Karl Rove takes on the Tea Party

5 Jews out of 11 million?

 

You reveal your ideological perspective by such a comment. The President touted nationalized RomneyCare, nowhere near as "liberal" as Nixon's proposed overhaul, when liberals wanted a single-payer, universal healthcare system. He pushes for an immigration reform package that is far from being as progressive as that enacted by Reagan or endorsed by Dubya Bush, whilst deporting more illegals than any of his predecessors. He not only adopted the Bush's national security apparatus; he expanded it. He declined to show leadership in the matter of gender equality until most of the public had already embraced it. He extended the disastrous Bush tax cuts and caved on restoring the level of taxation on the wealthiest when Republicans kvetched.

The left has been extremely critical of Obama's consistently centrist policies, but it has not resulted in a party schism. You can't always get what you want.

Ironically, the relative coherence and stability is in the party of diversity. Republicans' homogenous composition of 89% White folk has certainly not promoted cohesion and consonance.

You'll define "gloating" as you will, and Schadenfruede can be an unseemly self-indulgence, but the struggle for control of a Party rapidly being swept toward a demographic crisis understandably attracts justified interest, whether morbid or exultant, because the future of the nation is a concern for all.

Rather than taking inordinate delight in the amusing Turdblossom vs TP tiff, or any of the GOP's various petty spats, I have continually expressed my confidence that the GOP will adjust to progress and survive, offering the Grand Old Party for Brand New Voters issued by the College Republicans National Committee. as a constructive critique by those with a vested interest in success. Insuring the Party's future will not be achieved by villifying others, but by respecting the convictions of those who intend to be it:

Succinctly stating the cogent message to the GOP, Governor Bobby Jindal: “Stop being the stupid party.”




(Incidentally, I think Republicans could outperform expectations in 2014 by winning Senate seats in sparsely-populated, overwhelmingly White states, and continuing to defy the national voter preference via gerrymandered seats in the House. Their day of reckoning is 8 November 2016.)
.

 

I shall not be baited into a debate concerning the similarities (and differences) between RomneyCare and ObamaCare.

However, I believe it is fair to assert that President Obama is an incrementalist, who noted, several years ago, that it would be impossible to achieve this goal in one fell swoop. And Harry Reid said as much just a few days ago, while acknowledging that ObamaCare is merely a stalking horse for single-payer UHC.

Most conservatives (including this one) believe that the Simpson-Mazzoli Act of 1986--which received then-President Reagan's imprimatur--was a huge mistake. It legalized those already here illegally, while doing nothing at all to stem the flow of future illegals. (In fact, that number has expanded exponentially during the past 27 years.)

Marginal tax rates have indeed increased for The Evil Rich under President Obama...

This is probably not so much a matter of the GOP's failure to reach out to minorities as it is a matter of the left's demonization of non-whites (as well as non-males) who are openly conservative.

Eventually, I believe this will change, much as the so-called "Solid South" (for the Democratic Party) eventually changed--especially after LBJ's Great Society...

There is, indeed, a demographic problem with any strategy that would amount to the GOP's doubling down on the white vote, as that will probably continue to represent a diminishing (if still very large) portion of the electorate.

Still, I would be very wary of any party's compromising its principles in order to curry favor with the voters. Rather, it should, I believe, set forth its principles--not in an angry and pessimistic way, but in a cheerful and optimistic way, much as Ronald Reagan did in the 1980s...

This is just another way of one's asserting that, in order to "survive," the GOP must embrace "progress[ive]" doctrine--i.e.liberalism...

 

You may feel that the College Republican National Committee is pushing progressive agenda when it advocates changes so that the GOP can transcend its image as "brutal: closed-minded, racist, rigid, old-fashioned”, but I see them as attempting to check the extremist drift of recent years, overcoming dogmatic ideology, and returning it to a mainstream, traditionalist platform so that they can compete in the future. In a democracy, rigid adherence to notions that are perceived as noxious to the electorate is political suicide. At a time cynicism abounds and no party is passionately embraced, folks will make the sensible choice and go with the one that is less antagonistic to their values.

 

About 125K mischlings, part Jews, served in the German armed forces WW2.

*one parent, two or more grand parents.

 

Wehrmacht or SS? A key difference. One fought for their country, another for their government.

Robert E. Lee, among other officers, resigned from the Union Army to defend their "country" even though many felt secession was wrong-headed.

Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it. -- Mark Twain

 

What? The Tea Party was the idea of the Koch Brothers...lol...it's just gotten out of their control now because some Tea Party people want to get rid of money in politics too which would basically shut the door on the Koch's and their friends having private elections with the citizens just being mere onlookers who think their vote is truly meaningful.

 

That makes as much sense as saying Obama is a Marxist or that he's a Kenyan with a falsified birth certificate.

It's the partisan extremists who are the problem in our nation, not those who believe we need better government.

 

You, too, believe that your vote is important and can't be tampered with? I'm truly sorry to inform you, but...it's not and it can. And here's the funding of the tea party...

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...y-funding-koch-brothers-emerge-from-anonymity

Unfortunately, as I said, it's gotten beyond their control because the Tea Party is pushing to get money out of politics to a certain degree, which would handcuff Charles and David quite badly.

Additionally...
http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/02/1...arty-was-created-big-tobacco-and-billionaires

 

So, according to your reasoning, it would be "extremist" for the GOP to embrace principled positions.

If I am reading you correctly, your answer to the evil of political "cynicism" is for politicians to act cynically, and embrace whatever political-philosophy positions seem to be fashionable at the moment--free of any actual convictions...

 

Not all "principled positons" are equal, are they?

If you feel the College Republican National Committee is unprincipled, take it up with them.

If politicians prefer to espouse hardcore ideology rather than represent the American people, they will have ample time to bask in the glow of their self-righteousness after the American people express their convictions at the polls.



.

 

I do not believe that all are equally correct.

But all principled views are inherently more admirable than those positions that are merely set forth to curry favor with the voters, free of any actual conviction...

I believe that politicians (especially at the senatorial and presidential levels) would do well to set forth principled positions, and make a serious effort to convince the general public of those positions.

The House of Representatives is a bit different, however. It was designed by the Framers to reflect the views of the congresspeoples' constituents.

The Senate was intended to be the more deliberative body--the "cooling saucer of democracy"...

 

What they're doing is a forging process. There is really no point in combating the Democrat Party when elements of that ideology have infected your own party.

That is the real battle, and without winning it, squabbles with 'rats matter not.

 

Look, I may get banned for saying this but it has to be said. I've studied Nazis, because I've written lots of books on alternate history and to do a bio of Hitler. The TP and and the Republican Extremists are about the closest thing to Nazis I've yet seen in this country.

They have no real ideology, though they scream about it a lot. They really have just one belief, hate, and they keep it at the back of everything they say. For the Nazis it was Jews and Communists, for the TP it's muslims, negros and Democrats. Small government? Less taxes? Smoke and mirrors. If they ever got in charge you'd see a government the size of Godzilla in your bedroom and taxes out the wazoo to support it with.

Read Hitler's speeches. He very rarely mentions Jews at all. He talks about government inefficiency and stifling bureaucracy, but at the very end there's usually the same catchphrase, "no more pawnbrokers"

Look at their tactics, pure democracy if it works but the most cynical lying and cheating available if it doesn't and the veiled threat of violence behind it all. The only thing, they've lacked so far, is a charismatic leader. Hitler was the very incarnation of evil and crazy to boot, yes, but he was also arguably the greatest political genius of modern times and possibly the most stirring orator that ever lived.

All the Republican extremists have put up so far, thank god, are an overblown frat boy, a senile skirt chaser and a guy who can't even drink water right on camera, but I don't think that our good luck there can last forever. Evil men who will do anything for power are everywhere, and the TP with the Republican extemeists is like the Roman Army was for Caesar, a perfect instrument for the ambitions of a tyrant.

 

Yes, it's clear the Koch brothers have put a lot of cash into the national Tea Party. Where in those links does it prove the Tea Party "was the idea of the Koch Brothers"?

 

Max is right, the Koch Bros. did not invent the Tea Party. They simply co-opted it.

 

Nawww....money talks and bull(*)(*)(*)(*) (and insanity) walks. Big Donors don't want a GOP run by a bunch of wackos who lose elections (Mourdock, O'Donnell, Ken Buck, Joe Miller, Angle).

 

In the sense that the Civil War was a "forging" of the United States into a union, not just a group of loosely aligned states?

I'd accept that analogy, but the "Union" in that is the "GOP Establishment" and moderates....while the "Confederacy" are the Hard Right. If the "Union" wins...the GOP survives. If the "Confederacy" wins....it will disentegrate and have to be "re-forged" even later as a "Union" (i.e. moderate, sane) Party.

 

Well, if I'm going to entertain your attempt to defend your glee about GOP infighting, the US would have fractured without the Civil War.

You do know that not long ago the Dem Party had a raging battle between Blue Dog Dems and Liberals, right? Liberals won.

But was there talk of 'Dem Party dying' from you? Yeah...right.

Your opinion about which side represents what in that analogy isn't important. Conservatives/Tea Party must win in order to have a clear polarizing alternative to libDems.

- - - Updated - - -

The Koch Brothers support the fundamental principles of the Tea Party. There is nothing wrong with that, as I do as well.

 

Um...Commie sez wut?

 

Did I say the GOP would "die"? Far from it...there will be a GOP in 20 years. The question is, does it disentegrate and re-form itself in 8-10 years...or 18-20 years. The first would be with the defeat of the Tea Party by the "Establishment"...read Sane Republicans. The second if the TP win and drag the party into its bizarre combination of theocratic and anarcho-libertarianism extremism.

As for Democrats...they accepted the need for a "Clinton Third Way" Centrism after Mondale and Dukakis.....yet the Right doesn't want to do that. They want to push their Party even further FROM the Center.

- - - Updated - - -

Such is the state of "intellectual conservatism". Can you imagine William F. Buckley countering a detailed analysis from the Left with...

"Nuh-huh!"?

 

The GOP is simply the antagonist against the Dems - it's not like they represent anything different than the Dems. The 2-party system is really a 1 party, "Big Government Party" system.

Rove's job will be to try and head off any attempts to get conservatives turned toward advocating for liberty, limited government. As long as they stay in the Republican Party, they can be neutralized - and Big Brother can continue marching us into chains.

Karl Rove is a despicable 'snake in the grass'... as disgusting as any Democrat.

 

Karl Rove wasn't the one "forcing" Tea Party protestors to carry signs with the contradictory if not hypocritical "Keep Your Gov't Hands Off My Medicare!".

 

My first clue was that Irving Kristol (the grandpappy of modern neoconservativism) had a large framed portrait on Leon Trotsky on his office wall at the University of Chicago. If only Reagan had done a little research, eh?

 

Look at Reagan's record as Governor of California....increased spending, increased taxes, signed THE most liberal aborton law in the US before Roe v. Wade, opposed firing of teachers for being gay, etc.

He couldn't poll 1% in Iowa in today's Republican Party.