatically is Politically
GOP and Conservatism has a problem internally, Ideological Purist of various stripes are having a hissy fit against the Political/Pragmatist.

This is the crux of the problem. Pragmatists win elections, not purists. And the republicans are out of power because they have not been winning elections.

This is where the left is smarter than the right. Leftists, even extreme leftists, are content to elect pragmatists who are 51% more likely to lean my way than the other way. Eventually, they inch their way toward their goals with this strategy.

The right is "all or nthing." More often lately, they are coming up nothing.

Part of why the Dems are better at Politics than Reps, IMO, is because Conservatives are Individualist. They hate the idea of not being true to themselves and following the party line.

The Dems/Left are Collectivist, its natural for them to be Tribal(and its getting worse the more entrenched into Humanism they get), following Party line is much easier in this case.

HR3400 has been out there for a while
http://rsc.tomprice.house.gov/UploadedFi...0_EPFA.pdf

(10-15-2009 11:23 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(10-15-2009 10:38 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I would probably go with fiscal conservatives if they weren't social conservatives. Social conservatism kind of translates to people that you have no heart.

Yeah, nothing says "I care about others" like being pro-partial birth abortion.

Not all people outside of the realm of social conservatism are for that type of thing. Social moderates wouldn't be.

(10-15-2009 10:38 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Social conservatism kind of translates to people that you have no heart.

Yeah, inner cities just scream compassion.

Nomad, there's a difference between being charitable with your own money and being charitable by stealing someone else's money.

Conservatives are the most charitable people in the country. Yes, that's social conservatives as well. There is no compassion is keeping someone on the government dime, sucking off the teet. Compassion comes in the form of giving someone a sense of self-reliance. A sense of self-being. Providing them with the means to pull themselves up from their destitution. Liberals know not a GDamn thing about this. It would lose them too many votes.

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/note.p...434&ref=mf

Sarah Palin's latest on Drilling for Domestic Energy