California Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) leader Ryan Sorba was booed at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) when he said CPAC shouldn't have allowed the gay group GOProud [a coalition of gay Republicans] to be there. Here's the YouTube:
Alexander McCobin of Students for Liberty provoked Sorba's comments by saying in his own short speech:
"In the name of freedom, I would like to thank the American Conservative Union for welcoming GOProud as a co-sponsor of this event, not for any political reason but for the message it sendsâ¦.Students today recognize that freedom does not come in pieces. Freedom is a single thing that applies to the social as well as the economic realms and should be defended at all times."
McCobin also drew some boos, but they were drowned out by applause. CPAC is the largest annual gathering of the hard-right wing of the Republican party. This represents progress.
After the GOP makes expected big congressional gains this coming November, lobbying within the libertarian wing of the Republican party will be vitally important. But don't count on the big-name "progressive" LGBT groups to bother with anything remotely like constructive engagement.
Corvino, John
{ 85 comments }
Speaker Booed Off Stage
He wasn’t booed for being anti gay. He was booed for criticizing CPAC. GOShame hates gay people as much as the rest of the CPAC people do.
The entertaining thing for me has been watching the gay and lesbian community have its meltdowns over the presence of GOProud at CPAC.
Really, the similarity between them and Ryan Sorba is striking. Clearly, these groups and people do not want anything that challenges their belief system in regards to gay people and conservativism taking place. I wonder why?
Alexander McCobin said something that makes most of the people who post here shudder – he dared to suggest that freedom is social as well as economic. I like that. Are you listening, NDF and Lori? And the above comment about the libertarian wing of the GOP needing to lobby after the fall elections is laughable – there IS NO such wing any longer and if you think there is, you’re a fool.
TO “libhomo”–
“He wasn’t booed for being anti gay. He was booed for criticizing CPAC. GOShame hates gay people as much as the rest of the CPAC people do.”
***************************************************
Hyperbolic assumption on your part.
Anyone who would devise such a post as this one might need to rethink a strategy or two……or three.
If you support Barack Obama and desire that he be more than a one-term president, you really need to help him with his disastrous–so far—foreign policy strategies.
Talk about open hatred.
This avenue is a legacy killer.
Anthony, you are such an ignoramus. If you want to promote “progressivism” the most constructive thing you, personally, could do would be to STFU.
First you come onto this blog with a whole raft of half-assed assumptions about gay conservatives and libertarians — pulled, evidently, right out of your butt — in which you proceeded to indulge without ever having bothered to check on any of those about whom you were speaking.
Do you not understand how to Google? Or do you truly believe that every liberal is born knowing everything?
Easy to imagine you racing to your computer to look up CPAC and find out — oh, please! — if ANYBODY there might have been mean to the gays. As if that proves your point that “ALL” right-wingers hate gays.
Again, if you want to show progressivism in a good light, maybe you, and jackasses like you, would be better off merely shutting up.
I’ll call your bluff, Anthony. Find where I am recorded — ANYWHERE — as having stated that freedom is strictly an economic matter.
Go ahead, I dare you.
Another of your ignoramus assumptions. Please take up my challenge, so I can kick your ass all over this thread.
Lori, you first referred to yourself as a frequently published LGBT Christian writer . . . wow, you’ve certainly demonstrated why anyone would be interested in your compassionate, Christ-like demeanor. Of course, Jesus was a man . . . go figure.
“….wow, you’ve certainly demonstrated why anyone would be interested in your compassionate, Christ-like demeanor.”
***********************************
I just squirted a mouthful of good Merlot all over my iMac from that one.
LOL!!!
Get with the program, Anthony.
Religion’s not what it used to be.
ROTFLM-T’s-O !!!
Lori, you first referred to yourself as a frequently published LGBT Christian writer . . . wow, you’ve certainly demonstrated why anyone would be interested in your compassionate, Christ-like demeanor.
She certainly has.
When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!”
John 2:13-16
Granted, Anthony, it’s pretty obvious that your sexual orientation has neatly served as a substitute for you having to actually learn anything about the topics on which you pontificate, but really, coming here like that is a bit like coming to a knife fight with a popgun.
How unexpected, Anthony, really. I could have set my watch by it.
LGBT Christians always get that sort of thing from “progressive” haters. If we don’t let them trample all over us, then we are chided about our less-than-adequately Christian demeanor.
They claim it’s the Right-Wingers who see us as doormats, but in general I’ve gotten much more respectful treatment from most of them than from the trolls — gay and straight — who come to sites like this to dump on (or squirt beverages out of their mouths at) those uppity gays who refuse to stay on the plantation and insist upon thinking for themselves.
If we want to do that, we’re supposed to check with them first. Didn’t we get the memo?
NDT has it right; Jesus was no wimp. I don’t think the Christian faith would have survived two thousand years if we had allowed the Anthonys of this world to kick us around every time they wanted to.
Thanks for playing, Anthony. Please try again.
It’s amazing how progressives spin everything to their advantage, in the 1980s Pat Buchanan gave a speech against homosexuality and he certainly wasn’t jeered, quite the opposite. Either way, today most conservatives would rather attack opinions than engage in mean spirited things like what Sorba did. Why? Because even people who oppose same-sex marriage don’t necessarily have a problem with gays. Of course, progressives are so radicals that they see racism and homophobia everywhere they go.
Anthony, libertarians and conservative gays have nothing to gain from the progressive movement because they have nothing to offer us but higher taxes, more government, hate speech laws, more political correctness, and more pressure to conform. Anyway, here’s how progressives look at people:
“”Even if we accept organized charity at its own valuation, and grant that it does the best it can, it is exposed to a more profound criticism. It reveals a fundamental and irremediable defect. Its very success, its very efficiency, its very necessity to the social order, are themselves the most unanswerable indictment. Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease. Those vast, complex, interrelated organizations aiming to control and to diminish the spread of misery and destitution and all the menacing evils that spring out of this sinisterly fertile soil, are the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding and is perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents and dependents. My criticism, therefore, is not directed at the «failure» of philanthropy, but rather at its success.”
Source: Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood), The Pivot of Civilization (1922), Chapter Five”
“The notion that persons should be safe from extermination as long as they do not commit willful murder, or levy war against the Crown, or kidnap, or throw vitriol, is not only to limit social responsibility unnecessarily, and to privilege the large range of intolerable misconduct that lies outside them, but to divert attention from the essential justification for extermination, which is always incorrigible social incompatibility and nothing else.”
Source: George Bernard Shaw, “On the Rocks” (1933), Preface.
USE OF GAS CHAMBERS
“We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living, and to leave living a great many people whom we at present kill. We should have to get rid of all ideas about capital punishment â¦
A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them.”
Source: George Bernard Shaw, Lecture to the Eugenics Education Society, Reported in The Daily Express, March 4, 1910.
”
“The blacks, those magnificent examples of the African race who have conserved their racial purity by a lack of affinity with washing, have seen their patch invaded by a different kind of slave: The Portugese…. the black is indolent and fanciful, he spends his money on frivolity and drink; the European comes from a tradition of working and saving which follows him to this corner of America and drives him to get ahead.”
Ernesto “Che” Guevara
Here’s another gem from Guevara…
“In a famous speech in 1961, Che Guevara denounced the very “spirit of rebellion” as “reprehensible.”
“Youth must refrain from ungrateful questioning of governmental mandates” commanded Guevara. “Instead, they must dedicate themselves to study, work, and military service.” And woe to those youths “who stayed up late at might and thus reported to work [government forced-labor] tardily.”
“Youth,” wrote Guevara, “should learn to think and act as a mass.” “Those who chose their own path” [as in growing long hair and listening to Yankee-imperialist Rock & Roll] were denounced as worthless “lumpen” and “delinquents.” In his famous speech Che Guevara even vowed, “to make individualism disappear from Cuba! It is criminal to think of individuals!”
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/6/4/141010.shtml
The quotes may be old but the feelings are just the same. Progressives have no tolerance for anyone but themselves, gays have no business with those evil people.
“Political parties exist to secure responsible government and to execute the will of the people. From these great tasks both of the old parties have turned aside. Instead of instruments to promote the general welfare they have become the tools of corrupt interests, which use them impartially to serve their selfish purposes. Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics, is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.”
-Theodore Roosevelt in the speech, “The Progressive Covenant With The People.”
Anthony: “the above comment about the libertarian wing of the GOP needing to lobby after the fall elections is laughable – there IS NO such wing any longer and if you think there is, you’re a fool.”
In fact, anyone who has been watching the CPAC coverage on CSPAN knows that there is a huge split at the conference between libertarians (who appear to be a majority of the younger attendees) and social conservatives. The debate between them is a running theme through the speeches and questions. But Anthony, expressing his willful ignorance, can’t get beyond his Daily Koz talking points.
“[T]here IS NO such wing any longer and if you think there is, you’re a fool.”
Oh, that must be why Ron Paul just won the CPAC poll as top pick for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination.
…Stand back, now, as Anthony’s head offically explodes.
Theodore Roosevelt wasn’t a real republican, he was a progressive.
Look at this quote:
“âWe grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in governmental control is now necessary.â”
See? Who the hell is anyone to say: “We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community.” That’s not what America is all about, we’re a nation of individuals, not a collectivist state where everything must benefit everyone. Roosevelt even invented the “…freedom from want–which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants–everywhere in the world.”
This is not what our founding fathers wanted. We have the right to pursue happiness, not the right to be happy. Life isn’t like those politically correct competitions where everyone gets a trophy for participating. You have the right to try, and yes, you have the right to fail.
Read about the depression of 1920, it only lasted 18 months because the government cut spending by 50% and cut taxes as well. We don’t need to experiment with progressive economic policies, we know what works.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-depression-youve-never-heard-of-1920-1921/
The history of the progressive movement.
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/23936/
And the above comment about the libertarian wing of the GOP needing to lobby after the fall elections is laughable – there IS NO such wing any longer and if you think there is, you’re a fool.
I believe Anthony has–entirely accidentally–given us a line of great wisdom.
Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, the Tea Party Movement, and their nutty libertariactric followers aren’t a GOP wing. They are an independent/populist force.
Anthony, please take a rest and come back another time. You have no hope of persuading anyone here, for this is only one of many topics in a world most of us are quite settled about. The only thing you can do is teach people new things. You will do that better if you wait for some of the other left-of-center or mushy middle people to post.
The quotes may be old but the feelings are just the same. Progressives have no tolerance for anyone but themselves, gays have no business with those evil people.
I really think this is just the rebirth of an old trend.
Oh, and the rebirth, just to spell it out, is about abortion, assisted suicide, human cloning/experimentation, population control, and these strange trends toward trying to censor certain types of American heritage.
Bobby-
Is that why the Freepers thought Palin was the second coming of TR when McCain named her as his running mate?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2071195/posts
I don’t know Anthony or Bobby or Lori or anyone else here but I get the feeling you guys all have way too much time on your hands and that none of you are really gay. I haven’t seen this much internal denial since I spent an unfortunate weekend at a friend’s house and had to stare at an autographed picture of Rush Limbaugh on his wall. Dogmatic attitudes are the domain of left and right. You guys are no different than the liberals and that’s what is so odd because you actually think you are authentic and genuine. I don’t buy it.
I decided to take a glance at the blogs of certain posters here, namely Lori, NDF, Deb and Bobby, just to see what they were discussing.
My hope was that I’d find some enlightened opinions, a few shreds of entertaining commentary and perhaps a sign that they aren’t actually the haters’ apologists after all.
Oh, how disappointed I was. But, I looked at the number of comments made on each blog and realized that NO ONE had said anything, ANYTHING about their statements and all the energy they put into making them. How sad. And yet it explains why they closed ranks so very quickly and behaved precisely like the lefties they so despise and hate. Funny. I am comforted, though, in knowing that while they share their “insights” and intellect, uh hum, with one another on this site it is clear that virtually no else cares. Funny.
Finally, a note to Trevor. I read your comments and laughed. You’ll soon find that these folks will spurn you and shun you and make certain that they protect their self-denying, self-loathing, self-important approach to all things political (I shudder to think of how they handle the rest of their lives. Oh wait, I can read their blogs. Better than taking a sleep aide). Just keep your opinions to yourself, unless you think Glenn Beck is smart and actually believes the crap he’s peddling and making a lot of money off of. Or, if you view being gay is simply irrelevant to ANYTHING in your life. Just some advice. Now, wait for the onslaught of inflection from the mount of self-appointed opinion-makers whose opinions appear to fall silently into the abyss of Internet chatter.
“Now, wait for the onslaught of inflection from the mount of self-appointed opinion-makers whose opinions appear to fall silently into the abyss of Internet chatter.”
*****************************************
Anthony, you are the locus classicus of cyber heaven.
Keep up the good work!
“Is that why the Freepers thought Palin was the second coming of TR when McCain named her as his running mate?”
—Interesting link, although one commenter wrote “No, she’s our Tatcher.”
Trevor, you accuse people of being dogmatic yet you described seeing a picture of Rush Limbaugh as an unfortunate event.
“you guys all have way too much time on your hands and that none of you are really gay. ”
—That’s very insulting, who are you to judge who’s really gay and who isn’t? As for time on our hands, so what? Maybe some of us would rather debate politics online than cruise for sex in a darkroom.
I haven’t seen this much internal denial since I spent an unfortunate weekend at a friend’s house and had to stare at an autographed picture of Rush Limbaugh on his wall.
For shame. Did you even ask your friend about it? What kind of ignorant bigot thinks someone isn’t gay or is in some kind of denial just because they don’t agree with their political opinions?
Are you even aware that based on CNN exit polling 25% of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals (had to look up the exact wording) voted for George W. Bush in 2000,–and in 2004 his support among them only dropped by 2-points? 23% of us voting for someone who put the winds into the Federal Marriage Amendment, it’s like we barely even noticed! Do you dare dismiss that so flippantly?
I can understand not wanting to enter an ongoing barroom brawl, but I think someone you claim is a friend deserves at least that much respect.
Just keep your opinions to yourself, unless you think Glenn Beck is smart and actually believes the crap he’s peddling and making a lot of money off of.
My problem with you and probably Trevor as well is that you are doing just that, keeping your opinions to yourself, focusing most of your time saying that the posters on this site and certain ideologies are stupid and nutty, and not enough time proving why they are stupid and nutty.
Let me rephrase that. You spend too much time attacking people and not enough time discussing ideology and policy, too little time pointing out the ways they are bad ideas and your ideas are better. I’m sure the quartet you’ve mentioned think you’re funny but I would like to see you actually stand up for what you believe in.
The fundamental question is what is the best thing for the gay community (although we get into many debates about what is the gay community)? What is your vision for a better present and a brighter future?
I suppose I could link to a photo of myself with a cock in my mouth while holding a copy of today’s Washington Post, but (a) Trevor would just claim it was PhotoShopped, and (b) in these troubled times of limited disposable income, why would want to I spend perfectly good whiskey money buying the WaPo?
(When I need absorbent newsprint to line the bottom of my pet’s cage, there are plenty of free suburban ad papers at the entrance of every supermarket.)
“I don’t know Anthony or Bobby or Lori or anyone else here but I get the feeling you guys all have way too much time on your hands and that none of you are really gay.”
Oh, a new clown has shown up to entertain us — and his name is Trevor!
The spin from “progressives” is absolutely priceless. These people are showing exactly how ignorant and intellectually lazy they really are.
Always were, really.
Any gays or lesbians who think independently of the Leftist Hive can’t really be gay.
Anyone with alternative ideas must be evil, or a fraud, or a plant.
This is what people sound like when they’re little bullsh*t regime is being taken down. This is how the toadies sound as they bleat out the lines their masters have scripted.
I used to watch the Keith-and-Rachel Gang at MSNBC almost every night. It got to the point that their lies were so obvious even I could spot them — and at the time, I wanted to believe them.
I thought all the Right-Wingers were gay-hating bigots, that libertarianism (my guilty, closet desire) would never stand a chance, and that the Bush Borg would rule the Republican Party forever.
Help us, President Obi. You’re our only hope!
The events at CPAC show us that something else is going on. Something new — something different.
Travis and Anthony, of course, are still true believers in the Gospel of Keith and Rachel. I think they’ve got way too much time on their hands.
I’ll bet they’re not even gay.
Some might wish to analyze this.
Is Friedman spinning, or does he make his case?
“President Obamaâs bad luck was that he showed up just as we moved from the fat years to the lean years. His calling is to lead The Regeneration. He clearly understands that in his head, but he has yet to give full voice to it. Actually, the thing that most baffles me about Mr. Obama is how a politician who speaks so well, and is trying to do so many worthy things, canât come up with a clear, simple, repeatable narrative to explain his politics â when it is so obvious.”
Yawn. Sigh, Rolling of the eyes. Maybe even a quick nap. It all describes how I see the vast majority of people – all five of you – who post here. Gee, it’s kinda like your blogs. Funny.
I will have to make this my final post, as I need to do more important things – like drain my sinuses. And that, folks, is how I see your bizarre game of touting yourselves as somehow different, all the while proving that you’re anything but authentic or original. Reminds me of those cookie cutter houses you see in the suburbs. Hum drum, dull, boring, not in the least bit stimulating. And, it made me wonder why I spent any time in here at all. Guess sometimes you need a little dose of reality to get back to what counts. I have a full and happy life overall and this is just too petty and pointless to give anymore of my valued time and attention.
So, by all means, get back to bashing Elton John, to appointing yourselves the truth police, worshiping the likes of Beck and Limbaugh while they mock you (which, incidentally, I’d be all for now that I’ve had a taste of the “intellectual” prowess here), voting for candidates who will make sure you never have the right to marry the partners that likely will never exist in your lives, etc. Have fun, or more appropriately here, continue your game of hide and never seek who you are. It’s working. Just ask your loyal blog readers.
Who’s bashing Elton John? Anthony provided a perfect example of how progressives see the world, if you disagree with them you are bashing them. Frankly, I vote for candidates that support freedom, but I guess to Anthony same-sex marriage is the only freedom that matters. As for partners that don’t exist, how would you know who of us is dating, who has a boyfriend, who is happy being single? You don’t know as much about us as you know about Beck and Limbaugh, which is very little. Beck and Limbaugh could care less if same-sex marriage was legalized, they may be against it but it’s not like they’re actively fighting to save traditional marriage. In fact, not once during Beck’s CPAC address did he mention traditional marriage or gays. Whatever Anthony, go back to Huffington Post where you can “debate” with your own kind.
I find it interesting just how many ignorant and totally off-base assumptions our “progressive” trolls make. All they would have to do is Google some of us to find out how little they knew before they shot off on their childish rants.
A basic principle, of which even St. Keith, St. Rachel, St. Randi and St. Kos might advise them, is that they should DO THEIR HOMEWORK before showing up on a commentary thread, at a blog they have not bothered to read, and exposing their ignorance.
Uh…if you show right upfront that you don’t know what you’re talking about, why should you expect people to listen to you?
Sigh…roll of the eyes. LOL…ROFL…and whatever other inanely juvenile form of expression might actually make sense to them. But of course, nothing makes sense to them. That’s why they come here and vent. Their little world is coming apart at the seams, and here they thought it would last a thousand years!
In 2008, voters deposed the social-conservative Right. Of course the MSM didn’t tell us that; when do they ever tell the truth about anything? Keith and Rachel tried to tell us this meant that the Republican Party, and conservatism, were collapsing.
It meant nothing of the kind. What it meant was that the very libertarian wing of the Right that people like Anthony tell us doesn’t exist was actually asserting itself.
I believe that this is what this year’s CPAC convention means. Whether I’m right or wrong, only time will tell.
People as pig-ignorant as Anthony and Trevor can’t tell us anything.
“I suppose I could link to a photo of myself with a cock in my mouth while holding a copy of today’s Washington Post, but (a) Trevor would just claim it was PhotoShopped, and (b) in these troubled times of limited disposable income, why would want to I spend perfectly good whiskey money buying the WaPo?”
*************************************
Good thing you held off on that, Throbert.
Trevor and Anthony might go simply crazy just thinking about it!
Only so much stud-essence can be revealed on a Sunday.
“In 2008, voters deposed the social-conservative Right.”
In my neck of the woods, Indianapolis and the greater midwest, voters were not so motivated in 2006 and 2008 by any animus toward social conservatism. What voters were, and still are hostile to is the very base, objectivist ideology that is responsible for the fleecing of America. They see a political system that is so corrupted by a mendacious corporate culture that has pumped unimaginable sums of cash into it that actual governing can not occur. The recent Citizens United ruling has, in effect, opened the flood gates to foreign influence (cash) in our national elections. Welfare and entitlements? Shall we talk about a defense budget that, in reality, is a $trillion. No corporate welfare or entitlements there, surely not.
I retch each time I hear the empty rhetoric from conservatives about national security and sovereignty when they seemingly delight in garbage of this sort. We would like to have our government back, but there really is no place to go to make that happen.
Jimmy, you see those two things as mutually exclusive, and I do not. Social conservatism is big-government conservatism. It is what George W. Bush and his minions brought us. It is both corrupt big government AND the sort of social conservatism that tried to run our lives as completely and tyrannically as the Left ever did. In a different way, perhaps, but nonetheless with as much of an authoritarian, “we-know-better-than-you-do” strain.
Social conservatives will not go gently into that good night; they will go on making a lot of noise for quite a while. The fact that they don’t all magically evaporate in short order will be pointed to, not only by themselves but by the Left-wing Statists they must play against (and upon whose continued existence they actually depend to prop themselves up) as “proof” that they still run things.
But the times, they are a-changing. THIS is what all those independents (whom polls showed still leaned Republican) thought they were voting for in 2008, and will vote for much more intelligently and coherently in 2010 and 2012.
Some might wish to analyze this.
Is Friedman spinning, or does he make his case?
It’s a fairly new analysis to me, but I think it’s reasonable. I definitely agree with the concept that Obama could be and probably needs to be a leader of a new unified vision for America’s future that includes the progressive platform. However, the analysis is outdated. The Tea Party Movement–the direction from which the country is turning against the Democrats–is absent in this piece, only the Republicans are mentioned. See, the energy Obama needs is already being picked up.
I think the author downplays the Obama presidency’s failures and flaws but what he said he got right. What he failed to mention is Obama appears more indecisive on foreign policy than one would have expected from his inaugural speech, and that he was really expected to pass the health care reform bill.
“Social conservatism is big-government conservatism. It is what George W. Bush and his minions brought us. It is both corrupt big government AND the sort of social conservatism that tried to run our lives as completely and tyrannically as the Left ever did. In a different way, perhaps, but nonetheless with as much of an authoritarian, “we-know-better-than-you-do” strain.”
—It wasn’t that bad. During 6 years of the Bush administration the economy did great and after 9/11 we kept the country safe and didn’t experiment with crazy ideas like trying terrorists in civilian courts. Besides, Bush never attacked MSNBC or Michael Moore, unlike Obama, he never told the American people to stop listening to the pundits, he even met with hateful critics like Cindy Sheehan twice. Bush did suffer a market correction in 2008, but the policies that lead to the economic collapse had more to do with banks and experiments like derivatives that had nothing to do with Bush or his administration.
The left is much more tyrannical and intolerant of dissent. Look at Obama chastising the Supreme Court during his state of the union address, that was completely disrespectful, the judges should have walked out.
Anyway, the longer Obama stays in office the more he makes me miss Bush.
Bobby, that was not even a mediocre attempt at revisionism.
Maybe that’s because it was true?
The last time I checked, the conventional wisdom was that the Democrats who were elected in 2006 and 08 were the moderate to conservative red-staters, the “Blue Dog” Democrats. Those were bad elections for gay marriage. But many of those same Democrats will be kicked out this year.
After the GOP makes expected big congressional gains this coming November, lobbying within the libertarian wing of the Republican party will be vitally important. But don’t count on the big-name “progressive” LGBT groups to bother with anything remotely like constructive engagement.
Uh… that’s what LCR and GOProud are supposed to do, as they speak the language.
For what it’s worth, I’ll be stunned if any libertarian Republicans get elected this November, but let me know which ones do, by all means.
Bush did suffer a market correction in 2008, but the policies that lead to the economic collapse had more to do with banks and experiments like derivatives that had nothing to do with Bush or his administration.
You should catch on of the recent Frontline documentaries making the rounds on PBS. There are a couple on the economic crisis. Interesting stuff.
“[T]he conventional wisdom was that the Democrats who were elected in 2006 and 08 were the moderate to conservative red-staters, the ‘Blue Dog’ Democrats.”
This is exactly why it’s so idiotic for liberals to claim any sort of “liberal mandate” out of those elections. Voters understood themselves to be mandating nothing of the kind.
When every election is basically a choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, it’s sometimes hard to figure out exactly what people thought they were voting for. We’ve had to hold our noses and pick the lesser of two evils for years. It’s really too early to tell how it’s all going to shake out, but I stand by my prediction that the libertarians are going to take over the GOP. They’ve got the hearts and minds of the youth, and they are the future.
This should mean better things for gays. And certainly it will give us more choices at the ballot box.
First of all, as someone who doesn’t want that to happen, I’m motivated to imagine a scenario where you’re wrong.
This is where I say again that it’s impossible to think of the future of conservatives and Republicans without looking at the country as a whole.
Have you ever seen what happens to young Republicans once they leave school and enter the workforce, or have children? I haven’t. Supposedly young Democrats start to worry about taxes and cheats and stuff like that and start moving toward the right. Remember, most young people are liberal, but the country as a whole is not. I can definitely see how that can happen.
Intellectually I think young Republicans will remain, but in numbers, as a base, that remains to be seen. I think it’s far more likely we’ll see another neoconservative takeover.
Bill Bennett takes issue with Beck’s performance.
Huge disagreement in GOP Land.
“Bobby, that was not even a mediocre attempt at revisionism.”
—I do not need to revise the history I lived myself. Some people only seem to remember the bad of the Bush administration, I remember the good. I remember how Bush told us to go shopping after 9/11 and how your recession ended up quickly. I remember the stock market booming because dividend taxes were cut to 15% so it made sense to invest. I remember poor people getting rich by flipping and remodeling houses, unemployment at 5%, and plenty of opportunity all around. The question isn’t why I remember all of that but why don’t you? America was a good place during the Bush years, our president didn’t apologize to foreign countries or literally bow down like a geisha in front of foreign leaders, we were not afraid to waterboard terrorists, we lowered taxes instead of developing stimulus packages that only stimulate corruption from well-connected individuals. Now we’re living in a Brave New World, I just hope Obama and his minions don’t destroy the country before the GOP gets to save it.
“You should catch on of the recent Frontline documentaries making the rounds on PBS. There are a couple on the economic crisis. Interesting stuff.”
—I’ll try, I do not trust those shows however. PBS is dominated by liberals who are not accountable to anyone. I saw the Frontline special on free healthcare around the world and the host was clearly biased in favor of this.
Tell me, do you think PBS will explore the connection between Barney Frank and others pressuring the banks give mortgages to people who can’t afford it just because they wanted more “diversity” in lending? It’s progressives like Frank that think every American is entitled to have a home.
Now Obama wants to spend $1.5 BILLION to help a few states fight foreclosures. So let me get this straight, people buy houses they can’t afford, they sign papers without reading them, they stop making payments and the American people are supposed to bail them out.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/20/nation/la-na-obama-vegas20-2010feb20
Jorge, I’m not sure to whom you are replying in your last post.
Are you actually — seriously — under the misconception that (A) all libertarians are young, or that (B) libertarianism is somehow “liberal?”
How very bizarre. No wonder libertarians are critical of the public school system.
Libertarianism is real conservatism. It is nothing less than the philosophy upon which this country was founded. If libertarians are liberal, they’re liberal the way Washington, Franklin, Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison were liberal.
“Have you ever seen what happens to young Republicans once they leave school and enter the workforce, or have children?”
I know what happened to this Reagan Democrat after she left school, entered the workforce, worked for over thirty years with the government confiscating a portion of her earnings from every paycheck — at gunpoint — with the promise that one day they’d give it back to her at retirement, only to find out, now, that there will be no retirement and that her money has simply been stolen.
I know what happens to an old Reagan Democrat (not too different, really, from one of your “young Republicans” gone grizzled) who is downsized out of five jobs in eight years, and now sees — still in her forties — that her livelihood is probably just gone forever.
I don’t need any lectures about the supposed starry-eyed impracticality of the notion that returning this country to the principles upon which it was founded — a country owned by us, instead of one that thinks it owns us — being some sort of feckless, youthful notion.
You seem to be equating neoconservative with grownup. They are, actually, the intellectual descendants of embittered Trotskyism. Most of their forebears started out as communists in the Fifties, and when they soured on the New Deal they underwent a convenient little transformation and became Republicans.
No one familiar with the history of the conservative movement would actually confuse neocons with real conservatives.
That you think so only shows how successful their snow-job has been on the American people.
Actually they started out as communists in the THIRTIES. It was the Fifties when they completed their great conversion to “conservatism.”
Read. Read widely. Please do not assume that when we graduate from one of those centers of statist indoctrination — the public school system — our education is complete.
You may protest that you always went to private school. But if you’ve been exposed to the mainstream media for any length of time, much of whatever you were able to learn in school has been layered over with years — perhaps decades — of propaganda.
Again, please study history before assuming that libertarians are nothing but the pack of youthful savages you seem to think they are. They have a long and proud tradition, and it is well deserving not only of study, but of emulation.
This is exactly why it’s so idiotic for liberals to claim any sort of “liberal mandate” out of those elections.
Lori is entirely correct, of course. You see, when a Republican gains the White House — even by they teeniest, tiniest, Supreme-Court-enabled majority — THEN you’re dealing with a mandate…
And, Bobby, what you describe as “good times” is exactly what we’re paying for today. You can simulate this in your own private life. Go out, max out your credit cards, kite a few dozen checks, borrow money from friends and neighbors, go to Vegas and live the high life. See how that works out for you.
“And, Bobby, what you describe as “good times” is exactly what we’re paying for today. You can simulate this in your own private life. Go out, max out your credit cards, kite a few dozen checks, borrow money from friends and neighbors, go to Vegas and live the high life. See how that works out for you.”
—Look, I just saw a report on CNN that Texas is handling the recession really well, that housing prices are actually climbing up. Why? Because in Texas they spend very little money helping people, instead the state has no income tax and low property taxes which attracts lots of people to the state. Sure, the liberals are always bitching about education, health care, and how little we do for the homeless. But you know what? By doing little for the homeless they end up going to other states instead of costing the Texan taxpayer a fortune. Think about it, Texas does very little for the people yet the people are thriving there.
Besides, how can you accuse Bush of spending too much money when Obama has raised the national debt by 3 trillion dollars? Get it? Obama has spent more in one year than Bush did in eight years. It’s funny Obama tells people not to blow their money in Vegas, what he is doing is the equivalent of losing $1,000 in cash and then applying for Casino credit in the hopes of winning it all again.
Seriously, why trust government? 60 Minutes had a special report on the place where The World Trade Center used to stand. Well, thanks to the bureaucracy of the port authority and the government of New York, $7 billion has been spent yet NOTHING has been built. Instead, all they do is fight about the memorial, how many towers to build, what design to use, whether or not they can afford a $2 billion subway station. See? It’s worst than Animal Farm, at least the pigs eventually built the windmills!
I trust the free market, it’s like my car insurance, I complained to Progressive that my payments were too high and another carrier was offering me less, and guess what? They lowered my premiums! But when the government takes over to whom are you gonna complain and why would they listen?
Yes, yes, Bobby, Obama is the anti-Christ. Whatever you say.
Just go watch the Frontline episode about derivatives. (And don’t ASSUME what it’s all about.)
I fear that “BobN” is exhibiting undue negative external factors.
Comments on this entry are closed.