+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 16 of 16
08-10-10 09:51 AM #1
Conflict within the Republican Party
There are landmarks all over our city named after LaGuardia and Javits and Rockefeller, names out of the city's great Republican past, when the party was one of intelligence, not fear-mongering and hate. When its membership included even the great name put to the Jackie Robinson Parkway.
The current Republican Party, one hijacked by hustlers and extremists, not only looks to destroy President Obama. It even starts to kill its own.
Rep. Bob Inglis, a voice of reason at a dumb, unreasonable time in American politics, is one of them. Inglis (R-S.C.) will be out of a job soon for not hating Barack Obama nearly enough. The irony, he says, is that he disagrees with Obama on almost everything.
Inglis, a conservative Republican from a state so red you worry it might set itself on fire, used to go after Bill Clinton with everything he had. But these days he comes up an even better American than a Republican, speaking his own mind, refusing to join a chorus of idiots and call Obama his enemy, or an enemy of the state. Inglis' state or anybody else's.
"I figured out early in the race I was taking a risk by being unwilling to call the President a socialist," Inglis says. "I'd get asked a question and they'd all wait to see if I'd use the word - socialist - they were throwing around. I wouldn't. Because I don't think that's what he is.
"To call him a socialist is to demean the office and stir up a passion that we need to be calming, rather than constantly stirring up."
Listen to the guy. He doesn't sound like some sore loser. Instead, Bob Inglis sounds like the ignored conscience of an increasingly crackpot party.
He makes quiet sense in a dumb, loud, dangerous time in American politics. He leaves Congress the first week of January, having just been clobbered in a primary runoff by a Tea Party guy named Trey Gowdy who constantly attacked Inglis for not being conservative enough, even though Inglis has a 93% lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union.
This isn't about Inglis not being conservative enough. It's about him not hating Obama enough. In the eyes of the self-appointed, self-anointed defenders of our virtue, that clearly means he doesn't love America enough.
"A colleague of mine from the House said to me recently her father once told her leaders can either lead or mislead," Inglis says.
"What we are seeing these days is so much misleading. They say one outlandish thing after another about the President and that gives license to others to say even worse things.
"When you have one of our so-called leaders saying that Obama is a socialist, then others feel empowered to dial up the rhetoric and call him a Marxist. Or a Communist. Then you have something worse than words, you have the dehumanizing and demonizing of the President of the United States. And when that happens across history, scary things can happen."
Inglis is smart enough to know it wasn't just his refusal to call the President names that turned him into one more unemployed American. He voted for TARP and against the surge in Iraq and even called out Glenn Beck, a rough, tough media guy who thinks ad hominem attacks are great until he's the hominem.
In the primary runoff, Inglis' opponent got 71% of the vote. It's never just one thing when you get carried out of the ring like that.
"I was at a breakfast and somebody said the President wasn't patriotic," Inglis says. "I knew I was supposed to go along. Instead, I got up and said, 'That's simply not true. I disagree with this President most of the time, but he loves his country.' Afterward a big Republican operative in our state grabbed me and said, 'Don't give him that.' I said, 'Give him what?' And the guy said, 'That he's patriotic.'
"Why do I have to see Democrats as my enemies? I've got Al Qaeda. I've got the Taliban. I've got enough enemies. I'm supposed to call this President despicable? The people who are despicable are the ones who constantly mislead the public in the interest of selling books. Or themselves. And always cloaking themselves in patriotism. Shame on them."
He laughs softly.
"But then what do I know?" Bob Inglis says. "I lost."
His district did. His state did. His party did. He did not.
08-10-10 11:25 AM #2
Republicans are hustlers and extremists. A crackpot party. A chorus of idiots. They only exist for hatred of Obama.
Yet the author is championing a guy for not criticizing Obama. Seems a bit hypocritical, doesn't it?
Hmmmmm....who wrote this brilliant, fair and balanced totally non-partisan, middle-of-the-road, rational analysis?
That explains it.
08-10-10 12:52 PM #3
08-10-10 01:09 PM #4Eternal struggle between ape and automaton documented for the ages. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_QsCXm1vrk
08-10-10 01:25 PM #5
It will interesting to see if radical elements in the party result in unelectable candidates in Nov.
Some Dems are rejoicing at this, but it concerns me that the result is people in leadership among Reps with whom constructive dialogue is impossible. It will make it more difficult to do things for the common good. How can Obama dialogue with folk who think he's a Communist and an enemy of the state?
08-10-10 01:27 PM #6
And, second, we can't call the President a Socialist - even if he is one? Even if he has in the past surrounded himself with Socialists? Even if his father is an admitted Socialist? Even if he supports the Socialist platform, including central government planning, government ownership and/or control of industry, and the redistribution of wealth for the basis of political gain? Do we have to wait until he labels himself as a "Socialist" before we label him as one? At what point is it fair game?
I think we're just calling him what he is. I think in the realm of ideas, the people should know that he compares more favorably to Lenin than Jefferson. That might be a good thing for a freedom loving American to know.
As far as the "hater" part goes. I would love to be friends with the Left, in a way. That's why I am a libertarian. I want us to live free with the free exchange of ideas instead of the imposition of ideas. But, it seems to be the Left who do not want to live peacefully with us. They call us "haters," "Teabaggers," "crackpots,"
"fear-mongering," "extremists," "loud," "dangerous," "outlandish, "hominem," etc.
And then they get up me for using the "S" word!!!???
**** the Left. They ARE our enemies. We don't want them to be, but they don't want any of our ideas, no matter how good they are because they HATE- absolutely despise the part of our party that is Christian and morally straight.
So, they're willing to blow up everything we have built with our own hands. They are willing to destroy the people and in their place, substitute the will of a central, powerful, and dictatorial government that furthers the imposition of a small, political class that spoils itself at the expense of the people; at the expense of the individual; at the death of the country, of opportunity, enlightenment, and reason.
Banterer, you guys need to decide whether you are our friends or not. You need to decide whether or not you are willing to live with us. You need to decide if you want us to be your friends or your enemies. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." - Abraham Lincoln - and you got a HUGE group of freedom loving individuals out here who are waiting to see who your allies are.
If the Left wants a fight, then, by God, we will give them the fight of our Lives.
Last edited by Yogi; 08-10-10 at 01:31 PM.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"smarter than the average bear!"
08-10-10 01:54 PM #7Baylor fan (2191 points)
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
I don't know whether the style (calling Republicans a party of hustlers and crackpots) is more his personal style or just a reflection that he writes for a rough-and-tumble paper like the Daily News.
A polemic is not likely to draw people into thoughtful debate. Still, that doesn't mean that there aren't some serious (and legit) points within his column.
Hustlers? Well, I don't really see the Republicans as anymore guilty of that than Democratic politicians.
Extremists? You do have to wonder. The Tea Party hasn't knocked off any Democrats yet, but it has taken its toll among conservative Republicans, including incumbents like Inglis and Robert Bennett from Utah. And this is in a party where very few of the old Eisenhower and Rockefeller Republicans were left as officeholders even before this latest shift further to the right.
I just got subjected to a huge wave of political ads for the Republican primary in my state. It has been abundantly clear from them, if it wasn't clear already, that the battle in many part of the GOP these days really is about who is sufficiently conservative, with conservative being defined farther and farther to the right. I don't think Lupica is wrong about that, even if he was inflammatory in making his point.
I might quarrel with him over the use of the word "hijacked." I'm not so sure they got hijacked. GOP leaders were very happy to accept the elements that became the Tea Party into their tent some years ago because they were among its most enthusiastic and energetic supporters. But to keep them energized, candidates and officeholders had to play more and more to the tune called by the radicals. Now some of them are wondering whether the Tea Party is an asset or an albatross. Example: Nevada, where the GOP was probably a cinch to beat Harry Reid until this Angle woman won the primary.
One hopeful sign to me is that Republican voters might be doing a little course correction. In my state, all of the radicals lost in the primary. Same was true in Alabama, where the ultras ran the provocative commercials that you may have seen on news-talk programs.
I had not known until reading this that Inglis had lost. If I recall correctly, his conservative credentials were impeccable.
08-10-10 02:02 PM #8Baylor fan (2191 points)
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
Also, please reconcile the claim that you're not "dangerous" or an "extremist" with the implication that you're ready for a civil war.
Perhaps you are the duck that doesn't walk, look or quack like a duck.
08-10-10 05:13 PM #9
Inglis lost because he BASHED Tea Partiers and conservatives. He voted for TARP. He voted for bailouts. He voted against the 2007 surge that turned things around in Iraq. And he was a long-time incumbent, which is not a particularly good thing to be right now. Bashing conservatives in your campaign isn't exactly gong to endear one with conservative voters.
Of course, delusional hate-spewers like Lupica would rather believe he lost because he's not a confederate flag-waving white racist.
08-12-10 04:28 AM #10Baylor fan (2170 points)
- Join Date
- May 2000
A sportswriter composes an editorial reflecting "ideas" that aren't original. Yogi then composes an answer that is worse. I'm being driven to democrats because of the Yogis of the world. Dems will have a bad November. Right now I am more afraid of the Rep nuts than the dem nuts.
I'll go fishing
08-12-10 05:45 AM #11M0DERAT0R Baylor fan (5304 points)
- Join Date
- Jun 2000
Time for the RHINO's to leave the party...hasta la vista
08-12-10 07:34 AM #12Baylor fan (2170 points)
- Join Date
- May 2000
08-12-10 08:06 AM #13Minarchy fan (4714 points)
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
08-13-10 07:29 AM #14Baylor fan (2170 points)
- Join Date
- May 2000
08-13-10 08:48 AM #15baylor fan (74 points)
- Join Date
- Jul 2007
Mike Lupica, like Keith Olbermann, should stick to sports.
Yes, and a previous poster is 100%. Inglis lost because he bashed conservatives and the Tea Party. You wouldn't expect a Democratic candidate in Massachusetts to win by bashing Obama and liberalism.
08-13-10 09:20 AM #16
But I'll play with you. The right wing "nuts" are the ones peacefully protesting big governement and taxes. The leftist "nuts" are the ones rioting in the streets all over the world. Why exactly are you so afraid of "republican nuts"?
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)