Gingrich Strikes Back At Beck: His Agenda Is A ‘Very Destructive Model For The Republican Party’, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 01:26 PM by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by whaaa
Further evidence that the GOP is in the process of splintering into factions.
I support third and forth party diversity. However it could insure dem/lib victories for some time to come.

I agree with you that the GOP is splintering and I think it's probably a good thing, as I also support 3rd and 4th party diversity. However, I like to think that some who normally vote for Democrats as the lesser of 2 evils might swing over and vote for a party that represents a more centrist position. It's very possible that I would vote for a more libertarian or even a true conservative party (Not the Sarah Palin Conservative party of the far right). But Gingrich is probably right that the GOP split would guarantee another Democratic term.

Is their any potential canidate in the GOP that could be a uniter?

I don't know of one. The difference between the moderates and far rights is pretty big. They're sure united in their voting, though.

Are Beck and Rush a destructive force as the article says?

I definitely think they are. They may say they're not Republican, but most Republicans relate to them in their animosity toward Obama.

Gingrich is sounding downright sensible these days.

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 01:36 PM by Fromabove

When Gingrich backs a liberal, he loses any conservative support he may have had. Conservatives are not going now or ever vote for any liberal, period. The sooner the Repubs get it the sooner we can get this country out of the hands of the communists in Washington.

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 01:44 PM by vor78

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Gingrich is sounding downright sensible these days.

And the great irony is that Gingrich is making this argument because he's fearful that Obama will be re-elected and Pelosi will be speaker for life. His words, not mine. Its not about the party principles. No, its purely about winning and losing, according to Gingrich, apparently by whatever means necessary.

Apparently, it doesn't matter what the party stands for, as long as the party wins. Sorry, but that seems rather irrational to me.

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 02:10 PM by GilligansSkipper

Beck isn't destroying the Republican party. He is saving the country from being destroyed within by the Marxists that were elected into office by a bunch of fools who want the government to be their daddy.

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 02:13 PM by maybereal11

Originally posted by Fromabove
When Gingrich backs a liberal, he loses any conservative support he may have had. Conservatives are not going now or ever vote for any liberal, period. The sooner the Repubs get it the sooner we can get this country out of the hands of the communists in Washington.

Partisan glasses? The sooner you take them off the sooner people will listen to you.

You read "moderate GOP Candidate" as Liberal? Communist?

Geez...There is no mystery as to the attitude that is splintering the Republican party. In your world ther is far-right or communist?

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has been taking fire from conservative activists and far-right Republican leaders for endorsing Dede Scozzafava, the moderate GOP candidate running in the special election in New York’s 23rd district. These “purists” — including Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Dick Armey, and Bill Kristol — are backing Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman, revealing a wider rift within the conservative movement: the tea-party activist base versus “Big Tent” Republicans.

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 02:26 PM by vor78

reply to post by maybereal11

Liberal...moderate...its all relative to one's own position.

That said, considering that the article in question comes from thinkprogress.org AND is in a segment called 'Radical Right Wing Agenda', I'd say their own partisanship seems fairly clear. In light of that, I also have my doubts as to just how 'moderate' Scozzafava really is by the average voter's definition, not just mine.

[edit on 28-10-2009 by vor78]

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 02:35 PM by maybereal11

Originally posted by vor78

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Gingrich is sounding downright sensible these days.

And the great irony is that Gingrich is making this argument because he's fearful that Obama will be re-elected and Pelosi will be speaker for life. His words, not mine. Its not about the party principles. No, its purely about winning and losing, according to Gingrich, apparently by whatever means necessary.

Apparently, it doesn't matter what the party stands for, as long as the party wins. Sorry, but that seems rather irrational to me.

It does matter what the party stands for. What he wants the party to stand for is what it used to stand for when a majority of this country identified themselves as Republicans.

The party's values are demonstrated by the people it elects to office...by it's leadership and presently the GOPs leadership is touting a far-right agenda that is not in synch with the populace.

Arlen Spector, now Newt Gingrich etc. etc.

Go ahead...keep running every politician that isn't "extreme" enough for the GOP out of politics and see what is left of the GOP.

Do you know there are RINO hit lists floating about? Here I'll help...Start with these folks and see what is left of the GOP.

intolerantfox.blogspot.com...

Olympia Snowe, ME
Susan Collins, ME
Arlen Spector, PA
George Voinovich, OH
Lisa Murkowski, AL
Mel Martinez, FL
John McCain, AZ
Richard Lugar, IN
Robert Bennett, UT
Thad Cochran, MS
Mike Enzi WY-
Pete Domenici, NM
Mark Warner, VA
Sam Brownback, KS
Michael Castle, DE
Chris Smith, NJ
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, FL
John McHugh, NY
Fred Upton, MI
Shelly Moore Capito, WV
Jim Gerlach, PA
Mark Kirk, IL
Patrick Murphy, PA
Mike Rodgers, AL

Spencer Bachus (AL) Roy Blunt (MO) John Boehner (OH) Jo Bonner (AL) Mary Bono Mack (CA) John Boozman (AR) Kevin Brady (TX) Henry Brown (SC) Ken Calvert (CA) Dave Camp (MI) John Campbell (CA) Chris Cannon (UT) Eric Cantor (VA) Mike Castle (DE) Tom Cole (OK) Ander Crenshaw (FL) Barbara Cubin (WY) Tom Davis (VA)Vernon Ehlers (MI) Terry Everett (AL) Michael Ferguson (NJ) Vito Fossella (NY) Wayne Gilchrest (MD) Kay Granger (TX) Ralph Hall (TX) Wally Herger (CA) David Hobson (OH) Bob Inglis (SC) Pete King (NY) Mark Kirk (IL) John Kline (MN) Ray LaHood (IL) Jerry Lewis (CA) Ron Lewis (KY) Dan Lundgren (CA) Jim McCrery (LA) John McHugh (NY) Howard "Buck" McKeon (CA) Gary Miller (CA) Tim Murphy (PA) John Peterson (PA) Chip Pickering (MS) Jon Porter (NV) Deborah Pryce (OH) Adam Putnam (FL) George Radanovich (CA) Tom Reynolds (NY) Mike Rodgers (MI) Harold Rodgers (KY) Paul Ryan (WI) Jim Saxton (NJ) Jeff Sessions (TX) Christopher Shays (CT) Mike Simpson (ID) Chris Smith (NJ) Mark Souder (IN) Tom Tancredo (CO) Fred Upton (MI) Greg Walden (OR) Jim Walsh (NY) Dave Weldon (FL) Joe Wilson (SC) Heather Wilson (NM) Frank Wolf (SC)

From Michelle Malkin

Bilirakis
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Cao
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Duncan
Jones
McHugh
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Cantor

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 03:35 PM by vor78

reply to post by maybereal11

I disagree. He's not arguing that the GOP should run moderates OR conservatives. His argument is that the GOP should choose its candidates based solely upon who it believes can win a particular district. If that means bending on principles, so be it.

And I disagree that the party's ideology is represented by the people it has elected. The reason the average rank and file Republican has been so demoralized for the last few years is because the party leadership doesn't listen to them.

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 03:47 PM by maybereal11

reply to post by vor78

You make a reasonable argument. I just don't like the canabalism that seems to be occuring within the GOP.

When you say that the rank and file GOP has been demoralized in recent years because the leadership does not listen to them....

What is it you believe the rank and file GOP are saying that is not being heard? Just curious.

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 04:04 PM by vor78

reply to post by maybereal11

Its mainly on fiscal policy and their supposed commitment to small government. Almost all GOP voters agree with that in principle, but after eight years of Bush, the leadership has pretty much flushed that unifying issue down the toilet. Its hard to keep the voters happy when you're selling them down the river with huge increases in spending, massive deficits, bailouts and such. Social policy is also a point of contention and while the base is more divided on these issues, virtually no one is happy with the overall leadership on this, either.

[edit on 28-10-2009 by vor78]

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 04:08 PM by pavil

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Good. Isnt that the whole point? Let the neo's have their little party. Thay can merge with the neo-dems and make a whole "authoritarian" party.

Don't we already have that with the Great Leader's party?

I think that when Republicans try to be all things to all people, they go back on their principles, which ends up back firing. The Republican Party shouldn't try to move to the center to get more votes, they should be able to sway voters to step more to the right, IMO. Reagan didn't move to the Center, he invited America to join him on his side of the fence.

We tried the moderate route with McCain and Dole most recently.........how good did that do us?

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 04:48 PM by OldDragger

The real question is, what DO Republicans stand for?
Smaller government? Please, Reagan, Bush1 and Bush2 increased the government!
Civil Liberties? Repubs aren't exactly leading the way.
Defense? Bush kinda blew that one with his wars.
Lower taxes? Reagan and Bush1 raised taxes. Explain how we dig ourselves out of the Bush2 hole WITHOUT raising somebodies taxes.
Seems like the so called base stands for Jesus, The Bible and....some nebulous "patriotism". If that's what they stand for, good luck! We may never see a Repub President again.

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 04:56 PM by whaaa

reply to post by OldDragger

But we still got "family values"

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 05:02 PM by vor78

reply to post by pavil

Agreed. Both parties are at their best when they present the voters with a clear choice on the issues.

Shifting positions on social issues (and that's primarily where the lefties think the GOP needs to change) will not succeed. No one who is pro-choice, for instance, and puts abortion rights high on the list of priorities is going to trust a Republican over a Democrat with equivalent views on the issue...ever. Look at what happened when Obama made some early attempts to win over rural gun owners last year. He failed miserably and the result has been two years of panic buying. Winning voters on those issues requires not only a mere shift in policy, but also a shift in public trust of the party on that issue. One is easy to change, but the other is almost impossible.

Of course, there's also the question of how many votes you lose in the process as well. Is it worth getting one million voters from the middle/left if it causes five million conservatives to stay home? Doesn't seem to be. Its a high risk, low reward strategy.

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 05:06 PM by maybereal11

reply to post by vor78

You know what I would like to see...a red-pen committe with serious power and authority. I am all for smaller government and less spending, I am also for healthcare reform, cap and trade and a few other democratic agenda items.

There was originally a great deal of rhetoric during the debates by both candidates about taking a red pen to the budget and government spending...I'd like to see the current administration live up to it.

Wasn't McCain tasked with that at some point...the whole flap about the POTUSs helicopter etc? I want to hear more about where they are trimming government spending.

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 05:18 PM by OldDragger

reply to post by maybereal11

Every Politition wants to cut spending...in someone elses district or State.
Everyone in Congress ( including Ron Paul ), LOVES pork for their constituents, and EVERY FREAKIN ONE OF THEM LOVES LOBBIESTS!
Lobbies give them money, plain and simple, money for re- election or...whatever. Both Obama and McCain wanted to do away with the Lobbies, but to do so requires The Congress. Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse!

[edit on 28-10-2009 by OldDragger]

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 05:22 PM by vor78

reply to post by maybereal11

I don't think it'll ever happen unless the government is forced to cut back its spending. Neither party has the political will to cut spending and, in fact, they're usually rewarded by the voters for doing the exact opposite. People may whine and cry about it, but once the politicians throw some 'free' stuff at them, they change their tune quickly enough.

The truth of the matter is that we the people are as much a part of the problem as the politicians, if not more.

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 05:27 PM by silent thunder

It's time to stop thinking in one dimension (left vs. right) and start thinking in two or even three dimensions.

For example, consider the following political compass. Many of you have no doubt seen similar ones. The particular placement of the dots does not represent my opinions (I wouldn't put Thatcher right of Hitler, for example), but you can place the dots where you like...and place yourself anywhere in there there, too.

Now doesn't this type of schema make more sense than a one-dimensional "left-versus-right" paradigm?