No Middle Class Tax Hikes?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

I think the above comments form Lori nail it, (except it's, "spend like a Republican" when you look at the last 40-60 years ,g>) but I can't see them damping down the religious right - they needed it for any win in the past 10 years.
We just have to see what happens with the various Tea Baggers - if they collapse totally (kind of what it looks like right now), or if they (any one of the groups, there are several and they are all infighting) can muster up candidates for 2010. The GOP is already scared the Baggers will take votes from the right candidate, like what happened in New York Congressional District loss.

i disagree with that. the religious right isn't going to leave a centrist republican ticket and vote for a dem. instead of republicans pandering to the far right, they should be moving to the center-something they always seem to demand of the party across the aisle. the party both sides need to attempt to please are all of us who don't affiliate ourselves with a party. independents were who forced a change in massachusettes; that should be a wakeup call to both parties.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i disagree with that. the religious right isn't going to leave a centrist republican ticket and vote for a dem. instead of republicans pandering to the far right, they should be moving to the center-something they always seem to demand of the party across the aisle. the party both sides need to attempt to please are all of us who don't affiliate ourselves with a party. independents were who forced a change in massachusettes; that should be a wakeup call to both parties.

Naw, I'm talking about how the GOP needed the religious right for wins the last 10 years - how Bush got elected, etc. They needed it for McCain, it was the only reason Palin was on the ticket. The GOP is not damping down the religious right in the least. It's about all they have left of their party.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Naw, I'm talking about how the GOP needed the religious right for wins the last 10 years - how Bush got elected, etc. They needed it for McCain, it was the only reason Palin was on the ticket. The GOP is not damping down the religious right in the least. It's about all they have left of their party.

They havent done too bad lately for a party that you keep inferring to as dead.

But you are correct in they have pandered too much to the far right. Once they figure out the RR is voting for them anyway and follow the Scott Brown Model, the dems will get routed.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

They havent done too bad lately for a party that you keep inferring to as dead.

But you are correct in they have pandered too much to the far right. Once they figure out the RR is voting for them anyway and follow the Scott Brown Model, the dems will get routed.

No, I fear they are dead, Chuck. They have done badly. They lost the NY 23rd Congressional seat, a seat that hasn't been Dem for 40 years?

The GOP didn't even support Scott Brown. He was on his own. He ran against a rock, a nothing. He ran a brilliant campaign, I give him great credit for that - he's really a very moderate guy (pro-choice, voted yes to Mass healthcare, etc) who didn't campaign as a Republican at all (it was not mentioned in any of his ads), and who campaigned essentially on two inflammatory hot button issues. And notice that since he's been on the national scene, he hasn't made much commitment one way or the other.

The GOP didn't really win Mass as much as the Dems lost it by lack of participation (and deserved the loss). In other words, I can't read Mass as a massive GOP resurgence.

But you are correct in they have pandered too much to the far right. Once they figure out the RR is voting for them anyway and follow the Scott Brown Model, the dems will get routed.

I think alot of the RR won't vote for a GOP if a Tea Party candidate is available. That's how NY 23rd was lost - split vote Teabag and GOP, the Dem won clearly.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

No, I fear they are dead, Chuck. They have done badly. They lost the NY 23rd Congressional seat, a seat that hasn't been Dem for 40 years?

The GOP didn't even support Scott Brown. He was on his own. He ran against a rock, a nothing. He ran a brilliant campaign, I give him great credit for that - he's really a very moderate guy (pro-choice, voted yes to Mass healthcare, etc) who didn't campaign as a Republican at all (it was not mentioned in any of his ads), and who campaigned essentially on two inflammatory hot button issues. And notice that since he's been on the national scene, he hasn't made much commitment one way or the other.

The GOP didn't really win Mass as much as the Dems lost it by lack of participation (and deserved the loss). In other words, I can't read Mass as a massive GOP resurgence.



I think alot of the RR won't vote for a GOP if a Tea Party candidate is available. That's how NY 23rd was lost - split vote Teabag and GOP, the Dem won clearly.

You put more credence in a rural NY state seat than Ted Kennedy's senate seat? Your take on the NY thing is totally offbase as the split vote between political enemies in the same party cost them the election. It was a case of personalities leading to a last minute upheaval. Hardly some anti-conservative, anti-GOP trend.

You believe that the Scott Brown won Kennedy's Senate seat because of voter apathy? I guess Kennedy wasnt the icon that CNN and MSNBC made him out to be if the people he represented for 40 years couldn't be bothered to vote for his replacement.

Do you really believe some of the stuff you write? Brown didnt run as a Republican? Did his ads not have that "paid for by...." at the end of them? So the people of MA were tricked into voting for him because they didnt realize he was not a Democrat?

[Riot]

You put more credence in a rural NY state seat than Ted Kennedy's senate seat?

I put them GOP up one, Dems up one. Senate seat slightly more important.

Your take on the NY thing is totally offbase as the split vote between political enemies in the same party cost them the election. It was a case of personalities leading to a last minute upheaval. Hardly some anti-conservative, anti-GOP trend.

I didn't say it was an anti-conservative, anti-GOP trend. I said it was as split vote between the GOP candidate and the Teabagger, resulting in the Dem win.

You believe that the Scott Brown won Kennedy's Senate seat because of voter apathy?

No, I think there was a great voter turnout (the numbers speak for themselves) and the candidate that ran the best campaign won, and deserved it. He ran against a candidate that did nothing, insulted her electorate, and got what she deserved.

I guess Kennedy wasnt the icon that CNN and MSNBC made him out to be if the people he represented for 40 years couldn't be bothered to vote for his replacement.

There was a great voter turnout, and Kennedy was indeed an "icon", not just "the Dem that filled the seat", and I think the election proved it about him - why should the people he represented, who were very close to him, who he knew intimately, voted for him year after year, vote for a candidate that was nothing like him at all, who didn't respect the voters as he did? The voters voted for Kennedy. Not "the Dem".

Do you really believe some of the stuff you write?

And you were doing so well, before you had to throw in the personal insult. Too bad you revert to your default form.

Brown didnt run as a Republican? Did his ads not have that "paid for by...." at the end of them?

Yes, they did, and nearly all were paid for by Scott Brown, there were not alot of ads because the GOP came very late to his party and only helped him financially a little when they gleaned he had a chance, and I challenge you to find an ad where he put himself forth in his ad as "a Republican". The guy was sharp.

Seriously - can you not post counter-arguments that are based primarily on your assumptions? Maybe check things out first.

So the people of MA were tricked into voting for him because they didnt realize he was not a Democrat?

Huh? Geeshus, Chuck, seriously, if you get that from what I wrote, you need a reading comprehension class.

No, Chuck - the Dem was the Dem - most obviously - he was the Republican, but he courted Independents (of which a great majority in Mass classify themselves as, not Dems) by not calling himself a Republican, and he courted the far right by calling himself "Voter 41" (he signed his autographs "Scott Brown 41") against healthcare.