• Announcements

    • Editor

      Civil Discourse is Back!

      Civil Discourse, established in 2000, is up and running again after a hiatus. Ours is a boutique web site with a tight group of enthusiasts dedicated to substantive, amicable discussion. We are always happy to welcome like-minded contributors to the forum, regardless of their political, religious or philosophical leanings. Please join our effort to bring civility to online conversation. Click here to learn what CD is all about, here to see our master forum page and here for tips on starting or joining discussions. Register as yourself or under a pseudonym, and you'll soon be eligible to start new conversations, plunge into current debates, and jump-start dormant topics on which you have fresh ideas. If you're not receiving our weekly updates, click your name at the top of any page and be sure you've entered your e-mail address correctly. Send questions and suggestions to EditorCivilDiscourse@yahoo.com. Tell your friends about us, and let's all get Civilized.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Joe McQuade

Death Of The Modern GOP

174 posts in this topic

OK. I want to make certain that I'm understanding this statement. You think that there exists the possibility that a woman who called herself a pit bull with lipstick did not comply with the expectation of her role as a party leader in managing her supporters because she was unfamiliar with the etiquette rules for such situations? Did I understand you correctly?

Do you think she plans on having Judith Martin (Ms. Manners) be part of her staff or something? When is she expected to learn such, in my opinion, simple and blatant rules of behavior? Would that be before or after she meets with Putin for the first time without benefit of her binoculars?

Please.

I completely agree. If I hadn't been losing more than 30K/day for the last 10 days out of my portfolio, I'd run right out and snatch up a few things. As it is...

aC

As someone who has been called a fascist Nazi by supporters of Obama, I have a hard time getting too excited about that stuff. Let me ask you. Do you believe that Palin supports some sort of death advocacy?

PLEASE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All things must pass.

What goes around, comes around.

How lucky for the Republicans that Barack Obama will be our next president.

Anyone else would probably try to kill the wounded beast.

Killing the beast, aka overreaching, is where the GOP went astray. Obama has proved he won't go there.

Since it appears that Sen. Obama is the likely winner, right now, he needs to reach out to these people, try and find some common ground.

You are describing Obama's chief attribute. When Repubs urged McCain to get mad, we started hearing slime about Ayers and Obama palling around with terrorists. When Dems urged Obama to get mad, he didn't blink and kept on keeping on.

I know a lot of well educated and contemplative "Joe SixPack"s -- they think the extremists are too weird to vote for, too. But most of them will abstain, instead of voting for the lesser evil. Just because they don't support the weird Republican alliances, doesn't mean that they will vote democrat.

Works for me. Any conservative vote for a third party is a vote for Obama.

I don't think we have to worry about armed camps. If that was going to happen, it would have happened during the days of uncertainty while they were recounting Florida - Gore won, and lost.

Precisely. Dems don't descend to the bear-baiting depths in which the modern GOP now lives. That's one reason I'm a Dem.

These rallies remind me of what it must have been like in the south in the 50's and 60's and I wasn't even born yet. The fact that McCain was even present and allowed it to go on is beyond shameful. Palin stikes me as one of them so I'm not surprised listening to her stump speeches.

I was born then and grew up in the South, and I'm here to tell you this kind of thing happened then. Chris Buckley and you are correct. McCain brings shame on himself by stirring up the ugliness in these rallies. It's not about the odd nut who shouts something awful. It's about the core message of the McCain campaign-- that there is only one true America, and it belongs to the angry, wacko right...that there is only one kind of American, and Obama does not fit the profile.

There is no reaching out to these people, in my opinion.

To his credit, Obama will at least try. And he'll reach some of them, too.

Look, this is the end of a very long campaign. But taking the behavior of a few rude supporters on either side as representative of either campaign is misguided and divisive.

This misses the point entirely. McCain/Palin appearances have more in common with studio wrestling than political rallies. Ronald Reagan would have been embarrassed to speak at some of these events.

I think the news media is doing a poor job in more ways than I could ever express, on both sides of the election. But, yes, it is particularly divisive to portray campaign rallies as unruly or threatening mob scenes.

This is the fault of the candidates, the rally organizers and the attendees -- not the media.

oops. responded before reading on down. sounds like the McCain campaign actually did have a bit of a problem. Thank goodness they addressed it seriously.

We'll see if they do. Again, the problem isn't the odd nut. It's the general anger and rudeness.

Every time I see Obama speaking in an open venue, I cringe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As someone who has been called a fascist Nazi by supporters of Obama, I have a hard time getting too excited about that stuff. Let me ask you. Do you believe that Palin supports some sort of death advocacy?

PLEASE

I hear ya. I've been called (which is just hysterical considering that I supported Ron Paul)a (are you ready?) "Socialist, Communist, "N"-Lovin Bitch". That is a direct quote. I find it hysterical because I don't see how one can be a socialist AND a communist at the same time. Since I'm a Christian and love everyone, the last part wasn't a problem for me.

Serious response: I not only think that she wouldn't even bother to shed crocodile tears if Obama were assasinated prior to the election, I think that she would be just THRILLED if something happened to McCain.

I've been readin' up about this, er, "lady" - a misnomer if I've ever seen one.

There was a very interesting article about her "secret" meeting with McCain. Hmmm. That's not the correct term. Evidently the initial meeting between the two of them, while not secret, has never been discussed in its particulars even with the senior campaign and advisory staff. The staff is not happy about that. Considering McCain's health/age issues, this makes this even more of a concern for me. That article (published last week in WaPo, I think) talks about why no one is paying serious attention to WHY Ms. Palin was selected. It is being fobbed off as "a nod to both the Religious Right and women." I can't speak for the Religious Right but, I gotta tell ya, we women don't feel we received a "nod" - we feel we received a thumbed nose! As I posted before, when you consider the wealth of choices McCain had in active, intelligent, savvy, Republican women, what are we to think when Palin (who the hell?) was announced. Sheer idiocy. There just has to be some reason that McCain would open himself up to such ridicule for this selection. What could that reason be? It's a mystery to me.

I deliberately took a few months off from the political scene. (Seems like only days.) I came back with a fresh eye and started reading anew about both candidates. My goal was to assure myself that disaster didn't lie with one of them. I am not so assured.

I actually would have voted for McCain when he was seeking the nomination against Bush in the 2000 election. That McCain doesn't exist anymore - if, in fact, he ever did.

I read the web sites; I read the campaign material; I, then, started reading news coverage. It is my honest opinion that the media is trying to make this more of a race than it is by bending over backward not to hammer McCain and, especially, Palin. I do not believe that they are soft on Obama but neither do I believe that they are pro-Obama. The coverage, except for the editorial pages in the major news organs, seem to be less fact-based and investigative than in any race in my experience. I guess they got lazy when they found that the Bush43 dictatorship screamed "national security!!!" so often over the past almost 8 years that the media has forgotten how to report news. What other candidate in American History would have survived 2 days with a spouse as a member of a separatist group and when the candidate herself actually gave the keynote at one of the meetings? For pete's sake. I just can't BELIEVE the free ride this twit is getting.

Regardless of your political ideology and wish to support your party, I just do not understand how anyone can say that this woman is in any way qualified for the VP role. I just do not understand how anyone can support a candidate for the Presidency of these Yoonited Statez when he CHOSE that VP candidate as his first official decision.

Cynical much? You betcha.

aC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are getting a little overconfident.

In the next week or so, we're gonna see a two thousand point dow correction. McCain's going to benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I not only think that she wouldn't even bother to shed crocodile tears if Obama were assasinated prior to the election, I think that she would be just THRILLED if something happened to McCain.

Do you really believe that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You guys are getting a little overconfident.

In the next week or so, we're gonna see a two thousand point dow correction. McCain's going to benefit.

Wouldn't be at all surprised. I said in one of my first posts upon returning from my time away that I won't believe Obama has won until the day after the election and when McCain has conceded.

Scares me to death.

aC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I not only think that she wouldn't even bother to shed crocodile tears if Obama were assasinated prior to the election, I think that she would be just THRILLED if something happened to McCain.

Do you really believe that?

Yes. I do.

aC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. I do.

aC

It is sad to learn that you believe that.

The implication is that you believe that your adversaries would sacrifice lives to win a political argument with them.

Edited by Michael Major

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is sad to learn that you believe that.

The implication is that you believe that your adversaries would sacrifice lives to win a political argument with them.

It is sad that I find myself believing it. Wish I didn't.

She is not MY adversary. This has nothing to do with a political argument so I'm uncertain what you mean by that.

She would turn the other way while someone else sacrifices lives if that helps her to achieve ambitious goals. I think she would tell herself that she couldn't have prevented it so why shouldn't she accrue any benefits from it. I think she is very capable of such self-denial because I do not think she IS capable of self-analysis and contemplation. I, frankly, don't find her capable of original thought.

I believe that to be true of her but not true of McCain.

aC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gettin' dizzy!

""We want to fight and I will fight," McCain told one of several questioners who demanded that he go after Sen. Obama harder. "But we will be respectful. I admire Sen. Obama and his accomplishments. I will respect him."

McCain asks supporters to show respect [for Obama]

at the same time

"McCain surrogates have also talking about Obama’s acknowledged drug use in his youth. “He ought to admit, ‘You know, I’ve got to be honest with you. I was a guy of the street. I was way to the left. I used cocaine. I voted liberally, but I’m back at the center. I mean, I understand the big picture of America.’ But he hasn’t done that,” McCain campaign co-chair Frank Keating, told comedian Dennis Miller Thursday. Obama wrote about his drug use in his youth in his memoir “Dreams of My Father.”

Speaking on CNN Thursday evening conservative Bay Buchanan defended Keating, saying the former Oklahoma governor raised “legitimate” questions. “I could care less whether he used the drugs or not. I think a more important question is, did he supply it? Did he sell it? Was he part of that scene? Because that goes to your judgment, your character. And that is legitimate.”

Selling drugs? Where did THAT come from?

McCain Camp Intensifies Personal Attacks on Obama

Which, understandably, leads to...

"Some McCain campaign officials are becoming concerned about the hostility that attacks against Sen. Obama are whipping up among Republican supporters. During an internal conference call Thursday, campaign officials discussed how the tenor of the crowds has turned on the media and on Sen. Obama.

Someone yelled "Off with his head" at a rally Wednesday for Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin in Pennsylvania. Later that day in Ohio, a man stood outside a rally holding a sign that said "Obama, Osama." At a rally in Jacksonville, Fla., on Tuesday, someone in the crowd wore a T-shirt depicting Sen. Obama wearing a devil mask."

But (from the same source) I find this amusing...

"Changes to Gov. Palin's role were a topic during the conference call Thursday led by campaign manager Rick Davis, according to one person familiar with the discussion. Participants concluded that the Alaska governor had been "overscheduled.""

McCain Campaign Is at Odds Over Negative Attacks' Scope

All this time and energy devoted to this kind of discussion instead of stating clearly what McCain would do to specifically address the many many issues that are so important for the USA.

Sigh.

aC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw on the news last night that McCain twice had to distance himself Friday from mouth-breathing supporters who voiced irrational fears and hatreds about Obama.

After his second response, McCain was booed by his own supporters.

Now THAT'S what I call good karma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh benevolent host (I like that title - don't you?)

Don't lay down the voter's registration cards. It ain't over until its over.

Our electorate is still too fickle - and something like another tower falling could swing the tide.

I've voted (absentee - mailin). Have you?

If the electorate becomes complacent, and don't go the the polls - the strength of the radicalized christian community is that they ALL vote - McCain/Palin could still win. Upsets are not just for foooootbahl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An excellent point and a timely warning.

Thank you, savannahrobinson.

"another tower falling" could switch this thing around in a hurry.

Which is weird, when you think about it:

Why would we be attacked just as we're about to elect someone to run our country who is "soft on terrorism"? (Maybe because the terrorists realize they NEED a tough-talking idiot in the White House to give them the bogey-man who helps them recruit.)

Apropos of this, look for a bin Laden tape in the closing days of the campaign urging Americans to vote for his fellow Arab Muslim jihadist, Barack Hussein Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wouldn't that be weird? bin Laden and the Bush administration collaborating to help John McCain.

There McCain goes, doggone it, pallin' around with terrorists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet another conservative author has come out against Senator McCain. The whole article is short and worth reading, but I've only included the end of the article here.

http://www.slate.com/id/2202163/

Vote for Obama

McCain lacks the character and temperament to be president. And Palin is simply a disgrace.

By Christopher Hitchens

Posted Monday, Oct. 13, 2008, at 10:44 AM ET

The most insulting thing that a politician can do is to compel you to ask yourself: "What does he take me for?" Precisely this question is provoked by the selection of Gov. Sarah Palin. I wrote not long ago that it was not right to condescend to her just because of her provincial roots or her piety, let alone her slight flirtatiousness, but really her conduct since then has been a national disgrace. It turns out that none of her early claims to political courage was founded in fact, and it further turns out that some of the untested rumors about her—her vindictiveness in local quarrels, her bizarre religious and political affiliations—were very well-founded, indeed. Moreover, given the nasty and lowly task of stirring up the whack-job fringe of the party's right wing and of recycling patent falsehoods about Obama's position on Afghanistan, she has drawn upon the only talent that she apparently possesses.

It therefore seems to me that the Republican Party has invited not just defeat but discredit this year, and that both its nominees for the highest offices in the land should be decisively repudiated, along with any senators, congressmen, and governors who endorse them.

I used to call myself a single-issue voter on the essential question of defending civilization against its terrorist enemies and their totalitarian protectors, and on that "issue" I hope I can continue to expose and oppose any ambiguity. Obama is greatly overrated in my opinion, but the Obama-Biden ticket is not a capitulationist one, even if it does accept the support of the surrender faction, and it does show some signs of being able and willing to profit from experience. With McCain, the "experience" is subject to sharply diminishing returns, as is the rest of him, and with Palin the very word itself is a sick joke. One only wishes that the election could be over now and a proper and dignified verdict rendered, so as to spare democracy and civility the degradation to which they look like being subjected in the remaining days of a low, dishonest campaign.

Just my (and Christopher Hitchen's) two cents worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is either grounds for divorce or something else, like biggest fan of the year or LIV poster child. Read it and you decide.

Here's hoping that saner heads prevail and the child gets "Ava Grace" before the one year deadline passes. Having to explain that name in Grammar School, is not something that any child should have to go through.

As for naming your child after Senator Obama? I'm with Michelle on that one, "Who names their child Barack Obama?" Ya gotta love her.

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~

http://www.tricities.com/tri/news/local/ar...n_ticket/15054/

New Father Names Baby After Republican Ticket

By Kelly Cales

Published: October 15, 2008

What’s in a name? Politics, if you ask proud new father Mark Ciptak of Elizabethton, Tenn.

Some people distribute bumper stickers, some post campaign signs and others donate cash to support their favorite candidates.

Ciptak had another idea – sparked by the birth Friday of his baby girl.

“I don’t have a million dollars,” Ciptak said.

So he chose to endorse his favorite candidates for president and vice president by naming his daughter after the Republican ticket.

“I decided to actually name her Sarah McCain Palin,” he said. “I’m totally McCain all the way.”

A blood bank employee for the American Red Cross, Ciptak said he chose the name to show his support and to encourage others to vote.

But Sarah McCain Palin is not the name Ciptak and his wife, Layla, originally agreed upon.

“I sort of secretively went behind her back and changed the paperwork,” Ciptak said.

Ava Grace was the name originally chosen by the couple.

Fueled by his new idea, Ciptak caused a distraction and some confusion at the hospital by using two separate birth certificate forms.

“With the stress of everything going on, she, I guess, didn’t realize that a new form was printed with my handwriting because my handwriting is very noticeable, very unique,” he said of his wife.

Ciptak said he had no regrets at the time.

“The very next day, though, I did feel bad, my conscience set in,” he said.

Although the stroke of conscience failed to override his decision, he did admit to one concession.

“I was actually gonna name the baby John McCain, even as the girl, but I thought that was maybe too overboard,” he said. “I decided to actually name her Sarah McCain Palin, figuring hopefully I would get two weeks in the doghouse rather than two months.”

In the event the family decides to overrule the father, they’ll have one year to file an affidavit requesting the name change, according to the Tennessee Department of Health’s Office of Vital Records.

KELLY CALES is a multimedia intern who can be reached at kcales@wjhl.com.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must recuse myself from weighing in the baby naming decision. When my oldest daughter was born, in the fall of 1985, I, being a die-hard Yankee fan was enamored of Don Mattingly and suggest to my wife that we name the baby after him ( and his brilliant season in 85') regardless of the sex of the child. Sanity, however, prevailed and Sarah, is a very well adjusted 22 year old right now. " Let he who is without sin..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I must recuse myself from weighing in the baby naming decision. When my oldest daughter was born, in the fall of 1985, I, being a die-hard Yankee fan was enamored of Don Mattingly and suggest to my wife that we name the baby after him ( and his brilliant season in 85') regardless of the sex of the child. Sanity, however, prevailed and Sarah, is a very well adjusted 22 year old right now. " Let he who is without sin..."

Actually, with that story you are the most qualified to comment. You had the good sense to listen to your wife <grin> and not saddle your daughter with a name that would have guaranteed her to NOT grow up well adjusted. This is coming from a Yankees fan.

Seriously, you made my point, thank you.

Edited by Carol from Long Valley NJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama is articulate, well-read, and thoughtful.

The body language gurus gave him a clear win in the last debate.

And the willingness to take time to give a long talk on economic theory to people like "Joe the Plumber" makes him a dear to anyone with a sympathetic bone.

I think its a clear win - but don't slow down. Get those Voter's registration cards in!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Submitted for your comments ...

A reader wrote to Andrew Sullivan about Virginia going blue. The "inner indent" is the reader, the "outer indent" is Andrew Sullivan.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_...ublican-in.html

A Republican In Virginia

If you want to know why Obama appears to be ahead in this once-solidly Republican state, this reader will clue you in:

They are killing me. I am a registered Republican. I live in Virginia. But I am clearly not a "Virginia Republican". This ticket and loathsome campaign is a disaster - I haven't left the Republican Party so much as it has left me, at least here in the Commonwealth. The party gladly allowed Rove/GWB to cultivate a certain brand of politics to win and hold the White House. And now that the bill has come due, so few wish to face the music. And in the process - and his quest for office - John McCain has embraced that which he professed to repudiate.

Ignorant Christian Fascism is not a recipe for success, it's Saudi Arabia under a different prophet. Count me out. Despite differing with the Democratic platform on a great number of policies, I will gladly vote for the Obama ticket because at a minimum it promises adults at the helm, a rational approach to policy making, the return of science over theocracy, the restoration of the primacy of the rule of law, and the creative destruction of that assemblage once known as the GOP.

That's where I'm coming from too. They deserve obliteration. For the sake of the country and the sake of conservatism.

I'm actually hoping the the Republican Party will rise from the ashes of Rove/GWB/Cheney and relegate the "Ignorant Christian Fascists" to be the least important, least influential leg of their organization. I'm hoping that they'll stop reviling intelligence and education and start embracing it. I'm hoping that they will be contributing a lot to the public discourse, positively, unlike the bloviating of the Conservative Talk Radio Stars. I was listening to Mark Levine last night on the way home (30 minutes of right wing radio is my limit) and I was convinced that he was going to have a stroke he was so virulent and angry against all "Libruls". Another misconception that Mr. Levine was promulgating -- he was leading his listeners to believe that taxes are paid on gross income, which is false, taxes are paid on net income.

As always, just my two cents worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the willingness to take time to give a long talk on economic theory to people like "Joe the Plumber" makes him a dear to anyone with a sympathetic bone.

I'd like for him to explain how his economic theory of redistributing Joe's earnings to others in the form of unearned tax rebates is supposed to create more incentives to work or create wealth. I think Joe's intention to add another job to his operation is a whole lot more economically sound.

I'd also like to have explained how taking tax money from a productive citizen who actually paid income tax and turning it over to an unproductive citizen who paid none has transformed itself from "welfare" into a "tax cut". Calling it a "refundable tax credit" is purely Orwellian. It's nothing more or less than income redistribution, i.e., welfare.

This is the core of what's wrong with our tax system. Whoever wields power in D.C. simply distributes cash payoffs to favored political constituencies in the form of welfare, tax subsidies, tax credits, price supports, manipulation of all sorts of favored tax treatment. The net result is to make the two sides fight harder against one another so that their own nests are feathered instead of the other guy's. Instead, we need to tax everyone the same, make everyone share in the load of government equally so that everyone has the same investment in how government spends our money. If it's always the other guy's money that's getting spent, who is gonna yank the reins back in?

Edited by Michael Major

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd like for him to explain how his economic theory of redistributing Joe's earnings to others in the form of unearned tax rebates is supposed to create more incentives to work or create wealth. I think Joe's intention to add another job to his operation is a whole lot more economically sound.

I'd also like to have explained how taking tax money from a productive citizen who actually paid income tax and turning it over to an unproductive citizen who paid none has transformed itself from "welfare" into a "tax cut". Calling it a "refundable tax credit" is purely Orwellian. It's nothing more or less than income redistribution, i.e., welfare.

Why do you assume that the tax money will be turned over to an unproductive citizen? Aren't taxes used for things like schools, roads, bridges, defense, etc.? You make it sound like hard-working Joe the Plumber (who news sources report in fact owes back state taxes) would have to turn over part of his earnings (his more than a quarter million dollars of earnings) to useless slackers. ????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0