“Look, we saw in Britain, Neville Chamberlain, who told the British people, ‘Accept the Nazis. Yes, they’ll dominate the continent of Europe, but that’s not our problem. Let’s appease them. Why? Because it can’t be done. We can’t possibly stand against them.’ And in America there were voices that listened to that. I expect those same pundits who say it can’t be done, had it been in the 1940s, we would have listened to them.”
-Ted Cruz, a major tool on the right.[/QUOTE
I think you just brought home the point I was expressing. And Cruz, effectively and accurately using history as an example of what a moderate would be willing to do to ‘keep the peace.’
Cruz - a hard wind blowing from the right side of the spectrum.
If he’s worth his salt, this will be only a prelude of things to come from him.
Because the United States is a two party system which requires broad coalitions to come together to elect a President. Its not as if the the candidates produced by “smoke-filled rooms” like Harding were particularly better and you forget that Reagan was also elected in the primaries. :rolleyes::rolleyes:
Indeed if party bosses got pick the candidates we probably wouldn’t see so many Tea Party candidates around as they’d prefer the Establishment candidate.
At any rate, the last notable “moderate” Republican (which I’d define at the minimum as supporting Obamacare as what it is, that is a modest and conservative healthcare reform plan) on a national level were Lincoln Chafee and Arlen Specter. Those who are left are essentially divided between conservative Republicans and the Birchite Right.
The only option for moderate Republicans is to vote straight-ticket Democratic at least nationally until the Republicans accept Obamacare and stop trying to repeal the Great Society and New Deal.
What are you talking about? OF COURSE appeasing a psychopathic dictator who just invaded another country is exactly the same thing as not shutting down a government over a social policy you don’t like! No difference possible!
Thank you.
I always know I’ve won the argument when the opposition resorts to name calling.
See you and the rest in another thread.:):rolleyes:;):D:dubious::o
I can think of a very GOOD reason for the Democrats to help the moderate Republicans: the good of the nation. The country NEEDS to purge the Tea Party from political relevance, to isolate and marginalize these fuckers. Not doing so makes it legitimate to throw at them the same accusation that was validly leveled at the Republicans during the Dark Times of the reign of George the Lesses: namely, that they are willing to put party above country.
I definitely agree with this, but in some ways I think Democrats are in the same position regarding Republicans as the US is regarding Iran: namely, if Democrats help the moderates, it might actually serve to strengthen the radicals, by convincing the base that the moderates are corrupt minions of the West–er, the Democrats.
What got me thinking about this, of course, is the growing number of Republicans who want to pass a clean budget, and even the hints that Boehner thinks that’s the way to go. I strongly suspect that there are a ton of Republicans who want the Tea Party to go away and who want to return to being a principled opposition party who knows how to negotiate in good faith, but right now the Tea Party has intimidated these folks into silence. What can they do to prevent that intimidation?
Being so relentlessly wrong on every subject, the Right and its defenders have to portray factual accuracy as somehow insulting or bigoted or otherwise unacceptable.
All right. It looks like most of the ultra-partisans on the board have checked in. (Not all; there are a few names missing, but we are not going to wait for them.)
Enough with the nonsensical claims about how the people you don’t like are stupid, corrupt, and really bad people.
Stick to the actual topic of the OP or go start your own thread–preferably in The BBQ Pit.
This may be the most oxymoronic - or moronic - thing I’ve ever read. How in the hell do you take a principled stand AGAINST something you believe in??
Please clarify.
“Look, we saw in Britain, Neville Chamberlain, who told the British people, ‘Accept the Nazis. Yes, they’ll dominate the continent of Europe, but that’s not our problem. Let’s appease them. Why? Because it can’t be done. We can’t possibly stand against them.’ And in America there were voices that listened to that. I expect those same pundits who say it can’t be done, had it been in the 1940s, we would have listened to them.”
-Ted Cruz, a major tool on the right.
[/QUOTE
I think you just brought home the point I was expressing. And Cruz, effectively and accurately using history as an example of what a moderate would be willing to do to ‘keep the peace.’
Cruz - a hard wind blowing from the right side of the spectrum.
If he’s worth his salt, this will be only a prelude of things to come from him.[/QUOTE]
You’ll be hearing a lot more from Cruz as he continues his campaign for the Presidential Nomination.
However, he’s not going to help the moderate Republicans. Unless they decide to unite against him & his ilk…
I’ll help you out. You are misunderstanding the simple point Terr was making, I suspect.
He didn’t mean people take a principled stand against something they believe in. He said people (Group A) can respect politicians (Group B) that take principled stands, even if those principles that group B is standing for aren’t something that group A shares.
Make sense?
I agree that your insulting tone was unnecessary. You could have just asked.
I understood Terr as saying that I might respect someone else for taking a principled stand against abortion although I do not share that same belief.
Back to the topic- moderate Republicans have to convince us that they exist and don’t go scurrying under the table like cockroaches everytime someone from the far right looks at them. Grow some testicles and stand up to them.
;):D:dubious::o