Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Interesting opinion piece from Kathleen Parker.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/201 ... ative-base

RINO-hunting, the long-popular political sport that morphed in 2008 into a sort of hysteria-driven obsession, lately has become a suicide mission.

RINO, of course, refers to Republicans In Name Only and is the pejorative term used against those who fail to march in lockstep with the so-called conservative base. I used "so-called" because, though the hard-right faction of the party tends to be viewed as The Base, this isn't necessarily so. My guess is there are now more RINOs than those who, though evangelical in their zeal, are poison to their party's ability to win national elections.

Own your insult, in other words. Why should RINOS hang their heads in shame and be relegated to the fringes of their party? The party is the fringe. Isn't it time to reclaim the salt lick? RINOs need to be defiantly proud, aggressively centrist and unapologetically sane.

Love the "The party is the fringe" line.

What are you, some kind of dadgum liberal?

So you guys can refer to me as a RINO I guess as I'm still registered as a Republican.

Rob Iola wrote:What are you, some kind of dadgum liberal?

By golly, I prefers to think of meself as a Teddy Roosevelt style progressive!

Sorry for stealing your thunder Kalm ...

Since the Democratic party of the State of Wyoming holds their conventions in the in the phonebooth outside the Casper mall, most everybody here is a Republican, many RINOs of course.

It's the mega-tard tea baggers and the disability income white trailer trash rednecks flying the stars and bars that stand out among the rest.

Interestingly Wyoming's legislature just agreed to tack on a 10 cent per gallon gas tax so we can bring our roads and bridges up to date, not a move by "Republicans" in the national sense I would say..

Wedgebuster wrote:Since the Democratic party of the State of Wyoming holds their conventions in the in the phonebooth outside the Casper mall, most everybody here is a Republican, many RINOs of course.

It's the mega-tard tea baggers and the disability income white trailer trash rednecks flying the stars and bars that stand out among the rest.

Interestingly Wyoming's legislature just agreed to tack on a 10 cent per gallon gas tax so we can bring our roads and bridges up to date, not a move by "Republicans" in the national sense I would say..

I thought it was the phone booth on your South Forty.

1) Again: For Pete's sake, the Republicans lost the Presidential election by 51-47% when the Democrats had a significant advantage in candidate charisma. And they held the House.

2) The "Tea Party" was a huge factor in a very good election for Republicans in 2010.

If people like this woman get their way, the Republican Party will be about as successful as it was prior to the formation of the "Moral Majority" in the late 1970s. That means "not very." The Republican Party has been far, FAR more successful in electoral politics since the general "type" of people she's railing against became a factor. Still second fiddle to the Democratic Party over all. But not as MUCH of a second fiddle as it was when people like this woman held sway in the Party.

UNI88 wrote:

Rob Iola wrote:What are you, some kind of dadgum liberal?

By golly, I prefers to think of meself as a Teddy Roosevelt style progressive!

Sorry for stealing your thunder Kalm ...

JohnStOnge wrote:1) Again: For Pete's sake, the Republicans lost the Presidential election by 51-47% when the Democrats had a significant advantage in candidate charisma. And they held the House.

2) The "Tea Party" was a huge factor in a very good election for Republicans in 2010.

If people like this woman get their way, the Republican Party will be about as successful as it was prior to the formation of the "Moral Majority" in the late 1970s. That means "not very." The Republican Party has been far, FAR more successful in electoral politics since the general "type" of people she's railing against became a factor. Still second fiddle to the Democratic Party over all. But not as MUCH of a second fiddle as it was when people like this woman held sway in the Party.

The key to the 2010 election was that it was a non-presidential election. The Tea Party can make a big difference in local elections but their extreme positions and unwillingness to truly negotiate IMO is a liability in national elections. Charisma factor or not, I seriously doubt that you will see a Republican elected POTUS as long as the Tea Party dominates the Republican primaries. Candidates have to sell their soul to win the primaries and then they're too committed to the fringe to win the general election.

The Tea Party has been a huge factor in Republican successes. It has also contributed to some of their defeats in races that RINOs would very likely have won (Christine O'Donnell, Richard Mourdock, etc.).

JohnStOnge wrote:1) Again: For Pete's sake, the Republicans lost the Presidential election by 51-47% when the Democrats had a significant advantage in candidate charisma. And they held the House.

2) The "Tea Party" was a huge factor in a very good election for Republicans in 2010.

If people like this woman get their way, the Republican Party will be about as successful as it was prior to the formation of the "Moral Majority" in the late 1970s. That means "not very." The Republican Party has been far, FAR more successful in electoral politics since the general "type" of people she's railing against became a factor. Still second fiddle to the Democratic Party over all. But not as MUCH of a second fiddle as it was when people like this woman held sway in the Party.

Obama didn't do much with a down economy other than drive us further into debt and the Republicans still couldn't win.

'Times have been tough and now we're going to make it even more difficult through austerity' is a tough sell.

Figure out how to keep taxes low for the wealthy and corporations while maintaining their standard of living and achieve the same for the average person and you might be on to something.

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:1) Again: For Pete's sake, the Republicans lost the Presidential election by 51-47% when the Democrats had a significant advantage in candidate charisma. And they held the House.

2) The "Tea Party" was a huge factor in a very good election for Republicans in 2010.

If people like this woman get their way, the Republican Party will be about as successful as it was prior to the formation of the "Moral Majority" in the late 1970s. That means "not very." The Republican Party has been far, FAR more successful in electoral politics since the general "type" of people she's railing against became a factor. Still second fiddle to the Democratic Party over all. But not as MUCH of a second fiddle as it was when people like this woman held sway in the Party.

Obama didn't do much with a down economy other than drive us further into debt and the Republicans still couldn't win.

'Times have been tough and now we're going to make it even more difficult through austerity' is a tough sell.

Figure out how to keep taxes low for the wealthy and corporations while maintaining their standard of living and achieve the same for the average person and you might be on to something.

The sell shouldn't be "... we're going to make even more difficult through austerity" but something along the lines of "we've got to stop stealing from our children and grandchildren to pay for things we want today and make sacrifices now so that the country and our children and grandchildren will have a brighter future."

UNI88 wrote:

kalm wrote: Obama didn't do much with a down economy other than drive us further into debt and the Republicans still couldn't win.

'Times have been tough and now we're going to make it even more difficult through austerity' is a tough sell.
Figure out how to keep taxes low for the wealthy and corporations while maintaining their standard of living and achieve the same for the average person and you might be on to something.

The sell shouldn't be "... we're going to make even more difficult through austerity" but something along the lines of "we've got to stop stealing from our children and grandchildren to pay for things we want today and make sacrifices now so that the country and our children and grandchildren will have a brighter future."

Go for it, Mother Theresa! Seriously, that is a longer view that most Americans and their politicians, with their election-cycle attention spans, don't share.

Ivytalk wrote:

UNI88 wrote: The sell shouldn't be "... we're going to make even more difficult through austerity" but something along the lines of "we've got to stop stealing from our children and grandchildren to pay for things we want today and make sacrifices now so that the country and our children and grandchildren will have a brighter future."

Go for it, Mother Theresa! Seriously, that is a longer view that most Americans and their politicians, with their election-cycle attention spans, don't share.

Agree with both these posts.

Whether it's the right perception or not, I still say it gets back to standard of living. The working class for the most part has taken a larger hit than the uber wealthy. Big Banks have become bigger, CEO salaries and bonuses were protected, corporations are showing record profits, and minimal tax restorations ( ) in no way affect their standard of living.

Call it class warfare if you'd like. Blame the working class for over extending themselves if that's your thang. Both are arguably true.

But the reality is, average folks were told it was OK to spend, and never warned that their standard of living was unsustainable. Why wouldn't they be pissed if they feel they are working harder for less while others don't have to?

UNI88 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Obama didn't do much with a down economy other than drive us further into debt and the Republicans still couldn't win.

'Times have been tough and now we're going to make it even more difficult through austerity' is a tough sell.

Figure out how to keep taxes low for the wealthy and corporations while maintaining their standard of living and achieve the same for the average person and you might be on to something.

The sell shouldn't be "... we're going to make even more difficult through austerity" but something along the lines of "we've got to stop stealing from our children and grandchildren to pay for things we want today and make sacrifices now so that the country and our children and grandchildren will have a brighter future."

Already tried it during the GW Bush "Decade of Miserable Failure".

No Child Left a Dime.

houndawg wrote:

UNI88 wrote: The sell shouldn't be "... we're going to make even more difficult through austerity" but something along the lines of "we've got to stop stealing from our children and grandchildren to pay for things we want today and make sacrifices now so that the country and our children and grandchildren will have a brighter future."

Already tried it during the GW Bush "Decade of Miserable Failure".

No Child Left a Dime.

Wrong Dawg. Dubya didn't advocate sacrifice today in order to have a brighter future, quite the opposite. With the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the tax cuts, GW Bush took stealing from our children to a whole new level. Unfortunately rather than reigning in that spending, Obama has doubled down.

IT is probably right. Too many politicians and people are too selfish and short-sighted to think or care about anything but themselves and their own immediate gratification. We've flipped JFK's statement to "ask not what you can do for your country but what your country can do for you."

But the underlying point is still valid, the Republicans are not doing a good job of selling the positive aspects of austerity.

UNI88 wrote:

houndawg wrote:
Already tried it during the GW Bush "Decade of Miserable Failure".

No Child Left a Dime.

Wrong Dawg. Dubya didn't advocate sacrifice today in order to have a brighter future, quite the opposite. With the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the tax cuts, GW Bush took stealing from our children to a whole new level. Unfortunately rather than reigning in that spending, Obama has doubled down.

IT is probably right. Too many politicians and people are too selfish and short-sighted to think or care about anything but themselves and their own immediate gratification. We've flipped JFK's statement to "ask not what you can do for your country but what your country can do for you."

But the underlying point is still valid, the Republicans are not doing a good job of selling the positive aspects of austerity.

True but perfectly understandable - this is the party of American big business, they don't think beyond the quarterly P&L statement.

People, GWB was NOT a conservative.

UNI88 wrote:Wrong Dawg. Dubya didn't advocate sacrifice today in order to have a brighter future, quite the opposite. With the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the tax cuts, GW Bush took stealing from our children to a whole new level.

That's what I recall as well. Seems the only thing we needed to defeat Osama was to "spend...go shopping".....guess we weren't spending enough to catch him while GWB was in office...

Oh...but at least GWB TRIED to do SOMETHING about the Social Security time bomb. And what you saw is an example of why I don't think any President is ever going to solve our chronic, structural, fiscal problems. The People are the problem. The People are addicted to the entitlement State. Even the majority of the People in the Tea Party.

JohnStOnge wrote:Oh...but at least GWB TRIED to do SOMETHING about the Social Security time bomb. And what you saw is an example of why I don't think any President is ever going to solve our chronic, structural, fiscal problems. The People are the problem. The People are addicted to the entitlement State. Even the majority of the People in the Tea Party.

He didn't try to do a damn thing, Johnny. The draft dodging pin head spent eight years drooling on his Oval Office desk while his buddies looted the nation and bankrupted us with two unnecessary wars. Historians will hence forth refer to the dubya administrations run as "the Decade of Miserable Failure".

houndawg wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:Oh...but at least GWB TRIED to do SOMETHING about the Social Security time bomb. And what you saw is an example of why I don't think any President is ever going to solve our chronic, structural, fiscal problems. The People are the problem. The People are addicted to the entitlement State. Even the majority of the People in the Tea Party.

He didn't try to do a damn thing, Johnny. The draft dodging pin head spent eight years drooling on his Oval Office desk while his buddies looted the nation and bankrupted us with two unnecessary wars. Historians will hence forth refer to the dubya administrations run as "the Decade of Miserable Failure".

Bush did in fact try to fix SS by privatizing it and got laughed out of the chamber. Agree or disagree with privatization if you will, but saying he didnt at least try to address the issue is inaccurate.

CID1990 wrote:

houndawg wrote:

He didn't try to do a damn thing, Johnny. The draft dodging pin head spent eight years drooling on his Oval Office desk while his buddies looted the nation and bankrupted us with two unnecessary wars. Historians will hence forth refer to the dubya administrations run as "the Decade of Miserable Failure".

Bush did in fact try to fix SS by privatizing it and got laughed out of the chamber. Agree or disagree with privatization if you will, but saying he didnt at least try to address the issue is inaccurate.

True but the "drooling on his Oval Office desk while his buddies looted the nation" quote was spot on but I think we have to call the period from 2000-2016 the "Decade and a half of Miserable Failure".

CID1990 wrote:

houndawg wrote:

He didn't try to do a damn thing, Johnny. The draft dodging pin head spent eight years drooling on his Oval Office desk while his buddies looted the nation and bankrupted us with two unnecessary wars. Historians will hence forth refer to the dubya administrations run as "the Decade of Miserable Failure".

Bush did in fact try to fix SS by privatizing it and got laughed out of the chamber. Agree or disagree with privatization if you will, but saying he didnt at least try to address the issue is inaccurate.

Partial credit. It is technically correct to say that he did try to "address" the issue but it had nothing to do with fixing anything and everything to do with siphoning off massive fees for doing nothing and making sure the correct snouts got into the trough.

UNI88 wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Bush did in fact try to fix SS by privatizing it and got laughed out of the chamber. Agree or disagree with privatization if you will, but saying he didnt at least try to address the issue is inaccurate.

True but the "drooling on his Oval Office desk while his buddies looted the nation" quote was spot on but I think we have to call the period from 2000-2016 the "Decade and a half of Miserable Failure".

I did not assert that those years, or the 4 to come, were (or will be) somehow "successful".

houndawg wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Bush did in fact try to fix SS by privatizing it and got laughed out of the chamber. Agree or disagree with privatization if you will, but saying he didnt at least try to address the issue is inaccurate.

Partial credit. It is technically correct to say that he did try to "address" the issue but it had nothing to do with fixing anything and everything to do with siphoning off massive fees for doing nothing and making sure the correct snouts got into the trough.

Even bringing the subject up (as superficial as that may be) is more than we have seen since Bush left office. The current caretakers seem to think that Social Security will somehow be fine on its own. That's the only explanation I can come up with.