US Politics VIII

[Elrostar]

Well honestly. I don't care about what people call their political party. Interestingly, they get to pick that name. That's their prerogative, actually. If people want to call their party "The Socialist People's Party", that's great. And if they want to call themselves "The Conservative Party", then that is great as well. And if they want to call themselves "Democratic Socialists" then they can do that too.

But much as The Washington Post doesn't get to decide that from now on they are going to refer to Rush Limbaugh as "Señor Tortilla-Face", the Washington Times doesn't get to decide that they're going to call Obama "Mister Douchebag" either. And neither does the National Review. Or MoveOn.org, for that matter.

How hard is it to have the bare minimum of courtesy, decency and respect in society?

Hvor svært kan det være?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Elro,

What about moveon and their decision to call Gen. Petraus "Gen. Betrayus"? Personally, I found it rather juvinelle.

[DanteGabriel]

Elro,

What about moveon and their decision to call Gen. Petraus "Gen. Betrayus"? Personally, I found it rather juvinelle.

Are we really going to play tit for tat with what various Internet clubs are calling their political opponents?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DG,

Name calling is juvenille regardless of the political afiliation of the person doing it.

[DanteGabriel]

DG,

Name calling is juvenille regardless of the political afiliation of the person doing it.

I'm just not sure we have to care if MoveOn gives somebody an unflattering nickname. I care if the parties are calling each other juvenile names, and I care if major journalistic orgs are doing it (though I feel like corporate media calls the parties their clients). I don't care if MoveOn calls Petraeus a name. Or do you want me to just start rapid-firing quotes of all the lame things that Pajamas Media, redstate.org, et al call Democratic politicians?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DG,

As I said it's pretty silly no matter who's doing it.

[AndyP]

On the fate of RNC chairman Michael Steele... and a possible rechristening of the Democratic Party, at least so far as Republicans would be concerned:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04...rnc.php?ref=dc1

Nothing can say more clearly that there are to many Republicans who don't f*cking understand why the hell they have gotten their asses kicked during the last two elections. The Republican party's real problem isn't what people think of Democrats so much as what they think of Republicans.

Ser Scot

Conservatives and Conservative leaning libertarians need to do better than, 'He called me a name first' . I hear that from my 8 and 6 year olds all the time.

[Inigima]

not following the gist of the thread because I won't get sucked in, I won't! I won't! I won't!

but after a discussion with a friend yesterday I found a little gap between my perceptions of Obama and hers vis a vis whether he's a liberal or centrist. I say in word and deed he's way more to the liberal wing of the party, not that that's a bad thing for a group that has compromised its beliefs as much as the democrats have over the last two decades. She, OTOH, was disappointed because in her mind Obama turned out to be far more centrist than she anticipated.

What do you all think?

As a filthy liberal I'm pretty happy with him. Wiretapping and state secrets are areas in which I am profoundly dissatisfied with him; I also want him to speak more strongly against torture, i.e., I want investigations, and prosecutions if warranted. But I recognize that it's the AG's call, not the President's, and now that Obama has recognized that as well I'm content with his current position.

Wiretapping and state secrets are Big Honkin' Deals to me. I'm really, genuinely angry about his positions on these. On the remainder of his policies, however, I really couldn't be happier. I'm incredibly relieved to know that rational thinking and critical reasoning are once again the order of the day instead of demonstrably false ideological nonsense.

On the fate of RNC chairman Michael Steele... and a possible rechristening of the Democratic Party, at least so far as Republicans would be concerned:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04...rnc.php?ref=dc1

The one sensible thing Michael Steele has said since his ascension to the RNC chair, and he's being overruled. Classic.

I've thought for a while now that claims of a total imminent collapse of the Republican Party were overblown, but these days that doesn't seem so far-fetched. Maddow's "Poutrage" headline seems appropriate.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Andy,

You'll get no argument from me on that score.

[Annelise]

Nothing can say more clearly that there are to many Republicans who don't f*cking understand why the hell they have gotten their asses kicked during the last two elections. The Republican party's real problem isn't what people think of Democrats so much as what they think of Republicans.

Your mission is clear. Will you serve your country?

Dude, someone's gotta do it. :whip:

[DanteGabriel]

As a filthy liberal I'm pretty happy with him. Wiretapping and state secrets are areas in which I am profoundly dissatisfied with him; I also want him to speak more strongly against torture, i.e., I want investigations, and prosecutions if warranted. But I recognize that it's the AG's call, not the President's, and now that Obama has recognized that as well I'm content with his current position.

Wiretapping and state secrets are Big Honkin' Deals to me. I'm really, genuinely angry about his positions on these. On the remainder of his policies, however, I really couldn't be happier. I'm incredibly relieved to know that rational thinking and critical reasoning are once again the order of the day instead of demonstrably false ideological nonsense.

I agree in full with Ini here. I'm upset about the civil liberties issues. But on the whole, thrilled with what I see as a sensible, rational approach to government, rather than the Bushian mix of unblinking ideology and seat-of-the-pants buckaroo shit.

[Tempra]

There is no distinction. Torture is torture is torture.

Thank you.

[Annelise]

Top Republican leaders Thursday offered a first look at plans to remake their party with a renewed focus on the bread-and-butter issues of domestic policy.

The National Council for a New America launched with an open letter that’s notable for what it leaves out: The issues that a large segment of the party’s base are most passionate about. The letter, signed by 14 congressional Republican leaders, makes no mention of same-sex marriage, immigration — legal or otherwise — or abortion.

The letter outlines five policy areas, four of them domestic, and promises a search for solutions on the economy and on “high quality, affordable [health] care for all Americans.â€

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor and Senator John McCain laid out the details of the group on a conference call with reporters Thursday, with McCain adding that it hoped to attract independents and “like-minded Democrats†to a series of public forums around the country, the first of which will be held this weekend.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/

[lokisnow]

apparently church goers are more likely to expect (and support) the Spanish Inquisition

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/religion.torture/index.html

The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new survey.

the study is naturally worthless, Republicans are more likely to support torture, church goers are more likely to be republicans, naturally there's a correlation in populations. Doesn't mean that correlation is even remotely meaningful though.

[Tempra]

Now here is something I can get behind...

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama is promising a major investment in research and development, with the goal of spending 3 percent of the nation's gross domestic product on scientific innovation.

Obama will make the announcement in a speech Monday at the annual meeting of the National Academy of Sciences.

The president says 3 percent of GDP would represent the largest commitment to scientific research and innovation in U.S. history.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...646yZAD97QQPPG0

[sologdin]

major investment in

major public investment? sounds like commyism to me.

[Tempra]

major investment in

major public investment? sounds like commyism to me.

we may as well invent some more cool shit before we go belly up.

[Watcher]

This is awesome. If they do this enough then they'll start changing their own party names. "Oh yeah? Well we're the Supreme Grand Party of Awesomeness" "Nuh uh! We're the Super Duper Ultimate Party of Ninjas Times Infinity! You guys are the Party of Toilet Monsters Who Eat Poop!"

I'm joining that party and my new avatar tag shows it.

[TrackerNeil]

If you visit the conservative sites like Redstate, you can still hear folks claiming that the road back involves going back to "true conservatism." Uh-huh. Like the GOP lost Lincoln Chafee's seat because it wasn't conservative enough. Not that I am complaining, mind you; the more off-track that party is the more likely I am to be able to get married and to qualify for universal health care.

[Lord O' Bones]

When did this madness start? I know it can't be as simple as W's election. Was it outrage over a blow-job? As a recovering Republican, I feel like I should know this. In my defense, I was overseas in your defense when I think the seed was planted. Can it even be pinpointed? Dalthor? EHK? Any other recovering Republicans want to help me out?