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

[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

[detbuch]

[QUOTE=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?

Originally Posted by spence

It all depends... this hit my funny bone--insanity "all depends" candidates usually have one gear for the primary, shift to another to win the election and then yet another as President.

Nice shift away from Zimmy's unsubstantiated name-calling to what it actually depends on to verify voter insanity.

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.

I think what concerns "moderate" voters even more is the current hard to the left administration. See your above three gears as to how a Republican President from this group would be able to lead from the middle. If your so certain that candidates gear for the primary, shift into another gear to win the general election, and shift into the real gear to govern, why would you not be "so sure about" them governing from the middle?

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.

If this "majority" wants "to see more effective and responsible government" it might very well want a "disruptive and radical change in vector" away from the vector that has been gradually sliding away from our Constitutional foundation and is the vector that has created the unsustainable debt and constant deficit spending. And a change in vector toward our foundation would be the most "pragmatic action" to reduce spending and the deficit. And elimination of most of the unconstitutional regulatory agencies would be a factor in such reductions.

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

Again, see your three gears.

[scottw]

it's apparently three gears but a one way street

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

this hit my funny bone--insanity "all depends"

Doesn't it?

Nice shift away from Zimmy's unsubstantiated name-calling to what it actually depends on to verify voter insanity.

I wasn't trying to defend or distract from Zimmy's name calling, rather just trying to articulate what some people may be thinking.

I think what concerns "moderate" voters even more is the current hard to the left administration.

I'm not sure history will view the Obama Administration has "hard to the left".

He certainly hasn't been hard to the left on foreign policy, immigration or taxation. Take out the individual mandate in the health care bill and a lot of the key provisions have been supported or even proposed by Republicans in the last 20 years. He has nominated more liberal judges yes, but they don't seem like radicals. As for spending, Bush had no problem handing out stimulus dollars or bailing out private industry and he's not a lefty. Between Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 and Obama they all seem to have worked to increase the size of our debt.

So I'd disagree that Obama has been "hard to the left" at all. If he was the real liberals wouldn't be so mad at him right now

See your above three gears as to how a Republican President from this group would be able to lead from the middle. If your so certain that candidates gear for the primary, shift into another gear to win the general election, and shift into the real gear to govern, why would you not be "so sure about" them governing from the middle?

That was the entire point, the political climate seems to reduce the chances a Republican candidate will shift. This probably would favor Obama in the general election.

If this "majority" wants "to see more effective and responsible government" it might very well want a "disruptive and radical change in vector" away from the vector that has been gradually sliding away from our Constitutional foundation and is the vector that has created the unsustainable debt and constant deficit spending. And a change in vector toward our foundation would be the most "pragmatic action" to reduce spending and the deficit. And elimination of most of the unconstitutional regulatory agencies would be a factor in such reductions.

I don't think the majority regards government programs like the EPA or Medicare as unconstitutional problems that need to be fixed with the same zeal that you do.

Most people just want clean air and affordable health care. That these may be considered unconstitutional is less a consideration for the majority than is a shift in responsibility to States which could create uncertainty and risk.

-spence