I think Republicans will not win again in my lifetime … unless they become a new GOP, a new Republican Party. And it has to be a transformation. Not a little tweaking at the edges.
(Senator Rand Paul, Kentucky, on the chances of Republicans winning the White House in future elections).
Perhaps now that a conservative is saying it this bluntly, people will start to listen.
31 comments:
Ah, Mark can't see the tree's for the forest.
He says the GOP has to change or they will cease to exist - and Rand Paul says the GOP has to change or they will cease to exist.
Mark says "See! See! That's a forest, and that over there is a forest. All forest's are the same - so I and Rand are saying the EXACT same thing...."
Let's look up close and see how Mark's forest is composed of ENTIRELY different things than Paul's.
Rand Paul scored 100% from the American Conservative Union. His voting record is rated at 26% liberal by the National Journal. He considers himself to be a Tea Party follower.
Mark thinks the Tea Party are racist extremists. Mark has said "My message to conservatives is simple: moderate. Or you are going to cease to exist as a political party." and "Unless the Right moderates and changes, the GOP as we know it will die as a party."
Mark's idea of change for the GOP is to become Democrat-lite.
Paul's idea of change for the GOP is most likely to embrace more Tea Party and semi-libertarian ideals.
Those two ideas of change are polar opposite.
But at least Mark can trumpet that his claims have been 'vindicated'.
Of course since Mark creates his own conversations with conservatives he really doesn't know that many conservatives (or conservative as compared to Mark) don't disagree that the GOP needs to change. Kinda that whole Tea Party thing was a big group of R's and others who were dissatisfied with the GOP. He probably also doesn't know that at least a couple of his 'conservative' commentors refer to the GOP as the stupid party. Hmmm, almost like they also think the GOP needs to change.
Mark can't see
Mark says
Mark's forest
Mark thinks
Mark's idea
Mark can trumpet
Mark creates
compared to Mark
Wow, dude.
And I guess you forgot the context.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/rand-paul-texas-could-turn-blue-103292.html?hp=l1
Get it now? Or are we still going to stomp our feet and shout "I don't wanna!"
Apparently you are still, after all these years, unclear on the concept.
You post, people rebut. During a rebuttal, it is very likely that you yourself or your words will be referenced or quoted.
Getting all butthurt and crying about it is nothing more than another deflection tactic.
To be clear - your assertion is that Rand Paul said something essentially like something you said.
My rebuttal is that what he said is nothing at all like what you said.
As for the context - do you think Rand Paul, a Tea Partier, thinks that GOP should change in the same direction that you think it should?
Stupid M, Rand Paul is not saying the same thing as you. Are you really that fucking idiotic? Or is this just some schtick?
Getting all butthurt and crying about it is nothing more than another deflection tactic.
Who's hurt? Not me. Whatever I do or say won't really make any difference. The GOP is a dying party. That's a fact and you can't accept it.
do you think Rand Paul, a Tea Partier, thinks that GOP should change in the same direction that you think it should?
Yes. He wants it to be more inclusive. As an example, I offered his words on immigration. He recognizes political reality and that the GOP simply won't have enough voters to be sustainable unless they change.
Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?
Wrong answer Mark.
You've repeated twice that the only way the GOP will survive is to become more moderate.
More inclusive does not equal more 'moderate'.
Who's hurt? Not me.
Ohh?
Then this : "Mark can't see
Mark says
Mark's forest
Mark thinks
Mark's idea
Mark can trumpet
Mark creates
compared to Mark
Wow, dude.
Was nothing?
Nope, you were deflecting by acting like referencing you during a discussion with you is some kind of out of the ordinary act. Now you act like you said nothing? Give up the act - it's tiring.
Actually, your obsession with me and the ad hom is all too common, GD. I can always gauge how accurate my assertions are by the more you focus on me and not the actual issue. And how quickly you avoid answering any questions, making no assertions of your own which is quite apparent and clear here once again. Let's try again...
Based on what Senator Paul has been saying, how do you think he wants to change the GOP?
GD what can you expect from life inside M's little bubble - there isn't much oxygen in there.
Because Mark, YOU have presented Paul's comments as some sort of confirmation that he is saying the same thing as YOU.
See that, YOUR own post is about YOU and YOUR assertion.
Now you somehow think that talking about a post that is about YOU and YOUR assertion requires me to not talk about YOU or YOUR assertion.
What relevance does Paul's statement have to the discussion here without comparison to YOUR assertion?
Paul is a libertarian and considers himself a Tea Party politician.
With that in mind, I don't think how Paul wants to change the GOP bears any semblance to the way you have stated the GOP needs to change.
Which, by the way, if you knew how to read would have been the obvious statement of what I think since this topic started.......
That's not really an answer, GD. How do you think they are different? Especially given his comments on immigration?
C'mon, GD. Stand for something instead of being critical of everything.
His comments on immigration?
Like this part?
Doesn’t mean I don’t believe in securing the border first
Huh. Let's see, "...if you want to work and you want a job and you want to be part of America, we’ll find a place for you..."
Well, secure borders....want to be PART of America....nope, doesn't mean he won't deport illegal immigrants. Doesn't mean he won't expect legal immigrants to assimilate.
So, nope - he is again NOT SAYING THE SAME THING AS YOU.
I really don't know how you could possibly expect anyone to believe that what you say and what Rand Paul says could in any way be even close to the same thing.
For craps sake Mark, you call libertarians wacky and think the Tea Party is the extremist of the GOP.
You are inhabiting a strange corner of dementia if you think a person who according to you is a 'wacky extremist' is calling for the GOP to 'moderate'.
I think we should do a better job of securing the border so I do, in fact, agree with him. I fully support Marco Rubio's plan and think it should be passed immediately. Why don't you?
I don't agree with everything Senator Paul says but he is starting to wake up and recognize reality. I know this really sucks for you because you view any sort of change or compromise as failure and weakness. Oh well. It's going to happen whether you want it to or not.
I fully support Marco Rubio's plan and think it should be passed immediately.
Really? Why don't you summarize it for us - what are five key features? Maybe you could even quote the proposed legislation?
I don't have to since Senator Rubio did so himself.
http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=adefad85-7f5c-4f3e-a4dc-366a1b71ad38
The section that I find to be an excellent compromise is this one.
Rejecting Amnesty: No one gets amnesty. In fact, this bill will eliminate today’s de facto amnesty, in which we have 11
million undocumented immigrants here and don’t know who they are, what activities they’re engaged in or anything else
about them. Once the first security triggers are achieved, undocumented immigrants will be able to come forward, must
submit to and pass background checks, be fingerprinted, pay $2,000 in fines, pay taxes, prove gainful employment, prove
they’ve had a physical presence in the U.S. since before 2012 and going to the back of the line, among other criteria.
Criminals and those who don’t meet these criteria will be deported.
In looking through this summary, why don't you guys support it?
Once the first security triggers are achieved
Do you know what those are? I don't. Am I just supposed to trust that someone somewhere has that part figured out - sorta like PPACA or the Patriot Act?
Criminals and those who don’t meet these criteria will be deported.
And I guess the rest get to stay, but it isn't amnesty.
Okay, I see why you like it.
Why don't you?
Hey dipshit, you stopped beating your wife yet?
Dishonesty in communication is your forte, so I shouldn't expect anything more from you.
I don't agree with everything Senator Paul says but he is starting to wake up and recognize reality.
Of course you don't, because he's a wacky extremist.
I'd be willing to bet that the area's that you think you agree with him are really just you misunderstanding what you think he's saying....
And I guess the rest get to stay, but it isn't amnesty.
Those that are against immigration overhaul are effectively supporting amnesty, right? That's essentially what we have right now.
GD, if you weren't so coy about where you stand on this stuff we wouldn't have this problem. I get that you are afraid of opening yourself up to criticism but that's what you get when you are trying to solve very difficult issues like immigration.
So, if you support Rubio's plan, explain why. If you think that I am misunderstanding Rand Paul in some way, explain how that is the case.
Those that are against immigration overhaul are effectively supporting amnesty, right?
Technically no, but of course they don't like being put on the spot about that because most aren't really that hard-over on deportation.
Think of it like teaching tennis where someone gets to change the rules but doesn't want the rules changed against them.
Rules change all the time, juris. And before you fall into the slippery slope fallacy, consider how laws have changed in our country's history as cultural circumstances evolve. Look at how immigration laws have changed over the years...
http://www.umass.edu/complit/aclanet/USMigrat.html
if you weren't so coy about where you stand on this stuff
Well that's a BS statement. You assumed what I thought without bothering to first ascertain what I thought.
I don't know whether I support Rubio's plan because there are not enough details present. Is there a time limit, do people have to come forward or be caught, what happens if people agree to pay the fine but don't actually pay it, does the 'amnesty that isn't amnesty' apply to people who enter the country illegally after passage of the law, does this go hand in had with strengthening the border?
That's a lot of questions needing answers before I could even begin to determine if I support the plan.
If you think that I am misunderstanding Rand Paul in some way, explain how that is the case.
What I think, Mark, is that you have an internal mischaracterization of most conservatives, the GOP and the Tea Party. This mischaracterization skews your thoughts.
That when you claim the GOP needs to 'moderate' you see this moderation as the GOP needing to turn left and get somewhere into Democrat-lite land.
Thus when Rand Paul says something that seems, to you, to be pointing towards that Dem-lite area, you automatically think that many of the right would be inherently opposed to this.
So let me repeat something said at the very begining of this post:
Of course since Mark creates his own conversations with conservatives he really doesn't know that many conservatives (or conservative as compared to Mark) don't disagree that the GOP needs to change. Kinda that whole Tea Party thing was a big group of R's and others who were dissatisfied with the GOP. He probably also doesn't know that at least a couple of his 'conservative' commentors refer to the GOP as the stupid party. Hmmm, almost like they also think the GOP needs to change.
Count me in as one who thinks the GOP needs to change.
But let me ask you this Mark.
If I agree with Rand Paul and at the same time I disagree with you - doesn't that mean that you and he aren't saying the same thing?
Of course, I recognize that I could be misunderstanding either Paul's position or yours when making that statement.
You on the other hand vehemently deny that you could misunderstand anything.
Which one of those is the more honest position?
What I think, Mark, is that you have an internal mischaracterization of most conservatives, the GOP and the Tea Party. This mischaracterization skews your thoughts.
Well, you guys are always the ones who say that words have meanings. All I do is let conservatives talk and they pretty much do a great job of letting everyone know where they stand. It's rooted in so much anger, hate, fear and dishonesty that it makes me ill. You say it's a mischaracterization but what I think is really going on here is embarrassment. I don't blame you given the downright awful shit they do and say.
If I agree with Rand Paul and at the same time I disagree with you - doesn't that mean that you and he aren't saying the same thing?
It depends on the issue. There are things he stands for that I do disagree with and would never support. His message here, though, is for the GOP to be more inclusive. So, the question is, do you think that is something that has to happen and if so, how? His starting point is immigration.
Look at how immigration laws have changed over the years...
It isn't that it changes from one thing to another - it is the ambiguity that Rubio plays with, that you eat up.
What kind of game would tennis be if one player could change in to be out whenever he wanted it to be - but not the other player.
It depends on the issue.
See, you aren't even following along here.....
THE VERY SAME ISSUE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
I'm not following you, GD. You're going to need to stop being coy and explain exactly how if you and Rand Paul agree on immigration how that it is in disagreement with me.
I'm not following you, GD.
That's because you don't pay attention.
You're going to need to stop being coy and explain exactly how if you and Rand Paul agree on ....how that it is in disagreement with me.
Already did that.....
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/13/rand-pauls-prediction-about-future-presidential-elections-may-frighten-half-the-country/#
You say the GOP needs to moderate. You claim Paul is saying the same thing.... HE IS NOT saying the GOP needs to be Democrat-lite.
For fucks sake.
Then what do you think he means when he says he wants the party to be more diverse and inclusive? How will that be accomplished?
I never said he wanted it to be Democrat lite but I suppose that's how you see any sort of compromise or change. Let's take a look at this again.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/rand-paul-texas-could-turn-blue-103292.html?hp=l1
“What I do believe is Texas is going to be a Democrat state within 10 years if we don’t change,” Paul (R-Ky.), who grew up in Texas, said at a dinner held by the Harris County GOP. “That means we evolve, it doesn’t mean we give up on what we believe in, but it means we have to be a welcoming party.”
“We won’t all agree on it,” he said. “But I’ll tell you, what I will say and what I’ll continue to say, and it’s not an exact policy prescription … but if you want to work and you want a job and you want to be part of America, we’ll find a place for you.”
“Doesn’t mean I don’t believe in securing the border first, doesn’t mean I don’t believe it’s important we have a secure country,” he said. “But it does mean we have to have a different attitude.”
More people applauded when he quoted his colleague, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah): “Immigrants are assets, not liabilities. We were all immigrants once.”
And this is different from what I am saying...how, exactly? I completely agree with this would support Senator Paul if he turned these assertions into policy. Would you?
I never said he wanted it to be Democrat lite but I suppose that's how you see any sort of compromise or change. Let's take a look at this again.
No, you said the GOP needed to 'moderate' and then held up Paul as an example of a GOP member saying 'the same thing as you said'. You may agree with what he says, but that doesn't mean he is saying the same thing as you...
How are the quotes above different from what I have been saying?
Well, then you better define EXACTLY what you mean by 'moderate'.
I, from long experience with what you say, take when you say 'moderate' to be a big fucking different thing from anything that Rand Paul would say.
Further, when you say the GOP needs to 'moderate', you leave it at that - that is an awfully broad and non-defined statement. Unless one goes off of what you consider to be 'moderate' positions.....like you considering your position to be the fifty yard line, the Tea party to be extremists and the GOP in general to be too far right.
So that kind of leaves readers to extrapolate that when you say 'moderate' you mean something along the lines of what you would consider to be a moderate position.....
Which again is nothing that Rand Paul would agree with.
So again, YOU may agree with this ONE particular statement by Rand Paul, but it is in no way a case of Rand Paul agreeing with YOUR position.
I'd say his statement above about finding a place for you echoes Rubio's legislation that contains a path to citizenship. That's what I mean by moderate. Paul is essentially stating that the GOP is going to have to give on immigration otherwise they are going to lose every presidential election. He's absolutely right.
Something else to consider...Paul also has much in common with the far left in terms of government spying on phones and computers. Why is it such a problem if I try to find some common ground with Senator Paul? Do you fear compromise that much?
Post a Comment