• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Megan McCain "Am I Not Worthy Of Being A Member of Republican Party?" -In A Word, NO!

Foolmewunz said:
Fixate much?

You actually went back through all of Rolfe's thread-starters to 2004 to find one that had zero responses?

Man, that's some dedication, Cicero! (Or a sad statement. I leave you to decide.)
Click to expand...


Wow. Not sure I could use the forum search facility so creatively.

Does he give lessons?

Rolfe.
 
Roadtoad said:
In all fairness, this isn't a one-sided situation. Neither Democrats nor Republicans gave a damn about "fiscal responsibility," and have demonstrated it over the years. The only real difference between them is who got first crack at looting the Treasury, and who got rich from it.
Click to expand...

Big difference is that, when Democrats have gone on a spending spree, it generally served to redistribute wealth to all levels of the ecconomic pyramid.

Republican spending sprees tend to concentrate it at the top.

Historically, concentrating wealth into fewer hands generally leads to hard times for any but the elite of a society, often to a crash.
 
leftysergeant said:
Big difference is that, when Democrats have gone on a spending spree, it generally served to redistribute wealth to all levels of the ecconomic pyramid.

Republican spending sprees tend to concentrate it at the top.

Historically, concentrating wealth into fewer hands generally leads to hard times for any but the elite of a society, often to a crash.
Click to expand...

Well, yes and no.

True, you want the wealth out as broadly as possible. From what I see, that provides society with a very strong base economy which is diversified and interactive. What the Republicans have done with their nonsense is assumed that through Trickle Down economics, all levels would prosper, because the wealthy would spend money which would be to the benefit of all.

Well, they spent money, all right. But it went to the Maybachs, the yachts, the G-5s, and the like. They didn't reinvest their money in expanding their businesses, but blew it on themselves. That didn't change when the White House went to the Clintons.

A good example is a former employer of mine who went on FOUR vacations in one, year, (none of them cheap; they bragged incessantly about going to Hawaii, Cancun, and other pricey locales), then bitched about how expensive it was to run a business. This was followed up by their lobbying among employees to vote down a proposition which would have mandated that they provide medical coverage to us, (including giving me an ultimatum: take this particular load we are giving you which will have you out of town for the next couple of days and keep you from voting on Election Day, or find yourself sitting for a couple of weeks, and yes, they told me this.)

At one point, the company was given Federal and State grants to upgrade the fleet's engines, and part of that money was used to buy TWO half million dollar Class A motor homes. As one other driver told me, "There's your medical coverage."

I find myself wondering where the oversight is with a lot of what the Democrats do, and realize they don't include it because it would pinch quite a few toes if they did, some very influential ones.

Sorry, but I'm cynical when it comes to this kind of thing.
 
Meghan McCain is a moderate Republican. Ever since Reagan the conservative wing of the party has crushed any opposition to their ideology.
 
Wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross, the GOP is ready to sink its own nails in. Can you hold nails against your wrists while pounding them at the same time? We will see..
 
Magnifico2.0 said:
I am fascinated watching the GOP flog itself, and am curious indeed to see which direction is chosen. If they gather themselves up and lean to the right more, they will lose even more voters. A shift toward the party of Limbaugh and Palin is a shift toward the precipice for the Republicans.
Click to expand...

Magnifico2.0 said:
Wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross, the GOP is ready to sink its own nails in. Can you hold nails against your wrists while pounding them at the same time? We will see..
Click to expand...


Ok Magnifico, we get it.
 
tomwaits said:
Ok Magnifico, we get it.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, some Republicans don't.

Here's the problem. After reading and rereading some of what Meghan McCain has to say, I'm still left saying, "Meh." She's really not bringing anything to the table. (And, I think Lefty's more interested in Chicks with Brains than Chicks with Boobs.)

So, McCain's been to college, and that's nice. She's got some green, and that's nice. But what's she really offering? She's nice looking, certainly a comfortable armful, but what the Republican Party needs is a solid dose of reality, and McCain's most telling flaw in all of this is her absence. She's like the newbie in the trucking company's yard, fresh from National Trucking School, telling the old timers they're doing it all wrong, and picking a fight with the old timer with the biggest mouth. It's a losing strategy because everyone else in the yard is going to look at the 'cruit, and smirk. The Big Mouth might be full of crap, and no one may like him, but he's our Big Mouth.

Limbaugh has gone through the same thing, and he's been doing this for over 20 years. He's sort of earned his place. Ditto Coulter, even though I find her as friendly as a badger right after a root canal. I can't stand either of them, but if I were to come in great guns, telling everyone as McCain has that they're bad for the party, I'd get shot down, but quick. (It's a different matter here; you folks know me, you disagree with me openly and honestly, and frankly, we're not here to run Policy and Procedure for the RNC or DNC.)

If McCain wants a place at the table, she's going to have to roll up her sleeves and spend some time in a phone bank, filing papers, tracking donations, and basically paying her dues. She seems to think that having a father who served in the Republican Party as a member of the Senate is going to cut it, and it's not. It's as simple as that.
 
ABC's George Stephanopoulos on Twitter with Sen. John McCain

Stephanopoulos: "Lots of twitterers want to know: what do you think of Meghan's feud with Coulter and Ingraham?

McCain: "I'm proud of my daughter and she has a right to her opinions. Like any family we agree on some things and disagree on others."

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/politics&id=6715170

"I am not only turned off by people who voted for Barack Obama, but I am also turned off by people that voted for my dad—or more so, obsessive supporters of my dad."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-03-02/looking-for-mr-far-right/

I guess John was hoping his daughter would be another H.L. Mencken instead of a third rate Jacqueline Susann.
 
Dr Adequate said:
* sighs, drums fingers on desk *

Don't you ever read the newspapers? Or teh intertubes?

The reason I say that Democrats are trying to portray Limbaugh as the face of the Republican party is because Democratic strategists keep telling journalists that that is exactly what they are trying to do. They brag about it. They took a poll that showed that nearly everyone has heard of Limbaugh, but only 11% regard him favorably. They decided to make that the basis of their strategy. They said so. Rahm Emanuel goes around calling Limbaugh "the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican party", thus becoming the only person ever to use the words "Limbaugh" and "intellectual" in the same sentence. When I say that Democrats are trying to equate conservatism with Limbaugh, this is not some abstruse deduction I've made. This is blatantly and overtly what the Democrats are trying to do. Then they boast about how clever they're being by so doing and they giggle. This is not a "conspiracy theory".
Click to expand...

This is good evidence that *some* democrats are pointing to Rush Limbaugh as the republican leader. The favorability quote is sourced to James Carville , who is not a member of the Obama administration. Emanuel's quote came after he was asked if Limbaugh was the republican leader, and after the CPAC nonsense IIRC, so it's not really a major push on his part.

Cicero was very specific - Barack Obama, in particular, elevated Rush Limbaugh to prominence by mentioning him in passing in a private meeting with GOP congressmen. That just doesn't work. We'd never even have known about the "You can't just listen to Rush..." quote if the GOP congressmen hadn't rushed to the press to tell us all about how horrible Obama was for attacking a private citizen. Yes, *maybe* the line was some sort of mastermind scheme to get the GOP to tie themselves to an unpopular figure, but...that's a bit far fetched.
 
Dr Adequate said:
The Democrats are deliberately trying to draw attention to people such as Limbaugh and Coulter.
Click to expand...

A.C. and Limberger were going through life anonymously before the Dems shone a spot light on them? That makes about as much sense as "The Megan Mullally Show" drawing attention to Geico.
 
I didn't know much about Limbaugh before the "Obama and the teleprompter" thing, but the way he spun one journalist's mistaken desciption of Obama's one-liner at the end of Cowen's speech (“First, I’d like to say thank you to President Obama”) as being read off the teleprompter rather than the joke that it was, into the spectacle of a blind-drunk Obama delivering Cowen's entire speech in some sort of automaton state, was just disgraceful.

So, one journalist who wasn't there somehow made a mistake when he was writing his article from agency material. Suddenly, this is the one and only true account, and every other article (including all those by journalists who were actually present, and all those who repeated the Associated Press material verbatim) is the evil Obama-loving press covering up for their darling. And the error stating that Obama read one phrase of Cowen's off the teleprompter, becomes Obama mindlessly wading through Cowen's entire speech. While blind drunk. With more scurrilous and obviously completely fictitious detail.

You've got a right piece of work there, guys.

Rolfe.
 
Brainster said:
That you can find a few selected items to prop up this incredibly stupid meme must be thrilling for you. However, let's not just cherry pick, let's look at McCain's entire voting record.

McCain's career voting record is scored at about 81.43 by the American Conservative Union. In 2007, he scored an 80. In 2006, when he was supposedly sucking up to the right wingers? A 65. In 2005? Another 80. In 2004, he had a 72.

The only trend I can see in there is that he voted less often with the American Conservative Union in each of the last several years than he had for his career. Which is my point exactly.
Click to expand...

This is the point, McCain was never the moderate he played himself up to be, on his many many appearances on the daily show and the like.
 
What I get is that you seem to find it amazing that when a party loses an election, they do a bit of self-reflection to figure out why.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom