Video: Glenn Beck on the rise of independents
posted at 5:19 pm on May 23, 2009 by Allahpundit
A prelude to the next round of GOP-bashing tomorrow morning from America’s favorite squish. Portrait of two men interpreting the polling equivalent of a Rorschach inkblot: Beck, the Beltway-hating libertarian, is eager to see the GOP decline as evidence of a backlash to Bush’s spending while John Avlon, the Giuliani centrist, reads it as a reaction to social conservatism. Either way, the two-party system’s losing ground to the no-party movement, a phenomenon that naturally thrills GB. The clip’s interesting but more interesting still is the incredibly wide-ranging Pew survey from which the data’s drawn; if you can spare a few minutes, page through and eyeball some of the graphs (the “next page” link is almost hidden at the very bottom of the screen). Here’s the latest on where indies stack up versus Repubs and Dems:
They’ve actually trended right since 2007, although that “national security” question seems to be a bit stubborn. As for the GOP’s abysmal overall numbers, here’s the data that shocked me the most:
As a percentage, they’ve declined more precipitously among moderates (dropping from 24% to 16%, a loss of one-third), but in absolute numbers they’ve shed more conservatives, a surprise suggesting that Beck’s right about longstanding erosion among the base over spending. How longstanding and how much of an erosion? Dude:
Some of that’s simply disgruntlement over electoral defeats, but compare the surge among liberal Democrats as their fortunes turned to the collapse among conservative Republicans. It’s a 51-point swing. Mind-boggling.
Like I say, lots of fascinating data at the link — e.g., a perfectly predictable public flip-flop on national security vs. civil liberties since 9/11, a five-point gain in support for a path to citizenship for illegals since 2007 (support now stands at 63 percent) — but I want to post three graphics worthy of special attention. Beck and Avlon don’t touch on generational differences but maybe they should have. The kids aren’t alright:
Maybe Carville was right about the Democrats having a majority for the next 40 years. What could go wrong?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
petunia on May 23, 2009 at 7:08 PM
O ‘Reilly hardly is the face of the Republican Party.
Conservative Voice on May 23, 2009 at 7:17 PM
petunia on May 23, 2009 at 7:08 PM
That is interesting because my husband also an Independent, told me, he was going to have a neighbor who prints signs, make him a bumper sticker. He intends on putting it on his auto. Palin/Mitt followed with Mitt/Palin 2012. He doesn’t care who is on top or bottom that’s his ticket for 2012 maybe the Republicans should think about stopping their infighting and get their acts together…as usual they are lagging public opinion. I would vote for Sarah Palin again with no qualms.
Dr Evil on May 23, 2009 at 7:17 PM
It was some private Internet thing but shows completely the mentality of some people. It started with a bear and Mitt running through the woods and ended with gun shots supposedly by Sarah and blowing the smoke off the gun and laughing. Sarah had nothing to do with it. It is the people who claim to support her.
I’m sure they think it was all in fun… I hope Mitt has SS protection now from the Palin people. They are blood thirsty.
petunia on May 23, 2009 at 7:18 PM
Yup, uncomfortable and worrying whenever the administration in power begins to do things differently, like bailing out GM and Chrysler. I understand.
However, I do take comfort in my basic trust in the institutions and traditions in this country that have always curbed overreach. I truly don’t think Obama has anywhere near enough worshipers to truly make fundamental changes to our system, even if he had the desire, which I am not sure he does. (I know that will rankle many people, but so be it.)
I believe, after MUCH research and thought, that the country will be fine, that any truly bad intentions Obama might have will be obvious to enough, and will be stopped, but mostly that Obama will actually do some good things.
I already know the ‘blind’ ‘sheeple’ ‘idiot’ labels forming as others read this. But, it is what it is.
trailboss on May 23, 2009 at 7:19 PM
Like I said I wasn’t watching closely, except the ad, but I think O’reilly was pointing out the divisions in the Republican Party.
And someone said Beck was a Rep. He’s a Libertarian I think, a Paul nut. But I like him anyway.
petunia on May 23, 2009 at 7:20 PM
You missed it completely.
Mitt was running around screaming “BEAR”…and Palin shot the bear. The last shot was one of her on a couch with the bear hide over the back rest.
Message?..stop running scared.
If that is all it takes for you to cross the Rubicon, me thinks you have already long left you values and were just looking for that “last straw”, no matter how weak a straw it was. This is just my opinion and I could be completly off base.
Itchee Dryback on May 23, 2009 at 7:21 PM
Unfortunately, there are NO valid 3rd parties. The Libertarian Party was overrun by 911 conspiracy freaks and drug addicts, also, Bob Barr is a fraud who works for the ACLU. The Constitution Party was also overrun by Ron Paul supporting, koolaid-drinking, 911 conspiracy freaks who couldn’t read the Constitution.
Beck is right, G.W. Bush governed like a leftist progressive and the GOP forces one RINO after another on conservatives. The GOP has lost out and become a party of simpering idiots who don’t support 1/2 of the party platform.
nelsonknows on May 23, 2009 at 7:21 PM
Beck wants a third party. He doesn’t like either of two major parties. I listen to him because he is funny but I will not become a disciple.
Cindy Munford on May 23, 2009 at 7:22 PM
petunia on May 23, 2009 at 7:18 PM
I hope Mitt has SS protection now from the Palin people. They are blood thirsty.
I’m Palin people I don’t have issues with Mitt Romney aren’t you painting all Palin supporters with a large brush?
Whoever made what you were looking at is responsible for what they produced – not all Sarah Palin Supporters. For one thing I have never viewed, and don’t have any interest in viewing it. Why should I be responsible for this creation?
Dr Evil on May 23, 2009 at 7:23 PM
Lame.
Republicans better prepare to have a heated primary in 2012 if Sarah Palin runs like the Dems had last year. I like Gov. Palin but I have never seen Republican politician get so much enthusiastic support like her. So much emotions gets involved it will get heated.
terryannonline on May 23, 2009 at 7:23 PM
Allah, loving the new Glenn kick! a lot.
I_C on May 23, 2009 at 7:24 PM
Dr Evil on May 23, 2009 at 7:17 PM
I honestly see no reason anyone should run for President with the climate inside the party right now. People scare me. Was this a violent party in 1980 and I was too young? Or did I miss it all these years? One candidate’s supporters so hated a possible rival that they made commercials like that?
The extremism on the left is what made me start to identify as a Republican in the first place and now our side is just so mean and angry.
petunia on May 23, 2009 at 7:26 PM
Originally from Idaho, I grew up hunting and fishing and DEEPLY respecting the land. The ‘stewardship’ thing is ingrained. Too bad the ‘environmental movement’ has been hijacked by nutcases and the need to raise money in order to keep afloat. You have to pander and you have to ‘raise awareness’ of issues (ie; scream and shout whenever a wolf dies of natural causes) in order to get donor’s attention.
If not for that, I could see myself very much as an ‘environmentalist.’ I think I’ll stick with ‘steward, ‘ though.
trailboss on May 23, 2009 at 7:27 PM
The country is begging for an alternative to socialism, for a party that stands up for the Constitution, capitalism, personal freedom. But the Republican Party and apparently even sites like Hot Air are stuck on “conservatism”.
I’m sick of the self-proclaimed “conservative base”. They brought us the McCain disaster with their litmus tests.
Beltway-hating libertarians and Giuliani centrists are the future of the Republican Party, along with pro-capitalist ex-Democrats and even ronpaulians.
modifiedcontent on May 23, 2009 at 7:28 PM
Dr Evil on May 23, 2009 at 7:23 PM
Hey I like her too! That’s the thing. I really feel for how she was treated! And I’d like to see more of her but some of the people she attracts!
But this kind of stuff is so unappealing! I wish she would notice this and make some public statement to knock off the hate.
petunia on May 23, 2009 at 7:29 PM
Look at the definition of ‘independent’. Could there be simply more independents because more Americans have awakened to the idea that neither major political party will guarantee the ‘independence’ of the American people from its government in its sprint to the finish line to impose collectivism and that the only way to cast a shot across the bow of both parties is to take themselves out of the system that is dedicated to curbing their freedom and liberty and preventing them from pursuing their own individual self-interest and happiness.
technopeasant on May 23, 2009 at 7:30 PM
I have BIG issues with Mitt Romney…Romney is a fraud who violated the 2nd Amendment in Masshole and enacted socialist healthcare.
My prediction is that the GOP will nominate Romney in 2012 and Romney will lose.
Too many RINOs in the GOP hate Palin because she’s just too conservative for them…..
Of course, I predicted in January of 2008 that McShamnesty would win the GOP nomination and lose…but then I supported the only conservative running…Duncan Hunter.
nelsonknows on May 23, 2009 at 7:31 PM
I to have always believed that our form of government could not be brought down by one man and for the most part in my saner moments I still believe it. I remember thinking that Jimmy Carter was such a nice man, what could go wrong in four years? My real problem now is the media. And I don’t just mean their fawning idolatry of our current president but their sheer laziness. Years ago the shenanigans of large companies and lending institutions, politicians of either stripe, shoot even labor unions would have been investigated. The public would have been informed. We can’t count on that anymore and there are too many people who are willfully ignorant until we are in a bad situation. Like now. And you should experience their surprise when they are laid off, never saw it coming.
Cindy Munford on May 23, 2009 at 7:32 PM
Whoa there pard! Don’t go gettin’ all ‘Big Tent’ on us! Don’t you realize the GOP is a religis party, and doctrine-al purity will be teh saving grace!
trailboss on May 23, 2009 at 7:32 PM
Oh God help us. Ron Paul is not the future anything.
terryannonline on May 23, 2009 at 7:32 PM
Dr Evil on May 23, 2009 at 7:23 PM
I didn’t mean to lump you into that camp. Sorry. I can’t imagine who would make that kind of thing.
And my husband said I was over reacting. But I think many in the party are seeing something mean spirited below the surface and are just being turned off by it.
petunia on May 23, 2009 at 7:32 PM
BACK AWAY FROM THE CRACK PIPE.
Centrists LOST the 2008 election and are doing their best to lose the 2010 and 2012 elections.
nelsonknows on May 23, 2009 at 7:33 PM
Now, THAT’s funny.
rrpjr on May 23, 2009 at 7:35 PM
Atta girl. I have distrusted the media since I took a class in JR. College (during Reagan) and dissected media response and filtering of information. It seemed bad then. I literally can’t watch the news these days. If it were not for the internet, and the chance I have to educate myself, don’t know what I’d do.
trailboss on May 23, 2009 at 7:36 PM
AKA the rise of a new wave of potential Reagan Democrats.
A lot of Dems voted for Reagan but it wasn’t because he tried to walk a thin line between right and left and appease both sides, he just flat talked lefties into voting conservative, he went around a hateful media and a left controlled congress.
Speakup on May 23, 2009 at 7:36 PM
Sure he is – he is the future “Late Ron Paul.” Everyone has a future.
trailboss on May 23, 2009 at 7:38 PM
Ron Paul HAS no future, Paul is an idiot that doesn know or understand 7th grade history OR the Constitution.
THAT’S where Glenn Beck and I butt heads because the MINUTE that Ron Paul appears on Beck’s show, my T.V. switches channels.
nelsonknows on May 23, 2009 at 7:39 PM
If the base failed the country, modifiedcontent, please explain the low turnout among the Republicans in the 2008 election. You’re begging the question.
If ‘the base’ have enough clout in the party to win or lose an election, don’t you think the leadership should listen to it?
Conservatives generally believe that leadership should listen to its constituents. Not vice versa.
Your argument seems to be that conservative voters should vote for Republicans because… moderates are ‘the future’. What happens if the conservatives disagree? I’ll note that conservatives are still a larger group, particularly within the Republican party. (I.e., assume that moderates split equally among Democrats and Republicans at election time)
Again, remember, elected officials should listen to their constituency. If they don’t, they can hardly blame the constituency for not supporting them, can they?
Scott H on May 23, 2009 at 7:39 PM
Really? I consider myself part of the conservative base and I wasn’t thrilled with any of the candidates. But it’s a lead pipe cinch Sen.McCain wasn’t my first choice by any litmus test.
Cindy Munford on May 23, 2009 at 7:39 PM
So you discount the polls at the top of the page completely? Cause what they say is they don’t like either party’s extremist… and they have a larger identification than either party. 39% are centrists.
McCain lost because Obama was more appealing with a similar message. I see nothing in the polling to suggest that a strong swing to the right would gain any votes.
That said the Dems did an excellent job of demonizing everything about Bush. It was there race to lose from the beginning.
And now they are blowing their chance. So I think 2010 looks good for an anti-incumbent vote. I’d go for “throw the bums out” no matter the party.
petunia on May 23, 2009 at 7:40 PM
EXACTLY! But don’t try to tell this to lock-step GOPers, they forget history or refused to learn it.
nelsonknows on May 23, 2009 at 7:42 PM
Off thread a bit but may I tell you that I enjoy posting with you so much more this time around. I know that we probably don’t agree on much but at least it’s a conversation. Glad you are back.
Cindy Munford on May 23, 2009 at 7:42 PM
Exactly. Thank you.
Christian Conservative on May 23, 2009 at 7:42 PM
Whether Glenn Beck is libertarian on conservative… I do not know. The problem is, it’s incredibly easy to mix up the two when they start talking fiscally and for liberty. The only way to tell them apart is on some social issues and foreign policy. Glenn focuses himself toward fiscal matters, but when it comes to foreign matters, he is incredibly open toward the libertarian mindset(Although he probably sides with conservatives moreso.) While I’m sure he’d like to side with libertarians when it comes to foreign policy. He probably feels it’s more realistic to stay conservative. Which is why I’m incredibly hesistant to even consider him a Paulnut. He usually only has the guy on to talk money. the one time he did have him on to talk foreign policy, Glenn called in sick. Although considering Glenn had an actually communist and socialist as guests once, suffice it to say, just because he has someone on doesn’t mean he agrees with them.
As for you AP… why do you hate Glenn so much? Did he kill your love of your life?
Trov on May 23, 2009 at 7:42 PM
The extremism on the left is what made me start to identify as a Republican in the first place and now our side is just so mean and angry.
petunia on May 23, 2009 at 7:26 PM
I think the two political camps are taking shots at each other it is counter productive. Fighting over something that is in 2012, they should be providing a united front. Someone has to push back against the RINO movement, and this isn’t the way. I really don’t think the RINOS are going to prevail. The Republicans can make in roads with Conservative Independents. But not for a RINO candidate why not just vote for the Progressive Democrat. The Republicans just can’t seem to digest this message. There already is a Democrat Party.
Dr Evil on May 23, 2009 at 7:44 PM
Yes it was the first time I’ve ever been lukewarm about the Republican candidate. I didn’t volunteer. And truthfully what would McCain do differently that Obama is doing? Not a lot. And it would further damage the Republican brand.
McCain could talk a good game about controlling spending but in the end democrats could always get him to compromise.
petunia on May 23, 2009 at 7:44 PM
No matter if you believe the Reagan era is gone or even if you think we should all move on toward some pussified version of the GOP, Reagan would have mopped the floor with the messiah and think otherwise is to validate socialism.
Speakup on May 23, 2009 at 7:45 PM
And now they are blowing their chance. So I think 2010 looks good for an anti-incumbent vote. I’d go for “throw the bums out” no matter the party.
petunia on May 23, 2009 at 7:40 PM
Same conversation in our house Divided Government Works.
I would rather nothing be done right now than what Obama and this Democrat Led Congress is doing.
Dr Evil on May 23, 2009 at 7:46 PM
Thanks Cindy, I think I’ve learned to settle down a bit. Nice to ‘see’ you too.
trailboss on May 23, 2009 at 7:47 PM
You didn’t actually see the vid, did you?
Itchee Dryback on May 23, 2009 at 7:48 PM
Politicians do that “Who’s turn is it now?” thing and it is a bad tradition. The Democrats broke that with Pres. Obama and it turned out well for them. I think McCain was suppose to have had his turn when W was elected. I think it had a lot to do with his habit of throwing roadblocks in the administrations way when he got the chance.
Cindy Munford on May 23, 2009 at 7:50 PM
Dr Evil on May 23, 2009 at 7:44 PM
See I don’t know what RINO means. Giuliani? I like him and I think he’d be doing better than McCain would be doing. But I was biased against him because of his personal life. I don’t know now if that was right! My bias kept me from really giving him a good look.
Giuliani would have held down spending and he would have picked a better Supreme Court nominee than Obama. I don’t see how we win by pushing people out because their ideology isn’t pure enough.
I think we are all Republicans if we agree with most of the party platform and I don’t want to exclude anyone or label them with a nasty name.
I want to be inclusive.
petunia on May 23, 2009 at 7:51 PM
What’s wrong with the Republican Party: War-mongering, big-spending, Bush apologists.
Oh by the, Palin (probably)= Bush with a prettier face.
PalinSanford ’12MedSchoolCatholic on May 23, 2009 at 7:51 PM
Keep toking that crack pipe but the FACTS show that McShamnesty lost in 2008 because he was too centrist for conservatives. Conservatives either sat 2008 out or voted for McCentrist in hopes that he would take a dirt nap and Palin would be President.
Why is it that since Reagan left office, the GOP has nominated a more seccessively centrist (left) candidate and garnered fewer votes in each election yet a true conservative (Reagan) wins elections by landslides?
As for G.W. Bush, he governed about 1/2 of the time as a Democrat and you don’t understand this yet?
nelsonknows on May 23, 2009 at 7:52 PM
Oh by the way*
MedSchoolCatholic on May 23, 2009 at 7:52 PM
I smile just thinking about it.
Cindy Munford on May 23, 2009 at 7:52 PM
modifiedcontent on May 23, 2009 at 7:28 PM
“I’m sick of the so-called ‘conservative base’. They brought us the McCain disaster with their litmus tests.
Let me address the content of your statement:
1)The McCain disaster as you put it managed to win 22 states, amass almost 60m (only 2.1m short of GWB in 2004) and only lost by 7.2%; despite many factors in Obama’s favor it was not a landslide victory for the Messiah and who you have to thank for that is Sarah Palin and much of the conservative base who turned out to vote because she was on the ticket.
2)If anybody let McCain down it was the Republican elitists like Colin Powell and Christopher Buckley who deserted the Republican party and endorsed and voted for Obama who a year or two earlier had strongly supported McCain or claimed that only a moderate like McCain had any chance of winning in 2008.
3)Now as to the primary season you have to admit that in Sept. 2007 McCain was broke and there were rumors he was going to quit. That McCain rose from the ashes of his wasteful campaign like a phoenix can be considered a testament to his grit and mettle but also to the fact that there was not one dominant Republican who possessed the knockout punch to dispatch McCain to the sidelines forever. This was not a question of litmus tests but clout and credibility.
4)Now if you claiming that Rudy did not become the GOP nominee because of litmus tests, then you don’t remember that on Labor Day 2007 Rudy was the odds-on favorite then to secure the nomination. Rudy definitely was in the hunt. That he failed to secure the nomination eventually was a product of many factors including Rudy’s flawed strategy to bypass many primaries before Florida.
5)Exit polls showed that much of the conservative base did not want McCain as the GOP standardbearer in 2008. And that was shown evidently by who they voted for mainly-Huckabee, Romney and Thompson. That the conservative vote was divided three ways was not a product of a litmus test but simply again that not one of the 3 so-called conservative candidates could dominate the other two to the extent that the only two would have dropped off immediately after the first primary. Instead in the case of McCain many crossover voters decided to support McCain and were instrumental in McCain securing the nomination. Again this had nothing to do with litmus tests.
technopeasant on May 23, 2009 at 7:54 PM
MedSchoolCatholic: An interesting take. I certainly agree with the spending point.
However, would you rather have W (or someone just like him) or Obama in office right now? ;)
Scott H on May 23, 2009 at 7:54 PM
Wasn’t that a funny communist? He didn’t pay taxes! Ha Ha
petunia on May 23, 2009 at 7:54 PM
Er, or not so much.
From what I see, Obama is the only one offering Mussolini’s “third way”
Upstater85 on May 23, 2009 at 7:55 PM
It’s not because Reagan was hard-core right, it’s because he demonstrated leadership, he was likeable, and the country was more center-right than today.
Mac didn’t lose because he wasn’t conservative enough, he lost because by 11/08 even conservatives had had enough of Boosh, and because McCain has no personality. None. Phht.
trailboss on May 23, 2009 at 7:57 PM
I wonder what the new titular head of The Movement is going to say tomorrow…
“Clearly, people want and more importantly, need more government regulation of their lives.”
Upstater85 on May 23, 2009 at 7:57 PM
The way I look at it, Obama is Bush x 5. So yes, Bush would be better overall. But if Bush and Obama were running against each other, I’d still vote libertarian.
MedSchoolCatholic on May 23, 2009 at 7:58 PM
Heretic ;)
Upstater85 on May 23, 2009 at 7:58 PM
Not Boosh.
trailboss on May 23, 2009 at 7:59 PM
Trailboss……..
……… I would like to believe you, but can you name one government spending program that once initiated, and a bureaucracy is created, that has ever been stopped?
One of the reasons that I believe there will be a TARP II, TARP III, TARP IV, etc., is that you have to go back to the initial cause of the problem that caused the economic crisis that we find ourselves in……….
……… the Community Investment Act FORCED, under penalty, banks and lending institutions to make loans to people who could not afford them under a liberal democrat social engineering ideology and for votes.
THAT PROGRAM IS STILL IN PLACE!!!
Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac are still buying up the bad paper, because it is now more of a government bureaucracy than it ever was and continues to receive Billions upon Billions in TARP money…..
…….. it will NEVER end until Congress stops it, and under Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, that is not going to happen.
The deficits under GOP control were in the Billions, no doubt, but under Democrat control we are in the Trillions and it continues to keep growing everyday…….
…… Ask yourself this, which Political Party was in control the last time the United States experience Hyper-Inflation?
Seven Percent Solution on May 23, 2009 at 7:59 PM
But this thread started with some numbers. Only 22% will willingly call themselves Republican these days.
And if you look at the stats on who calls themselves Ind. they are not at all conservative on social issues only on fiscal issues.
So if the party swings right on fiscal issues it has a chance to win a majority of the 39% who are unhappy with the Democrats. And I would guess that some of the Democrats would welcome a hold put on this deficit building project Obama is on too.
Fiscal is the way to go. And how much further right can we go on social issues anyway? We are against gay marriage and abortion on demand. I wouldn’t mind something that was really profamily but I don’t know what the government can really do about that. Anger management for couples? There is only so much the government can do on social issues.
petunia on May 23, 2009 at 8:03 PM
The only thing that the government can successfully do to be more pro-family is to get out of the lives of families…
Upstater85 on May 23, 2009 at 8:05 PM
The American citizens like to believe in themselves and their own ability to fix their problems. Usually with hard work and economic conservatism. If you want proof, look at the gas consumption. It was something they could have some control over and they did a good job. Now the government is scrambling to find a way to make up the loss of the tax revenue. Reagan knew and encouraged the American people to be the answer instead of the government.
Cindy Munford on May 23, 2009 at 8:05 PM
In my opinion, this is the main reason McCain lost. He didn’t really have enough faith in the individual…
Upstater85 on May 23, 2009 at 8:06 PM
MedSchool: While I am also at times tempted to vote Libertarian (or some other party), until they can establish themselves more fully, I see the Presidential election as rather… silly, from a third-party perspective.
Put more plainly, I do not believe that the Presidential election is the correct forum to introduce a third party. If you can crack open the legislature, then you would see a very interesting development.
Say, for instance, that 5 U.S. Senate seats were held by Libertarians (let us say 3 of those were previously Democrat, while 2 were Republican, as befits the current ratio in the Senate). As I understand it, those 5 Senators would be the deciding votes to stop a filibuster, or to allow it.
Also, it would give a place for the political theories to actually evolve. Personally, I think non-establishment political parties (like the Libertarian party) have it ‘easy’, because they are not the establishment. Thus, their theories are not scrutinized by dissenters (by and large).
Scott H on May 23, 2009 at 8:09 PM
WPA – Works Progress Administration. Ended by Congress in 1943.
Look here for an answer to my question concerning the spending of Dems vs. GOP.
trailboss on May 23, 2009 at 8:09 PM
Or faith in himself, or Sarah Palin. But he sure did think that fella Obama was swell and never let us forget it either.
Knucklehead on May 23, 2009 at 8:10 PM
Yup. Can’t blame either party and hold the other ‘pure.’
trailboss on May 23, 2009 at 8:11 PM
petunia: Since almost every person who calls themselves Republican is more pro-life than the current government, it does seem rather silly to have histrionic discussions about it while there is such dissatisfaction.
However, I think a ‘conservative’ would do better on that than a ‘moderate’. Most moderates pride themselves on their ability to listen and dialogue, and to be frank, I don’t think most people in this country want someone like that to represent them. They want someone who will fight for them, not dialog with those they see as their opponents.
Scott H on May 23, 2009 at 8:12 PM
trailboss: IIRC, the WPA was a public works program, was it not? Considering it was stopped in 1943 (i.e., in the middle of WWII), might that be to move the workers elsewhere, such as armaments production?
Scott H on May 23, 2009 at 8:13 PM
Of course the third party will have no winner in the Presidential elections, but a vote for third party can still be a conscientious vote and/or vote of protest. The same goes for write-ins. Third Party votes don’t ever take home the gold, but they might perk some ears about their platform.
Good point.
I don’t completely agree that they have it “easy.” They are going to be constantly scoffed at and labeled extremist or nuts by both the Donks and R’s (and the MSM).
Scott H on May 23, 2009 at 8:09 PM
Upstater85 on May 23, 2009 at 8:14 PM
Trailboss I don’t have exact numbers but Obama’s deficit is bigger than the whole last 200 years combined.
That is far worse than anything Bush did with spending. I support most of what Bush did in his years. And I hope he will be treated well by history because he was handed a raw deal on terrorism by the Clinton administration and he had to act fast to get up to speed… I think history will show Bush did as well as anyone could have.
But on spending Bush was a Democrat. This compassionate conservative thing didn’t work at all. I was all for it during the election it sounded so nice.
I was wrong.
Someone has to say no to congress and the only one who can is the President.
If you have the President and the Congress trying to outdo each other on spending then you have a problem!
petunia on May 23, 2009 at 8:14 PM
Sure, what are you trying to say?
trailboss on May 23, 2009 at 8:15 PM
I think you’re right about the kids – 18 to 29.
This is the direct result of P.C. schools, P.C. parents (in many cases) and P.C. culture, for about thirty years. Lenin said something to the effect of “Give me seven years and I’ll give you a life-long Communist”. Leftists in education and the popular culture took up the challenge. In 2008, they delivered.
I’m afraid this young generation is forever lost to us. We will have to take care of our own kids and rise up an effective answer to the Leftist poison that is so bent on destroying our civilization.
The only thing that will bring those youth back is the metaphorical mugging called Reality.
newton on May 23, 2009 at 8:16 PM
The sad number in the poll for me is the number of 18-29 who do not feel patriotic. Our public schools drill into our kids the evil of the fat white men who founded our country for their own greed. I remember going after my daughters 5th grade teacher for her bulls**t disertation on G. Washington being a coward who, along with the cont cong, only cared about getting power. That was 9 years ago and I see the fruit of their teachings today. At least I was able to keep my kids aware of the true history, good and bad, so they have a better perspective of where they come from and what our founders went through to give us what we have.
faol on May 23, 2009 at 8:17 PM
And it’s coming in spades.
thomasaur on May 23, 2009 at 8:18 PM
you just did that on the other thread.
hypocrite
—————–
Also I find it ironic that you used the word educate in a post.
Jamson64 on May 23, 2009 at 8:19 PM
No surprise. The Constitution receives about 1 day of attention while we have an entire month dedicated to the color of someone’s skin.
Jamson64 on May 23, 2009 at 8:20 PM
I think that this description of moderates is wrong and now losing ground. Moderate is essentially code for someone that has loose stances on certain issues. They are willing to listen to those that will get them in power. Yes, maybe at one time, moderates truly were moderate, but none come to mind today. I should make clear that I am talking about MODERATE POLITICIANS (not moderate voters).
That said, I would be fine with a leader that was willing to at least hear out the other side, so long as in the end they did what was right. I definitely want someone that will be frank in an honest manner. Yes, this may sound repetitive, but some would maybe say Obama is frank with his remarks. I’d say he’s more haughty and actually unwilling to be truly honest.
Upstater85 on May 23, 2009 at 8:20 PM
Agreed, but you have to look at the spending in the context of what for and why. Current spending is completely unsustainable over even a fairly short term, and by that alone means it is temporary. It began as temporary, and will die as temporary and emergency in nature. Now, that said, I’m not so foolish as to believe that ALL temporary spending measures won’t have extended lives, but I don’t think for a moment that what is happening now will continue indefinitely. It simply cannot regardless of which lame party is in power. Call me crazy.
trailboss on May 23, 2009 at 8:20 PM
Transfered to the Federal Works Agency, which spawned all sorts of work during the Depression of the era……..
…… but read the following description of some of the projects, and tell me if that even after the initial program was abolished as America came out of the depression, that these entities in other forms still don’t exist today:
They never die………
……. they just exist under a different name.
Seven Percent Solution on May 23, 2009 at 8:24 PM
Ah, but then there is Obamacare… that won’t be so temporary unless we are flat out broke on the streets begging for
moneygold.Upstater85 on May 23, 2009 at 8:24 PM
Jamson64 on May 23, 2009 at 8:20 PM
Exactly. As a college freshman I was taking history of western civil. and our prof would go on and on about MLK. I was taught to respect my elders so I never challeged him on WTF that had to do with Babylon. Now I would.
faol on May 23, 2009 at 8:24 PM
I like Glenn Beck for the most part. He is BIG on liberty and to me makes a lot of sense. He got me to read “Common Sense” by Thomas Paine. I am so glad I did. everyone should read it. It is short and so prophetic. Paine was a visionary and a superb writer. What a patriot. PLEASE READ “COMMON SENSE”.
Geochelone on May 23, 2009 at 8:25 PM
trailboss on May 23, 2009 at 8:20 PM
YOU’RE CRAZY!
I always do what I am told.:>
petunia on May 23, 2009 at 8:25 PM
petunia – Why can’t we all just get along?
If you want to see real hate may I repost hawk’s Liberal hate words and rants:
Seems to me that Sarah Palin depicted as shooting a bear that Romney is running from is not hate speach. And certainly not in the same genre as the above. Someone was making the point that many in the GOP (Graham,Olympia,Powell) party are wimps. If you want to run from hate speach, you may be running the wrong way. But I agree with you that throw the bums out should be a mantra for the Tea Parties on July 4. (With the exception of Michele Bachmann, Jim Inhofe and maybe James Coburn.) But we should all insist on Term Limits. It’s a long shot but it could clean up the corruption and cause the govt. to be more “of the people.”
Christian Conservative on May 23, 2009 at 8:25 PM
I think we should have divided government, that would help. I think damage is done when you one party control the Executive and Legislative branch.
terryannonline on May 23, 2009 at 8:27 PM
Cindy Munford is my favorite poster on HA. Her posts are short, to the point, often funny, and always relevant to the discussion. A mighty fine American is she.
Geochelone on May 23, 2009 at 8:28 PM
But we should all insist on Term Limits.
Christian Conservative on May 23, 2009 at 8:25 PM
Otherwise they will have Byrd on life support voting.
faol on May 23, 2009 at 8:28 PM
The Rudy mouthpiece described an “independent” as “fiscally conseravtive,” “strong on national security
and “liberal on social issues.”
Sounds like Rudy to me. A typical northeastern Republican.
Nice try. Squish.
kevinkristy on May 23, 2009 at 8:28 PM
And don’t forget Teddy – or Teddy inhabiting the body of his wife…
Upstater85 on May 23, 2009 at 8:29 PM
You do realize that you are probably going to need some northeastern Repubs in order to get an R in the WH, right?
Upstater85 on May 23, 2009 at 8:30 PM
O’Reilly’s take on that commercial was that Palin was killing Romney. Not the bear. I think maybe Romney was the bear. It is that mind set that I cannot associate myself with. Why in the world would you hate someone who agrees with you just because they threaten you politically?
At any rate. Term Limits is something that I think is necessary. But it can’t be state by state because power in congress is given by seniority and if one state doesn’t have term limits that just further concentrates power to those state’s congressmen, like now.
I think a constitutional amendment for congressional term limits is the way to go. But that would mean congress would have to vote against themselves to get it. And how likely is that?
I wish there was a way to circumvent them on this issue. Like a national referendum or something. Force them to let the states ratify it.
petunia on May 23, 2009 at 8:35 PM
Every day there’s some post or another on here where the posters are all wringing their hands over the death of the Republican Party and whining “who will bring us back?” Should we blame the conservatives? Should we blame the moderates? Should we go third party (yeah, that’s a real winning solution right there, sheesh)? It’s so pitiful to see so many Republicans/conservatives/libertarians/whatever fall for every single democrat talking point that floats out of the leftwing blogosphere and the MSM.
Relax, people. As things look now, a Republican has a better than even chance to win in 2012 — simply because he or she won’t be Obama. That’s how presidential elections are usually won, anyway. Voters pick the guy who isn’t the guy they’re pissed off at. And even with the country supremely pissed off at George Bush, the other party’s candidate won with just over 50% of the vote. In 2012, Obama will be running on a real (and tragic) record for the first time in his political career. It won’t be anything like 2008, because he’ll have lost the “here are all the rainbows and lollipops I’m gonna give you if you vote for me” groove. The voters will know exactly what Obama will give them. I am confident — fully, optimistically confident — that the GOP will field a decent candidate in 2012 because Obama is giving them so much to work with.
If the Republican Party were dead and buried, the left wouldn’t be spending nearly all of its energy trying to convince people that the Republican Party is dead and buried. The truth is that democrats are scared. They know that The Messiah came in on probation, with a lot of people who don’t typically vote democrat giving him a chance. They also know that most of those voters won’t do that a second time if his presidency continues to be the train wreck it has been so far. If he’s still blaming Bush and talking about Rush Limbaugh at the 2012 debates — and GM and Chrysler are dead, and the Dow is still hovering at 8,000, and people’s home values haven’t rebounded, and we’re still in a “quagmire” in Afghanistan, and the national debt is still climbing, and unemployment is hovering around 10%, and inflation has taken hold — Obama will be toast, whether the GOP fields a conservative or a moderate, because they’ll be voting for the guy who isn’t Obama. The democrats know this. Why don’t you guys?
Rational Thought on May 23, 2009 at 8:38 PM
In one way there is. If the RNC and the DNC stopped endorsing the same people over and over and started encouraging younger blood, we wouldn’t even need term limits. It doesn’t have to be mean, but they could simply make it a standard practice. How could this be achieved? By the donors to these groups putting pressure on them to do exactly this.
I don’t see this happening though.
Upstater85 on May 23, 2009 at 8:39 PM
I am misting up. Thank you so much.
Cindy Munford on May 23, 2009 at 8:39 PM
She’s one of the good ones, Geo.
I wouldn’t hit on her from time to time if she wasn’t.
blatantblue on May 23, 2009 at 8:42 PM
The problem is we need the politicians to limit their own power. Washington did it. Jefferson was all for it. But today they are all power hungry.
The pension issue is an obstacle too. They get like full pay for life after one term. That is disgusting! And if everyone had to go home after a couple of terms that could be a lot of civil servants on the dole.
petunia on May 23, 2009 at 8:45 PM
Is that you, AP?
Upstater85 on May 23, 2009 at 8:45 PM
Of course we do, but we can’t expect them to. Many humans just won’t do this. Some will, but not all.
Upstater85 on May 23, 2009 at 8:47 PM
But the Founders were professional politicians and they never expected the people to be represented by professional politicians. For some reason I thought that term limits had already been deemed unconstitutional but the voters can put them in place anytime they are ready even without a law. We need to stop being so “dependable”.
Cindy Munford on May 23, 2009 at 8:49 PM
_
Once I stopped laughing at the spin on those questions and assumptions trailboss, I find that I am compelled to answer.
_
How many U.S. Armies? First I wasn’t aware there was more than one, but I also wasn’t aware it was a problem for the people since the People in creating the Consitution had ALREADY solved that problem. Are you suggesting that government must constantly solve the problem of how we provide for the “common defense”?
_
How would laws be passed and enforced? Again, this is a problem? I guess you haven’t read the Constitution recently, because if you had then you would have already understood that this problem has already been taken care of by the People. The problem is that the Federal government is using and ABUSING that power given to them by the People for limited use and not to tell each and every person to drive 55 mph or specify the size of the toilet and how much water it uses. Now there is a problem, government abusing its power, how does that get solved by government?
_
As for your Civil Rights attempt, do you seriously believe that the will of the People wants the situation you ascribe to them and that unless the Federal government didn’t force it the Northern States would allow minorities to vote and the Southern States would not? Having grown up during that time and witnessed what occured in the South I know firsthand what happened.
_
But I also know that before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the right to vote for minorities already existed by will of the People. Sending in Federal troops did nothing to change the minds of those who were still bigoted in 1964 and it solved no problem. It gave us mere window dressing to salve the conscience of I guess folks like you, but once the troop were gone or even when their backs were turned the same racism still existed. It took years and time for minds to change, but they have and much farther than many people know. But that change over time did not come via government action or fiat. It came by the treatment bigots recieved within their own community. Even today where bigots are tolerated or accepted we still have them. If you don’t believe me than ask yourself why the KKK still exists and the “White Power” groups. One day they won’t, but it won’t be solved by government contrary to your faith.
_
So again I put it to you; Government does NOT solve problems. It takes people working within their communities tto solve problems. And their solutions may not be what was designed in Washinton DC, contrary to the belief of tthose who seem to think Government is the answer.
_
Your mentality about government is the very reason the RRepublican Party is losing, but hey just keep on clinging to it and before long you might finally join your true party, the Democrat, when the Republican party ends up folded into that party….
woodythesingingcowboy on May 23, 2009 at 8:52 PM
Oh I agree that the party isn’t dead. But what does it stand for? We can get guys in office next time. Maybe even another President in 2012 if Obama did badly enough, but what kind of party are we? What are our values? I don’t like the tone of things.
It is hard to go in one direction if there isn’t more agreement than we have now. Or a respect for other’s opinions.
Since we don’t all have the same brain or life experience we are bound to have differences. And right now that seems to be a sin against the party or something.
petunia on May 23, 2009 at 8:53 PM
LOL why yes, I am AllahPundit under a pseudonym.
But in all seriousness, she’s a real classy broad, and HA commenters are the best of commenters in the blogosphere, IHMO.
It reminds me of Qur’an 3:111
blatantblue on May 23, 2009 at 8:55 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »