Jindal: The GOP “might need to change just about everything”

posted at 5:11 pm on January 24, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

Since the failed presidential election, the GOP has been grappling with identifying exactly what it is the party needs to work on most — diversity, social issues, and Latino outreach, or election mechanics and a flawed Romney candidacy/campaign? — or some combination thereof, and all of the issues are on the table for discussion at the Republican National Committee’s winter meeting in North Carolina. Keynote speaker and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, however, is going for a more overarching message in his address tonight: It’s time to “recalibrate the compass of conservatism,” stop focusing so much on Washington-centric politics, and start going for a message of inclusion and economic growth:

“We do not need to change what we believe as conservatives – our principles are timeless,” Jindal says. “But we do need to re-orient our focus to the place where conservatism thrives: in the real world beyond the Washington Beltway.” …

“Today’s conservatism is completely wrapped up in solving the hideous mess that is the federal budget, the burgeoning deficits, the mammoth federal debt, the shortfall in our entitlement programs,” he says. “We seem to have an obsession with government bookkeeping. This is a rigged game, and it is the wrong game for us to play.” …

“The Republican Party must become the party of growth, the party of a prosperous future that is based in our economic growth and opportunity that is based in every community in this great country and that is not based in Washington, D.C.,” Jindal says.

Of course, the 2016 brand-building has already begun in earnest, and with the GOP bench looking pretty solid, the competition for free-market, economy-growing, conservative credentials will be fierce — and I am one hundred percent okay with that. Jindal is already looking to institute some aggressive pro-growth changes to Louisiana’s tax code, and the message of goal-oriented optimism is one the Republicans could definitely use right about now.

The Democrats have somehow managed to become the party that can provide more for people through the auspices of big government; as Jindal plans to say, they “promise to be the party of ‘more from government,’ but they are actually the party of less.  They are the party of economic contraction, austerity and less from the economy.  The Republican Party is the party of ‘more,’ the party that creates more from the economy.’” The GOP needs to keep hammering home that they aren’t against a social safety net — rather, they’re actively for an economy in which opportunities are so readily available and attractive that people don’t want to be on welfare — and its the type of economy that cannot be achieved through federal orchestration.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2 3

You’re wrong. I’d take 5% unemployment right now.

ddrintn on January 24, 2013 at 6:47 PM

tell me more about the genius of w.

sesquipedalian on January 24, 2013 at 6:47 PM

He’s done better than Chicago Jesus so far. What’s the unemployment rate been for the past 4 years? How’s that economic growth going after 4 years and a trillion in stimulus? Has it crept over 2% yet?

ddrintn on January 24, 2013 at 6:49 PM

Huffington Post says, Bobby Jindhall says Republicans might need to change just about everything….

It’s a huff po article, guys.

Fleuries on January 24, 2013 at 6:51 PM

The problem that exists is that politics has become a game in which both parties pander for votes with taxpayer loot. How do you assemble a political force that will not do that? So far it hasn’t happened.

sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 5:47 PM

You bribe them with their own money. Right now, the GOP should propose partial privatized social security accounts…putting the 2% payroll tax hike (that passed as part of the fiscal cliff deal) into a IRA with your name on it, that you own and control. And then you market it. $1000 saved each year over 40 years would be a $100,000+ What 18-25 year old wouldn’t want that?

monalisa on January 24, 2013 at 6:51 PM

One thing’s for sure: Romney couldn’t tell you why Obama failed. He couldn’t explain why the economy wasn’t growing. He was too busy tying to appeal to moderates by saying, “Hey, I’m not scary! If you like Obama, you’ll like me just fine.”

Of course, if they liked Obama, why would they throw him out for Romney?

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 24, 2013 at 6:49 PM

Oh, it was obvious to us “trolls” for a long time. The GOP didn’t CARE about beating Obama. They just wanted to keep the rubes from having any sort of power. That’s ALL they’re about.

ddrintn on January 24, 2013 at 6:51 PM

You bribe them with their own money. Right now, the GOP should propose partial privatized social security accounts…putting the 2% payroll tax hike (that passed as part of the fiscal cliff deal) into a IRA with your name on it, that you own and control. And then you market it. $1000 saved each year over 40 years would be a $100,000+ What 18-25 year old wouldn’t want that?

monalisa on January 24, 2013 at 6:51 PM

You know, I don’t think any of that would do a thing. It’s going to take collapse.

ddrintn on January 24, 2013 at 6:53 PM

Since the failed presidential election, the GOP has been grappling with identifying exactly what it is the party needs to work on most — diversity, social issues, and Latino outreach, or election mechanics and a flawed Romney candidacy/campaign? — or some combination thereof, and all of the issues are on the table for discussion at the Republican National Committee’s winter meeting in North Carolina.

Don’t forget a boneheaded economic message. As Jindal put it:

We cannot be, we must not be, the party that simply protects the rich so they get to keep their toys

That means no more 47% nonsense, no more makers vs takers, and some common sense when it comes to directly relating policy initiatives with beneficial outcomes to the welfare of the common man.

We should also be focused on a family-driven message, which values the dignity of every human life, born and unborn, and seeks justice against those who would prey upon the innocent. Our social policy should not settle for the lowest common denominator, but aspire to and strive for the greatest good.

And for the love of God, no more opportunistic say-anything-and-everything “electable” moderates.

Stoic Patriot on January 24, 2013 at 6:54 PM

Good message! Jindal got a bad rap from one lackluster radio speech.His actions as Governor will go a long way to overcome that negative.

redware on January 24, 2013 at 6:54 PM

He’s done better than Chicago Jesus so far. What’s the unemployment rate been for the past 4 years? How’s that economic growth going after 4 years and a trillion in stimulus? Has it crept over 2% yet?

ddrintn on January 24, 2013 at 6:49 PM

don’t be such a clown. you really want me to explain the whole story of the 2008 financial meltdown, which you apparently missed somehow? the 700,000+ jobs lost per month in late 2008-early 2009? the 8 preceding years of economic mismanagement, squandering of a surplus, waging a pointless, catastrophic war, you want to hear that, too?

sesquipedalian on January 24, 2013 at 6:54 PM

Step one: Nominate a charismatic candidate with new ideas and who isn’t afraid to speak his f’n mind!

Step two: stay away from old, tired super-religious conservatives

Step 3: Play dirty

Step 4: play really dirty

Step 5: Play really, really dirty.

Step 6: Win at all costs.. you bunch of pansy-ass, timid, frightened automaton idiots!

Opinionnation on January 24, 2013 at 6:55 PM

Not much change left apparently.

Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 6:56 PM

don’t be such a clown. you really want me to explain the whole story of the 2008 financial meltdown, which you apparently missed somehow? the 700,000+ jobs lost per month in late 2008-early 2009? the 8 preceding years of economic mismanagement, squandering of a surplus, waging a pointless, catastrophic war, you want to hear that, too?

sesquipedalian on January 24, 2013 at 6:54 PM

OK, so what has teh messiah done to reverse the course? It’s only been stagnation. The Bush years were a bonanza in comparison.

And don’t hand us that “meltdown” bullshit. Or that bogus tech-bubbled-based mythical Clinton “surplus”.

ddrintn on January 24, 2013 at 6:57 PM

From my piece “The Non-Existent Stairway To Socialist Heaven In Sweden”:

In 2009, the government announced deep cuts in personal income taxes “to stimulate the economy,” together with planned reforms to improve the business climate and create incentives to start companies.

An individual’s income is divided into 3 categories: business income, employment income and capital income.

Business (corporate) income effective corporate tax rate is only 26.3% compared to the 35% U.S. corporate tax rate and average effective combined Federal and state rate of 39.3%.

There are only two tax rates for income generated from employment: 20% and 25%. In the United States, 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, and 35%.

Capital income (capital gains and dividends) is taxed at 30% or 21% if offsetting losses exceed $14,524.80, as opposed to 15% on both in the United States. Unlike business and employment income, capital income is NOT subject to municipal, funeral or church taxes. Furthermore, capital income can be offset against both or either employment and business losses.

Individuals pay both national income tax and municipal income tax. In 2010, individual income tax rates in Sweden change between 54% and 61%. The maximum, average, combined income and social security tax for high earners is 57.77% (including mandatory pension contributions), but in the United States, the top 5% can pay as much as 58%, depending on income taxes in their home states and municipalities.

In 2004, the Swedish Parliament, after considering reports by the Swedish Tax Office that the death tax and its companion, the wealth tax, had already cost the government a staggering $200-plus billion in lost revenue – more than half the current Swedish GDP – Swedish policymakers realised that the inheritance tax was a recipe for economic disaster. Accordingly, the Swedish people – including the labour unions – put ideology and party labels behind them and the government repealed the inheritance/estate/death tax.

On 16 December 2004, the Riksdag also repealed all gift taxes.

In late 2004, Parliament, which was then controlled by a coalition of the socialist, green, and communist parties, repealed the inheritance tax.

In late 2004, Sweden repealed the estate tax.

In March 2007, Sweden abolished the 1.5% wealth tax. At the time, it was only one of 4 remaining countries in the OECD that continued to tax wealth.

Lastly, a new system of income-tax credits lets working people with average incomes keep what amounts to an extra month of wages, after taxes, per year.

BTW: The Swedish “Warren Buffett’s secretary” pays much higher taxes and has an effective tax rate that is nearly double that of Mr Swedish Warren Buffett because the tax system in “Socialist Sweden” is much less progressive than that in the country with the most progressive tax system, the United States. The average effective tax rate in Sweden is 57.77%, but the “evil rich,” who live off of capital gains and dividends, pay 30%…and then they get to leave their ENTIRE estate to their heirs…even if they are worth BILLIONS.

During the reign of the Social Democrats, “Swedes, usually perceived in Europe as a comfortable, middle class lot, [were] poorer than African Americans, the most economically deprived group in the United States.”

Resist We Much on January 24, 2013 at 6:57 PM

My @AsalamaTweetum steps for the GOP. Because we need to win

Opinionnation on January 24, 2013 at 6:57 PM

Sure thing, its not like the Dims didn’t have any hand in that. Wait…………………never mind.

Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 6:58 PM

You’re wrong. I’d take 5% unemployment right now.

ddrintn on January 24, 2013 at 6:47 PM

tell me more about the genius of w.

sesquipedalian on January 24, 2013 at 6:47 PM

“The Bush Tax Cuts Never Created A Single Job!!!!”

Resist We Much on January 24, 2013 at 6:59 PM

Step one: Nominate a charismatic candidate with new ideas and who isn’t afraid to speak his f’n mind!

Step two: stay away from old, tired super-religious conservatives

Step 3: Play dirty

Step 4: play really dirty

Step 5: Play really, really dirty.

Step 6: Win at all costs.. you bunch of pansy-ass, timid, frightened automaton idiots!

@AsalamaTweetum

Opinionnation on January 24, 2013 at 6:59 PM

Step one: Nominate a charismatic candidate with new ideas and who isn’t afraid to speak his f’n mind!

Step two: stay away from old, tired super-religious conservatives

Opinionnation on January 24, 2013 at 6:55 PM

Moonbats are about goofy “new ideas”, which are always really just warmed-over 30s Keynesianism with a dose of New Left 60s garbage thrown in. And “old, tired, super-religious types” are the only ones who’ve won nationally. I don’t recall any moderate doing so since, oh, 1956 or so.

ddrintn on January 24, 2013 at 6:59 PM

Actually, “Democrat” means economic collapse.

ddrintn on January 24, 2013 at 6:42 PM

i recall that bush was a republican – correct me if wrong.

sesquipedalian on January 24, 2013 at 6:44 PM

Yet the economy was better every single year under Bush than the best year under Obama. And strangely enough, the economy didn’t turn sour under Bush until the Democrats took control of Congress. I’m sure that’s just a coincidence. I’m also sure that the Housing crash caused entirely by Democrats pushing FNMA to make bad loans against the warnings of Bush had nothing to do with causing the crisis.

You want to know how deficits and debt got so bad under Bush? A Democratic Congress did it. Bush was hardly pure of heart when it comes to government spending, but it took a Democratic Congress to really drive debt to unheard of proportions. And it took a Democratic Congress to ignore Bush warning about the problems with FNMA buying bad loans from every bank in the country. The crash at the end of the Bush administration was entirely the fault of the Democratic Congress. The Democratic Congress wouldn’t even vote for a budget in Bush’s final year, but delayed it until after the election in hopes that a Democratic president would sign it.

But of course this is rhetorical, since you don’t want to know how deficits and debt got so bad under Bush. You have the same instincts as Obama: blame Bush.

The truth is that the economy usually is more influenced by who has control of Congress than who has control of the White House. That’s why the economy is stuck right now, because the Democrats control the Senate and the Republicans control the House.

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 24, 2013 at 7:01 PM

i didn’t comment on european economic policy. your blogger thinks the democrats are the party of [a policy of deficit-cutting by lowering spending via a reduction in the amount of benefits and public services provided]. your commenter thinks austerity means economic collapse.

sesquipedalian on January 24, 2013 at 6:38 PM

Gee, I don’t remember Sweden’s economy collapsing in the early 1990s or Canada’s in the late 1990s.

Here’s A Secret: Austerity Does Work & Here’s The Biggest Example Of It…Ever

M2RB: Elton John

your blogger thinks…

Who is “MY” blogger?

Resist We Much on January 24, 2013 at 7:02 PM

And don’t hand us that “meltdown” bullshit.

right, it never happened. or if it did, it’s not really under bush’s watch, because, well, obama was around by then, wasn’t he? just like 9/11 was actually clinton’s responsibility,, since a few months before he was president!

Or that bogus tech-bubbled-based mythical Clinton “surplus”.

ddrintn on January 24, 2013 at 6:57 PM

no surplus, either! the whole thing was faked. and if it wasn’t, stupid clinton got lucky.

sesquipedalian on January 24, 2013 at 7:02 PM

Step 3: Play dirty

Step 4: play really dirty

Step 5: Play really, really dirty.

Opinionnation on January 24, 2013 at 6:55 PM

There’s no need to play to play dirty. The GOP just needs to play hard and honest. The left are dirtballs who lie and cheat so just telling the unabashed truth about them is more than enough.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 24, 2013 at 7:02 PM

The truth is that the economy usually is more influenced by who has control of Congress than who has control of the White House. That’s why the economy is stuck right now, because the Democrats control the Senate and the Republicans control the House.

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 24, 2013 at 7:01 PM

The starker truth is that the economy has been a shambles ever since Lightworker first took the oath of office.

ddrintn on January 24, 2013 at 7:02 PM

Yet the economy was better every single year under Bush than the best year under Obama.

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 24, 2013 at 7:01 PM

right, until he turned it all into the worst crisis since the great depression.

why don’t you click on my link, just for shits and giggles.

sesquipedalian on January 24, 2013 at 7:04 PM

And don’t hand us that “meltdown” bullshit.

right, it never happened. or if it did, it’s not really under bush’s watch, because, well, obama was around by then, wasn’t he? just like 9/11 was actually clinton’s responsibility,, since a few months before he was president!

So what’s Lightworker done to reverse course? Unemployment averaged something in the neighborhood of 5% under Bushitler. Sounds heavenly about now.

Or that bogus tech-bubbled-based mythical Clinton “surplus”.

ddrintn on January 24, 2013 at 6:57 PM

no surplus, either! the whole thing was faked.
sesquipedalian on January 24, 2013 at 7:02 PM

Essentially, yeah.

ddrintn on January 24, 2013 at 7:04 PM

right, until he turned it all into the worst crisis since the great depression.

sesquipedalian on January 24, 2013 at 7:04 PM

And Obama’s made it even worse. LOL

ddrintn on January 24, 2013 at 7:06 PM

There is not a single country in the EU that has a fertility rate equal to or above the replacement rate. In fact, countries like Greece and Spain will halve their own populations with successive generations.

Resist We Much on January 24, 2013 at 6:36 PM

interesting, but, sadly, irrelevant.

sesquipedalian on January 24, 2013 at 6:43 PM

Maybe it’s irrelevant in My Progressive Little Ponyland, but on Planet Reality, you need people to pay taxes to fund welfare states. You also need people to pay into programmes like Social Security or they go bankrupt.

Fact: There were 159.4 workers for each Social Security recipient in 1940.

Fact: There were 16.5 workers for each Social Security recipient in 1950.

Fact: There were 5.1 workers for each Social Security recipient in 1960.

Fact: There were 3.7 workers for each Social Security recipient in 1970.

Fact: There were 3.2 workers for each Social Security recipient in 1980.

Fact: There were 3.4 workers for each Social Security recipient in 1990.

Fact: There were 3.4 workers for each Social Security recipient in 2000.

Fact: There were 3.3 workers for each Social Security recipient in 2005.

Fact: There were only 1.75 full-time private-sector workers in the United States last year for each person receiving benefits from Social Security, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Social Security board of trustees.

Run out of other people and run out of OPM. Capisce?

Resist We Much on January 24, 2013 at 7:06 PM

no surplus, either! the whole thing was faked. and if it wasn’t, stupid clinton got lucky.

sesquipedalian on January 24, 2013 at 7:02 PM

Clinton and Congress, which was then-controlled by Republicans, raided “trust funds.” Take a look at the MTS (MTS = Monthly TREASURY Statement of the Federal Receipts and Outlays of the United States Government) from September 2000. You will see that during the time of the so-called “surpluses”, $246.5 billion were taken out of the “Trust Funds” of Social Security, Civil Service Retirement Fund, Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund, Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, Unemployment Trust Fund, Military Retirement Fund, Transportation Trust Funds, Employee Life Insurance & Retirement Funds, and other alleged “Trust Funds”.

For just that example, see: Table 6 Schedule D of the MTS for September 2000, http://fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0900.pdf

“So the table itself, according to the figures issued yesterday, showed the Federal Government ran a surplus. Absolutely false. This reporter ought to do his work. This crowd never has asked for or kept up with or checked the facts. Eric Planin–all he has to do is not spread rumors or get into the political message. Both Democrats and Republicans are all running this year and next and saying surplus, surplus. Look what we have done. It is false. The actual figures show that from the beginning of the fiscal year until now we had to borrow $127,800,000,000.”

Democratic Senator Ernest Hollings, 28 October 1999

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/77531&id=8712130

Resist We Much on January 24, 2013 at 7:12 PM

Charts and graphs can be pretty. Or not.

Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 7:12 PM

You bribe them with their own money. Right now, the GOP should propose partial privatized social security accounts…putting the 2% payroll tax hike (that passed as part of the fiscal cliff deal) into a IRA with your name on it, that you own and control. And then you market it. $1000 saved each year over 40 years would be a $100,000+ What 18-25 year old wouldn’t want that?

monalisa

Bush 43 tried to get something like that passed after his re-election. He got demagogued by the left & too many Republicans ran for the hills.

Now, maybe things have changed – but I doubt it.

Starting point has to be convincing a majority that what we’re doing now can’t continue. IMO, there isn’t a majority out there that believes it.

And why should they? People were talking about Social Security being unsustainable back in the early 80′s. As far as your “low interest” voter is concerned, “they were wrong” – - – nothing bad has happened (yet). So “why should I sacrifice anything now?”

BD57 on January 24, 2013 at 7:15 PM

right, until he turned it all into the worst crisis since the great depression.

sesquipedalian on January 24, 2013 at 7:04 PM

“The average American expressed more pessimism about the future than at any time since the Great Depression.”

“There is no question but this is the worst economic time since the Great Depression.”

“Sluggish economic growth this year will cap the worst three-year period centered on a recession since the Great Depression.”

“Forecasts for a weak recovery…suggest the period…will be the worst for the economy since the Great Depression.”

“….the worst plunge since the Great Depression.”

“The average American expressed more pessimism about the future than at any time since the Great Depression.”

“There is no question but this is the worst economic time since the Great Depression.”

“Sluggish economic growth this year will cap the worst three-year period centered on a recession since the Great Depression.”

“Forecasts for a weak recovery…suggest the period…will be the worst for the economy since the Great Depression.”

“….the worst plunge since the Great Depression.”

“It’s not a recession, it’s a depression.”

“….with the US economy locked in a recession and more people out of work since the Great Depression.”

“….the worst (retail) sales period on record since the Great Depression.”

“This recession is hitting white-collar workers more heavily than any since the Great Depression of the 1930s.”

Sources.

Do you know what is amazing about the quotes above?

They were made not between 2007 and 2013, but in 1991-1992 after a mild recession that lasted from July 1990 to March 1991.

I guess that, like the number of homeless in news stories always seem to explode during Republican administrations, so does the “worst recession since the depression” talk.

LMMFAO!

Resist We Much on January 24, 2013 at 7:17 PM

Do you know what is amazing about the quotes above?

Resist We Much on January 24, 2013 at 7:17 PM

that you would cite them?

sesquipedalian on January 24, 2013 at 7:21 PM

“We do not need to change what we believe as conservatives – our principles are timeless,” Jindal says. “But we do need to re-orient our focus to the place where conservatism thrives”..

National Elections, which can drastically change the country for years, need to be fought by all means necessary; to win. -We need to focus on candidates who can push the message with license to kill. We don’t need smart nerdy leaders like you. We need smart, charismatic leaders.

-We have none.

@AsalamaTweetum

Opinionnation on January 24, 2013 at 7:21 PM

Resist We Much on January 24, 2013 at 7:12 PM

let’s assume, just for fun, that you’re right and the surplus was a mirage.

how does that absolve bush from anything?

sesquipedalian on January 24, 2013 at 7:27 PM

sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 6:33 PM

DID YOU VOTE?

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 7:53 PM

How does that absolve the Dims from anything?

Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 7:58 PM

DID YOU VOTE?

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 7:53 PM

My personal life is none of your business. If you want to argue politics, social affairs, or something similar then I am game. Unlike a leftist I don’t believe that everything is political.

If you cannot defend Romney without getting personal… then you simply cannot defend Romney.

sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 7:59 PM

I have often found this line of argument and reasoning without any or little merit. In 2001 we suffered a fairly major attack which may or may not have been preventable. In response to that attach spending increased. Did you think it wouldn’t? Turn the page to now. We have largely stopped the need for the initial spending. Yet spending continues to grow at the highest rate ever. Why do you suppose that is.

Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 8:05 PM

let’s assume, just for fun, that you’re right and the surplus was a mirage.

how does that absolve bush from anything?

sesquipedalian on January 24, 2013 at 7:27 PM

Where on Planet Reality did you get the idea that I want to absolve Shrub of ANYTHING?

Other than tax cuts, I’m not sure what else I approved of when he was President.

The truth is the truth. There was no true surplus and there hasn’t been one since 1957 AND Bush spent too much.

In 1995, who or what did Paul Krugman say was responsible for recessions?

Hint: It was NOT presidential administrations.

Resist We Much on January 24, 2013 at 8:05 PM

attach=attack

Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 8:06 PM

.=?, must look down at keyboard and check what I have typed more consistently.

Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 8:07 PM

Do you know what is amazing about the quotes above?

Resist We Much on January 24, 2013 at 7:17 PM

that you would cite them?

sesquipedalian on January 24, 2013 at 7:21 PM

Nah. What’s amazing is that there hasn’t been a recession since the Great Depression that Democrats haven’t called “the greatest recession since the Great Depression.”

Any fool that thinks the mild recession of the early 1990s was the worst since the Great Depression until the so-called “Great Recession” is seriously devoid of intellectual honesty or is just plain ignorant. The 1981 recession was MUCH worse than the mild recession that lasted from July 1990 to March 1991. It was the worst since the Great Depression and, in many ways, was worse than the Great Recession.

Resist We Much on January 24, 2013 at 8:10 PM

sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 7:59 PM

FU ahole!

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 8:10 PM

Is Anybody Surprised that Krugman Was Wrong about U.K. Fiscal Policy?

M2RB: Santana featuring Rob Thomas

Resist We Much on January 24, 2013 at 8:11 PM

What the hell does that mean, Bobby?

Give me a break. I do not need Bobby Jindal trying to sugar-coat conservatism.

Please learn to make an argument that means something. Please learn to MAKE THE ARGUMENT FOR CONSERVATISM! The more you try to sugar-coat who you are, the more people reject you.

Start making the arguments about what CONSERVATISM means to everyone: The freedom to be prosperous; the security of wealth not threatened by central planners who are jealous of your prosperity and want to steal it from you; the right to choose your own path, to choose your own security, to choose your own life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without being threatened by a federal government that is jealous of your liberty, your freedom and your pursuit of happiness.

Democrats are EXTREMISTS; start fighting this fight on their terms. Stop pretending that Democrats are “Americans.” They aren’t. They are EXTREMISTS. They don’t represent American values; they represent authoritarianism, totalitarianism, and extremism.

They don’t believe in what AMERICANS believe in.

mountainaires on January 24, 2013 at 8:12 PM

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 8:10 PM

I think HA has removed some of the curse word filters. I think but am not 100% sure you could spell that out completely now.

Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 8:12 PM

FU ahole!

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 8:10 PM

If I throw a stick, will you leave?

sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 8:14 PM

New Conservatism ™

Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 8:15 PM

“We do not need to change what we believe as conservatives – our principles are timeless,” Jindal says. “But we do need to re-orient our focus to the place where conservatism thrives”..

National Elections, which can drastically change the country for years, need to be fought by all means necessary; to win. -We need to focus on candidates who can push the message with license to kill. We don’t need smart nerdy leaders like you. We need smart, charismatic leaders.

-We have none.

@AsalamaTweetum

Opinionnation on January 24, 2013 at 7:21 PM

Listen. Let me tell you the absolute truth, no doubt of it.

The Obama campaign didn’t “win” this election; they cheated. There was massive electoral fraud in those districts where they packed the “house” election system with their election workers and packed the voting districts with “their” voters, who they transported in, okay?

The sooner conservatives admit this, if only to themselves, the sooner conservatives can construct a strategy to fight in 2014. The longer you delude yourselves with the lies about voters that Democrats WANT YOU TO BELIEVE, the more disastrous the election system will become, until one day, you discover that there actually is only one political party.

They CHEATED. They didn’t “WIN.”

Get that into your heads, and figure out a way to do the same to THEM in 2014.

mountainaires on January 24, 2013 at 8:16 PM

sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 8:14 PM

DID YOU VOTE?

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 8:16 PM

The Left is at war with the Right
and the Right thinks it’s having a political discussion.

Cleombrotus on January 24, 2013 at 8:17 PM

Probably got all distracted and such looking at those pretty graphs.

Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 8:18 PM

mountainaires on January 24, 2013 at 8:16 PM

Likes me some mountainaires.

Cleombrotus on January 24, 2013 at 8:18 PM

DID YOU VOTE?

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 8:16 PM

http://www.masstaxpayers.org/publications/public_finance/budget/fy_2009/20080501/state_faces_large_deficits_both_fiscal_2008_and_

The state is facing a $500 million deficit in fiscal 2008 and the recently passed House budget for fiscal 2009 is at least $1 billion out of balance, creating a situation in which more than half of the state’s reserves could be depleted in the next year without even accounting for a recession.

sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 8:19 PM

sharrukin……DID YOU VOTE?

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 8:22 PM

DID YOU VOTE?

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 8:16 PM

That’s an irrelevant question. You seem to think that you’ve stumbled into something clever with it but you’ve only stumbled. Stop asking it, already. It’s none of your business, has no bearing on anything, and is ridiculous to ask on the internet (or anywhere, frankly) since there’s no reason for you to be able to believe the answer, no matter what it is.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 24, 2013 at 8:22 PM

sharrukin……DID YOU VOTE?

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 8:22 PM

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/07/29/romneys_economic_record/

Massachusetts ranked third lowest on this key job generation measure and would have ranked second lowest if Hurricane Katrina had not devastated the Louisiana economy. Manufacturing payroll employment throughout the nation declined by nearly 1.1 million or 7 percent between 2002 and 2006, but in Massachusetts it declined by more than 14 percent, the third worst record in the country.

sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 8:25 PM

I voted!

Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 8:27 PM

sharrukin……DID YOU VOTE?

I voted for Romney.

Did you vote?

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 8:27 PM

Crap you probably won’t believe that.

Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 8:28 PM

Crap you probably won’t believe that.

Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 8:28 PM

I’ll take your word on it.

can_con on January 24, 2013 at 8:30 PM

sharrukin……DID YOU VOTE?

I voted for Romney.

Did you vote?

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 8:27 PM

Romney wants you to vote for Rocky!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuFe9_BCvXY

Democrat Rocky Anderson, perhaps the most liberal mayor in America. Anderson, a former ACLU director and Planned Parenthood attorney, called for the impeachment of President Bush.

In 1992, Romney voted in the Democratic presidential primary for Paul Tsongas, one of the most liberal Democrats in the Senate, saying Tsongas’ views were more closer to his own than Bill Clinton’s.

Romney donated to the 1992 campaign of U.S. Rep. Dick Swett, a New Hampshire Democrat; Rep. John LaFalce, a New York Democrat.

sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 8:35 PM

Warriors, come out to play……….

sharrukin, DID YOU VOTE?

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 8:35 PM

sharrukin, DID YOU VOTE?

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 8:35 PM

No, like Steve Angell, sharrukin stayed home in protest and lived to bytch and moan another day.

Resist We Much on January 24, 2013 at 8:37 PM

Warriors, come out to play……….

sharrukin, DID YOU VOTE?

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 8:35 PM

When lieutenant governor Kerry Healey, a fellow Republican, called for suspending the state’s 23.5 cent gas tax during a price spike in May 2006, Romney rejected the idea, saying it would only further drive up gasoline consumption. “I don’t think that now is the time, and I’m not sure there will be the right time, for us to encourage the use of more gasoline,” Romney said, according to the Quincy Patriot Ledger’s report at the time. “I’m very much in favor of people recognizing that these high gasoline prices are probably here to stay.”

“I support the subsidy of ethanol.” – Mitt Romney

“I believe ethanol is an important part of our energy solution for this country.” – Mitt Romney

sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 8:38 PM

Resist We Much on January 24, 2013 at 8:37 PM

I need to hear it…………..

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 8:39 PM

Warriors, come out to play……….

sharrukin, DID YOU VOTE?

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 8:35 PM

d’man’, WHY WON’T YOU SHUT THE F*CK UP?

MelonCollie on January 24, 2013 at 8:40 PM

sharrukin……part of the solution or part of the problem?

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 8:41 PM

MelonCollie on January 24, 2013 at 8:40 PM

DID YOU VOTE?

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 8:42 PM

d’man’, WHY WON’T YOU SHUT THE F*CK UP?

MelonCollie on January 24, 2013 at 8:40 PM

I am enjoying posting all this stuff about Romney.

If that doesn’t answer his question AND WHY, then nothing will.

sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 8:42 PM

sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 8:42 PM

I answered your question.

DID YOU VOTE?

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 8:45 PM

“Austerity,” as it exists in Europe, for example, means gigantic tax rises now and spending cuts…much later.
Resist We Much on January 24, 2013 at 6:34 PM
i didn’t comment on european economic policy. your blogger thinks the democrats are the party of [a policy of deficit-cutting by lowering spending via a reduction in the amount of benefits and public services provided]. your commenter thinks austerity means economic collapse.
sesquipedalian on January 24, 2013 at 6:38 PM

Let me out 2 and 2 together for you. When the economy collapses there won’t be enough money to fund much government spending and we won’t be able to borrow any more. And we’ll also have massive inflation which will redistribute austerity to all Americans.

I was going to respond to all the other asinine things you’ve said but I see but I can see your being schooled quite handily by others.

gwelf on January 24, 2013 at 8:47 PM

DID YOU VOTE?

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 8:42 PM

Darn skippy, spambot.

MelonCollie on January 24, 2013 at 8:47 PM

Steyn/Resist We Much 2016!

I’ll provide the birth certificates.

gwelf on January 24, 2013 at 8:48 PM

MelonCollie on January 24, 2013 at 8:47 PM

and………….?????

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 8:48 PM

and………….?????

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 8:48 PM

And what, spammy? You want photo evidence?

MelonCollie on January 24, 2013 at 8:50 PM

I’ll provide the birth certificates.

gwelf on January 24, 2013 at 8:48 PM

Ha! You’d definitely have to with those two mischief makers. Lol!

Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 8:53 PM

MelonCollie on January 24, 2013 at 8:50 PM

Please, humor yourself!

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 8:56 PM

sharrunik…….we wait.

Well, did you?

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 8:58 PM

Please, humor yourself!

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 8:56 PM

I’m getting enough humor watching you be a coward and a loudmouth.

MelonCollie on January 24, 2013 at 9:00 PM

2008 popular vote… Obama 69,498,516 McCain 59,948,323

2012 popular vote…. Obama 65,899,660 Romney 60,929,152

OK, I’m not a brainiac. Not a high paid consultant. Just trying to look at things as they really are.

Obama lost 3,500,000 votes in 2012. Yeah, not enough of a loss for him to lose the election. But it was still a loss of support. He won by just over 4,000,000 votes. 61,000,000 people voted against Obama.

To act like those people are now worthless or don’t exist is an insult.

The Republican candidate gained 100,000 votes over 2008. Obviously… nothing there to shout about.
But step back now and look at the whole picture as it really is. With all the mainstream media and celebrities and union thugs threw at Romney and the GOP (and how much of it did they throw back? not much)…. they never lost a vote and actually gained 100,000. Obama, on the other hand… lost millions of supporters.

Knowing that the GOP was not confronting or challenging Obama on much.. it is still obvious that the American people were not buying what Obama was selling… it’s just that the GOP didn’t present a clear contrast. If they had believed and supported Obama why then didn’t the GOP lose the millions and Obama gain supporters? Why are the numbers as they are? Because the GOP put up a moderate candidate who, in the last debate, was agreeing with everything Obama said! Even Obama was dumbfounded at how much Romney was supporting him!

Why does this matter? Because it is hope! The American people have not drank the kool-aid! They just didn’t think there was that much of a choice between the two candidates!

Because this fact remained, underneath all the commercials, lies, debating and so forth.. you still were left with a Marxist and a candidate who publicly called the Marxist nice guy. One man passed RomneyCare and the other man used Romney Care as a blue print for ObamaCare.

There is hype. There is TV. There are polls. And then there is reality.

In spite of the massive war machine that was used against the GOP the past 4 years and against Romney this past election…. all Obama has done is lose supporters.
They can throw all the parades they want. Obama is continually losing supporters.
All we lack is a GOP willing and able to take advantage of that situation and actually believe it!

It is obvious, so freaking obvious that even when our side refuses to engage in the political battle… still Obama and the Democrats lose supporters. Even while our leadership cowers and thumb sucks… Obama can only lose American votes. He wins politically… but through default.

There is a message in there.

What I see is an America standing on tiptoes just waiting for a strong conservative leader.
Go and listen to Reagan’s first inaugural speech. It will blow you away! What a clear contrast that is from what was spewed last weekend! And the Republican who can harness that message will win and begin a rebirth of freedom in America!
And what is conservatism, really? It’s just speaking the truth! People are fed up with the lies. The person that can come along and speak the truth with boldness is going to blow away these socialist lies like a strong wind blows away chaff!

JellyToast on January 24, 2013 at 9:02 PM

I need to hear it…………..

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 8:39 PM

Yet, you never will. :-)

Steyn/Resist We Much 2016!

I’ll provide the birth certificates.

gwelf on January 24, 2013 at 8:48 PM

Lolz. Make them short-form, medium-form, and long-forms. I don’t want a “Birther” like Chris Matthews frothing at the mouth when he demands my long-form birth certificate.

Also, at least we will know that I was born AFTER the Selma marches, unlike the current President, who claims that the Freedom Marches in Selma brought his parents together so that they could create him…even though he was 3.5 years old when the first protest was held.

Ha! You’d definitely have to with those two mischief makers. Lol!

Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 8:53 PM

I resemble that remark…but admit it: Those 4 years, at least, would be a frolicking, rockin’ good time!

I think it is safe to say that both of us would move to ban the entire country of France on our very first day, along with sentencing all residents of “My Progressive Little Ponyland” to one year in the Stafford Trust waiting for their “free healthcare.”

Resist We Much on January 24, 2013 at 9:05 PM

Well, did you?

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 8:58 PM

What a complicated question you ask.

Which Mitt Romney do you mean?

‘My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet.’ – Mitt Romney

‘I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that.’ – Mitt Romney

‘I supported the assault weapon ban.’ – Mitt Romney

I don’t support any gun control legislation.’ – Mitt Romney

“I was not planning on signing up for the military. It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam,” – Mitt Romney

“I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there and in some ways it was frustrating not to feel like I was there as part of the troops that were fighting in Vietnam.” – Mitt Romney

“one of the two great regrets I have in life is I didn’t serve in the military. I’d love to have.” – Mitt Romney

No I don’t support any liberals and that includes Mitt Romney.

sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 9:08 PM

I think it is safe to say that both of us would move to ban the entire country of France on our very first day, along with sentencing all residents of “My Progressive Little Ponyland” to one year in the Stafford Trust waiting for their “free healthcare.”

Resist We Much on January 24, 2013 at 9:05 PM

May I ask that people stop comparing baby-murdering, theft-legalizing, family-destroying liberal scumbags to something completely innocent?

MelonCollie on January 24, 2013 at 9:09 PM

Resist We Much on January 24, 2013 at 7:12 PM

let’s assume, just for fun, that you’re right and the surplus was a mirage.

how does that absolve bush from anything?

sesquipedalian on January 24, 2013 at 7:27 PM

Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that Bush was Hitler and Mussolini and Attila the Hun and Satan rolled into one. How does that absolve Lightworker of four friggin’ YEARS of economic mismanagement? Let’s see: the GDP is more often than not at a quarterly growth rate of something like 2.2% initially, to be revised downward a couple of weeks later to a robust 1.9%. Unemployment is still hovering around 8%; real unemployment is still in the teens. So where is all that Chicago Jesus magical Democratic economic pixie dust?

ddrintn on January 24, 2013 at 9:10 PM

MelonCollie on January 24, 2013 at 9:00 PM

Your nom de guerre fits you perfectly, fat and gelded.

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 9:12 PM

sharrunik…….we wait.

Well, did you?

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 8:58 PM

How is it any of your business? Are you on a MittVote Inquisition? He asked you how exactly Mitt was a conservative. All you can come up with is “Did you vote?????” ad nauseam. That’s called “diversion”.

ddrintn on January 24, 2013 at 9:13 PM

Your nom de guerre fits you perfectly, fat and gelded.

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 9:12 PM

Your username is a perfect indication of what you aren’t, BOY.

Like to meet IRL and see who gets gelded?

MelonCollie on January 24, 2013 at 9:17 PM

Are you on a MittVote Inquisition?

ddrintn on January 24, 2013 at 9:13 PM

Well, now that you mention it, yes he is. Don’t you recall this same silly nonsense from before Mitt’s epic crash and burn?

sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 9:17 PM

Don’t you recall this same silly nonsense from before Mitt’s epic crash and burn?

sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 9:17 PM

Bleeegh. Don’t remind me.

MelonCollie on January 24, 2013 at 9:19 PM

sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 9:08 PM

So close, I know you can say it. Just breathe!

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 9:23 PM

Full-throated unapologetic unabashed championing of conservative ideals. Fred Thompson can give good lessons on this.

John the Libertarian on January 24, 2013 at 9:25 PM

“The Republican Party must become the party of growth, the party of a prosperous future that is based in our economic growth and opportunity that is based in every community in this great country and that is not based in Washington, D.C.,” Jindal says.

Hollow.

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 24, 2013 at 9:30 PM

I think it is safe to say that both of us would move to ban the entire country of France on our very first day, along with sentencing all residents of “My Progressive Little Ponyland” to one year in the Stafford Trust waiting for their “free healthcare.”

Resist We Much on January 24, 2013 at 9:05 PM

May I ask that people stop comparing baby-murdering, theft-legalizing, family-destroying liberal scumbags to something completely innocent?

MelonCollie on January 24, 2013 at 9:09 PM

May you tell me what is “completely innocent” in my post?

I created “My Progressive Little Ponyland” as a putdown OF LIBERALS AND PROGRESSIVES. To my knowledge, there is no “Little Ponyland” associated with My Little Pony. If there is, it is wholly coincidental.

“My Progressive Little Ponyland” is derogatory. It refers to the fantasy world in which Proggies live where everything is coming up roses; rainbows hang over children who plant dollar trees and harvest money to pay off the national debt on collective Debt Farms; daisies give every American everything that he wants; sprinkles and cupcakes can couple to spawn teddy bears; and, unicorn farts fuel both electricity, boom times, budget surpluses, and economic justice for all!

“My Progressive Little Ponyland” = Utopia

Resist We Much on January 24, 2013 at 9:30 PM

MelonCollie on January 24, 2013 at 9:17 PM

Threats from the Melon……..hahhahaaaaaaaaaaaa!

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 9:31 PM

Are you on a MittVote Inquisition?

ddrintn on January 24, 2013 at 9:13 PM

Well, now that you mention it, yes he is. Don’t you recall this same silly nonsense from before Mitt’s epic crash and burn?

sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 9:17 PM

Yeah, it’s baiting so that if you say “no” you’re responsible for Obama; if you say “yes, I voted Romney” then you have no right to complain. They tried a similar tactic with “Well, who do you think would’ve been better than Romney?” They want some of us to say “Palin!” so they can go off on a 250-comment PDS tear.

ddrintn on January 24, 2013 at 9:31 PM

Full-throated unapologetic unabashed championing of conservative ideals. Fred Thompson can give good lessons on this.

John the Libertarian on January 24, 2013 at 9:25 PM

Or Romney/Ryan. Mittmentum and P90X, baby.

ddrintn on January 24, 2013 at 9:33 PM

By the way, I voted for the GOP Designated Loser of the Cycle in 2012, and did so for my very last time.

ddrintn on January 24, 2013 at 9:34 PM

Sorry, its been awhile; sharrunkin, DID YOU VOTE?

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 9:36 PM

They tried a similar tactic with “Well, who do you think would’ve been better than Romney?” They want some of us to say “Palin!” so they can go off on a 250-comment PDS tear.

ddrintn on January 24, 2013 at 9:31 PM

It stems from the knowledge that they cannot really defend Romney, so they are left with attacking any potential rivals.

sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 9:36 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3