Sane Republicans should leave the party now

[Brainster]

Chris Mathews points out that you could have said the same about the nutbars in the Democrats in 2007:



Yet somehow the sane Democrats did not leave their party.

 

[tyr_13]

Disrupting meetings? Where? I've seen lots of people show up to meetings, often voicing opinions contrary to that of the politician holding the townhall meetings. But that's not disrupting a meeting. In fact, that's the nominal purpose of such meetings: so that politicians can speak directly to, and hear directly from, their constituents. What, pray tell, is wrong with doing just that?

You'd have a point if not for the memos and guidelines created by people like Dick Army to disrupt town hall meetings, 'appear' to be a majority, and basically shout down any discussion. Turning a meeting into a shouting match is not the purpose of town halls, and these aren't the words of 'their constituents' as it is words put in those people's mouths from the GOP and certain lobby groups.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Chris Mathews points out that you could have said the same about the nutbars in the Democrats in 2007:



Yet somehow the sane Democrats did not leave their party.

Was the main stream caving to the nutjobs or not?

 

[Piggy]

Create a base outside of the party, organise and gain power within your party- which is just what the evangelical Christian right did.

You may wish to start your own newspaper.

Either way you will have a long hard fight ahead of you, but history seems to show that take -overs of existing US political parties by one faction or another are easier than establishing new parties.

Probably true.

Unless you've got a Kansas-Nebraska/free-state issue that can catapult a new party into power.

Since this would be a re-action (a negative motivator) instead of a positive response to a central motivating issue, it would be a real long shot.

I think the only chance it might have would be if a core of charismatic, well connected moderates were to form, say, a Conservative Party, for example, and attract moderates, independents, and fence-sitters who are put off by the current state of affairs and also don't like the Dems.

If Colin Powell, the Maine senators, and others were to split off, it could stand a chance.

 

[Piggy]

Yea, because there's never been any democrat party protesting.

Democrats complaining about community organizing,when the guy they elected is proud of being a community organizer.

In his own words



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...cs/p185733D40.DTL&type=politics#ixzz0NKb3egNc

Holy cow, this is surreal.

Community organizing, talking to friends and neighbors, even arguing, isn't the same as hijacking town hall meetings by shouting down the speakers and refusing to let them speak.

And if you don't like what the Dems did there, good Lord, why would we want to push it even farther?

 

[Piggy]

Disrupting meetings? Where? I've seen lots of people show up to meetings, often voicing opinions contrary to that of the politician holding the townhall meetings. But that's not disrupting a meeting.

Take a look at what happened to Castle's town hall, to Specter and Sibelius at their town hall. The GOP line is now to encourage this sort of thing.

 

[Piggy]

No, disrupting a meeting is doing what Code Pink does when it shows up at congressional hearings and starts chanting so that the hearings can't proceed until they're ejected.

Exactly. Should the GOP follow their lead? I don't think so.

 

[Ziggurat]

You'd have a point if not for the memos and guidelines created by people like Dick Army to disrupt town hall meetings, 'appear' to be a majority, and basically shout down any discussion.

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".

Turning a meeting into a shouting match is not the purpose of town halls,

Who has advocated doing that?

and these aren't the words of 'their constituents' as it is words put in those people's mouths from the GOP and certain lobby groups.

The concept of "talking points" is not new, it is not Republican, it's not intrinsically wrong, and they can indeed reflect the opinions of those who repeat them. I'm not a big fan of talking points, but THIS THREAD is an example of Democrat talking points. Oh, the irony.

 

[Piggy]

Chris Mathews points out that you could have said the same about the nutbars in the Democrats in 2007:



Yet somehow the sane Democrats did not leave their party.

Yeah, but the nutbars didn't take over the party, and you didn't have Democrat leadership telling people to go out there and disrupt. This is where the GOP has gotten to now, though.

 

[Ziggurat]

Take a look at what happened to Castle's town hall, to Specter and Sibelius at their town hall. The GOP line is now to encourage this sort of thing.

It's strange, Piggy, that you have yet to provide a single source for any of your claims. So let me do your job for you. Here is Specter and Sibelius:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpt8BzyFpa4

So what exactly happened? Well, there was a vocal crowd that reacted negatively to what Specter said. Did they prevent Specter from saying what he wanted to say? No, they did not. Did they even try to stop him from saying what he wanted to say? No, they did not. What, exactly, is so terrible about what happened?

 

[Ziggurat]

Yeah, but the nutbars didn't take over the party, and you didn't have Democrat leadership telling people to go out there and disrupt. This is where the GOP has gotten to now, though.

You have yet to demonstrate ANYTHING that the GOP leadership actually did.

 

[corplinx]

I guess I will go on record saying that both of the major parties should break up. I don't see much rational thinking from either of them.

Never happen... but still.

 

[ProbeX]

Community organizing, talking to friends and neighbors, even arguing, isn't the same as hijacking town hall meetings by shouting down the speakers and refusing to let them speak.

And if you don't like what the Dems did there, good Lord, why would we want to push it even farther?

Sounds like you listened to Alan Colmes ranting last night. People have short memories. Sure, these GOP antics are tacky. And it's probably not helping their cause. But Dem antics in the past have been tacky too. This will all be forgotten fairly quickly.

 

[tomwaits]

I've seen Town Hall meetings hosted by the execs at the company I work for, and they can get pretty heated.

The controversial topic? You guessed it: health coverage. I suppose it's just one of those touchy subjects that gets a lot of people upset.

 

[Piggy]

You have yet to demonstrate ANYTHING that the GOP leadership actually did.

The NRCC has been sending email memos to media showcasing these "Recess Roastings" and attempting to spin Democratic objections to these adolescent tactics as "blaming the voters" (that's NRCC communications director Ken Spain there) and squelching dissent.

That kind of press just encourages the behavior.

Honestly, I don't think anyone on the Democratic side is attempting to stop anyone from voicing opposing opinions. It's the shout-downs they object to, and rightly so, the chants of "Tell the truth!" and "Just say no!" It's counterproductive and stupid.

And yes, Specter and Sibelius got shouted down, and so did Castle, and so did Bishop and Doggett and Driehaus and Hoyer.

The NRCC should not be gleeful over this, or adding fuel to the fire by attempting to spin rational discourse as the suppression of dissent.

What frightens me now is that there doesn't appear to be any leadership in the GOP anymore that is capable of intervening.

Sure, you had leftist single-payer "activists" who disrupted the Finance Committee meetings. But no one outside that group was interesting in encouraging them, or turning it into some kind of movement.

So why is the NRCC stirring the pot?

 

[Piggy]

Sounds like you listened to Alan Colmes ranting last night. People have short memories. Sure, these GOP antics are tacky. And it's probably not helping their cause. But Dem antics in the past have been tacky too. This will all be forgotten fairly quickly.

Alan Colmes? Heard of him, never watched the show. I don't listen to that kind of thing, as a rule.

I am interested in propaganda, but I don't have time to keep up with everybody. I do see some O'Reilly, Olbermann, Limbaugh, and Moore from time to time.

My concern with the tactics isn't that they're tacky, but that -- taken in conjunction with the recent Limbaugh-licking, birther coddling, and other signals -- they indicate a party that's become so identified with the know-nothing wingnuts that it's essentially become the party of, for, and by that faction.

 

[Ziggurat]

The NRCC has been sending email memos to media showcasing these "Recess Roastings" and attempting to spin Democratic objections to these adolescent tactics as "blaming the voters" (that's NRCC communications director Ken Spain there) and squelching dissent.

Yet again, you make a claim with no evidence. Maybe you're right about this, maybe you aren't, but why have you never, even once, provided a single source for any of the claims you have made here?

And why have you moved the goalpost from what Republicans were supposedly instigating to what they're criticizing Democrats for complaining about? Are you simply unable to support your original claims?

And yes, Specter and Sibelius got shouted down

No, they did not. I watched the video. There was shouting, but it was always brief, never continuous, and it did not prevent either from saying what they had to say.

So why is the NRCC stirring the pot?

You have yet to demonstrate a single thing that the NRCC has done. You have yet to demonstrate anything that anyone has done.

 

[Piggy]

Yet again, you make a claim with no evidence. Maybe you're right about this, maybe you aren't, but why have you never, even once, provided a single source for any of the claims you have made here?

To be honest, I kind of get a kick out of watching you continue not to look anything up yourself. A guilty pleasure, I admit.

You can go onto the NRCC site and check out their press releases. You'll see stuff like this.

Bishop gets shouted down by one of these mobs, and so cancels his remaining town halls. So what does the NRCC do? Disavow the mobs? No. It goes into this crazy rant that makes it out like he's going into hiding and refusing to listen to anyone.

Granted, the Dems are spinning this whole thing themselves -- not very effectively, but imho they're not too skilled at that, anyway.

You can also Google "Recess Roasting" to read more about the memos, including Spain's comments.

This is what I call "openly encouraging mob actions in order to scuttle orderly discussion, debate, and compromise" (see OP).

But it's not just this in isolation. It's this as a watershed. This is what we're down to. The Palin rallies were bad enough, and I thought after the election that the GOP was going to disavow all that and attempt to rebuild winning coalitions. Instead, they've gone in the other direction.

On the heels of the shameful loss of GOP leaders in the showdown w/ Rush, the NRCC's take on the town hall mobs is a sign that the leadership is effectively dead and we're moving into torch and pitchfork territory.

 

[Ziggurat]

To be honest, I kind of get a kick out of watching you continue not to look anything up yourself. A guilty pleasure, I admit.

Funny, but it was me, not you, who posted the actual video of what happened at Specter and Sibelius's town hall. And it didn't match what you claimed. And why is it that I'm the one obliged to look things up, when YOU are the one making the claims? Why did it require multiple prompts before you posted a single link to back up your claims?

You can go onto the NRCC site and check out their press releases. You'll see stuff like this.

And what does that press release say?
"Bishop is no stranger to voters who are expressing disappointment with his record, as evidenced by a June town hall meeting where his constituents confronted him over his betrayal on the National Energy Tax, and the Democrat’s plan for a government takeover of healthcare"

Is the NRCC calling for mob action? Is it calling for the town hall meeting to be disrupted? No, it is not. What, precisely, do you find objectionable in this release? What part of the actual text constitutes incitement? I understand that you don't believe the accusation of why Bishop canceled future town hall events, but such claims are rather vanilla partisan politics, and does not constitute evidence for the claims you have made here.

Bishop gets shouted down by one of these mobs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOLs7Cybnqw
Video from inside starts at about 1:20
Was Bishop shouted down? No, I don't think he was. The crowd was not friendly, and it was vocal, but it did not shout him down. They were, in fact, demanding answers from him.

You can also Google "Recess Roasting" to read more about the memos, including Spain's comments.

There are few relevant results. They seem to be about the same as this one
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/nrcc-celebrates-recess-roasting.php

Nowhere in that link does Spain or anyone else call for anyone to disrupt townhall meetings, or to act like a mob. Can you provide a single quote which you find objectionable? Because you keep making these claims, and every time I look into them, there's just nothing there.

 

[Upchurch]

To be honest, I kind of get a kick out of watching you continue not to look anything up yourself. A guilty pleasure, I admit.

No, that is not the way it works. If you are making claims, it is up to you to back it up.

Bad Piggy.