Sane Republicans should leave the party now

[gtc]

How do they feel about deathers?

Is Obama a Zombie?

President Zombama?

Kenyan born Muslim Zombie Presidents are the worst type of Zombie Presidents.

 

[SezMe]

Source? I found one (not by Dick Army) here:
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/townhallactionmemo.pdf
Does it call for shouting down any discussion? No, it does not. In fact, it specifically says, "Don't carry on and make a scene".

That is the most dishonest thing I've seen you post, Zig. Let's quote the whole paragraph:

You need to rock-the-boat early in the Rep's presentation, Watch for an opportunity to yell out and challenge the Rep's statements early. If he blames Bush for something or offers other excuses -- call him on it, yell back and have someone else tallow-up with a shout-out. Don't carryon and make a scene - just short intemlittent shout outs. The purpose is to make him uneasy early on and set the tone for the hall as clearly infonnal, and free-wheeling. It will also embolden others who agree with us to call out and challenge with tough questions. The goal is to rattle him, get him off his prepared script and agenda. If he says something outrageous, stand up and shout out and sit right down. Looke for these opportunities before he even takes questions.

Do you really think the small part you quoted accurately conveys the intent of that paragraph?

Or look at this instruction from the same document:

If the Rep tries a particularly odious diversion, someone from group should yell out to answer the question. These tactics will Clearly rattle the Rep and illustrate some degree of his ineptness to the balance of the audience.

Finally, as an example of what they are calling for, this is what is cited later in that same document:

When Himes attempted to attribute the expansion of the national debt to the Administration of George W. Bush he was shouted down with boos and catcalls.

Kelsey Biggers, Chairman of the Pequot Librabry and Firest Selectman Ken Flatto on separate occasions, attempted to restore decorum during the sometimes raucous public forum.

Nice.

BTW, that pdf is screwed up so I hope my copy/paste got everything right.

ETA: Not by Dick Army? Really? That memo was signed by Bob McGuffie who is with Freedom Works. Freedom Works is run by Dick Army. Do you think Army was unaware of that memo?

 

[fishbob]

If Obama screws up, the GOP will be back in force in 2010 and 2012. If he doesn't, people will get sick of him by 2014 and the GOP will be back in force in 2016.

The GOP is so marginal now that Obama can not possibly screw up enough for them to come back in force anytime soon. Even if Obama starts eating puppies during press briefings, the GOP wingnuts will still look bad in comparison.

 

[Piggy]

Something I really dont get about these the GOP is in serious trouble threads.

The Dem majority congress and senate has putrid public approval ratings.
Reid and Pelosi's ratings are worse,Obama's dropping like a rock even though apparently the gameplan is to keep blaming Bush. That only works so long.

Yet only the GOP is in trouble? I think more democrats better start looking around, their party is'nt exactly flying high.

Clearly, if the Dems are in trouble, they're still in much better shape than the GOP.

And looking long term, the Democrats sill have their coalitions intact. The GOP does not, and you can't be an effective national party without them.

Also, while Obama's ratings are down, they are certainly not "dropping like a rock". And if the economy does begin trending upward this year, and jobs follow next year, his numbers will rise again.

Everybody's on shaky ground as long as the economy's in recession. But I think only the GOP faces a potential existential threat right now. If they continue to alienate moderates and minorities, and instead to push for ideological purity, they're committing suicide.

 

[Piggy]

So this was Think Progress' smoking gun, a memo from a group with five followers on Twitter?

Ok. So what?

I just don't see the relevance.

So some leftie group made some unfounded accusations.

That doesn't somehow salvage the GOP from its downward spiral into the nutjob party, which is what it seems bent on turning itself into at the moment.

 

[Piggy]

And if the sane people leave the party it will be better? Come on, you can't really believe that, can you?

No, I don't believe that.

What I'm saying is that it would be better for conservatism if moderates like Powell and Snow, as well as rank and file members who aren't on the far right fringe, were to leave the party to the birthers and Palinistas and let it wither on the vine.

Suppose you did have pragmatic Republicans forming a Conservative Party, along with some Democratic defectors who don't care for that party's left wing, and a few independents and maybe some 3rd party folks who have only been where they are by default.

With the right platform, it could be the new home for reasonable conservatives who see where the GOP seems to be headed and don't like it, along with Reagan Democrats, McCain swing voters, etc.

Given a rational pro-business policy, a willingness to compromise to get things done (no insistence on ideological purity), more openness toward minorities, a distaste for obstructionism, a balance of social conservatism with personal freedom, an inclusive stance on religion, a tempered fiscal conservatism rather than a mere tax-cut mantra, a realistic environmental policy, a firm stance on illegal immigration that doesn't lapse into race baiting, and an explicit disavowal of conspiracy theories and paranoia, at this moment such a party could do very well.

 

[Piggy]

You say that if the economy doesn't get better, people will blame it on the GOP

No, that's not what I said.

I said if the economy recovers this year and jobs follow next year, the Democrats will do well.

It's not the same thing.

 

[SezMe]

I agree Piggy except for the third party part. I think that same coalition stands a better chance if they recapture the existing party rather than starting from scratch.

ETA: Oops, in response to #66.

 

[Piggy]

I agree Piggy except for the third party part. I think that same coalition stands a better chance if they recapture the existing party rather than starting from scratch.

I agree.

But how are they going to do it?

The leadership had a choice to make after the election, and they started moving away from the Palinista camp. But in the end, too many of the remaining seats were dependent on the so-called "base".

You can see it playing out right now with the vote changes on Sotomayor. Senators who know she's a restrained jurist simply can't vote for her. They're forced to denounce her for being an "activist" even though they know it's not true.

The Republican caucus opposed Specter and drove him to the Democrats, which with Franken put them at 60 (although that's more symbolic than anything else, given how fractured the Democratic caucus is).

Everyone who tried to criticize Limbaugh ended up having to apologize and kiss his ring, to the despair of moderates who were (and are) rightly horrified at a leadership so weak that they couldn't stand up to a radio talk show host. He became the symbolic leader of the party. Powell is just about the only one who dares to criticize Rush, and he's not in office.

It's turning into a circular firing squad.

 

[Distracted1]

And he also says, "Don't carry on and make a scene - just short intermittent shout outs. The purpose is to make him uneasy early on and set the tone for the hall as clearly informal, and free-wheeling." They seem to be explicitly telling people NOT to turn it into a shouting match.



The phrase "rock him back on his heels" appears nowhere in that link. And 'vitriol' is entirely your invention.



Or it could be that they don't want to act like a mob. But hey, let's just ascribe the worst motives we can think of to them. I mean, you're willing to lie about the contents of the PDF, what's a little ascribed motives?

You are right, "Rock them back..." does not appear in that link. It talks about getting the rep "rattled", and "off balance" however. and talks about how to keep him that way.
It also encourages participants to express their anger at the "socialist policies" which are (according to the link) "betraying the intentions of the founders"- I used the term Vitriol as a synonym.
I stand by my characterization of what the link says.

 

[Distracted1]

Actually, upon re-reading the link, I find under the Summary section a discussion about how the rep might behave after being "set back on his heels" hmmmm....

Do I get to call you a liar now?

 

[Ziggurat]

You are right, "Rock them back..." does not appear in that link. It talks about getting the rep "rattled", and "off balance" however. and talks about how to keep him that way.
It also encourages participants to express their anger at the "socialist policies" which are (according to the link) "betraying the intentions of the founders"- I used the term Vitriol as a synonym.

That's not a synonym. And if these folks think that these policies are socialist and contrary to the federalist small-government ideas of our founders (who on earth could think that about a massive increase of the role of government in major segments of our economy, along with unprecedented government spending), why is that beyond the pale?

I stand by my characterization of what the link says.

And god forbid a voter ever express anger to their elected representative. Oh, the humanity! What is this world coming to?

Why, the plebes should know their place! How dare they demand that their representatives actually represent their desires! What do they think this is, a democracy? And how dare the RNCC encourage people to voice their anger! Everybody knows only progressives are allowed to protest.

 

[Ziggurat]

That is the most dishonest thing I've seen you post, Zig.

I provide a link. I provide a quote from the link. The link is valid, the quote is accurate. Distracted1 invents a quote from my link. And I'm the one who's being dishonest? You really need to get your priorities straight. You think I left something out? Fine, feel free to add to the record. But your claim about my dishonesty is weak. Really weak.

Do you really think the small part you quoted accurately conveys the intent of that paragraph?

The whole intent? No, nor did I claim it did. But it speaks rather directly and explicitly against the claim that was made.

BTW, that pdf is screwed up so I hope my copy/paste got everything right.

The PDF is bitmapped, Adobe is doing an imperfect text recognition when you copy from it. That's why "informal" comes through as "infonnal".

ETA: Not by Dick Army? Really? That memo was signed by Bob McGuffie who is with Freedom Works. Freedom Works is run by Dick Army. Do you think Army was unaware of that memo?

Don't know, don't care. The author is not Dick Army, that's the extent of my claim in that regard.

 

[Distracted1]

That's not a synonym. And if these folks think that these policies are socialist and contrary to the federalist small-government ideas of our founders (who on earth could think that about a massive increase of the role of government in major segments of our economy, along with unprecedented government spending), why is that beyond the pale?



And god forbid a voter ever express anger to their elected representative. Oh, the humanity! What is this world coming to?

Why, the plebes should know their place! How dare they demand that their representatives actually represent their desires! What do they think this is, a democracy? And how dare the RNCC encourage people to voice their anger! Everybody knows only progressives are allowed to protest.

Perhaps it's because they see the government policies as a socialist betrayal that they feel suchVitriol,
It is every Americans' right to protest.
A town hall meeting is not considered an appropriate place for a protest. Encouraging protests at such events eliminates their value to our Democracy, and is beyond irresponsible.

 

[Ziggurat]

It is every Americans' right to protest.
A town hall meeting is not considered an appropriate place for a protest. Encouraging protests at such events eliminates their value to our Democracy, and is beyond irresponsible.

Nonsense. These protests did not halt (or even attempt to halt) the business of those town hall meetings. And it seems that a town hall meeting is rather the ideal place to voice any anger you have about the legislative actions of your representative. If supporters of these politicians feel that they're doing a good job, then they are free to go to such meetings and voice their support. Why are the democrats attacking critics for showing up at these meetings, rather than asking supporters to show up too?

 

[Brainster]

No, I don't believe that.

What I'm saying is that it would be better for conservatism if moderates like Powell and Snow, as well as rank and file members who aren't on the far right fringe, were to leave the party to the birthers and Palinistas and let it wither on the vine.

Suppose you did have pragmatic Republicans forming a Conservative Party, along with some Democratic defectors who don't care for that party's left wing, and a few independents and maybe some 3rd party folks who have only been where they are by default.

With the right platform, it could be the new home for reasonable conservatives who see where the GOP seems to be headed and don't like it, along with Reagan Democrats, McCain swing voters, etc.

Given a rational pro-business policy, a willingness to compromise to get things done (no insistence on ideological purity), more openness toward minorities, a distaste for obstructionism, a balance of social conservatism with personal freedom, an inclusive stance on religion, a tempered fiscal conservatism rather than a mere tax-cut mantra, a realistic environmental policy, a firm stance on illegal immigration that doesn't lapse into race baiting, and an explicit disavowal of conspiracy theories and paranoia, at this moment such a party could do very well.

You can't make a party out of moderates in a two-party system; inevitably they will become marginalized. I'm sorry to say that, because I like to think that many of my positions tend to be centrist, not conservative, but it's a basic fact of life that moderates (by definition) aren't committed enough to do the hard work of politics. And Republicans are not inclined to follow Colin Powell after he endorsed Obama over McCain.

Let's also remember that McCain was not the candidate of the committed base in 2008, which shows that the rank and file of the GOP may be smarter than the supposed poobahs like Rush and Ann Coulter.

Birthers and Palinistas? The Birthers are really fringe; almost no major conservative blog pushes it, and even the supposed "Show us the Birth Certificate Bill," which I don't oppose has what, 9-10 co-sponsors in the house?

Palin? I have to reiterate that I have strong doubts that Palin can mount a national campaign, and losing VP candidates seldom get the big nomination anyway. But what is it that worries you about the people who like her, these Palinistas?

I did entirely misread your point about the economy, I don't know why I thought the word "not" was in there when it wasn't. My bad. And yes, I certainly agree that the GOP will take a hammering if Obama has a good economy in three years; I am not sure that is evident yet that 2010 goes into the Democratic column; they have their pickups in 2008 to defend in the House. That is always a tricky prospect.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Nonsense. These protests did not halt (or even attempt to halt) the business of those town hall meetings. And it seems that a town hall meeting is rather the ideal place to voice any anger you have about the legislative actions of your representative. If supporters of these politicians feel that they're doing a good job, then they are free to go to such meetings and voice their support. Why are the democrats attacking critics for showing up at these meetings, rather than asking supporters to show up too?

Nonsense. Do you want a bare knuckles brawl? If the Rep's supporters "voice their support" the way this human cannon fodder of the conservatives does, you're going to have a riot. It'd make great TeeVee, but it'd certainly not be an exchange of ideas in the sense in which people usually mean when they discuss Town Hall Meetings. And in case you haven't noticed, there are supporters there, along with people who probably came along just to listen and learn.

Do you not understand the meaning of the word "meeting". That's what they call these things - Town Hall Meetings. Not "Town Hall Shout At The Guy on the Podium". If these people have questions to raise, why are they not raising them when it comes time for the Q&A and exchange of ideas? Well, because their intent is to disrupt, not discuss.

Oh, and by the way, I recall reading about one of these disrupt-a-thons in Long Island where the Rep had to be escorted out by the police and the meeting was definitely halted.

 

[Ziggurat]

Nonsense. Do you want a bare knuckles brawl? If the Rep's supporters "voice their support" the way this human cannon fodder of the conservatives does, you're going to have a riot.

Why? Because the progressives can't avoid using violence? Because that's where mass political violence in America comes from: the left, not the right.

And in case you haven't noticed, there are supporters there, along with people who probably came along just to listen and learn.

I did notice. Your point?

Do you not understand the meaning of the word "meeting".

I do. I also understand that you phrased this as a question, but did not put a question mark on it. And they call them meetings, not speeches.

If these people have questions to raise, why are they not raising them when it comes time for the Q&A and exchange of ideas?

They did. Did you not watch the videos? No, apparently not. Either that, or you're just lying about what took place.

Oh, and by the way, I recall reading about one of these disrupt-a-thons in Long Island where the Rep had to be escorted out by the police and the meeting was definitely halted.

And I recall reading about alien abductions. Surely you can do better than this.

 

[SezMe]

You think I left something out? Fine, feel free to add to the record.

I already did. I showed your link in context which demonstrated that your snippet was not reflective of the intent of the paragrah or document.

But your claim about my dishonesty is weak. Really weak.

Here is my exact claim:

That is the most dishonest thing I've seen you post, Zig.

I made a statement of my perception of your post. That is not weak, it is a precise statement of my view. Now, you may not like that view but it is exactly how I view it.

FWIW, the reason I react so strongly is that while you and I don't agree politically, I usually find that you have something useful to say and make good points. The post I reacted to was misleading or even underhanded. It was not Zig at his best.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Why? Because the progressives can't avoid using violence? Because that's where mass political violence in America comes from: the left, not the right.

Yep. Never been a conservative who started a fight... ever. Not one. Not a single one. (Do you subscribe to all fantasies or just the ones that pertain to your blind partisan support? Alternate theory - why answer the question when you can muddy the waters with a diversion. Wanna try again?)

I did notice. Your point?

Huh? Did you miss how that contradicted your point? You know, the one wherein you stated that the Rep could have his supporters come to the meetings, as though they weren't there. Did their presence stop the hecklers? No. As has been often shown, a small group of determined hecklers can disrupt the proceedings being attended by a larger non-boisterous group. You do realize that is the intention of these actions, don't you? Or are you still pretending that this is free speech at its finest?

I do. I also understand that you phrased this as a question, but did not put a question mark on it. And they call them meetings, not speeches.

Oh noes!! I forgot a question mark in a political thread! Gasp! How could I leave such an opening for petty nitpicking nonsense?
Here. Here's a question mark for you. ? Is your life complete now?
Now would you like to address the question, grammatically incomprehensible as it may have originally been?
You see, here's how it goes.
>People make speeches at meetings.
>Then people ask questions of the people who make speeches.
>And then the speakers answer those questions.
>And quite often the questioners then ask a follow up question and even get a little peevish and into an argument with the speaker.
So your point would be that that particular method isn't as satisfactory in your version of a democracy, as "Boo! Boo! Boo! Tell the truth! That's a lie!" being shouted from randomly dispersed stooges in the audience? I'd like to attend your next business meeting.

They did. Did you not watch the videos? No, apparently not. Either that, or you're just lying about what took place.

I watched some videos - a number of them. Not the ones in these posts, but a bunch I found at random when dashing around the web to see what various sources were saying on the topic yesterday. No, I didn't see anyone filming a Q&A period so maybe I was watching just the hand-held celebrants. The ones I watched were home video sorts - apparently filmed by some of the protesters. They were filming introductions and audience members interrupting with catcalls and boos and shouts of "Liar" and "Tell the Truth".

And speaking of "liar" please don't bandy about the term. It's almost as dim as pointing out punctuation errors, and it's damned offensive to some of us.
I don't doubt for a second that there are orderly conservatives who may have asked legitimate questions in the specifically assigned time during the agenda. I just didn't see them in the videos I clicked on, but I'm happy to take your word for it, because it makes sense that there likely were some such people.
Tell me, though. Did you notice the people I'm describing? The ones who aren't lining up at the side to ask questions into the microphone or raising their hands to be heard in turn... the ones shouting out at random times during introductions and any old part of someone's speech?

And I recall reading about alien abductions. Surely you can do better than this.

Surely you can answer my point without resorting to diversions. Again, I was pointing out that something you said was a distortion. You said there was no intent to halt nor any meetings halted. I've read otherwise.

You seem to know all about all of these meetings (at least that's what I get from your earlier exchange with Piggy), and if I can find this one refrenced all the way from Hong Kong, I'm gonna bet that an expert like yourself can do the same. (And let's not get into dueling "you made the claim you provide the evidence" - you made your claim then I made my claim, so we're even... let anyone who wants to find the reference to the Long Island incident go look it up.)

BTW, I don't really think the intention of the disruptions is to silence the speakers - that's just an added bonus. The intention is like the Tea Bagger movement as a whole - to make news and to give the impression that this is a huge populist ground swell, when it's a few select handsful of people with an agenda. (And nothing wrong with having an agenda, either... it's what politics is all about. But when caught out at it, they just look silly and their supporters even sillier.)

@Piggy - I also don't necessarily agree that the GOP brass are completely behind it. I think they're quite content, if not delighted, that it's going on, but I do believe it's the same make-believe "grass roots" movement they tried to invent with Fox News' assistance, for the Tea Bag Day, or whatever it was called. It also just happens to merely coincide with a major financial effort to stop Healthcare/Insurance reform, so I'd tend to look for my suspects in that area.