"Liberal" congresswoman tells Tea Party to "go straight to hell"

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Here's the difference between the 2 parties...

In 2002 I believe, Trent Lott was the majority-leader of the Republican controlled Senate. At Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party, Trent Lott mentioned that it was too bad Thurmond didn't get elected president (he ran as a segregationist). President Bush called Lott's comments despicable (remember, Lott was a Republican)...Lott immediately resigned as republican leader of the Senate.

THAT'S the difference. Maybe we need to split the country in 2.

Actually what he said was "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either."

It was a pretty bad gaffe, although one I don't think he intended. Actually, I thought Trent Lott was a pretty good guy.

But that's the way politics work.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

But that's the way politics work.

-spence

OK, Spence, I see. When Republicans say offensive things, you are all over it. When Democrats say offensive things, it's just "politics as usual".

Anyway, Obama's only theme during the campaign was "change". If all he could promise was "change", then he doesn't get to defend himself by saying that's "politics as usual".

WHen a Republican said something offensive, Bush called him on it, in public, saying that stuff had no place in public service. When Democrats do the same thing, Obama is silent. That is, when he's not the one doing it, which he does often (the Cambridge police acted stupidly, Republicans have to sit in the back of the bus, conservatives are holding the economy hostage, etc...).

I yearn for November 2012...

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

OK, Spence, I see. When Republicans say offensive things, you are all over it. When Democrats say offensive things, it's just "politics as usual".

I don't think there's parity between the two comments, it has nothing to do with party.

-spence

[rphud]

Both/all extremes got to go now.

Time for the Silent Majority to rise again.

Who votes for these idiots anyways? I think they need a good talking to.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by rphud

Time for the Silent Majority to rise again.

Interesting... seems that the minority is not very silent and has way too much influence during the last year or so. Especially when one considers how delusional they are. Hopefully the majority, those in the middle of both parties, will actually stand up for sanity and stop these idiots from permanently destroying the country. The only 2 sane candidates on the right don't have a chance of making it out of the primaries and that is scary. Maybe that is the silent majority you are talking about?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Interesting... seems that the minority is not very silent

THE?? minority? There's only one minority? Aren't all parties coalitions of minorities? There may be a "majority" of opinion on a given topic on which minorities can coalesce, but lockstep on all issues doesn't exist.

and has way too much influence during the last year or so.

Is "too much influence" that influence that disturbs yuor particular minority? How does a minority apply that influence--by convincing a majority to vote for its candidate or policy?

Especially when one considers how delusional they are.

Are "they" delusional because they disagree with you? Do explain this delusion, otherwise you're just name-calling.

Hopefully the majority, those in the middle of both parties, will actually stand up for sanity and stop these idiots from permanently destroying the country.

Ah . . . so THE majority is the middle of both parties. The middle of both parties agree with each other? On some particular policies, perhaps, but those middles are too expansive and various to see any massive agreement on what is "sane" or what is "destroying the country." "Idiots . . .sanity" more unsubstantiated name-calling.

The only 2 sane candidates on the right don't have a chance of making it out of the primaries and that is scary. Maybe that is the silent majority you are talking about?

So in your sane, safe and temperate opinion the Republican candidate will be scary. If he/she wins the presidency, will THE majority then be insane?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So in your sane, safe and temperate opinion the Republican candidate will be scary. If he/she wins the presidency, will THE majority then be insane?

It all depends...candidates usually have one gear for the primary, shift to another to win the election and then yet another as President.

I think what concerns moderate voters right now is that the GOP field is playing so hard to the right would a Republican President from this group be able to lead from the middle? Huntsman certainly would, Romney probably would but the rest I'm not so sure about.

By my reckoning the "majority" wants to see more effective and responsible government, but they don't want a disruptive and radical change in vector...they want pragmatic action to reduce spending and the deficit, but not to destroy the EPA or Medicare for ideological purposes.

Reagan and Clinton were both good examples of having consistent beliefs to guide their actions, but a pragmatic approach to actually employ them. I think this made them more effective leaders.

Don't see much of this from the GOP right now.

-spence