Re: NAT: Powell is just Wrong

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> If he prefers democrat (sic) party fundamental ideals then he should become
> a democrat.

I agree.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
>,
ScottW2 > wrote:

> On May 25, 9:09*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > If he prefers democrat (sic) party fundamental ideals then he should
> > > become
> > > a democrat.
> >
> > I agree.
>
> Just to be clear, if Powell was arguing for the Republicans to change
> to a philosophy which wasn't already so clearly laid claim by the
> democrats, or something that wasn't so fundamental where party overlap
> is common, then he has every right to advocate his view within the
> party.
> But he seems to advocate a fundamental position held by democrats on
> the basis that Americans support this position and Republicans must
> mover to this position to be a viable national party.
> My view is that a 2 party system of government is meaningless if both
> parties are going to fundamentally represent the same philosophy of
> government.
>
> An example of an issue that, IMO, is not as fundamental would be the
> abortion debate. While Republicans are generally considered pro-life
> and Democrats considered pro-choice there remains much nuance to be
> discussed in both positions and the democrats have a pro-life
> contingent with their party and republicans have a pro-choice
> contingent in theirs. Being pro-choice does not IMO, require a change
> in party choice. For example, I supported Fred Thompson's position on
> the issue.
>
> ScottW

I pretty much agree with you here. But the Repub's problem is not folks
like Gen. Powell, but the fact that Gingrich, Steele, Limbaugh, and
Cheney are viewed as the leaders of the party.

[[email protected]]

On 25 Mai, 12:27, ScottW2 > wrote:


> *My view is that a 2 party system of government is meaningless if both
> parties are going to fundamentally represent the same philosophy of
> government.
>

Good point
But, it is equally as meaningless if one of the parties
represents a philiosophy of government that hardly anyone believes in.


> An example of an issue that, IMO, is not as fundamental would be the
> abortion debate. *While Republicans are generally considered pro-life
> and Democrats considered pro-choice there remains much nuance to be
> discussed in both positions and the democrats have a pro-life
> contingent with their party and republicans have a pro-choice
> contingent in theirs. *Being pro-choice does not IMO, require a change
> in party choice. For example, I supported Fred Thompson's position on
> the issue.
>


The problem is when either party makes a particular
position on abortion a 'litmus test'.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 25, 1:14*pm, wrote:
> On 25 Mai, 12:27, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > *My view is that a 2 party system of government is meaningless if both
> > parties are going to fundamentally represent the same philosophy of
> > government.
>
> Good point
> But, it is equally as meaningless if one of the parties
> represents a philiosophy of government that hardly anyone believes in.

Also, if you look at 2pid's 'position' he indicates that there must be
close to monolithic views for a party to be viable. Note his "a
further splintering of the party' comment.

What 2pid doesn't realize (and Powell does) is that most Americans are
in the middle. The republicans keep moving further right while the
Dems have a range of views from extremely liberal to moderate and
even conservative.

Keeping the republicans far to the right (and the moderate republicans
are either retiring or switching parties) will guraratee dwindling
support. The republicans dream that eventually American voters will
see the "light" and come around to the ultra right. If the republicans
want to survive it is they who will have to begin a move to the
center.

> > An example of an issue that, IMO, is not as fundamental would be the
> > abortion debate. *While Republicans are generally considered pro-life
> > and Democrats considered pro-choice there remains much nuance to be
> > discussed in both positions and the democrats have a pro-life
> > contingent with their party and republicans have a pro-choice
> > contingent in theirs. *Being pro-choice does not IMO, require a change
> > in party choice. For example, I supported Fred Thompson's position on
> > the issue.
>
> The problem is when either party makes a particular
> position on abortion a 'litmus test'.

I would also say that that the pro-choice contingent in the republican
party is very small. Further, 2pid is arguing that it should indeed
become smaller as there must be purity of views.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 25, 3:23*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:

> Limbaugh was annointed by the dems and MSM, not republicans.

The republicans sure kowtowed to him and made it appear that they
consider him a "leader".

Their other option was to state that he wasn't. I must have missed
that.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
>,
ScottW2 > wrote:

> On May 25, 10:50*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > On May 25, 9:09*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > If he prefers democrat (sic) party fundamental ideals then he should
> > > > > become
> > > > > a democrat.
> >
> > > > I agree.
> >
> > > *Just to be clear, if Powell was arguing for the Republicans to change
> > > to a philosophy which wasn't already so clearly laid claim by the
> > > democrats, or something that wasn't so fundamental where party overlap
> > > is common, then he has every right to advocate his view within the
> > > party.
> > > But he seems to advocate a fundamental position held by democrats on
> > > the basis that Americans support this position and Republicans must
> > > mover to this position to be a viable national party.
> > > *My view is that a 2 party system of government is meaningless if both
> > > parties are going to fundamentally represent the same philosophy of
> > > government.
> >
> > > An example of an issue that, IMO, is not as fundamental would be the
> > > abortion debate. *While Republicans are generally considered pro-life
> > > and Democrats considered pro-choice there remains much nuance to be
> > > discussed in both positions and the democrats have a pro-life
> > > contingent with their party and republicans have a pro-choice
> > > contingent in theirs. *Being pro-choice does not IMO, require a change
> > > in party choice. For example, I supported Fred Thompson's position on
> > > the issue.
> >
> > > ScottW
> >
> > I pretty much agree with you here. *But the Repub's problem is not folks
> > like Gen. Powell, but the fact that Gingrich, Steele, Limbaugh, and
> > Cheney are viewed as the leaders of the party.
>
> Steele is the head of the RNC. Seems appropriate for him to be
> considered
> a leader though I don't think his podium presence is sufficient.

And he's viewed as a nut.

> Limbaugh was annointed by the dems and MSM, not republicans.

And by Repubs bowing to him.

> Cheney as former VP certainly has a place and since speaking out his
> approval ratings among republicans has risen.

Among the base, I would imagine. The majority of people seem to view
him with great suspicion.

> Republicans are simply seeking someone, anyone, who can articulate
> their
> views. Cheney certainly does that better than Steele though largely
> with an eye toward the past rather than the future.
> Gingrich does ok but his tantrum when losing the speaker won't be
> easily
> forgotten.

Nor will his marriage history.

> He's good for the party in the idea domain and on the news
> shows, but I doubt he has any prospects as a candidate.
> The good news is that there is some churn beginning and we'll see if
> any cream rises to the top. Reality is this, the republicans don't
> need a national leader to emerge until the 2012 primaries.

That's what parties say when they don't have a leader.

> The 2010
> elections will be based upon local candidates and Steele appears to be
> doing a decent job building the party apparatus (a process largely
> invisible to most voters) to support those campaigns.
>
> ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 26, 12:19*am, Jenn > wrote:
> *ScottW2 > wrote:

> > Reality is this, the republicans don't
> > need a national leader to emerge until the 2012 primaries.
>
> That's what parties say when they don't have a leader.

Our Governor is doing his best to be that leader. He's been forsaking
the state with an eye towards national politics for the past few
years.

Pawlenty/Palin 2012!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 26, 12:45*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:

> *No one considered Obama the dem party leader after the Kerry defeat.

So Obama was Clinton's foil. Clinton was the presimptive candidate.

Um, who's the republican's presumptive candidate?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 26, 2:25*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On May 26, 12:17*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
> > On May 26, 12:45*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > *No one considered Obama the dem party leader after the Kerry defeat.

[[email protected]]

On 26 Mai, 15:17, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On May 26, 12:45*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > *No one considered Obama the dem party leader after the Kerry defeat.
>
> So Obama was Clinton's foil. Clinton was the presimptive candidate.
>
> Um, who's the republican's presumptive candidate?

they don't have The Annointed One.

[[email protected]]

On 26 Mai, 15:41, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On May 26, 2:25*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > On May 26, 12:17*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On May 26, 12:45*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > > *No one considered Obama the dem party leader after the Kerry defeat.
>
> > > So Obama was Clinton's foil. Clinton was the presimptive candidate.
>
> > > Um, who's the republican's presumptive candidate?
>
> > *Not nearly so clear a front runner as Clinton, but I'd say Romney.
>
> Not Huckabee?
>
> He'll be soooo disappointed.

He's got a tv show and a band.
that's almost as good

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
>,
wrote:

> On 26 Mai, 15:17, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > wrote:
> > On May 26, 12:45*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> >
> > > *No one considered Obama the dem party leader after the Kerry defeat.
> >
> > So Obama was Clinton's foil. Clinton was the presimptive candidate.
> >
> > Um, who's the republican's presumptive candidate?
>
> they don't have The Annointed One.

Stale.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 26, 4:53*pm, wrote:
> On 26 Mai, 17:40, Jenn > wrote:
> > wrote:

> > > they don't have The Annointed One.
>
> > Stale.
>
> SHHH was talking about 4 years ago.

I thought Obama was the "Anointed One". He wasn't on the radar four
years ago.

The Dems *did* have leaders four years ago. Who is the leader of the
republicans now?

2pid guessed Romney. I never hear a thing about him.

[[email protected]]

On 26 Mai, 20:04, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On May 26, 4:53*pm, wrote:
>
> > On 26 Mai, 17:40, Jenn > wrote:
> > > wrote:
> > > > they don't have The Annointed One.
>
> > > Stale.
>
> > SHHH was talking about 4 years ago.
>
> I thought Obama was the "Anointed One". He wasn't on the radar four
> years ago.
>

Exactly!
Four years ago Her Emminence was The Annointed One

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 26, 7:38*pm, wrote:
> On 26 Mai, 20:04, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
> > On May 26, 4:53*pm, wrote:
>
> > > On 26 Mai, 17:40, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > they don't have The Annointed One.
>
> > > > Stale.
>
> > > SHHH was talking about 4 years ago.
>
> > I thought Obama was the "Anointed One". He wasn't on the radar four
> > years ago.
>
> Exactly!
> Four years ago Her Emminence was The Annointed One

Exactly!

There is no "Anointed One" for the republicans. They're in deep
trouble and they know it.

For someone to overtake the frontrunner as Obama did there has to be a
frontrunner. It's like a rule or something.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

> There is no "Anointed One" for the republicans. They're in deep
> trouble and they know it.

Some pundits are saying Powell may take the lead. He's definitely ticked
off at Cheney and Limbaugh and Gingrich.

[[email protected]]

On 26 Mai, 22:08, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On May 26, 7:38*pm, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 26 Mai, 20:04, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On May 26, 4:53*pm, wrote:
>
> > > > On 26 Mai, 17:40, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > they don't have The Annointed One.
>
> > > > > Stale.
>
> > > > SHHH was talking about 4 years ago.
>
> > > I thought Obama was the "Anointed One". He wasn't on the radar four
> > > years ago.
>
> > Exactly!
> > Four years ago Her Emminence was The Annointed One
>
> Exactly!
>
> There is no "Anointed One" for the republicans. They're in deep
> trouble and they know it.
>
> For someone to overtake the frontrunner as Obama did there has to be a
> frontrunner. It's like a rule or something.-

Bush's daughters aren't old enough yet

[[email protected]]

On 26 Mai, 22:13, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Shhhh! said:
>
> > There is no "Anointed One" for the republicans. They're in deep
> > trouble and they know it.
>
> Some pundits are saying Powell may take the lead. He's definitely ticked
> off at Cheney and Limbaugh and Gingrich.

The problem is that there aren't any moderates that are not
aliented from the base. And the House and Senate rep leadership are
boring and fossilized.
I can't think of a dynamic rep senator

Gingrich could step up and lead as a pacesetter,
until the real candidate takes shape

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 26, 10:56*pm, wrote:
> On 26 Mai, 22:08, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On May 26, 7:38*pm, wrote:
>
> > > On 26 Mai, 20:04, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > On May 26, 4:53*pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > On 26 Mai, 17:40, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > they don't have The Annointed One.
>
> > > > > > Stale.
>
> > > > > SHHH was talking about 4 years ago.
>
> > > > I thought Obama was the "Anointed One". He wasn't on the radar four
> > > > years ago.
>
> > > Exactly!
> > > Four years ago Her Emminence was The Annointed One
>
> > Exactly!
>
> > There is no "Anointed One" for the republicans. They're in deep
> > trouble and they know it.
>
> > For someone to overtake the frontrunner as Obama did there has to be a
> > frontrunner. It's like a rule or something.-
>
> Bush's daughters aren't old enough yet

I think bushie finished off whatever chance the Bushes had at a
dynasty.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 26, 9:13*pm, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> Shhhh! said:
>
> > There is no "Anointed One" for the republicans. They're in deep
> > trouble and they know it.
>
> Some pundits are saying Powell may take the lead. He's definitely ticked
> off at Cheney and Limbaugh and Gingrich.

Tim Pawlenty has his eye on it.

Let him run, Some of the crap he's pulled here will look good the the
"base" but will make smart people cringe.

That virtually guarantees a Dem in 2012.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 26, 11:00*pm, wrote:
> On 26 Mai, 22:13, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > Shhhh! said:
>
> > > There is no "Anointed One" for the republicans. They're in deep
> > > trouble and they know it.
>
> > Some pundits are saying Powell may take the lead. He's definitely ticked
> > off at Cheney and Limbaugh and Gingrich.
>
> The problem is that there aren't any moderates that are not
> aliented from the base.

Can you guess why that is, Clyde?

> And the House and Senate rep leadership are
> boring and fossilized.
> I can't think of a dynamic rep senator

How about dynamic governors?

> Gingrich could step up *and lead as a pacesetter,
> until the real candidate takes shape

Gingrich will guarantee the Dems a victory.

[[email protected]]

On 27 Mai, 00:56, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On May 26, 11:00*pm, wrote:
>
> > On 26 Mai, 22:13, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > > Shhhh! said:
>
> > > > There is no "Anointed One" for the republicans. They're in deep
> > > > trouble and they know it.
>
> > > Some pundits are saying Powell may take the lead. He's definitely ticked
> > > off at Cheney and Limbaugh and Gingrich.
>
> > The problem is that there aren't any moderates that are not
> > aliented from the base.
>
> Can you guess why that is, Clyde?
>
it is self evident, the true believers are activist and rabid.


> > And the House and Senate rep leadership are
> > boring and fossilized.
> > I can't think of a dynamic rep senator
>
> How about dynamic governors?
>

Right now, governors are busy governing, Senators are busy fighting
the Obama agenda. Presently, leadeship would likey
follow from the agenda battle,at least until the
race gets closer.

> > Gingrich could step up *and lead as a pacesetter,
> > until the real candidate takes shape
>
> Gingrich will guarantee the Dems a victory.

I said "until"

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 27, 1:00*am, wrote:
> On 27 Mai, 00:56, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On May 26, 11:00*pm, wrote:
>
> > > On 26 Mai, 22:13, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > > > Shhhh! said:
>
> > > > > There is no "Anointed One" for the republicans. They're in deep
> > > > > trouble and they know it.
>
> > > > Some pundits are saying Powell may take the lead. He's definitely ticked
> > > > off at Cheney and Limbaugh and Gingrich.
>
> > > The problem is that there aren't any moderates that are not
> > > aliented from the base.
>
> > Can you guess why that is, Clyde?
>
> it is self evident, the true believers are activist and rabid.

And not moderate. They are far to the right of mainstream America.

Look at 2pid as an example. LoL.

> > > And the House and Senate rep leadership are
> > > boring and fossilized.
> > > I can't think of a dynamic rep senator
>
> > How about dynamic governors?
>
> Right now, governors are busy governing, Senators are busy fighting
> the Obama agenda. Presently, leadeship would likey
> follow from the agenda battle,at least until the
> race gets closer.

They got nothing.

> > > Gingrich could step up *and lead as a pacesetter,
> > > until the real candidate takes shape
>
> > Gingrich will guarantee the Dems a victory.
>
> I said "until"

Unless they provide some leadership, pronto, they will remain has-
beens.

Even "until" then.