Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Manwë was known for many things, but wisdom and power are two that lead the rest of his attributes. Join the Councils and discuss the more weighty matters of Tolkien Fandom.

Republicans, Redux (Second Derivative)

Postby Arvegil » Thu Mar 01, 2012 1:37 pm

The story so far:

1. Romney in the lead for the nomination, but nobody seems too enthused about this, no matter which side of the aisle they are on.

2. Santorum's surge came up just a little short. Will he have enough mojo left for a second surge? Would he equate my use of the term "mojo" wiith conclusive proof that I am part of the Satanic conspiracy?

3. Newt looks like he is going to win Georgia, and the man has got funding. Still, he seems like he can't buy a primary north of the Mason-Dixon line. And he has the money to do it if he could.

4. Ron Paul: picking up delegates, may take the Washington State caucus (he's a good caucus draw). Still, the "mainstream" GOP wants to treat him like that out-of-town uncle with the crazy ideas. Like not attacking Iran...

So, where do we go from here? Next big cornerstone: Super Tuesday!
User avatar
Arvegil
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1439
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 3:37 pm
Top

Postby vison » Thu Mar 01, 2012 4:00 pm

:( I can hardly wait. :(

This circular firing squad is going to be the death of something. The GOP as we've known it, I guess.
GM is alive.

Osama bin Laden is dead.
User avatar
vison
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12696
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:15 pm
Top

Postby Cerin » Thu Mar 01, 2012 8:43 pm

Nice summation, Arvegil.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (one of the few remaining moderate Republicans) has announced she will not seek re-election. I read that her decision was in protest of the current Republican lunacy. I suppose she might also have been anticipating the SuperPAC ultraconservative onslaught of attack ads, made possible by Citizens United, that she would face if she stood for re-election.
User avatar
Cerin
Mariner

 
Posts: 7350
Joined: Tue May 02, 2000 12:52 am
Top

Postby Jnyusa » Thu Mar 01, 2012 9:28 pm

vison wrote:This circular firing squad is going to be the death of something. The GOP as we've known it, I guess.


Yeah, I'm afraid so. If I ever felt a twinge a guilt about abandoning my party, it's gone now.

But ... there's no more traditional conservatism in America. That's what's gone.
User avatar
Jnyusa
Mariner

 
Posts: 5934
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:24 pm
Top

Postby Dave_LF » Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:34 am

"The Republican Party as we've known it" died a while ago. The Democratic Party has become the new big tent center-right party. The actual left doesn't have enough support to get its own party, though it does have a couple representatives in the big tent.
User avatar
Dave_LF
Mariner

 
Posts: 7186
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 8:39 pm
Top

Postby Swordsman_Of_The_Tower » Fri Mar 02, 2012 7:52 am

I can hardly wait for all the "Elizabeth Warren is HARVARD PERSON!!!!!!!!!11111111!!!!!! ELITIST!!!!!!!!11111!!!!!!!!!!" ads around here.
User avatar
Swordsman_Of_The_Tower
Ranger of the North


 
Posts: 4490
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2002 3:40 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Top

Postby Arvegil » Fri Mar 02, 2012 9:00 am

Cerin wrote:Nice summation, Arvegil.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (one of the few remaining moderate Republicans) has announced she will not seek re-election. I read that her decision was in protest of the current Republican lunacy. I suppose she might also have been anticipating the SuperPAC ultraconservative onslaught of attack ads, made possible by Citizens United, that she would face if she stood for re-election.


So, this leaves Susan Collins and kind-of-sort-of Lincoln Chaffee as the remnants of the once powerful Rockefeller wing of the GOP. Which is too bad, because despite their issues, at least their math was better than that indicated by the magical tax plans of current GOP candidates.
User avatar
Arvegil
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1439
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 3:37 pm
Top

Postby basil » Fri Mar 02, 2012 7:38 pm

Cerin wrote:Nice summation, Arvegil.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (one of the few remaining moderate Republicans) has announced she will not seek re-election. I read that her decision was in protest of the current Republican lunacy. I suppose she might also have been anticipating the SuperPAC ultraconservative onslaught of attack ads, made possible by Citizens United, that she would face if she stood for re-election.


There may be more to it than that.

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/ ... -reason-ol

So let us leave the national Republican Clown Show, er, presidential campaign for a while and dig into some good ol' fashioned money, corruption and the usual DC muck.

BTW, catch what Santorum said about cell-phones? :rofl:

Nationally, most of the coverage of Snowe's decision to drop her reelection bid has focused on the centrist Republican's frustration with the polarized politics on Capitol Hill. But in Maine, a few newspapers have speculated that her husband's legal entanglements had a role in Snowe's sudden and surprising decision, which left her with more than $3 million in her campaign coffers and her party without a Senate candidate less than three weeks before the filing deadline for Maine's June 12 primary.

According to the senator's most recent financial disclosure form, she and her husband, former Maine Gov. John McKernan Jr., have investments worth between $2 million and $10 million in Education Management Corp., a Pittsburgh-based company that operates for-profit higher education institutions. McKernan is chairman of the board of directors of the company, now embroiled in a lawsuit in which the federal goverment, 11 states and the District of Columbia are seeking to recover a portion of the $11 billion in federal student aid that the education firm has received since July 2003.


Makes Solyndra look like pocket change, eh?

A commenter had something interesting to add, some Family Values kind of stuff.

scyllax — 3/2/12 1:27pm

I remember when McKernan and Snowe were the two Congressional representatives from Maine, and it was an open secret that they were living together in Washington.

I remember one pundit in Maine wrote of "Breakfast with John and Olympia":

"How about some butter, Dear?"

"Yes, and I'd like some guns with that."




b
Last edited by basil on Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
basil
Mariner

 
Posts: 8303
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2001 3:34 pm
Top

Postby vison » Fri Mar 02, 2012 8:33 pm

ELEVEN BILLION DOLLARS?!?!?!?!?!?!!??!?!!?!?!??!?!

By the t'underin' lard Jesus, they knows how to do it, eh, boys?
GM is alive.

Osama bin Laden is dead.
User avatar
vison
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12696
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:15 pm
Top

Postby GlassHouse » Fri Mar 02, 2012 9:18 pm

The last really good republican President.

Image

.....and that's why I'm a good Eisenhower Republican!
User avatar
GlassHouse
Mariner


 
Posts: 7479
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2001 6:51 pm
Location: NH
Top

Postby crispycreme » Sat Mar 03, 2012 7:40 am

Arvegil wrote:So, this leaves Susan Collins and kind-of-sort-of Lincoln Chaffee as the remnants of the once powerful Rockefeller wing of the GOP. Which is too bad, because despite their issues, at least their math was better than that indicated by the magical tax plans of current GOP candidates.


Lincoln Chaffee left the Republican Party in 2007 and is now an independent.
User avatar
crispycreme
Mariner

 
Posts: 9620
Joined: Thu May 24, 2001 4:48 pm
Location: California, at last
Top

Postby vison » Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:19 am

GlassHouse wrote:The last really good republican President.

Image

.....and that's why I'm a good Eisenhower Republican!


I think I might be the only person here who remembers President Eisenhower.

Not that I was all politically aware in those days, but I do remember him.

But since, I've come to admire him a lot. He was a great man. Yes, I know he wasn't flawless, but he was a great man.
GM is alive.

Osama bin Laden is dead.
User avatar
vison
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12696
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:15 pm
Top

Postby portia » Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:37 am

Yes, he was a great man.

He spoke, sometime during the 1960 campaign, at a country club in walking distance to our house, so I walked over there. I remember he was calm and interesting, but not made-for-media (I certainly did not know the term, then). My family, very military, was surprised that he didn't try to govern by giving orders.

I, also, was not involved in issues at that point.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Postby vison » Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:54 am

portia wrote:Yes, he was a great man.

He spoke, sometime during the 1960 campaign, at a country club in walking distance to our house, so I walked over there. I remember he was calm and interesting, but not made-for-media (I certainly did not know the term, then). My family, very military, was surprised that he didn't try to govern by giving orders.

I, also, was not involved in issues at that point.


I keep forgetting that you and I are contemporaries! You seem younger than me. :)

No calm and interesting man stands a chance, these days. He'd get mowed down in about 5 seconds. Probably 4. :(
GM is alive.

Osama bin Laden is dead.
User avatar
vison
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12696
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:15 pm
Top

Postby Jnyusa » Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:03 pm

I too remember Eisenhower.
User avatar
Jnyusa
Mariner

 
Posts: 5934
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:24 pm
Top

Postby Frelga » Sat Mar 03, 2012 6:23 pm

vison wrote:
portia wrote:Yes, he was a great man.

He spoke, sometime during the 1960 campaign, at a country club in walking distance to our house, so I walked over there. I remember he was calm and interesting, but not made-for-media (I certainly did not know the term, then). My family, very military, was surprised that he didn't try to govern by giving orders.

I, also, was not involved in issues at that point.


I keep forgetting that you and I are contemporaries! You seem younger than me. :)

No calm and interesting man stands a chance, these days. He'd get mowed down in about 5 seconds. Probably 4. :(


I can't compare him to Eisenhower, but Obama was both calm and interesting, IMO.

Unless you meant a Republican, in which case...don't know.
User avatar
Frelga
GNU Terry Pratchett

 
Posts: 9221
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 12:05 pm
Top

Postby vison » Sat Mar 03, 2012 9:48 pm

Frelga wrote:
vison wrote:
portia wrote:Yes, he was a great man.

He spoke, sometime during the 1960 campaign, at a country club in walking distance to our house, so I walked over there. I remember he was calm and interesting, but not made-for-media (I certainly did not know the term, then). My family, very military, was surprised that he didn't try to govern by giving orders.

I, also, was not involved in issues at that point.


I keep forgetting that you and I are contemporaries! You seem younger than me. :)

No calm and interesting man stands a chance, these days. He'd get mowed down in about 5 seconds. Probably 4. :(


I can't compare him to Eisenhower, but Obama was both calm and interesting, IMO.

Unless you meant a Republican, in which case...don't know.


You know, you're right. Mr. Obama is calm and interesting.

It's sometimes hard to remember that they're not all Santorums or Gingriches. Hm. Is that the correct plural for Gingrich?

I haven't watched much of all this on TV, meaning the GOP race. I just can't bear it. I read about it, and read what they said, and that's bad enough.

Mr. Paul is calm, but Mr. Paul isn't going to be the GOP candidate. The thing with him is, if he walked on water across San Francisco Bay, they'd just say he couldn't swim.

(Not that I particularly admire Mr. Paul. I don't.)
GM is alive.

Osama bin Laden is dead.
User avatar
vison
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12696
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:15 pm
Top

Postby portia » Sun Mar 04, 2012 9:24 am

Yes, I agree with the calm and interesting part of Obama. Also, he expresses things almost the way I would and I feel comfortable with his speeches.
I feel as if I know him.

That is NOT a very good basis for choosing a President.

I am uneasy with his leadership, or lack thereof. He has not been ruthless enough, although I support his attempts to be bi-partisan (How's that for consistency? :lol: )

His foreign affairs performance has been very good in some areas, and about what I could have realistically expected in others. His performance on the economy has not been inspiring, but I am not sure anyone could have done much better and it could have been a lot worse.

I could have supported McCain without Palin. I can support Obama. If Romney is the nominee, I will have to think about the VP person and might be able to support him, depending on who is for VP.. Some VPs are very influential; some not. It can make a lot of difference to the tone of the admin, and sometimes to the policies, especially as the VP can affect who is on the Pres. staff.

But it is too early to pay close attention. I will wait until after the conventions. I would not support any of the non-Romney candidates as VP.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Postby GlassHouse » Sun Mar 04, 2012 10:55 am

Ike was by no means perfect. A lot of his flaws can be attributed to being a product of his times though. The thing about him that makes him so interesting to many in the present day is that he seems to have had near clairvoyance into some of the dangers that we now find ourselves facing. -and it's also interesting to see just how drastically the Republican Party has changed in a relatively short time.



portia wrote:I could have supported McCain without Palin. I can support Obama. If Romney is the nominee, I will have to think about the VP person and might be able to support him, depending on who is for VP.. Some VPs are very influential; some not. It can make a lot of difference to the tone of the admin, and sometimes to the policies, especially as the VP can affect who is on the Pres. staff.

But it is too early to pay close attention. I will wait until after the conventions. I would not support any of the non-Romney candidates as VP.


It definitely helps if you're not paying close attention to what Romney is saying in the primaries...it will be interesting to see how far he tacks to the center if he does get the nomination.
User avatar
GlassHouse
Mariner


 
Posts: 7479
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2001 6:51 pm
Location: NH
Top

Postby GlassHouse » Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:03 am

..
User avatar
GlassHouse
Mariner


 
Posts: 7479
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2001 6:51 pm
Location: NH
Top

Postby portia » Tue Mar 06, 2012 8:43 am

Rush Limbaugh, again.

I find his comments, aside from other aspects, very puzzling. What was so threatening to him that he had to react like a cornered animal and lash out with an over the top attack on a person who had not attacked him?

People disagree with his positions all the time and he doesn't go nuts like that. Or at least quite that badly.

And of course the prominent Republicans are giving him a mild
Tsk; tsk." When people go off the rails that badly, they need a clearer correction than that.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Postby Frelga » Tue Mar 06, 2012 9:46 am

Colbert had a field day with that, especially with the apology. But really, who cares? Who listens to that old fool Limbaugh? It is only another point for democrats to make about republicans being anti-woman.
User avatar
Frelga
GNU Terry Pratchett

 
Posts: 9221
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 12:05 pm
Top

Postby portia » Tue Mar 06, 2012 11:07 am

I know a few people who listen to him. I can't tell how much they believe him, though. If about 600 stations think it is worth their while to carry his show, somebody must be listening. Not I.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Postby Griffon64 » Tue Mar 06, 2012 11:32 am

I always wonder how much the listener count is bumped up by opposition waiting for his next outrageous comment. Not much, I would think, because who can stand that for too long, but it has to be some, at least.

As for me, I'm in the "who cares" group. He's a shock jock, a man being paid to be a fool. Taking him seriously mostly says something about the gullibility of the listener. Like all entertainment, his show comes with the invisible foot note of "Not meant to be factual.", whether people are smart enough to realize it or not.

That there's a market for that kind of thing is sad, but there it is. I like to believe that every time he spouts this kind of extreme nastiness, he chips away a little at the number of people listening. The cumulative effect has to count, once the titillation of "I can't believe he said that!" wears off. ( Sadly, I'm sure that there's some who instead thinks: "Awesome, man. Someone had to say that." )

We wake up to Glenn Beck [ one or two n's? Can't be bothered to check ] in the mornings. Actually, we wake up to the weather report and hit snooze. Then B comes on and gets us up immediately. Who wants more than a split second of Glenn in their ears in the morning? That's the only use I have for that kind of stuff.
User avatar
Griffon64
Mariner

 
Posts: 7276
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 11:47 pm
Top

Postby RoseMorninStar » Tue Mar 06, 2012 11:38 am

Someone must listen to him, his program is the highest rated talk-radio program in the United States. I find it ironic that conservative/right-wing programs do not consider themselves part of the main-stream (lame-stream) media.. especially when one considers the ratings. Sean Hannity (also conservative/right wing) is second.

Over-the-top programing/personalities from both ends of the spectrum contribute to the dissolution of civil public discourse. They lower our IQ's with their skewing of information they should be providing the public. They are nothing but mere entertainers aiming for the lowest common denominator.
User avatar
RoseMorninStar
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12795
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 10:34 pm
Location: North Shire
Top

Postby Griffon64 » Tue Mar 06, 2012 12:29 pm

According to the article in my local paper that dealt with this topic Rush Limbaugh has 15 million listeners. Out of a total of 311.5 million people living in the US.

So yes, he has plenty of listeners, but every time one despairs and thinks that all of the roughly 55 million ( according to one set of figures I found ) registered Republican voters are slavish listeners, take heart that only about a quarter of them actually listens at all, assuming there are no independent and no non-Republicans listening, which is unlikely.

I don't know how accurate Gallup polls are, but in January 2011 it turned out that about 29% of voters are registered Republican, 31% are registered Democrat, and 38% are registered independent. Independent registration has hovered in the 30%'s since at least 1988, according to a little graph in the article.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145463/Democratic-Party-Drops-2010-Tying-Year-Low.aspx

So only about 29% of the population ( assuming they all vote in the first place, voter turnout is usually only in the high 60's I think ) is deciding who will run against Obama in the next election.
User avatar
Griffon64
Mariner

 
Posts: 7276
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 11:47 pm
Top

Postby Democritus » Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:11 pm

Griffon64 wrote:According to the article in my local paper that dealt with this topic Rush Limbaugh has 15 million listeners. Out of a total of 311.5 million people living in the US.


Try a tenth of that figure, more like 1.4 million http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/03/who-listens-to-limbaugh-ctd.html
User avatar
Democritus
Mariner

 
Posts: 5440
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2001 8:08 pm
Top

Postby Griffon64 » Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:19 pm

The article I mentioned was written by the Tribune Washington Bureau and ran on the wire, from where it got picked up by the local paper. Looks like it is a convenience figure rather than anything real.

My takeaway from the article you linked to is more of a "Nobody really knows" than another figure. The 1.4 million is an estimate, too.

Heck, I'm far from unhappy. The smaller that figure actually is, the better.
User avatar
Griffon64
Mariner

 
Posts: 7276
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 11:47 pm
Top

Postby Dave_LF » Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:20 pm

More people are listening now. I imagine he made his apology and then laughed all the way to the bank.
User avatar
Dave_LF
Mariner

 
Posts: 7186
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 8:39 pm
Top

Postby Frelga » Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:31 pm

Not so much. Only one station dropped him (Hawaii ftw) but several advertisers pulled ads from his program.

Jon Stewart pointed out that Limbaugh seems to have no clue how contraceptive pills work, thinking that it's something a woman must take every time she has sex, as opposed to daily whether or not she is sexually active.

He's in good company with Bill "Can't explain that" O'Reilly.
User avatar
Frelga
GNU Terry Pratchett

 
Posts: 9221
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 12:05 pm
Top

Next

Return to Philosophy: Councils of Manwë

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest