FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Republican strategy, via Limbaugh: Wanting Obama to fail






I want Obama to fail.
Yes. Mega-dittoes, Rush.
16%
 16%  [ 1 ]
No. I turned off the radio.
83%
 83%  [ 5 ]
Maybe. I can't figure it out because the Repubs said trying to tear down Bush during wartime was treason but no Democrat publicly wanted Bush to fail but now Repubs publicly want the Commander-in-Chief to fail, I am so confused.
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Total Votes : 6

handfleisch
How many of you are still listening to Rush Limbaugh, now that his main message is excitedly wants Obama to fail during this time of financial crisis?

Is this the defacto leader of the Republican Party?
deanhills
Come off it Handfleisch. I have not the foggiest who this dude is. I have a feeling that most other people do not care either. We still have a few years to go before the next election campaign.
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
Come off it Handfleisch. I have not the foggiest who this dude is. I have a feeling that most other people do not care either. We still have a few years to go before the next election campaign.


I'm almost certain you're incorrect on this one. There are quite a number of people who care about what Limbaugh says. They may not take what he says to heart, but he's certainly a well known figure that people hear and listen to.
LumberJack
Its easy to criticize when you are the opposition. He says nothing of substance though. Sounds like a child sometimes, he is more than welcome to wish Obama to fail. It just means more jobs lost, and a depression.
liljp617
It wouldn't be that big of a deal really if, like 8 months ago, he wasn't screaming about how Bush's opposition was the devil because they "wanted Bush to fail." -.-
deanhills
LumberJack wrote:
he is more than welcome to wish Obama to fail.
Usually when politicians build their foundation on something like that, there can be hardly any substance to what they can offer should they stand for election later. I guess it takes all kinds of people to make up the opposition and as you said, that is quite easy to do.
ocalhoun
I would like to see Obama fail to force the military to change.
I would like to his administration embarrassed over the poor approach to fixing the economy, but the economy become strong anyway.
I would like to see him fail to make the US even more socialist.
And finally, I would like for him to also be unpopular by the end of his term, so that perhaps people will realize that both parties are bad, leading to the fall of both existing parties, to be replaced by new ones, and hopefully more than just two.
Oh, and I would like for there to be a nice scandal about how his secretary of state paid for her travel expenses during her senatorial campaign.
jmi256
As far as I know Rush Limbaugh has never been elected to any position.

You would think Obama and the Democrats would spend their time and resources more wisely than trying to fabricate an issue.
liljp617
Yeah, pesky Democrats and their fabrications
Xanatos
ocalhoun wrote:
I would like to see Obama fail to force the military to change.
I would like to his administration embarrassed over the poor approach to fixing the economy, but the economy become strong anyway.
I would like to see him fail to make the US even more socialist.
And finally, I would like for him to also be unpopular by the end of his term, so that perhaps people will realize that both parties are bad, leading to the fall of both existing parties, to be replaced by new ones, and hopefully more than just two.
Oh, and I would like for there to be a nice scandal about how his secretary of state paid for her travel expenses during her senatorial campaign.


You read my mind too much Ocalhoun. The one thing I want to add to your list is that I would like for him to be unpopular so that people can realize that a black president is no different from any other president.
Afaceinthematrix
^^Oh I agree with that. All of that "omg...! first black president!" crap pisses me off... I don't care if he's the first black president. What difference does it make? I'd be more impressed with "first quality president in a long time" or something along that line...
deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
I don't care if he's the first black president. What difference does it make? I'd be more impressed with "first quality president in a long time" or something along that line...

Agreed. I believe that of the two candidates for President Obama was the better quality candidate. The Republican Party did not offer much either in its candidate or coherent policies. Its campaign was a disaster.

Sad thing though is that many people voted for Obama because he was black in the first place. And quite a number of blacks saw it as a victory for their own cause. I am happy for them, but hopefully it will not stand in the way of progress, on both sides, i.e. the ultra left and ultra right/conservative sides.

President Obama has only been in office for a little more than a month. So probably too short a time to judge how good he has been. Think the only criticism I have so far is that he moved too fast on the trillion dollar package deal. It may be the deal that is going to haunt him in days to come.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
Come off it Handfleisch. I have not the foggiest who this dude is. I have a feeling that most other people do not care either. We still have a few years to go before the next election campaign.


Read this. Ignorance isn't bliss.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/06/anti.obama/index.html

Quote:
Anti-Obama retains radio power

* Story Highlights
* Right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh wants president's economic plan to fail
* As Republicans adjust to opposition he is emerging as a champion of the right
* He says Obama's plan is a threat to American way of life
* Democrats believe Limbaugh in spotlight could help them
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

Quote:

* Democrats believe Limbaugh in spotlight could help them

Which is why they make him out to be more important than he really is.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Read this. Ignorance isn't bliss.

In this instance I beg to differ ....
liljp617
I can't really take a person seriously (especially a "political guru" who always has something to say) who quotes the most known section of the Declaration of Independence (...Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...) and incorrectly states it came from the Preamble of the Constitution. Especially in the middle of a tirade about how evil liberals are trying to destroy and change the Constitution -.-

If he cared that much about the Constitution, he'd probably know at least a bit about it.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
I can't really take a person seriously (especially a "political guru" who always has something to say) who quotes the most known section of the Declaration of Independence (...Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...) and incorrectly states it came from the Preamble of the Constitution. Especially in the middle of a tirade about how evil liberals are trying to destroy and change the Constitution -.-

If he cared that much about the Constitution, he'd probably know at least a bit about it.

Guess it is like Shakespeare's "the lady doth protest too much". Wink
furtasacra
I want our President Obama and his administration to succeed. I will consider them a success when I have a job that pays enough for me to keep my utilities on and still have enough money left over to eat something besides ramen noodles.

And if we have to nationalize some failing banks to fix the economy, so what? Obviously, the people running them now don't know their butt from a hole in the wall. I don't see how it could get much worse.

Consider something Bill Maher said a few days ago:

Quote:
How stupid is it when people say, "That's all we need is the federal government telling Detroit how to make cars, or Wells Fargo how to run a bank. You want THEM to look like the Post Office?" Well, yeah, actually. You mean the place that takes a note in my hand in L.A. on Monday and gives it to my sister in New Jersey on Wednesday for forty-two cents?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/07/bill-mahers-ode-to-govern_n_172724.html
Voodoocat
Its a shame that only part of the quote was reported. The real statement was something like: If Obama leads America to socialism I hope he fails. How do I know? I was listening to Hannity when he interviewed Limbaugh. I knew that the statement would be taken out of context and soon as I heard it.

Now the real question becomes: can you blame Rush for not wanting America to become socialistic?
jmi256
Voodoocat wrote:
Its a shame that only part of the quote was reported. The real statement was something like: If Obama leads America to socialism I hope he fails. How do I know? I was listening to Hannity when he interviewed Limbaugh. I knew that the statement would be taken out of context and soon as I heard it.

Now the real question becomes: can you blame Rush for not wanting America to become socialistic?


I didn't hear or see the full interview, but I read some transcripts, and I saw exactly what you describe. Basically he was saying that if what Obama (or anyone) was trying to do would be bad for America, he hoped they would fail. If what they were trying to do was beneficial, he would hope they succeeded.

I think your question is a valid one, but I fear we are already on the road to socialism. Hopefully we can turn around, however.
handfleisch
jmi256" "Voodoocat wrote:

I think your question is a valid one, but I fear we are already on the road to socialism. Hopefully we can turn around, however.


As soon as you start spouting this "socialism" stuff, you lose all credibility and expose yourself as a permanent resident of Limbaugh land.

The US military, by your definition, is socialist. The US post office is and so is the public school system, and the hardcore free marketers want to close down and privatize all of these.

Your path, the Limbaugh/Hannity/Neocon path, leads to the USA looking like Brazil. Still wealthy in terms of numbers, but with extremes in rich and poor, massive slums, no middle class. The American people don't want that and voted against that direction. Limbaugh does sex tourism in Dominican Republic, the epicenter of the child sex trade, because that's the kind of country he wants the US to be, where a large percentage are so poor it's easy to find a whole industry of young prostitutes.

Brazilization of the US is the logical end result of your ideas. Of the "socialism" that makes you afraid at night, the end result is something like most of the countries of the EU -- thriving capitalist economies with strong social safety nets, infrastructures, mass transit. Ooh, scary.
jmi256
jmi256 wrote:

I think your question is a valid one, but I fear we are already on the road to socialism. Hopefully we can turn around, however.


handfleisch wrote:
As soon as you start spouting this "socialism" stuff, you lose all credibility and expose yourself as a permanent resident of Limbaugh land.


I was expressing an opinion, not "spouting" at all. But, if I "lose all credibility" with someone like you, I'm ok with that.

And for your information, I have never listened to Limbaugh, so I have no real position on him either way. You're the one trying to make an issue out of nothing. Maybe Obama and the Democrats have nothing better to worry about other than some entertainer on the radio. You can spout all the conspiracy theory crap you want about him being the secret leader of the Republican party and all, but the truth of it is that he has never been elected to any position.


handfleisch wrote:

The US military, by your definition, is socialist. The US post office is and so is the public school system, and the hardcore free marketers want to close down and privatize all of these.


Funny, I don't recall providing any definition at all. Can you show me what definition I provided that you find issue with? Or are you again just trying to muddy the waters? I think we'll find that this is just another of your troll/flame bait tactics.


handfleisch wrote:
Your path, the Limbaugh/Hannity/Neocon path, leads to the USA... grumble, grumble... conspiracy theory... Bush... blah, blah...


You make no sense at all. Sorry, I don’t speak troll.
handfleisch
The Communist Party of the Soviet Union had a term, "useful idiots", for those who weren't intentionally supporting them but did support them indirectly. I think we can see the dittoheads and right wing of the Repubs have theirs too. You don't have to be a Limbaugh listener to spread his "Want To Fail" message.
deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
And for your information, I have never listened to Limbaugh, so I have no real position on him either way.

Those were my exact thoughts as well. What a waste of forum space, who is Limbaugh any way? And do we really want to know? Rolling Eyes
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
And for your information, I have never listened to Limbaugh, so I have no real position on him either way.

Those were my exact thoughts as well. What a waste of forum space, who is Limbaugh any way? And do we really want to know? Rolling Eyes


Just because you don't know who he is doesn't mean he isn't a very influential person. He has thousands, probably millions, of devoted listeners on his radio station. He's got a huge mouth and is always heard. He's going to influence people. If one has paid any attention to the political scene in the US, I find it really hard to believe his name hasn't been heard more than once.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
And for your information, I have never listened to Limbaugh, so I have no real position on him either way.

Those were my exact thoughts as well. What a waste of forum space, who is Limbaugh any way? And do we really want to know? Rolling Eyes


Just because you don't know who he is doesn't mean he isn't a very influential person. He has thousands, probably millions, of devoted listeners on his radio station. He's got a huge mouth and is always heard. He's going to influence people. If one has paid any attention to the political scene in the US, I find it really hard to believe his name hasn't been heard more than once.

The posting in this thread was the first time I ever heard about him, whether you want to believe it or not, it is the truth. Perhaps the news channels that I am watching do not cover him that well. Or perhaps in the scope of things he is newsworthy only to a selected audience? From what I have read in this thread I don't think I've missed that much. If he is going to be a problem, hopefully Obama will know how to deal with him. As far as I can see Obama must have been ignoring him, otherwise it would have received the kind of news coverage that would have reached the TV channels I'm watching.
Voodoocat
Here is the irony: Rush Limbaugh is a radio talk show host. His job is to get people to listen to his talk show and sell ad space. So what does he do? He goes on TV and states that he does not support Obama if Obama is trying to press forward with a socialist agenda. How does Obama react to this entertainer? He has his Chief of Staff attack a radio show host. Can you think of a better way to boost the number of listeners than by having the President single you out for stating your opinion?

The result: a popular radio talk show host boosts his audience and becomes even more attractive to advertisers thanks to Obama's Chief of Staff.
deanhills
Voodoocat wrote:
Here is the irony: Rush Limbaugh is a radio talk show host. His job is to get people to listen to his talk show and sell ad space. So what does he do? He goes on TV and states that he does not support Obama if Obama is trying to press forward with a socialist agenda. How does Obama react to this entertainer? He has his Chief of Staff attack a radio show host. Can you think of a better way to boost the number of listeners than by having the President single you out for stating your opinion?

The result: a popular radio talk show host boosts his audience and becomes even more attractive to advertisers thanks to Obama's Chief of Staff.

Very interesting ... thanks for this posting. Looks as though Rush is beating Obama at Obama's own PR game! Laughing I'm completely sure Obama must have taken very good note of this too! There has to have been a lesson in this for Obama.

I don't listen to the radio, so possibly that is the reason I missed out as well.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:


The US military, by your definition, is socialist. The US post office is and so is the public school system, and the hardcore free marketers want to close down and privatize all of these.

The military is too powerful to be outside of government control (mercenary), but the others would benefit from being privatized. The post office is already semi-privatized because it is required to make a profit. The same concept could perhaps be applied to the school system.
handfleisch
I have altered the title of the thread to represent the dawning truth: Limbaugh's sentiments weren't just his own, they are the Republican party's.

Republican Patrick McHenry has recently revealed the party strategy. Win by efforts to lower unemployment? Stop banks from collapsing? Help small businesses? Lower taxes? No, it's to tear down anything that the Dems do that might make them look good. In other words: Republican party first, country last.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/house-republicans/gop-rep-our-goal-is-to-bring-down-approval-numbers-for-dems/
Quote:
GOP Rep: “Our Goal Is To Bring Down Approval Numbers” For Dems

GOP Rep. Patrick McHenry, a key player in helping craft the Republican message, has offered an unusually blunt description of the Republican strategy right now.

McHenry’s description is buried in this new article from National Journal (sub. only):

“We will lose on legislation. But we will win the message war every day, and every week, until November 2010,” said Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., an outspoken conservative who has participated on the GOP message teams. “Our goal is to bring down approval numbers for [Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and for House Democrats. That will take repetition. This is a marathon, not a sprint.”

McHenry’s spokesperson, Brock McCleary, tells me his boss is standing by the quote.


Maybe this isn't surprising, given the recent collapse of major Republican policies -- fiscal, foreign, environmental, etc. At this point, their option is to either admit that they've been wrong about -- well, everything important -- or keep the delusion going that they did nothing wrong by going negative and destructive against the Dems, even if it mean hindering the recovery and hurting the country.

deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
I have altered the title of the thread to represent the dawning truth: Limbaugh's sentiments weren't just his own, they are the Republican party's.


I'm sure the Republican Party would differ with you on this one Handfleisch. And perhaps Limbaugh too.
fx-trading-education
trying to make other fail is not a strategy.
In general these people that just promote hate of others have a limited public (usually no much more than 10% of people)
Xanatos
fx-trading-education wrote:
trying to make other fail is not a strategy.


It is a strategy. We could argue over the effectiveness of it, but it is a very legitimate strategy. It is not unlike trying to make the other candidate look bad in a campaign ad.
handfleisch
fx-trading-education wrote:
trying to make other fail is not a strategy.
In general these people that just promote hate of others have a limited public (usually no much more than 10% of people)


This is why the Limbaugh factor is freaking out the Repubs so bad. Limbaugh can appeal to that 10% and drive away the rest of the country and he will still be rich and successful. But the Repubs can't win elections with a small slice of the pie.

Xanatos wrote:
fx-trading-education wrote:
trying to make other fail is not a strategy.


It is a strategy. We could argue over the effectiveness of it, but it is a very legitimate strategy. It is not unlike trying to make the other candidate look bad in a campaign ad.


Yes, a certain kind of negative campaign can work. Despite the failure of the Repubs' negative campaigning in 2008, it has worked well in the past. But I think the Limbaugh factor is a mess for the Repubs, due to the reasons I mentioned above, and they probably know it.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
This is why the Limbaugh factor is freaking out the Repubs so bad.

First he was attacking Obama, then he was supposed to be speaking for the Republicans, now he's supposed to be spooking the Republicans? All in one thread, which is it out of the three Handfleisch theories? .... Rolling Eyes
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:


Maybe this isn't surprising, given the recent collapse of major Republican policies -- fiscal, foreign, environmental, etc. At this point, their option is to either admit that they've been wrong about -- well, everything important -- or keep the delusion going that they did nothing wrong by going negative and destructive against the Dems, even if it mean hindering the recovery and hurting the country.

That's just it, they believe that by decreasing the popularity of the 'Dems' they will help the recovery and the country. They think that what the 'Dems' are doing is harmful to the country (and I agree), so they're trying to stop the it from proceeding and getting worse.

Obama =/= America
I hope Obama fails =/= I hope America fails
handfleisch
Looks like sanity in the Republican party might be coming from an interesting place: John McCain's daughter has been fighting the Limbaugh-minded and has came out in support of Obama on the Larry King program:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/24/lkl.meghan.mccain/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

Quote:
King: Does Obama seem like the same guy who ran against your dad? How do you view him?

McCain: He's our president and when the election was over and when President Obama won, all negative feelings were gone. I support the president.

King: How does your dad feel about that?

McCain: I think the same way. You know, my family is really good at letting go of things and moving on. And he just holds no grudges.

King: Do you think most of the people in your party agree with [Rush] Limbaugh? Do they want him to fail?

McCain: I don't know, because there are many different personalities within the party. ... I would never want my president to fail, no matter which party is in power.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Looks like sanity in the Republican party might be coming from an interesting place: John McCain's daughter has been fighting the Limbaugh-minded and has came out in support of Obama on the Larry King program:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/24/lkl.meghan.mccain/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

Quote:
King: Does Obama seem like the same guy who ran against your dad? How do you view him?

McCain: He's our president and when the election was over and when President Obama won, all negative feelings were gone. I support the president.

King: How does your dad feel about that?

McCain: I think the same way. You know, my family is really good at letting go of things and moving on. And he just holds no grudges.

King: Do you think most of the people in your party agree with [Rush] Limbaugh? Do they want him to fail?

McCain: I don't know, because there are many different personalities within the party. ... I would never want my president to fail, no matter which party is in power.
Beauty and brains all in one package. By the time the next election comes round we may well have a McCain worthy of a candidate. Think she would be excellent for the position. Smile
handfleisch
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/cnn-news/19273935/detail.html

Quote:
Shane Murphy, the second-in-command aboard the American merchant ship seized by pirates, lashed out at Rush Limbaugh for the talk show host's racial characterization in discussing the rescue of the ship's captain by the Navy.

Murphy, who returned to his Seekonk, Mass., home Friday, called Limbaugh a purveyor of "hate speech."

In commenting on the rescue of Capt. Richard Phillips by the Navy Seals who shot and killed the three Somali pirates who were holding him captive, Limbaugh generated controversy when he called the pirates "black teenagers."

"There you have it, three teenagers shot on the high seas at the order of President Obama," said Limbaugh according to a transcript of an April 14 broadcast on his Web site.

"Just imagine the hue and cry had a Republican president ordered the shooting of black teenagers on the high seas," Limbaugh said.

Murphy said Limbaugh's remarks were unacceptable.

"It feels great to be home," Murphy said. "With the exception of Rush Limbaugh who is trying to make this into a race issue. It's disgusting."


"The president did the right thing. It's a war. It's about good versus evil. And what you (Limbaugh) said is evil, that is hate speech. I won't tolerate it," Murphy said.
lagoon
Anyone who wants the President to fail is NOT a patriot.
ocalhoun
lagoon wrote:
Anyone who wants the President to fail is NOT a patriot.

Rolling Eyes

The president is not the same thing as the country. What if the choice is between the president failing or the country failing? If you think that choice has come, then the only patriotic thing to do is to hope the president fails, for the good of the country.

Suppose that a before the invasion of Iraq, you had hoped that Bush would fail to cause an invasion. Would that be unpatriotic?
deanhills
lagoon wrote:
Anyone who wants the President to fail is NOT a patriot.
I'm sure it is in any person's interest to want to see that the President succeeds. However, since he has been elected democratically, it is the right of people to be critical as well as complimentary. After all, he did make a number of undertakings and statements in order to get elected. People have the right to check up on these, perhaps it is even their civic duty to do that. If he is a good President he will look at this feedback as constructive as perhaps the criticism is more important at this time than all the compliments. I am sure he is a very intelligent man and will be able to tell the difference between constructive and destructive criticism. What he does with the constructive criticism will define him as a President.
Futile
lagoon wrote:
Anyone who wants the President to fail is NOT a patriot.


"...You don't have to believe in your government to be a good American. You just have to believe in your country." --- George W Bush, Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay

Words to live by these days.

Sometiimes true wisdom can come from the most idiotic places.
Solon_Poledourus
If Obamas' goal is to make the country a better place, then I hope he succeeds in that. If some of his policies have the potential to cause further harm, I don't see why I should be called unpatriotic for wanting those policies to fail.
I really hate Rush Limballsack.
The thing is, during a news interview it would take too long for him, or anyone else, to go through the list of Obamas' policies and point out which ones they like and which ones the want to fail, just to be completely clear on things. He obviously disagrees with most of Obamas' policies, so he simply states that he hopes Obama fails at what he is doing. It comes off sounding bad, and maybe for Rush Limburger and his ilk they actually want the country to fail in Democratic hands so they can "be right". But for many others like Ocalhoun(sorry to use you as an example), I think they are speaking more generally about policies, and since Obama is the majority representation of those policies with which they disagree, saying "I hope he fails" is clearly not unpatriotic or hateful.
It's simply a disagreement with policy.
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
If Obamas' goal is to make the country a better place, then I hope he succeeds in that. If some of his policies have the potential to cause further harm, I don't see why I should be called unpatriotic for wanting those policies to fail.
I really hate Rush Limballsack.
The thing is, during a news interview it would take too long for him, or anyone else, to go through the list of Obamas' policies and point out which ones they like and which ones the want to fail, just to be completely clear on things. He obviously disagrees with most of Obamas' policies, so he simply states that he hopes Obama fails at what he is doing. It comes off sounding bad, and maybe for Rush Limburger and his ilk they actually want the country to fail in Democratic hands so they can "be right". But for many others like Ocalhoun(sorry to use you as an example), I think they are speaking more generally about policies, and since Obama is the majority representation of those policies with which they disagree, saying "I hope he fails" is clearly not unpatriotic or hateful.
It's simply a disagreement with policy.
Guess Bush is a great example of this too. Or is it? Smile
gandalfthegrey
I like that : Americans didnt vote for a RUSH to failure.

Typical conservatives: put their politics before their country. Wink
deanhills
gandalfthegrey wrote:
I like that : Americans didnt vote for a RUSH to failure.

Typical conservatives: put their politics before their country. Wink
Who are the conservatives, specifically?
ocalhoun
gandalfthegrey wrote:
Typical conservatives: put their politics before their country. Wink

Actually, they would be putting their country before their loyalty to the president.
Xanatos
gandalfthegrey wrote:
I like that : Americans didnt vote for a RUSH to failure.

Typical conservatives: put their politics before their country. Wink


Actually real conservatives are putting their people before their politics.
deanhills
Xanatos wrote:
gandalfthegrey wrote:
I like that : Americans didnt vote for a RUSH to failure.

Typical conservatives: put their politics before their country. Wink


Actually real conservatives are putting their people before their politics.
I'm curious. If we talk conservatives, who do they typically include? And if you say conservatives are putting people before politics, how are they doing that?
Xanatos
deanhills wrote:
Xanatos wrote:
gandalfthegrey wrote:
I like that : Americans didnt vote for a RUSH to failure.

Typical conservatives: put their politics before their country. Wink


Actually real conservatives are putting their people before their politics.
I'm curious. If we talk conservatives, who do they typically include? And if you say conservatives are putting people before politics, how are they doing that?


Well a true conservative is a person who adheres to the values that this country was founded upon. It is as simple as that. This means that freedom and individuality come before government. This is what I mean by putting people before government.
deanhills
Xanatos wrote:
Well a true conservative is a person who adheres to the values that this country was founded upon. It is as simple as that. This means that freedom and individuality come before government. This is what I mean by putting people before government.
Does this then mean that liberals do not adhere to the values the country was founded upon?

I did a search in Wikipedia and found the following description of conservatism:
Quote:
Conservatism in the United States is a major American political ideology. In contemporary American politics, it is often associated with the Republican Party. Core conservative principles include a belief in God and country, and many U.S. conservatives support a fiscal policy rooted in small government, laissez faire capitalism, and supply-side economics. In foreign policy, American conservatives usually advocate some moderate aspects of "American exceptionalism", a belief that the U.S. is unique among nations and that its standing and actions do and should guide the course of world history.

Although there has always been a conservative tradition in America, the modern American conservative movement was popularized by Russell Kirk who, in 1953, published The Conservative Mind. Two years later, in 1955, William F. Buckley, Jr. founded National Review, a conservative magazine that included traditionalists, such as Kirk, along with libertarians and anti-communists. This bringing together of separate ideologies under a conservative umbrella was known as "fusionism". Politically, the conservative movement in the U.S. has often been a coalition of various groups, which has sometimes contributed to its electoral success and other times been a source of internal conflict.

Modern conservatism saw its first national political success with the 1964 nomination of Barry Goldwater, a U.S. Senator from Arizona and author of The Conscience of a Conservative (1960), as the Republican candidate for president. In 1980, the conservative movement was able to attract disaffected Southern Democrats, Cold War liberal Democrats, and evangelical Christians, to nominate and elect the Republican candidate Ronald Reagan, a self-identified American conservative, as president. Subsequent electoral victories included gaining a Republican congressional majority in 1994 and the election of George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004.

The conservative movement has been advanced by influential think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, Hoover Institution, Hudson Institute and Manhattan Institute. Major media outlets, such as The Wall Street Journal, Fox News, The Washington Times, and Townhall.com, are often described as conservative.

The two major American political parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, have become increasingly polarized, with the Democrats described as "liberal" and "left wing" and the Republicans as "conservative" and "right wing".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States
Xanatos
deanhills wrote:
Does this then mean that liberals do not adhere to the values the country was founded upon?

I did a search in Wikipedia and found the following description of conservatism:


No it does not mean that they don't, in some aspects they do, while in others they do not. It is the same with the republicans.

That description is about modern conservatism. The kind that republicans are normally associated with. I guess "old" conservatism is what I am referring to, I never did like calling republicans conservatives or democrats liberals anyways, neither fit either term very well when you think about it. They are both liberal and conservative, it is only where they are liberal or conservative that differs.
deanhills
Xanatos wrote:
I never did like calling republicans conservatives or democrats liberals anyways, neither fit either term very well when you think about it.
May take on it too. I find you have conservative and liberal in both and the meaning of the two are relative to the parties. Conservative in Republican would be zealots. Conservative in Democrats would probably be less than socialism and people who like to maintain the status quo with regard to Democratic policies?
Related topics
Join the fight against right wing hate radio!
Obama and Dems Hindering Recovery
Young Turks: Republican Senators Give FU To Obama & Coun
Obama down in polls
Things only a Republican could believe
Obama's speech to students Kindergarten through 12
Rick Sanchez.....maybe you lie too. Or don't check facts...
African "witch" children tortured and killed
Obama decision - build up in Afghanistan?
"Drill Baby Drill" vs. BP Oil Spill
Missouri Voters Reject Obamacare
How to Vote for Ron Paul. Even if you're not an American
Obama's State of the Union 2012
Obama Laments Limbaugh/FOX's Effect on Public Debate
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.