Interesting 2010 GOP Tactic?

[toastywombel]

check out here

http://www.gop.com/firepelosi/

 

"On behalf of the entire RNC staff we thank you from the bottom of our hearts for your generous donations to help us regain Congress in 2010 and fire Nancy Pelosi from the office of the Speaker of the House. This is the first step in restoring accountability to our nation's Capitol, please stay tuned for more information on what's next in the campaign to fire Pelosi"

 

-Michael Steele

 

I love the burning flame backdrop behind Nancy Pelosi.

Anyway, it seems they want to return accountability to our nation's capitol? Hopefully they don't mean the return of the following as "accountability".

 

"On January 21, 1997, the House voted overwhelmingly (395 to 28) to reprimand House Speaker Newt Gingrich for ethics violations dating back to September 1994. The house ordered Gingrich to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty, the first time in the House's 208-year history it had disciplined a speaker for ethical wrongdoing.[18]

Eighty-four ethics charges, most of which were leveled by House Democratic Whip David Bonior, were filed against Speaker Gingrich during his term, including claiming tax-exempt status for a college course run for political purposes. Eighty-three of the 84 allegations were dropped.[19] Gingrich denied the charges over misuse of tax-exempt funds; however, he admitted to providing inaccurate statements during the probe over the college course and agreed to pay US$300,000 for the cost of the investigation.[20][21] The House Ethics Committee concluded that inaccurate information supplied to investigators represented "intentional or ... reckless" disregard of House rules.[22] The full committee panel did not reach a conclusion about whether Gingrich had violated federal tax law, instead they opted to leave it up to the IRS.[23]"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich

 

"In the aftermath of the 1998 midterm elections, House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia stood down for the Speakership and declined to take his seat for an 11th term. The initial Republican prospect for Gingrich's replacement was Bob Livingston of Louisiana, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, who was unanimously chosen as the Republican candidate for Speaker--and de facto Speaker-elect. However, soon thereafter, Hustler magazine detailed sexual affairs Livingston had in the past while seemingly hypocritically attacking President Bill Clinton for the Monica Lewinsky scandal; Livingston announced he wouldn't seek the Speakership and resigned from Congress.

With Livingston's departure, the leading candidates for Speaker appeared to be DeLay and House Majority Leader Dick Armey, both of Texas. However, Armey had just fended off a bruising challenge to his majority leader's post from Steve Largent of Oklahoma.

This seemed to open the door for DeLay. However, DeLay was as controversial then as now, and felt that he would be "too nuclear" to lead a closely divided House.[7] The Republican caucus then turned to Hastert as a compromise candidate. He had very good relationships with moderate and conservative Republicans, as well as Democrats. Hastert was then unanimously elected as the Republican candidate for Speaker, all but assuring his formal election as Speaker on January 6, 1999."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Hastert

 

It is interesting to note they didn't choose many of the other options over Hastert because they were in legal trouble.

 

"As details emerged about unsavory dealings between lobbyists and lawmakers -- including his top lieutenant, Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) -- the House speaker stood on the sidelines. As DeLay's legal peril mounted, Hastert backed him at every turn, attempting to change House rules to allow an indicted leader to stay in power and even altering the leadership of the ethics committee, which had been exposing misconduct by the majority leader."

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/16/AR2006011600997.html

 

Just some interesting insight. I think it is easy for one to make a conclusion from the above data.

[Mr Skeptic]

Politicians are corrupt? Shocking!

[jackson33]

Toasty; Reid and Polosi have current approval ratings of 7 and 9%. Reid will likely lose his seat, even if he pulled out a Nevada Win (seriously doubt). For the record, Steele or not, I believe the tactic (slogan), will be a repeal of the HC Bill, for as many Democratic House members as Republicans. Obama is now trying (not very convincing) trying to go centrist for the upcoming elections, trip to Afghanistan, allowing some oil exploration in the gulf, but is simply a tactic.

 

 

I don't see a need to go back over Newt's political problems, but a great many others, just as serious (some worse) ethics violations, have come to light since his. If he decides to run for President or is picked for VP, they may and most certainly will be brought back up. It's ashame from my perspective, but maybe he can serve in a Republican Administration in 2013...

[bascule]

check out here

http://www.gop.com/firepelosi/

 

"On behalf of the entire RNC staff we thank you from the bottom of our hearts for your generous donations to help us regain Congress in 2010 and fire Nancy Pelosi from the office of the Speaker of the House. This is the first step in restoring accountability to our nation's Capitol, please stay tuned for more information on what's next in the campaign to fire Pelosi"

 

-Michael Steele

 

I love the burning flame backdrop behind Nancy Pelosi.

 

One thing's clear... the Democrats have a hell of a lot better taste in web design than the Republicans:

 

[Mr Skeptic]

Now now, you know that this not their main page. Why don't you hit the button at the bottom to go to their main site, and then compare?

[bascule]

Now now, you know that this not their main page. Why don't you hit the button at the bottom to go to their main site, and then compare?

 

But they chose it to be the front page of GOP.com

[Mr Skeptic]

Various websites have chosen to temporarily alter their front page to raise awareness of an issue. It usually looks drastically different than their normal page. (BTW, I think they got that ad off their front page already)

[bascule]

Various websites have chosen to temporarily alter their front page to raise awareness of an issue. It usually looks drastically different than their normal page. (BTW, I think they got that ad off their front page already)

 

Perhaps I have a higher standard for what I think the front page of a national organization of the Republican Party should look like, regardless of if it's a click-thru.

 

And you're right, apparently they came to their senses and took down that hideous monstrosity of design.

[toastywombel]

Toasty; Reid and Polosi have current approval ratings of 7 and 9%. Reid will likely lose his seat, even if he pulled out a Nevada Win (seriously doubt). For the record, Steele or not, I believe the tactic (slogan), will be a repeal of the HC Bill, for as many Democratic House members as Republicans. Obama is now trying (not very convincing) trying to go centrist for the upcoming elections, trip to Afghanistan, allowing some oil exploration in the gulf, but is simply a tactic.

 

 

I don't see a need to go back over Newt's political problems, but a great many others, just as serious (some worse) ethics violations, have come to light since his. If he decides to run for President or is picked for VP, they may and most certainly will be brought back up. It's ashame from my perspective, but maybe he can serve in a Republican Administration in 2013...

 

I don't like Reid, and I could care less if he gets thrown out. I don't much care for Pelosi either.

 

Furthermore, I believe it was many on the Right wing who cried, "Drill Baby Drill". And when Obama opens up some off-shore drilling (which I don't agree with at all) you say, "It's just a tactic". I wish Bush did some "tactics" to appease to the left at all. Are you that partisan Jackson? You cannot take anything from Obama simply because he is Obama?

 

Also like I said, the demographics don't favor the Republicans unless they change essentially everything about their platform. They have a strong social reputation of being anti-environment, anti-regulation, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-minority, anti-evolution, and Pro-war. They have alienated several groups of voters that favor the above ideas (minus the prefix's of course) and many of these groups are a growing part of the electorate.

 

And it is a shame that Newt nearly caused a massive shutdown of the Federal Government by delaying the federal budget because he had to sit in the back of the plane. I hope he never serves, he let a personal issue nearly effect our whole government. I sure don't want a man like that to be commander and chief and I don't think most Americans do.

[jackson33]

toasty quotes;

I don't like Reid, and I could care less if he gets thrown out. I don't much care for Pelosi either.[/Quote]

 

Then framing your thread, doesn't make much sense. "Firing Polosi", is based on the iron handed tactics used to get legislation passed, Reid is failing fast, for the same in the Senate and behind both of them was "The Obama ADMINISTRATION", whom your approving. Obama's rise to fame, was based around his work with ACORN, both as an organizer and Attorney, under the protection of what's often called the 'Daily Machine'. They all three belong to the same club...

 

Furthermore, I believe it was many on the Right wing who cried, "Drill Baby Drill". And when Obama opens up some off-shore drilling (which I don't agree with at all) you say, "It's just a tactic". I wish Bush did some "tactics" to appease to the left at all. Are you that partisan Jackson? You cannot take anything from Obama simply because he is Obama? [/Quote]

 

YES, and we have the reserves to be self sufficient for ALL energy required. However what's been laid out, is not the actually 'letting' of lease contracts, which is what it's all about. This will happen, if still desired in his second term, so yes a tactic. In fact crude prices, with the news has gone from 80$/B to near 86$/B, this week. I also disagreed with Bush, on several issues, incidentally agreeing on the Wars, National Security and Immigration Reform, which no doubt you would argue.

 

toasty, I am a Free Market Capitalist, that would prefer preaching the ability of the individual to achieve on their own, what no Government can provide. Although I strongly disagree with the man, OBAMA is the perfect example. A Black Man, born in America into (IMO) a dysfunctional family and achieved the Presidency on his own abilities, the absolute ultimate in the field (Politics) HE chose, at some point. The same was 100% identical for Clinton and I could list hundreds in all fields that did no less in other fields, sports, entertainment and BUSINESS.

 

Also like I said, the demographics don't favor the Republicans unless they change essentially everything about their platform. They have a strong social reputation of being anti-environment, anti-regulation, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-minority, anti-evolution, and Pro-war. They have alienated several groups of voters that favor the above ideas (minus the prefix's of course) and many of these groups are a growing part of the electorate.[/Quote]

 

Anti-environment; Nonsense, there are practical means to achieve any suggested goal (if possible at all) and there is no reason, the private sector can't achieve these goals and has been working on this for 50 years. You can live a 100% GREEN lifestyle today, from your home/energy to transportation and as more get involved, those exorbitant cost to do so, will come down, industry will retool and in 100 years or so, could we could be independent of fossil fueled energy. The trouble is forcing people, who can't afford these lifestyles to actual get them.

 

Anti-gay; Or maybe the religious notion, that a man and a woman is their traditional term for marriage. No one today cares what turns on another person or even why. The promotion of a different lifestyle to the majority is always going to take time. For all I know in 100 years the Muslim Lifestyle, will prevail, where we're back to a male dominated, multi mate society ruled by clerics. 20% of the Worlds population can influence direction, more than maybe 1%.

 

Most of the rest your "anti's" including the two addressed are social issues and agreed with or opposed by many in both parties or any party. The American Society of today remains right of center, a Christian Society, Law abiding and believe in their Constitution, regardless of party affiliation.

 

And it is a shame that Newt nearly caused a massive shutdown of the Federal Government by delaying the federal budget because he had to sit in the back of the plane. I hope he never serves, he let a personal issue nearly effect our whole government. I sure don't want a man like that to be commander and chief and I don't think most Americans do.[/Quote]

 

And it's a shame, Washington and a bunch of English aristocrats, broke from their Motherland and opposed the King. It's a shame, Lincoln and a bunch of Americans broke with tradition and forced a minority to free the Slaves and indentured servants of all colors or nationalities and it's truly a shame, FDR with the backing of 90% of Americans broke with tradition to support a few European Countries and bring an end to WWII. These were actions that could have ended the America you know today and you want to change that spirit, good luck. Gingrich, made his point, not only with the Contract for American, but in his actions. I'll predict, the House will go Republican with the 2010 elections, Democrats will hold a slight advantage in the Senate and Obama will have a two year 'lame duct' Presidency, before being voted out. What I can't predict is what ever does get elected, will do anything about predicament we're in, because if they do what's best for the future of this Country, reduce ALL entitlements, they too may not be reelected. If we are in a 'Catch 22' situation, think we are, there may be no solution to salvage anything that made this Country, what it was.

[toastywombel]

Well, like said in another thread, if I'm not with you jackson I must be with Pelosi and Reid. The point of the thread, was to show the Republicans don't seem to have many big ideas, other than Nancy Pelosi is evil? I don't think the DMC ever had Bush with a backdrop of flames behind him, and if they did they would have been labeled as anti-american liberal scum.

 

And as far as free market capitalism, I just bought the mineral rights to your property, you have 24 hours to move before I start drilling.

 

And again, I am sick of hearing the center right argument. It is just not accurate.

 

More registered democrats than republicans

More liberals than conservatives in both congress'

According to many conservatives, we have the most liberal president in history.

 

And why if you are law-abiding and Christian, then you are considered a conservative?

And I suppose believing in your constitution minus the 4th and 1st amendments is conservative right? Patriot Act. But I suppose you would rather have guns than speech and privacy.

 

And as for the private sector being able to solve any problem, the Mississippi River is about to flood, should FEMA help? No, don't worry the good ol' boys at American Sandbag are giving us a great deal! 25 cents a sandbag, oh wait the share holders don't want that, well too bad.

 

Please. . . You think we would have a space station if it was left to the free market? You think we would have been to the moon if it was left to the free market? Maybe, by 2050. The free-market is great in delivering known goods to the masses, but when a change is needed or quick response is needed that is not in the interests of the all-mighty dollar the free market will fail. And I am glad to know in 100 years, we won't be using fossil fuels anymore thanks to the free market. That is some quick problem solving!

 

It is this kind of ideology that would have everyone working for a dollar an hour, ten hours a day, in unsafe conditions. I like going to a restaurant and knowing that there are inspections required by law. I like the fact that I can have roads that I can drive on, and I don't have to be part of a shopping club. I like that if I break my arm at work, my employers can't just fire me.

 

And please don't compare Gingrich to Lincoln and FDR. Gingrich was mad at Clinton because he supposedly had to sit in the back of Air Force One, so he was stalling the budget, and when asked by a reporter he let it slip out. So not only was he selfish, but he was an idiot about it too. That is not patriotism that is self serving stupidity.

Edited April 3, 2010 by toastywombel

[Pangloss]

And again' date=' I am sick of hearing the center right argument. It is just not accurate.

[/quote']

 

I don't think the country is center-right, but I don't think that makes it center-left either. Both arguments fail for the same underlying reason -- it denies what are in my opinion the true motivations of the American people, which are not ideological at all (or at least not for the ~80% of us who aren't head-over-heels partisan).

 

 

More registered democrats than republicans

 

This doesn't indicate a progressive mandate from the people, nor would the opposite indicate a conservative one. There are only two parties to choose from in this country if you want your vote to count. There are also, in my opinion, 8 or 10 major issues that can cause people to change their party affiliation far more readily than any sort of overriding ideological belief.

 

 

More liberals than conservatives in both congress'

 

Interesting. Mr Skeptic and The Bear's Key seem to think that many Democrats are actually conservatives, and that that's why the 60-vote majority was unable to accomplish anything in 2009. If you combine those Democrats with all of the Republicans, wouldn't that put them about even?

 

 

According to many conservatives, we have the most liberal president in history.

 

If you two say so. But that doesn't indicate why he was elected, for the same reason I stated above regarding voter registration.

 

We agree on a lot of things, though:

 

And as for the private sector being able to solve any problem, the Mississippi River is about to flood, should FEMA help? No, don't worry the good ol' boys at American Sandbag are giving us a great deal! 25 cents a sandbag, oh wait the share holders don't want that, well too bad.

 

Please. . . You think we would have a space station if it was left to the free market? You think we would have been to the moon if it was left to the free market? Maybe, by 2050. The free-market is great in delivering known goods to the masses, but when a change is needed or quick response is needed that is not in the interests of the all-mighty dollar the free market will fail. And I am glad to know in 100 years, we won't be using fossil fuels anymore thanks to the free market. That is some quick problem solving!

 

It is this kind of ideology that would have everyone working for a dollar an hour, ten hours a day, in unsafe conditions. I like going to a restaurant and knowing that there are inspections required by law. I like the fact that I can have roads that I can drive on, and I don't have to be part of a shopping club. I like that if I break my arm at work, my employers can't just fire me.

 

Yup, all valid comments, IMO, and nicely put. If there's one thing we've learned in the last century is that capitalism must be regulated. My two bits, anyway.

[D H]

The point of the thread, was to show the Republicans don't seem to have many big ideas ...

The Republicans do have one big, overarching idea: That the government should have very few big ideas. In the eyes of a Republican, big ideas should be the realm of the private sector, not the government.

[toastywombel]

The Republicans do have one big, overarching idea: That the government should have very few big ideas. In the eyes of a Republican, big ideas should be the realm of the private sector, not the government.

 

That is understandable, but it seems like that can easily turn into a platform of nothing, because of course Republicans want government to have very little power. So simply their goal is to win elections and do nothing else?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I don't think the country is center-right, but I don't think that makes it center-left either. Both arguments fail for the same underlying reason -- it denies what are in my opinion the true motivations of the American people, which are not ideological at all (or at least not for the ~80% of us who aren't head-over-heels partisan).

 

 

 

 

This doesn't indicate a progressive mandate from the people, nor would the opposite indicate a conservative one. There are only two parties to choose from in this country if you want your vote to count. There are also, in my opinion, 8 or 10 major issues that can cause people to change their party affiliation far more readily than any sort of overriding ideological belief.

 

 

 

 

Interesting. Mr Skeptic and The Bear's Key seem to think that many Democrats are actually conservatives, and that that's why the 60-vote majority was unable to accomplish anything in 2009. If you combine those Democrats with all of the Republicans, wouldn't that put them about even?

 

 

 

 

If you two say so. But that doesn't indicate why he was elected, for the same reason I stated above regarding voter registration.

 

We agree on a lot of things, though:

 

 

 

Yup, all valid comments, IMO, and nicely put. If there's one thing we've learned in the last century is that capitalism must be regulated. My two bits, anyway.

 

I will concede that I think you are right on the above. There is a plethora of issues and many voters have a wide variety of opinions on each of these issues. So it is hard to classify the whole public under a certain ideology.

[ParanoiA]

That is understandable, but it seems like that can easily turn into a platform of nothing, because of course Republicans want government to have very little power. So simply their goal is to win elections and do nothing else?

 

Yes! Absolutely! I would actually vote republican if they would do just that: win the election, go home and watch TV. I would vote for anyone that promised to do just that.

 

Government is always doing something, even when they don't need to. I think the psychology of the "job" just lends itself to the notion that there must be something to do all the time. There isn't. Let the people work, thrive and drive their economy and leave them the hell alone - life is lived in the private sector, not in the halls of congress.

 

I think at this point the government has just about "fixed" us to death. Please Nancy, just take a break babe. Mooch off the system, drink some martini's and take in some sun and relax.