PDA

View Full Version : WTF at this quote



kydoty
01-31-2013, 12:43 PM
At a gathering of Minnesota Republicans brainstorming for ideas on how to stop losing elections in the state:

Andy Parrish, a former staffer to U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmannn, suggested Republicans should look to Democratic tactics to find tactical solutions. He bashed the opposition with dubious claims but said the GOP could learn something from the other side.

"Voter suppression is a beautiful thing, it really is, because that's what the Democrats do," said panelist Parrish, who helped manage last year's failed campaign to pass the marriage amendment. "When we go against the Democrats, it's like going into a boxing ring and showing up with your gloves, ready to fight and the Democrats show up with a bat and two pistols and hits you over the head and shoots you twice and then the referee says you're out because they paid him off."

Republicans gather to plot future | StarTribune.com (http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/189147491.html)

luke829
01-31-2013, 01:09 PM
Using his logic then, the simple solution is to show up yourself with a twelve gauge.

TheLeviathan
01-31-2013, 05:09 PM
Yeah, Republicans are stupid.

PseudoSABR
01-31-2013, 06:32 PM
Yeah, Republicans are stupid.
Not that Bobby Jindal!

Brock Beauchamp
01-31-2013, 07:15 PM
Not that Bobby Jindal!

You mean Jon Huntsman.

Which has gotten him ostracized from the party. The GOP don't want no smarties makin the rest of the boys look bad.

TheLeviathan
01-31-2013, 08:49 PM
You mean Jon Huntsman.

Which has gotten him ostracized from the party. The GOP don't want no smarties makin the rest of the boys look bad.

Damn "moderates"! It reminds me of Futurama with Brannigan and The Neutrals.

PseudoSABR
01-31-2013, 09:16 PM
I was making a joke about Jindal whose said some pretty bat**** crazy stuff himself.

I think David Brooks was suggesting that actual conservatives need to suck it up, and form a new party of not necessarily moderates, but non-tea party conservatives which can compete in the southwest, northeast and midwest.

I don't see how the Republicans can win the Whitehouse or even maintain Congress without a concerted effort to gerrymander.

What's interesting and rather machivilian to me, is that Democrats and Tea-Partiers have worked together to undermine classic conservative candidates in the primary (see Missouri and Indiana). Given the results of the last Senate elections, expect Democrats and their backers to throw a lot money behind tea party primary candidates.

TheLeviathan
01-31-2013, 09:29 PM
Political issues are swinging wildly these days, I think all the hand wringing is a tad premature. We're barely two years from the Republicans having a historic slaughter in Congress.

The party has serious long-term issues, which I find curious that they are actually thoughtful enough to be discussing these.

PseudoSABR
01-31-2013, 10:36 PM
Political issues are swinging wildly these days, I think all the hand wringing is a tad premature. We're barely two years from the Republicans having a historic slaughter in Congress.You're right. I'm surprised by the tone of the current discourse, but I guess no more surprised when tea party took out 2010.


The party has serious long-term issues, which I find curious that they are actually thoughtful enough to be discussing these.
Well, some of them are. It's just how do the Republicans reach to the margins without disenfranchising and empowering the base. I just think the primaries will make any step toward moderation very difficult.

Not that the political climate couldn't make a tea-party candidate palatable nationally (say an Iran conflict that goes poorly/another unexpected economic crash).

TheLeviathan
01-31-2013, 10:48 PM
Well, some of them are. It's just how do the Republicans reach to the margins without disenfranchising and empowering the base. I just think the primaries will make any step toward moderation very difficult.

I think this is the struggle I find curious. It's social conservatism vs. economic conservatism and which wins out. Honestly, I think social conservatism will win out in part because the Hispanic community is so ripe for the plucking if Republicans go in that direction and soften some, not all, of their economic talk. Not to mention immigration talk.

I would despise that shift personally, but I think that's how it wins out.

Brock Beauchamp
02-01-2013, 08:48 AM
Political issues are swinging wildly these days, I think all the hand wringing is a tad premature. We're barely two years from the Republicans having a historic slaughter in Congress.

The party has serious long-term issues, which I find curious that they are actually thoughtful enough to be discussing these.

It is only two years but the conservative "slaughter" in Congress was largely built on the back of the House. The GOP can still win in the House. The more regionalized the election, the better they can do by customizing their particular brand of crazy to the local constituency.

But expand that brand of thinking to the state or national level and they struggle. Urban centers simply aren't interested in listening to that kind of talk and moderate independents swing Democrat instead. And where the urban centers go, so go state (and therefore national) elections.

Can the GOP get back the urban constituency? It's possible but they're going to have to do an epic house-cleaning, the likes of which I've never seen in my lifetime.

Brock Beauchamp
02-01-2013, 08:52 AM
I was making a joke about Jindal whose said some pretty bat**** crazy stuff himself.

Oh, I realize that. Jindal is just as crazy as the rest of the fringe lunatics the GOP has been rolling out in recent years. If the party had any kind of brain at all, they'd push Huntsman as hard as they can. He wraps up the Mormon vote and can deliver a large part of the Christian community based on his background. He can win independents by not denying climate change, evolution, and science in general. As the former ambassador to China, he has the foreign expertise to run the country. As a former governor, he has the executive experience to run the country.

But, most importantly, he's whip-smart. And if you're running a GOP candidate against the likes of Clinton and Obama, you need a guy that can stand toe-to-toe with them and not be embarrassed by it.

Of course, what did the GOP do with Huntsman during the last conventions? They shipped him as far away from the spotlight as possible.

Good job, guys!

TheLeviathan
02-01-2013, 04:14 PM
Of course, what did the GOP do with Huntsman during the last conventions? They shipped him as far away from the spotlight as possible.Good job, guys!

Look, I like Huntsman too, but that wasn't the problem. The problem was that he scared the social conservative base, it's why freaking Rick Santorum went as far as he did. Frankly, Huntsman was too reasonable on too many issues.

The point from two years ago is that the Republicans swept total congressional control away. No small feat and it was totally unprecedented. Their ideas aren't quite as outdated as some are suggesting (well, in terms of public appeal) What cost them is that still too many moderates/libertarians/etc can't get on board because of the social conservatism and then they've ostracized one group that is rising in numbers, strong on social conservatism, but can't stand one issue - immigration talk. To me, if they just back off the immigration talk they could take a state like Florida and very heavily shift the tables in one move.

gunnarthor
02-01-2013, 08:10 PM
Look, I like Huntsman too, but that wasn't the problem. The problem was that he scared the social conservative base, it's why freaking Rick Santorum went as far as he did. Frankly, Huntsman was too reasonable on too many issues.

The point from two years ago is that the Republicans swept total congressional control away. No small feat and it was totally unprecedented. Their ideas aren't quite as outdated as some are suggesting (well, in terms of public appeal) What cost them is that still too many moderates/libertarians/etc can't get on board because of the social conservatism and then they've ostracized one group that is rising in numbers, strong on social conservatism, but can't stand one issue - immigration talk. To me, if they just back off the immigration talk they could take a state like Florida and very heavily shift the tables in one move.

I think it might be too late on the immigration, at least for this generation. If any sort of CIR gets passed, the democrats and Obama are going to get the credit. And if it fails, conservatives will get the blame. I know Latinos do some things that suggest they should be conservative voters - go to church, family values - but when you start working in those communities you see that they just don't trust the conservatives. They think they're racist. And it's not like democrats can't support church/family values Latino voters, since the dems are the ones pushing for more money for schools, social safety nets etc. If the republicans support immigration reform, they'll end up supporting a structure that, at least in the short term, will make states like Arizona and Texas purple and making FL, CO, NV even more blue. My guess is that CIR gets hung up over the path to citizenship issue.

But it's going to be a blast to watch.

TheLeviathan
02-01-2013, 09:09 PM
But it's going to be a blast to watch.

You may well be right, but I think that's the direction this is going to head. I just can't see the Republicans dropping their social conservatism, they just can't get past that. So the only thing that is possible would be appealing to Latino voters. Given the popularity of Rubio I think that strategy could work, but I doubt the Republicans are tactful enough to make it happen. That said, a lot can change. We've seen both parties blow what appears to be insurmountable momentum the last few years. So you never know how someone will shove a foot in their parties mouth.

Brock Beauchamp
02-02-2013, 12:01 PM
Look, I like Huntsman too, but that wasn't the problem. The problem was that he scared the social conservative base, it's why freaking Rick Santorum went as far as he did. Frankly, Huntsman was too reasonable on too many issues.

The point from two years ago is that the Republicans swept total congressional control away. No small feat and it was totally unprecedented. Their ideas aren't quite as outdated as some are suggesting (well, in terms of public appeal) What cost them is that still too many moderates/libertarians/etc can't get on board because of the social conservatism and then they've ostracized one group that is rising in numbers, strong on social conservatism, but can't stand one issue - immigration talk. To me, if they just back off the immigration talk they could take a state like Florida and very heavily shift the tables in one move.

Oh, I realize that Huntsman scared the conservative base. The thing is that the GOP needs to stop letting those wingnuts drive the party. Huntsman was very electable against a weak Obama. What is the conservative base going to do, vote for Obama? Stay home? Unlikely, because they still want to control their local elections as well.

Yeah, the GOP won big in the House in 2010. The thing is that I don't know if they can win anything on a larger scale than that. Having lived in CA for so long, I feel as if the immigration battle has passed. The GOP could have grabbed the Hispanic base easily 20 years ago. They even did well during the Bush years based on national defense (trumped up though it may have been). But now? I think the GOP is going to have to get far less white and get far less old to pull back that base (if they can at all). On top of that, they need to work really hard to shed their racist image, which isn't going to happen when the dingbats in the Tea Party are running around, saying incredibly stupid things. Given how the GOP is run, I don't see them shedding their current image and gaining back independent and minority votes any time soon. They've simply burned too many bridges in the past 20 years and pissed off an entire generation of people who don't fit into the WASP category.

TheLeviathan
02-02-2013, 02:36 PM
Oh, I realize that Huntsman scared the conservative base. The thing is that the GOP needs to stop letting those wingnuts drive the party. Huntsman was very electable against a weak Obama. What is the conservative base going to do, vote for Obama? Stay home? Unlikely, because they still want to control their local elections as well

Well that's kind of my point, I don't think they realize that they have leverage on social conservatives. Instead, I think they feel they need to keep appeasing them as evidenced by Santorum. As long as Santorum is still seen as a viable candidate they won't shake this. So my opinion is that they'll stick with the social conservatives and the only way to do that is to appeal to Latinos.

I wish they would switch gears and appeal to people like me or you, that might entertain a republican vote if they were just focused on fixing the economic structural issues. But I don't think they will. I won't write off that they can appeal to Latino voters, not with a guy like Rubio waiting in the wings.

johnnydakota
02-02-2013, 03:16 PM
Yeah, Republicans are stupid.

they should be called the Pelican party, a big usless bird that flys around scooping up little fish and crapping all over America

johnnydakota
02-02-2013, 03:30 PM
As for 2016 , we all know it is Jeb bush , brother of crackhead george(where do you think daddy got the idea to buy cocain , sell it to americans then buy guns and bombs to give to contras?) son of conspiriter (JFK assisination) grandson of gun sealing nazi goose stepping grampa bush.
and finally his brother neil...the reason we went to desert stom under daddy bush , because g. herbie bush had to pardon neil for stealing 77 million dollars and try to win reelection

PseudoSABR
02-02-2013, 09:15 PM
Huntsman was very electable against a weak Obama.That's only true if the wingnuts vote for Huntsman. Huntsman as the Republican nominee opens the possibility of a third party right winger. Huntsman might appeal to the middle more than Obama, but that's pretty debatable. But Obama is more palatable to his base, than Huntsman is to his, and that matters.

biggentleben
02-02-2013, 10:22 PM
As for 2016 , we all know it is Jeb bush , brother of crackhead george(where do you think daddy got the idea to buy cocain , sell it to americans then buy guns and bombs to give to contras?) son of conspiriter (JFK assisination) grandson of gun sealing nazi goose stepping grampa bush.
and finally his brother neil...the reason we went to desert stom under daddy bush , because g. herbie bush had to pardon neil for stealing 77 million dollars and try to win reelection

JFK conspiracy? Seriously, this is still a thing?

PseudoSABR
02-02-2013, 10:57 PM
JFK conspiracy? Seriously, this is still a thing?I think this poster lives out of country, fyi...

mikecgrimes
02-03-2013, 11:03 PM
At a gathering of Minnesota Republicans brainstorming for ideas on how to stop losing elections in the state:

Andy Parrish, a former staffer to U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmannn, suggested Republicans should look to Democratic tactics to find tactical solutions. He bashed the opposition with dubious claims but said the GOP could learn something from the other side.

"Voter suppression is a beautiful thing, it really is, because that's what the Democrats do," said panelist Parrish, who helped manage last year's failed campaign to pass the marriage amendment. "When we go against the Democrats, it's like going into a boxing ring and showing up with your gloves, ready to fight and the Democrats show up with a bat and two pistols and hits you over the head and shoots you twice and then the referee says you're out because they paid him off."

Republicans gather to plot future | StarTribune.com (http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/189147491.html)

If the discussion is about winning elections, then this is the sort of thing that needs to be discussed democrat republican or otherwise. the problem is either it was said when the wrong people were in the room. If that was known then Parrish is an idiot, if this was a stealth leak like the Romney 47% video then the nature of politics requires some gooning it up. politics is a really rough sport. If you aren't aware of the rules don't play. By the way most of the outrage on this sort of stuff comes from people who know the rules, in other .words the outrage is fake.

100% turnout will result in Democrat victories, 70% turnout will give us close races which we've been seeing for about the last 15 years, and 50% will result in Republican victories. If you don't like the idea of low turnout or republican victories do what you have to do to make that happen. If fake outrage helps in that effort cool, otherwise it's fake outrage and really kind of pathetic.

mikecgrimes
02-03-2013, 11:30 PM
What did Huntsman have that Romney didn't? Romney's biggest problem was that he was the Republican candidate and thus the #1 enemy of the Democrats. It was a 3% loss, and demographics wouldn't have allowed anything more then a 5% Republican win if everything went perfect.

Brock Beauchamp
02-04-2013, 06:42 AM
What did Huntsman have that Romney didn't? Romney's biggest problem was that he was the Republican candidate and thus the #1 enemy of the Democrats. It was a 3% loss, and demographics wouldn't have allowed anything more then a 5% Republican win if everything went perfect.

Huntsman is for civil unions for gay people, strongly emphasizes the importance of science and understanding climate change, and openly states that government has a role in society. He also has a diversified background in a myriad of government roles.

Basically, he's the type of guy moderates and independents will vote for, not run away from.

FrodaddyG
02-04-2013, 06:46 AM
Huntsman is for civil unions for gay people, strongly emphasizes the importance of science and understanding climate change, and openly states that government has a role in society. He also has a diversified background in a myriad of government roles.

Basically, he's the type of guy moderates and independents will vote for, not run away from.
But what about the lunatic fringe? Surely that is more important to appeal to than the body of votes that actually swings elections!

PseudoSABR
02-04-2013, 11:58 AM
But what about the lunatic fringe? Surely that is more important to appeal to than the body of votes that actually swings elections!
The better question is why would Huntsman want to be the nominee of a party whose base doesn't think at all like him.

Huntsman would have a better chance surviving the Democratic primaries than the Republican primaries.

Brock Beauchamp
02-05-2013, 08:53 AM
The better question is why would Huntsman want to be the nominee of a party whose base doesn't think at all like him.

Huntsman would have a better chance surviving the Democratic primaries than the Republican primaries.

What a sad world we live in today. Huntsman is the most likable Republican because he doesn't act like a Republican (not a Republican from this era, anyway).

And the GOP wonders why a generation of fiscal conservatives have moved to Libertarianism. I don't even like the Libertarian party much but at least they don't make me want to throw up (most of the time anyway). I'm a moderate fiscal conservative and 100% socially liberal and there isn't anything out there that represents me as a voter. I've ended up voting Democrat lately simply because 1) the GOP has lost the right to refer to themselves as "fiscal conservatives" and 2) the GOP's stance on social issues is maddening.

Even more than most, I'm left in the "lesser of two evils" camp. At the end of the day, at least the Dems don't want to lock the gay people in cages or put them on an island off the coast of California. And that's a pretty pathetic reason to vote for someone.

ChiTownTwinsFan
02-05-2013, 09:56 AM
Even more than most, I'm left in the "lesser of two evils" camp. At the end of the day, at least the Dems don't want to lock the gay people in cages or put them on an island off the coast of California. And that's a pretty pathetic reason to vote for someone.

I've been pretty much been doing this since I've started voting. And unless we truly are no longer a two-party' system, that's how it will continue. And gays aren't the only ones who stand to lose a lot in the hands of Republicans. As a woman, there is no way in hell I will ever vote Republican in this era of where this party has gone.

Brock Beauchamp
02-05-2013, 09:24 PM
I've been pretty much been doing this since I've started voting. And unless we truly are no longer a two-party' system, that's how it will continue. And gays aren't the only ones who stand to lose a lot in the hands of Republicans. As a woman, there is no way in hell I will ever vote Republican in this era of where this party has gone.

You could start making a list of people who would get screwed by a GOP government but it'd be easier to just write "everybody not white and male" and call it a day.

TheLeviathan
02-05-2013, 09:31 PM
The issue is that there is a growing percentage of voters being left out of the political process with the current standing of the Dems and Repubs. I consider myself a politically active person and I have really struggled to be motivated enough to vote in both 2010 and 2012.

ChiTownTwinsFan
02-06-2013, 10:08 AM
You could start making a list of people who would get screwed by a GOP government but it'd be easier to just write "everybody not white and male" and call it a day.

Yeah, that was actually going to be my original statement, but I figured, odds were, that a few here would be offended; not that that's stopped me before, but I was trying to be more subtle, I guess.

ChiTownTwinsFan
02-06-2013, 10:10 AM
The issue is that there is a growing percentage of voters being left out of the political process with the current standing of the Dems and Repubs. I consider myself a politically active person and I have really struggled to be motivated enough to vote in both 2010 and 2012.

For me the motivation is there, but I wish, for once, I were motivated by positives rather than negatives. Again, it's the 'lesser of two evils' concept. It's not that I exactly live in fear for my rights, but I do worry about them; and there are definitely places I'd never move to as a result.

Ultima Ratio
02-06-2013, 09:25 PM
You could start making a list of people who would get screwed by a GOP government but it'd be easier to just write "everybody not white and male" and call it a day.

Huntsman: white, male.

Brock Beauchamp
02-06-2013, 09:47 PM
Huntsman: white, male.

I hadn't noticed.

Kobs
02-06-2013, 10:48 PM
You could start making a list of people who would get screwed by a GOP government but it'd be easier to just write "everybody not white and male" and call it a day.

Most of the white males would be screwed too.

Brock Beauchamp
02-07-2013, 07:51 AM
Most of the white males would be screwed too.

True, but inexplicably, they'd still vote GOP. It's kinda what they do.

mikecgrimes
02-08-2013, 08:48 AM
I've been pretty much been doing this since I've started voting. And unless we truly are no longer a two-party' system, that's how it will continue. And gays aren't the only ones who stand to lose a lot in the hands of Republicans. As a woman, there is no way in hell I will ever vote Republican in this era of where this party has gone.

It's OK to say as a liberal you won't be voting Republican. Fact is about 44% of Women voted for Romney. The War on Women was a great marketing campaign despite having no substance. Of course if Republicans were able to get over 50% of women they would win, but softing the stance on abortion will only lose them women, women that you might disagree with but still women.

mikecgrimes
02-08-2013, 08:53 AM
Process starts at the caucuses. Any group of 10% control the process based on current turnout levels. if you want Jon Huntsman to win the nomination make it happen.

PseudoSABR
02-08-2013, 10:28 AM
The War on Women was a great marketing campaign despite having no substance..But there IS substance. Nothing says freedom like a forced transvaginal ultrasound. Or not covering birthcontrol (but covering viagra) in health insurance plans. Or opposing equal pay for equal work. Or...

PseudoSABR
02-08-2013, 10:30 AM
3225

ChiTownTwinsFan
02-08-2013, 10:34 PM
It's OK to say as a liberal you won't be voting Republican. Fact is about 44% of Women voted for Romney. The War on Women was a great marketing campaign despite having no substance. Of course if Republicans were able to get over 50% of women they would win, but softing the stance on abortion will only lose them women, women that you might disagree with but still women.

Okay, so, it's okay to not vote Republican because I am a liberal, but it's not okay to not vote Republican because I'm a woman? Frankly, I'm going to vote for someone who best serves my ideals, my interests, and my rights. That is not a Republican in this current climate. And abortion is far down the list as to why, but yes, is one factor of many. Let's not turn this into yet another abortion debate.

johnnydakota
02-08-2013, 10:53 PM
I love how the republicans wrap themselfs in the flag of Christianity, then say
We dont want to feed the hungry
We dont want to heal the sick
We dont want to give shelter and comfort to the homeless
We dont want to pay taxes
We believe social security is an entitlement (a private fund we all pay into , but owners have to match it)

How can this party expect to be taken serously ,when they believe this is how Jesus would act