out of touch republicans

Jeanwah

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBy3MbP4WDo

gimmesometruth27

guess this guy does not know that the word "wetbacks" is, and always has been, a slur... :fp: :fp:


seriously, wtf?

Republican Congressman Refers to Latinos as "Wetbacks"

http://news.yahoo.com/republican-congre ... itics.html

The Republican Party has embarked on an effort to re-brand itself to a more diverse set of voters, but one GOP congressman apparently did not get the memo.

Rep. Don Young (Alaska) referred to Latinos using the racial slur "wetbacks" in an interview with public radio station KRBD that was published on Thursday.

Young, 79, used the term when discussing how automation in industry has taken away jobs from working-class individuals.

"I used to own -- my father had a ranch. We used to hire 50 to 60 wetbacks to pick tomatoes," he said. "You know, it takes two people to pick the same tomatoes now."

Young's use of the derogatory term for Mexican migrant workers could not have come at a worse time for his party.

The Republican National Committee released a post-election report that called on the party to present a friendlier face to voters from different racial and ethnic groups, so that it can compete for their votes. And a number of Republicans have jumped on board with an immigration reform effort underway in Congress.

"If Hispanic Americans perceive that a GOP nominee or candidate does not want them in the United States (i.e. self-deportation), they will not pay attention to our next sentence," the report reads. "It does not matter what we say about education, jobs or the economy; if Hispanics think we do not want them here, they will close their ears to our policies."

In a statement, Young did not apologize for his use of the term but he explained that it came from his time growing up in a bygone era. Young also called on Congress to address immigration reform, since migrant workers "play an important role in America's workforce."

"I used a term that was commonly used during my days growing up on a farm in central California," he said. "I know that this term is not used in the same way nowadays and I meant no disrespect."

JimmyV

Here we have an in touch Republican describing how out of touch many are when it comes to President Obama:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/artic ... t-serious/

Barack Obama is a serious man. Yes, he likes to golf, and yes, he ran a campaign with cutesy Facebook pictures and seemingly inane Flash slideshows like “Life of Julia.” No, he does not seem interested in the mechanics of legislation, nor does he seem adept at negotiation. But the weird condescension his opponents display toward him is ludicrously wrongheaded. They seem eager to believe he is a lightweight, and he is not. Obama is very possibly a world-historical political figure, and until those who oppose him come to grips with this fact, they will get him wrong every time.

The common idea during his first term—peddled by, among others, Mitt Romney as he sought a way to criticize the president that would not offend too many people—that Obama “is a nice guy but in over his head” is entirely backward. Barack Obama almost certainly isn’t a nice guy (even his admiring biographers are consistent in describing his friendlessness and icy hauteur).

And you should only be in over your head so much. After a single statewide election, Obama has now won absolute majorities in two successive national tallies with a combined vote total of 135 million. He has much of the media in his pocket; he has his party in his thrall; he escapes responsibility for failures that would sink other politicians; he muscled the most important piece of legislation in decades into law; and with a 20 percent increase in federal spending levels, he has ended the political age in which a Democrat would say “the era of big government is over” (Bill Clinton, 1996). That isn’t luck. It’s skill. Rare skill. Political genius of a kind.

Meanwhile, that vaunted private-sector genius Mitt Romney proved to be so inept as the chief executive of his own campaign that his polling was based on faulty assumptions that could easily have been corrected, his get-out-the-vote machine failed because it had never been tested, and his Facebook page crashed. (Not to kick a fellow when he’s down, but this would seem to give the lie to the idea, voiced frequently in the wake of his defeat, that Romney would have been a good president because he is so competent a manager.)

To paraphrase Sun Tzu, you need to know your political antagonist if you are to prevail against him—and you need to know yourself. The truth is that Barack Obama and his liberal followers have been doing very serious work over the past four years, and the same cannot be said, alas, of far too many people who oppose them.

It’s not just the comforting delusion that he’s a golf-mad dilettante, but also the reverse-negative image of that delusion—that Obama is a not-so-secret Marxist Kenyan with dictatorial ambitions and a nearly limitless appetite for power. That caricature makes it far too easy for Obama to laugh off the legitimate criticisms of the kind of political leader he really is: a conventional post-1960s left-liberal with limited interest in the private sector and the gut sense that government must and should do more, whatever “more” might mean at any given moment.

The notion that Obama is a dangerous extremist helps him, because it makes him seem reasonable and his critics foolish. It also helps those who peddle it, because it makes them notorious and helps them sell their wares. But it has done perhaps irreparable harm to the central conservative cause of the present moment—making the case that Obama’s social-democratic statism is setting the United States on a course for disaster and that his anti-exceptionalist foreign policy is setting the world on a course for nihilistic chaos. Those are serious arguments, befitting a serious antagonist. They may not sell gold coins as quickly and as well as excessive alarmism, but they have the inestimable advantage of being true.

Barack Obama is a serious man. The professional and political right needs to be as serious as he is to make sure the Age of Obama ends with him.

PJ_Soul

JimmyV wrote:

Here we have an in touch Republican describing how out of touch many are when it comes to President Obama:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/artic ... t-serious/

Barack Obama is a serious man. Yes, he likes to golf, and yes, he ran a campaign with cutesy Facebook pictures and seemingly inane Flash slideshows like “Life of Julia.” No, he does not seem interested in the mechanics of legislation, nor does he seem adept at negotiation. But the weird condescension his opponents display toward him is ludicrously wrongheaded. They seem eager to believe he is a lightweight, and he is not. Obama is very possibly a world-historical political figure, and until those who oppose him come to grips with this fact, they will get him wrong every time.

The common idea during his first term—peddled by, among others, Mitt Romney as he sought a way to criticize the president that would not offend too many people—that Obama “is a nice guy but in over his head” is entirely backward. Barack Obama almost certainly isn’t a nice guy (even his admiring biographers are consistent in describing his friendlessness and icy hauteur).

And you should only be in over your head so much. After a single statewide election, Obama has now won absolute majorities in two successive national tallies with a combined vote total of 135 million. He has much of the media in his pocket; he has his party in his thrall; he escapes responsibility for failures that would sink other politicians; he muscled the most important piece of legislation in decades into law; and with a 20 percent increase in federal spending levels, he has ended the political age in which a Democrat would say “the era of big government is over” (Bill Clinton, 1996). That isn’t luck. It’s skill. Rare skill. Political genius of a kind.

Meanwhile, that vaunted private-sector genius Mitt Romney proved to be so inept as the chief executive of his own campaign that his polling was based on faulty assumptions that could easily have been corrected, his get-out-the-vote machine failed because it had never been tested, and his Facebook page crashed. (Not to kick a fellow when he’s down, but this would seem to give the lie to the idea, voiced frequently in the wake of his defeat, that Romney would have been a good president because he is so competent a manager.)

To paraphrase Sun Tzu, you need to know your political antagonist if you are to prevail against him—and you need to know yourself. The truth is that Barack Obama and his liberal followers have been doing very serious work over the past four years, and the same cannot be said, alas, of far too many people who oppose them.

It’s not just the comforting delusion that he’s a golf-mad dilettante, but also the reverse-negative image of that delusion—that Obama is a not-so-secret Marxist Kenyan with dictatorial ambitions and a nearly limitless appetite for power. That caricature makes it far too easy for Obama to laugh off the legitimate criticisms of the kind of political leader he really is: a conventional post-1960s left-liberal with limited interest in the private sector and the gut sense that government must and should do more, whatever “more” might mean at any given moment.

The notion that Obama is a dangerous extremist helps him, because it makes him seem reasonable and his critics foolish. It also helps those who peddle it, because it makes them notorious and helps them sell their wares. But it has done perhaps irreparable harm to the central conservative cause of the present moment—making the case that Obama’s social-democratic statism is setting the United States on a course for disaster and that his anti-exceptionalist foreign policy is setting the world on a course for nihilistic chaos. Those are serious arguments, befitting a serious antagonist. They may not sell gold coins as quickly and as well as excessive alarmism, but they have the inestimable advantage of being true.

Barack Obama is a serious man. The professional and political right needs to be as serious as he is to make sure the Age of Obama ends with him.

This article is doing exactly what it is trying to criticize.

JimmyV

PJ_Soul wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Here we have an in touch Republican describing how out of touch many are when it comes to President Obama:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/artic ... t-serious/

Barack Obama is a serious man. Yes, he likes to golf, and yes, he ran a campaign with cutesy Facebook pictures and seemingly inane Flash slideshows like “Life of Julia.” No, he does not seem interested in the mechanics of legislation, nor does he seem adept at negotiation. But the weird condescension his opponents display toward him is ludicrously wrongheaded. They seem eager to believe he is a lightweight, and he is not. Obama is very possibly a world-historical political figure, and until those who oppose him come to grips with this fact, they will get him wrong every time.

The common idea during his first term—peddled by, among others, Mitt Romney as he sought a way to criticize the president that would not offend too many people—that Obama “is a nice guy but in over his head” is entirely backward. Barack Obama almost certainly isn’t a nice guy (even his admiring biographers are consistent in describing his friendlessness and icy hauteur).

And you should only be in over your head so much. After a single statewide election, Obama has now won absolute majorities in two successive national tallies with a combined vote total of 135 million. He has much of the media in his pocket; he has his party in his thrall; he escapes responsibility for failures that would sink other politicians; he muscled the most important piece of legislation in decades into law; and with a 20 percent increase in federal spending levels, he has ended the political age in which a Democrat would say “the era of big government is over” (Bill Clinton, 1996). That isn’t luck. It’s skill. Rare skill. Political genius of a kind.

Meanwhile, that vaunted private-sector genius Mitt Romney proved to be so inept as the chief executive of his own campaign that his polling was based on faulty assumptions that could easily have been corrected, his get-out-the-vote machine failed because it had never been tested, and his Facebook page crashed. (Not to kick a fellow when he’s down, but this would seem to give the lie to the idea, voiced frequently in the wake of his defeat, that Romney would have been a good president because he is so competent a manager.)

To paraphrase Sun Tzu, you need to know your political antagonist if you are to prevail against him—and you need to know yourself. The truth is that Barack Obama and his liberal followers have been doing very serious work over the past four years, and the same cannot be said, alas, of far too many people who oppose them.

It’s not just the comforting delusion that he’s a golf-mad dilettante, but also the reverse-negative image of that delusion—that Obama is a not-so-secret Marxist Kenyan with dictatorial ambitions and a nearly limitless appetite for power. That caricature makes it far too easy for Obama to laugh off the legitimate criticisms of the kind of political leader he really is: a conventional post-1960s left-liberal with limited interest in the private sector and the gut sense that government must and should do more, whatever “more” might mean at any given moment.

The notion that Obama is a dangerous extremist helps him, because it makes him seem reasonable and his critics foolish. It also helps those who peddle it, because it makes them notorious and helps them sell their wares. But it has done perhaps irreparable harm to the central conservative cause of the present moment—making the case that Obama’s social-democratic statism is setting the United States on a course for disaster and that his anti-exceptionalist foreign policy is setting the world on a course for nihilistic chaos. Those are serious arguments, befitting a serious antagonist. They may not sell gold coins as quickly and as well as excessive alarmism, but they have the inestimable advantage of being true.

Barack Obama is a serious man. The professional and political right needs to be as serious as he is to make sure the Age of Obama ends with him.

This article is doing exactly what it is trying to criticize.

To an extent, sure. But I think anytime we get:

But the weird condescension his opponents display toward him is ludicrously wrongheaded. They seem eager to believe he is a lightweight, and he is not. Obama is very possibly a world-historical political figure, and until those who oppose him come to grips with this fact, they will get him wrong every time.

and

The truth is that Barack Obama and his liberal followers have been doing very serious work over the past four years, and the same cannot be said, alas, of far too many people who oppose them.

and

It’s not just the comforting delusion that he’s a golf-mad dilettante, but also the reverse-negative image of that delusion—that Obama is a not-so-secret Marxist Kenyan with dictatorial ambitions and a nearly limitless appetite for power.

it is worth noting. Given the state of the GOP as a whole this is what passes for positive.

Jeanwah

JimmyV wrote:

Here we have an in touch Republican describing how out of touch many are when it comes to President Obama:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/artic ... t-serious/

Barack Obama is a serious man. Yes, he likes to golf, and yes, he ran a campaign with cutesy Facebook pictures and seemingly inane Flash slideshows like “Life of Julia.” No, he does not seem interested in the mechanics of legislation, nor does he seem adept at negotiation. But the weird condescension his opponents display toward him is ludicrously wrongheaded. They seem eager to believe he is a lightweight, and he is not. Obama is very possibly a world-historical political figure, and until those who oppose him come to grips with this fact, they will get him wrong every time.

The common idea during his first term—peddled by, among others, Mitt Romney as he sought a way to criticize the president that would not offend too many people—that Obama “is a nice guy but in over his head” is entirely backward. Barack Obama almost certainly isn’t a nice guy (even his admiring biographers are consistent in describing his friendlessness and icy hauteur).

And you should only be in over your head so much. After a single statewide election, Obama has now won absolute majorities in two successive national tallies with a combined vote total of 135 million. He has much of the media in his pocket; he has his party in his thrall; he escapes responsibility for failures that would sink other politicians; he muscled the most important piece of legislation in decades into law; and with a 20 percent increase in federal spending levels, he has ended the political age in which a Democrat would say “the era of big government is over” (Bill Clinton, 1996). That isn’t luck. It’s skill. Rare skill. Political genius of a kind.

Meanwhile, that vaunted private-sector genius Mitt Romney proved to be so inept as the chief executive of his own campaign that his polling was based on faulty assumptions that could easily have been corrected, his get-out-the-vote machine failed because it had never been tested, and his Facebook page crashed. (Not to kick a fellow when he’s down, but this would seem to give the lie to the idea, voiced frequently in the wake of his defeat, that Romney would have been a good president because he is so competent a manager.)

To paraphrase Sun Tzu, you need to know your political antagonist if you are to prevail against him—and you need to know yourself. The truth is that Barack Obama and his liberal followers have been doing very serious work over the past four years, and the same cannot be said, alas, of far too many people who oppose them.

It’s not just the comforting delusion that he’s a golf-mad dilettante, but also the reverse-negative image of that delusion—that Obama is a not-so-secret Marxist Kenyan with dictatorial ambitions and a nearly limitless appetite for power. That caricature makes it far too easy for Obama to laugh off the legitimate criticisms of the kind of political leader he really is: a conventional post-1960s left-liberal with limited interest in the private sector and the gut sense that government must and should do more, whatever “more” might mean at any given moment.

The notion that Obama is a dangerous extremist helps him, because it makes him seem reasonable and his critics foolish. It also helps those who peddle it, because it makes them notorious and helps them sell their wares. But it has done perhaps irreparable harm to the central conservative cause of the present moment—making the case that Obama’s social-democratic statism is setting the United States on a course for disaster and that his anti-exceptionalist foreign policy is setting the world on a course for nihilistic chaos. Those are serious arguments, befitting a serious antagonist. They may not sell gold coins as quickly and as well as excessive alarmism, but they have the inestimable advantage of being true.

Barack Obama is a serious man. The professional and political right needs to be as serious as he is to make sure the Age of Obama ends with him.

Make your own thread if you want to talk about in-touch republicans. This is not the place for it.

JimmyV

Jeanwah wrote:

Make your own thread if you want to talk about in-touch republicans. This is not the place for it.

Good point my bad.

Jeanwah

JimmyV wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

Make your own thread if you want to talk about in-touch republicans. This is not the place for it.

Good point my bad.

gimmesometruth27

article about how michele bachmann is continually hurting the gop efforts to re-brand itself. people like her are killing the party.


The Michele Bachmann sideshow is hurting the GOP

http://news.yahoo.com/michele-bachmann- ... 00373.html

The Minnesota lawmaker alienates independents, moderates, and young voters — and she's not going anywhere

Attention GOP: Your rebranding attempts are being undercut by a segment of your party getting big headlines and lots of air time — a segment symbolized by the Minnesota quote-machine, Rep. Michele Bachmann. Due to a series of gaffes, she is again on the receiving end of criticism, including from Fox News powerhouse Bill O'Reilly. The Congresswoman is also, as reported by The Daily Beast's John Avlon, "embroiled in a litany of legal proceedings related to her rolling disaster of a presidential campaign — including an Office of Congressional Ethics investigation into campaign improprieties." It's almost as if Bachmann is a Democratic mole embedded in the Republican Party with the purpose of chasing away a wide range of voters.

Her latest sound-bite-producing comment, this time on ObamaCare, begged for audio accompaniment of the Twilight Zone theme. Try to imagine it: "Let's repeal this failure before it literally kills women, kills children, kills senior citizens. Let's not do that. Let's love people. Let's care about people. Let's repeal it now while we can."

While some Republicans have distanced themselves from Bachmann — or fled altogether, as Republican campaign consultant Ed Rollins did from her ill-fated presidential campaign last year — she is still popular with GOPers who condone the paranoia-tinged political rhetoric that alienates independents, centrists, moderates, and many young people. Such rhetoric is in full display in too-out-there-for-Fox Glenn Beck's theory that the real reason Bachmann is being investigated is because a faction of "radical Islam" embedded in the U.S. government is out to get her.

But, no, it's not what "they" are doing to Bachmann but, once again, what Bachmann is doing to herself.

Her name has repeatedly been splashed in headlines because of her sensationalist statements that destroy her credibility. Many pundits considered her a conservative extremist when she entered the 2012 presidential race, yet (with Rollins' help) she eventually took the lead. But when it came time to broaden her appeal, she wasn't able to ditch the primary-speak to appeal to anyone but the Tea Party and other Republicans who are fond of the talk-show circuit. Thus, the majority of Republican primary voters decided she was not a viable national candidate.

"Bachmann committed no major gaffe to lose that lead, no revelation of old affairs, like Herman Cain, or inability to debate well, like Rick Perry," says Joel Mathis at the Philly Post. "Instead, what seemed to put off GOP supporters was the same thing that's always alarmed the rest of us about Michele Bachmann: She seemed just a little crazy."

Aaron Astor, an associate professor of history at Maryville College, has seen a major shift in how generations communicate — which does not bode well for Bachmann or the Tea Party-flavored Republican Party.

"People under the age of 40 thrive on irony," he told me. "That's why Stephen Colbert and The Daily Show are so popular. The Fox News/talk show world is decidedly un-ironic. Once upon a time it had a certain mocking humor and edge to it — mostly in the late 1980s when conservative comedy was still somewhat edgy. But Hannity is pure smarm and has zero appeal to younger people, regardless of ideology. Preachy, soap-box hollering is the stuff of Baby Boomer politics."

Andrew Sullivan also once asserted that "the bitter, brutal tone of American politics comes from... the Baby Boomers. The divide is still — amazingly — between those who fought in Vietnam and those who didn't, and between those who fought and dissented and those who fought but never dissented at all."

Many baby boomer media and politicos remain hopelessly mired in those 1960s and 1970s resentments. And Bachmann, born in 1956, is most decidedly a baby boomer — and perhaps even a caricature of one. She speaks in apocalyptic terms about President Obama and Democrats. She has never met an inaccuracy or exaggeration she didn't like in her thirst to negatively define the other side. (Factcheckers following her speeches may soon have to seek workmen's compensation.) Even her way of speaking seems to resemble the late Gilda Radner playing Rosanne Rosannadanna on Saturday Night Live.

As The Daily Beast's Avlon sees it, the ethics investigation "adds an additional indignity to the self-inflicted disasters of her political career. Demagoguery eventually brings dishonor. And her most passionate supporters ought to consider what it means when the people who know Bachmann best respect her the least."

Does all this mean Bachmann won't get re-elected? No it doesn't. The way her district is set up, she has nothing to worry about. Bachmann will likely be around for a while, maybe even for another doomed presidential bid. She'll get the sound bites and make headlines. Voters that the GOP needs will continue to see her and be reminded of the party's lack of inclusiveness. And many will decide to steer clear of the GOP — and its off-putting sideshow.

mikepegg44

if there ever was a poster child for out of touch republican it is Bachmann. Fucking crazy eye in that one...

gimmesometruth27

mikepegg44 wrote:

if there ever was a poster child for out of touch republican it is Bachmann. Fucking crazy eye in that one...

and she is going to be in office until she retires or loses an election for senate. she has a solid hold on her district.

this is the sad result of gerrymandering.

Jason P

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

if there ever was a poster child for out of touch republican it is Bachmann. Fucking crazy eye in that one...

and she is going to be in office until she retires or loses an election for senate. she has a solid hold on her district.

this is the sad result of gerrymandering.

She only won by 4,200 votes in the last election. And that's after spending $25M on her campaign, the most by anyone in congress.

In 2010 she won by 12%

I think she will go down soon.

If not, is this not a prime example on why America is dumb for not uniting in favor of term limits?

mikepegg44

Jason P wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

if there ever was a poster child for out of touch republican it is Bachmann. Fucking crazy eye in that one...

and she is going to be in office until she retires or loses an election for senate. she has a solid hold on her district.

this is the sad result of gerrymandering.

She only won by 4,200 votes in the last election. And that's after spending $25M on her campaign, the most by anyone in congress.

In 2010 she won by 12%

I think she will go down soon.

If not, is this not a prime example on why America is dumb for not uniting in favor of term limits?

She would only be truly scary if she had a group of ~ 250 GOP Reps that were in agreement with some of her crazier policies...say what now, she already has that? shit.


Bachmann will be ousted, she won't have Obama and homosexuality to run against next time. Her add campaigns were relentless and I doubt most people in her district would have been able to name her opponent.
She will lose, I think the DFL (democratic farm and labor party) in Minnesota will make it a priority.

OnTheEdge

Funny how when someone wants to end killing unborn babies they're labeled as "out of touch". Sad planet we live on.

Now you can even get a late term gender related abortion.

Whoot whoot. Go liberals!

PJ_Soul

OnTheEdge wrote:

Now you can even get a late term gender related abortion.

Where? Not where I live. Most liberals do NOT support such a thing at all. On the contrary.

OnTheEdge

PJ_Soul wrote:

OnTheEdge wrote:

Now you can even get a late term gender related abortion.

Where? Not where I live. Most liberals do NOT support such a thing at all. On the contrary.

Planned Parenthood....Fuck Yeah!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rw6lk9kdPak

PJ_Soul

OnTheEdge wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

OnTheEdge wrote:

Now you can even get a late term gender related abortion.

Where? Not where I live. Most liberals do NOT support such a thing at all. On the contrary.

Planned Parenthood....Fuck Yeah!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rw6lk9kdPak

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/planne ... still-do1/
(I am strongly pro-choice, but I personally oppose gender selection completely (and late-term abortions) and it should be illegal where it's not already - please do NOT go around accusing "liberals" for shit when it has nothing to do with what the "liberal" view is)

OnTheEdge

So you're ok with killing an unborn child as long as it's at the right time and for the right reason. Whatever. :roll:

PJ_Soul

OnTheEdge wrote:

So you're ok with killing an unborn child as long as it's at the right time and for the right reason. Whatever. :roll:

Yes, I think that before the central nervous system isn't not functional, it is not a viable life. If someone has a problem with killing a fetus before 14 weeks, then they better have a problem eating or killing anything living cells that exist on the planet. And you're ok with telling women what they can and can't do with their own bodies. Whatever. :roll:

OnTheEdge

Yeah....i'm out of touch I guess