The article starts off:

"More than 100 conservative leaders, many of them evangelical in their faiths, were set to converge this weekend at the Texas ranch of former state appeals court Judge Paul Pressler to consider their options, if any. One subtext of the discussion could be the terms of any eventual endorsement of the former Massachusetts governor."

Now I'm not knocking you for reporting this and the link is ok but if I read this article correctly here is what I get and here is what pisses me off about it.

"More than 100 conservative leaders". Who the fuck are these people and how many more, is that 101 or 1001. Judge Paul Pressler is hardly a "Conservative Leader". I'm sure he is a conservative, but hardly a leader.

It's like the add they run on CNBC all the time which goes like this:

"We have a choice. Are we going to let them take control of America or ...(and ends) and make it work for everyone."

Rangel is speaking and as far as I know Rangel is the biggest racist in congress next to Waters. If you're not black your nothing according to those two.

Here is the thing about the add. Just who is "Them" and who is his idea of "everyone". Another thing about the add which really bothers me. It cost big money but we don't know who the sponsor is. The DNC, Congressional Black Caucus, Obama campaign.

It is a slick. I think it's probaly aimed at the OWS crowd and there dumb enough to sucker for it.

For reasons endlessly enumerated here before,
they don't like/trust him, but seem to be tepidly rallying to him for 2 reasons : his electability & attacks against his "corporate raider" ties to private equity firm Bain, mainly instigated by Newt.

The "big biz puppet masters" who run the GOP through such "usual suspect mouthpieces" as U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Club for growth, Sean Hannity & the de facto ( some would say de fatto ) GOP head Rush Limbugh, have slammed Newt's "populist-anti-capitalist attacks", which have boomeranged against Gingrich
& seem to be helping Romney.

One should give the GOP high marks for discipline ( one could say authoritarian impulses ) for "circling the wagons" & rushing to Mitt's defense.

Even though one SC poll shows Newt within 2% of Mitt, for the factors I've mentioned above & because conservative oppsition to Romney is splintered among several candidates, I say the SC primary & nomination is Mitt's to lose.

However I've been wrong before ( rarely---lol ! );
interesting to see how this all plays out before the SC primary on the 21st.







-- Modified on 1/13/2012 7:07:32 AM

which they seem to consistently have & the Dems nortoriously seem to lack; as Will Rogers said: "getting the Dems to agree on anything is like herding cats"

As for Conservative dissatisfaction with Mitt, you can't deny  it's out there, particularly from conservative leaders who you see consistently speaking out against him on various cable news channels.

There's also the matter of Mitt never getting above 39%, partly due to conservative dissatisfaction & partly due to crowded field of 5 other candidates. You can expect that field to be winnowed considerably when Mitt probably wins SC on the 21st.




-- Modified on 1/13/2012 8:43:04 AM

Phil....the moderate wing of the Democratic Party is controlling the White House. Hell, Obama isn't even a liberal, much less a radical. Harry Reid is no Maoist. Hell, he's not even pro-choice. Nancy Pelosi is no Mikhail Bakunin. She's just a rich bitch from California.

Let me give you a clue. When you find that all the Dems talk like Willy Wonka, then you can ask what happened to the moderate Dems. Until then, you're just pretending that a fascist is a centrist position.

second time you've knocked their coverage.

The main gist of the article is how that prominent conservatives ( Tomas Donahue, Tony Perkins ) are slamming Newt's "Bain attacks" against Mitt & coming to realize that Romney probably will be the inevitable nominee.  The Evangelical meeting was merely a sidebar about discussing whether they'd support Mitt or not. What would you like the writer to do ? List the names of all 100 conservatives ?

The Rangel spot that you mentioned doesn't relate to this article at all.

Lastly, it's spelled "ad".

Phil, the primary reason why the DLC fell out of importance in the Democratic Party is because it was the creation of Bill Clinton, and his collition. With Clinton gone, the DLC had little reason to exist. That, and they had pissed off the Democratic base for the last 20 years.

They were NOT moderates. They weren't even moderates if they were in the Republican party.

Don't believe me? Look at the DLC's platform. They were for cutting gov't spending, using "market solutions" to solve problems gov't used to solve (in other words, fascism), ending welfare programs, opposed single payer health care, they supported No Child Left Behind, they supported NAFTA and CAFTA, and strongly supported the invasion of Iraq.

That's moderate?!?!?

Phil, I fully admit that I'm about as left wing as you can get, but where in the fucking hell did you get that I've ever been enamoured with Castro? I have said on multiple occasions that I despise communism, and have called Marx an asshole. Given your studies of the Soviet Union, I'd think you'd be able to keep track of the different parties involved in the fucking First Internationale.

What "far left" policy has Nancy Pelosi advocated for? Has she called for the nationalization of our the oil supply perhaps?

Obama's voting record in the Senate was hardly that of a wide eyed lefty. He was a moderate through and through. Why the hell do you think liberals, who are far to the right of me, keep bitching about Obama playing nice with the GOP while he screws over his base?

A genuine liberal would win the White House easily. The reason why Obama and Clinton won is because they campaigned as real liberals. They just governed as conservatives.

How many posts are there going to be in one week on the problem some conservatives have with Romney?

In any event, then it comes to closing ranks and circling the wagons, I have to say the Dems are master.  People talk about the conservatives taking over the GOP, but I want to ask "What happened to the moderate wing of the Dem Party?"  How come you never see an article in the L.A. Times (or NY or Globe or....) about how the primary influence on the Dem is the left wing?

I have Dem friends how have nothing but contempt of Pelosi and Reed, but when I ask them to name one issue where Obama disagress with them, they are stumped.  They like Obama. Go figure.

Of course, that is because Obama had one of the most liberal records as Senator.  I'm not saying that to knock him.  He was from a liberal state and a liberal district, and that was his job.  But every moderate Dem rallied when called out.

Hey, Hillary's husband - remember him - was the head of the moderate branch of the Dem party.  If anyone should split with Pelosi/Reed, it would be Hillary.  

Likewise, Hillary said that an increased deficit was a "national security issue."  How can you not make a peep about the debt ceiling if you believe that?  Ultimately, you could vote for another extension, but at least make some comment about how it has to stop.

candidates dominated the pols from start to finish?

If I am prentending that the moderates are out of the picture, I have one question:  What ever happened to the Democratic Leadership Counsel?  That was the moderate Dem body.  

During the 2008 election, not one Dem addressed the DLC. NOT ONE.  They all went to the leftist convention.  (I forget if it was MoveOn or another one. Age. Brain. Not good combo)

Sorry. You are  not liberal. You are fringe.  I have known Dems my whole life, having grown up in a Dem family and lived in Dem neighborhoods and worked in Dem dominated businesses.  Until about 10 years ago, I was one.   50 years in the Dem world, I think I know the group.

I mean you are enamoured with Castro and Co.  If that isn't far left, what is?  

YOu can say Pelosi is a rich bitch. That is true. But the moderate Dems I know who dislike her dislike her because the is too far left.

Obama's voting record was in the 2% most liberal.  I know you are disappointed, but I firmly believe it is not that he (or Reed or Pelosi) didn't want something like singe-payer.  It is just that would only appeal to the far left and he could never have gotten close to the votes.  That is why Frank, in a moment of honesty said that it was the first step.

Every poll I have ever heard of has the country as slightly more conservative than liberal.  A liberal has not won a national election since LBJ, and he got in because Kennedy was a martyr.  

He has no choice but to moderate and play to the center if he wants to be re-elected.  That is how he played in  2008.  But I think his record is pretty clear.  

If he did want he (you) wanted, he would lose in a record landslide, and the Dems would be in the wilderness for 50 years.

I thought it was wonderful when the GOP rebuffed Bush on the immigration issue, on the sale of I-Forget-What-It-Was to the Saudis, when his nomination of the White house cancel was shot down.  (don't remember her name. Age.) There were other areas as well.

It is discipline, rather than principle that causes partisan gridlock.  

If there are moderate Dems, no one voted against health care, even though it was (and is) hugely unpopular.

More GOPs have voted for SCOTUS nominations by Dems than the other way around.

I hate discipline.
And if you don't believe me, look at my office.

It was a comparison. You know, you compare one thing to another as an example. Usually, but not always, before I sign up for a load of "Bull Shit" I like to know agenda, players and purpose and yes by names. Other people, maybe not so much.

Just a note on spelling. From the first thru the eighth grade a girl named Karen O'Dell helped me cheat on all my spelling test. She was great. Therefore; I can't spell worth a damn.

Most of my post I do first in MS Word and cut and paste. Word corrects most of my spelling but it won't catch grammar very well. Hate it when it can't even come up with a suggestion. Oh well.

Now I realize there are people who have a cob up their ass about bad grammar or spelling errors. That's why I use Word. But look at it this way Pri. You wouldn't get near as much pleasure out of this board if all the post were perfect spelling and grammer. After all, must boost your ego immensely.

BTW I misspelled grammar just to give you another boost. Did it on purpose. BFD.

I am sorry if I confused you with someone enamoured by Castro.  You say you are such an anti-communist, then you imply that Pelosi is not far enough left because she hasn't called for the nationalization of the oil industry.  You dislike her because she isn't moderate, you hint she should nationalize, then you go on about anti-communism.

You say you are as far left as you can get and then you rant about how you hate Marx and communism.  I am sorry, but my simple mind can't understand jumbo shrimp and far-as-you-can-get-left but anticommunist.

The bottom line is you admit that you are as left wing as you can get.  That is the fringe.  Of course you will be pissed of at anyone who isn't "as left wing as you can get."  By definition "as far as you can get" is far from the center, i.e. moderates.  

I understand your rant against the people that I have classified as left.  I think they would have gone further, but they are realistic.

The perfect example is health care.  I believe in my heart they would have all loved single-payer.  In England and Canada and other countries, the rich can buy out of single-payer, so Pelosi & Co. wouldn't be stuck with it.  But it was impossible to go for.  

The entire premise was "if you like your plan....if you like your plan...If you like your plan...."  They said that because a vast majority of people LIKED their plan, i.e. did not want single payer.

To go for something that would have forced the vast majority to switch after promise after promise after promise would have destroyed the left for 50 years.

They are far left.  They are just realistic

I was using the nationalization hypothetical to demonstrate that Pelosi is hardly far to the left. I don't buy your "realistic" argument. We could speculate that Obama is a Martian and Boehner in private likes to dress up in an SS uniform, but we'd only be speculating. The only way to really gage a politician is by looking at the policies they advocate for and accept that at face value.

As I said, being very far left and hating communism is hardly mutually exclusive. The Soviets (and Marx too) did more harm to leftist ideologies than anyone else in all of human history.

It's quite a surprise to me that anyone who studied the Soviet Union would have no clue who the different parties were in the First Internationale. Have you never heard of Mutualism? Are you not aware that Marx and Bakunin hated each other?