gop inclusion
Politico.com:

Poor Reince Priebus. After Mitt Romney’s loss to Barack Obama in 2012, Priebus, the head of the Republican National Committee, touted his shiny new 100-page report on reinventing the GOP at the National Press Club in March 2013. It was called the “Growth and Opportunity Project.” Priebus’ message was earnest and direct: The GOP needed to practice inclusion, not exclusion, if it was to have any chance of winning the presidency. “We need to campaign among Hispanic, black, Asian, and gay Americans and demonstrate we care about them, too,” the report said. “We must recruit more candidates who come from minority communities. But it is not just tone that counts. Policy always matters.”

That was then. In the meantime, the GOP’s leading presidential contenders have serially and successfully thumbed their collective noses at the party establishment. Already Donald Trump and Ben Carson have upended the race with stands like castigating illegal immigrants. But amid widespread fear of terrorism triggered by the horrific terrorist attacks in Paris, the GOP is now mired in its ugliest intra-party debate yet—about whether Muslims living in the United States constitute a potential Fifth Column.

 

Like many of the ills afflicting the GOP, the party establishment is once more being outflanked by its militant wing, which has long depicted Muslims as first and foremost loyal not to America but to Islamic Sharia law. And once again, establishment candidates like Jeb Bush are trying to placate anti-Muslim advocates while shunning the most extreme aspects of their program. Still, whether Trump and Carson really believe in their gibberish about Muslims-Americans is almost beside the point: If they score electoral successes, they will reshape the GOP in their own image. And to some extent they already are.

To be sure, Carson’s likening some Muslim refugees to “rabid” dogs and Trump’s musings, which he has attempted to rescind, about creating a federal registry for Muslim-Americans—how would he even decide who was or was not truly a Muslim; by drawing on the 1935 Nuremberg Race Laws?—are triggering something of a backlash on the mainstream right. Jeb Bush, for example, said that Trump’s call for a database was “abhorrent.” Texas Sen. Ted Cruz chimed in, “I’m not a fan of government registries of American citizens.” And National Review columnist Maggie Gallagher declared, “Sorry Trump, people have a right to be Muslim-American.”

Here’s the real problem as I see it.  Correct me if I am wrong.   Many of the rank and file people who identify with the GOP don’t particularly like the people they are supposed to be including and those people don’t like them.  How can they include more gays if  they fundamentally don’t like gays, at least up close?

I think Reince Priebus is asking the party to be something its not.  He is right, however.  As America becomes more diverse, in greater numbers, it is going to be impossible for  party comprised of aging white people to transform themselves into a party that simply goes against its own grain.

I can’t stand either party.  I like individuals in both but I can’t stand the group-think you have to belong to in order to play in either sand box.     I tend to vote Democratic more than Republican because of Republicans being lock step and dogmatic.  Local elections allow me to be more flexible because many of my big ticket items are national in scope rather than local….at least for now.

The Republicans also always offer the best show on the road to the White House.  I mean…who seriously wants to watch the Democratic debates.  I fell asleep.  It was all too much about policy.  The Republicans, on the other hand, always offer a good show.  Where would we be without our rabid dog comparisons, and the Donald insulting someone.  Poor Jeb Bush doesn’t have a prayer getting through the primary season.  He is far too normal and plus he is named B-U-S-H.  Enough.  Mainstream just isn’t appealing to many of the GOP identifiers.   Was it Steve who said Americans are in rebellion?  They like people who suggest things, even though those said things aren’t possible to do.

I wish I could wiggle my nose and have the election behind us.  The amount of money spent is obscene.  The candidates are mostly unsavory, and the issues unoriginal and confined  to party dogma.  I am not just talking about the Republicans.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

gop inclusion

45 Thoughts to “What happened to the GOP becoming more inclusive?”

  1. Steve Thomas

    Populism is very popular on both sides of the isle. Primary politics are a poor yardstick by which to measure the health of each party, as it is the so-called “base” which decides who will be the respective nominee. The GOP candidates who are faring the best are the ones speaking directly to the far-right of the base. The Democratic candidates each try to run to the left of each other, and they themselves are speaking in very populist terms, but from a left-wing perspective.

    The democrat base either wants to continue the Obama fundamental transformation of our society, or doesn’t believe it was aggressively pursed enough. This is why their three ( think about that for a moment) candidates range from extremely liberal, to a full-blown socialist. The GOP base sees what has happened over the last seven years, sees any who have compromised with the administration as “sell-outs” and will reject any candidate seen as having ties to the “establishment”. Rience Priebus is despised by the base.

    I know you don’t like to view things in “Left vs. Right” terms, but much of the electorate does indeed view it in these terms. Sadly, I don’t see any candidate in either party who can unite the nation, if this is even possible anymore. The pendulum swings left. The pendulum swings right. But the pendulum never stops smack in the middle.

    I also think our society is coming unglued, but that’s a different conversation to have.

    1. Steve said, “Rience Priebus is despised by the base.” The base, whatever that is, also despised Michael Steele. I think Republicans generally despise their party chairman far worse than Democrats do (despise theirs)

      I am not sure why either. Maybe its where they get them from.

      Steve, don’t you think that the GOP always puts on a better primary show than the Democrats?

      I think I lost the point about inclusion…I just don’t think the GOP wants to be inclusive and any attempts to make it so are really artificial.

  2. Starry flights

    Meeting about Virginia mosque exposes deep divide

    For 27 years, members of the Islamic Center of Fredericksburg have lived in relative peace with their neighbors on a country road in rural Spotsylvania County.

    At least until last week, when, during a community meeting about their plans to build a bigger mosque nearby, they found themselves defending their right to exist. The meeting was intended to address traffic concerns around the proposed religious center but instead was taken over by half a dozen angry protesters calling the Muslim residents terrorists.

    The outbursts of hatred came amid rising calls across the country to pause or end resettlement of Muslim refugees in the United States. Fredericksburg and the counties surrounding it have become popular places for Middle Eastern refugees lured by low housing prices and available jobs. But the fast-growing area 50 miles south of Washington retains a conservative and rural character.

    “You can see our problem,” Samer Shalaby said Friday before prayers, gesturing toward the rows of cars parked along a dirt road next to the center. A trustee of the Islamic Center and an engineer, Shalaby has lived in Fredericksburg for 30 years. When he arrived, he said, there were few traffic lights and even fewer Muslims.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/in-fredericksburg-mosque-meeting-exposes-deep-divide/2015/11/22/0b8e0386-9074-11e5-baf4-bdf37355da0c_story.html

    Appalling and disgusting that this would happen in our state. The people of Fredericksberg must learn to respect our nation’s constitution.

    1. I agree, Starry. I expect the same fight will continue here in Prince William since there are plans in the work for a new mosque on Vint Hill Road. Right now the attack is mild….the road is too narrow etc. It isn’t too narrow for an existing church right across the street however. The invasion of churches into the Rural Crescent isn’t an issue since a mega church is planned for route 15. Did I mention it is a Catholic church?

  3. Steve Thomas

    @Moon-howler
    Moon,

    The divide between the base and the party had closed in the Post Reagan years. Cracks began to develop during the 1996 presidential cycle as Bob Dole was backed at the RNC level, and lost. Bush 43 managed to close the gap during his nomination run, but the gap again formed during Bush’s 2nd term over expansion of social programs, the Patriot act, creation of DHS, and increased spending. The base believed, rightly or wrongly, that this set the stage for the election of Obama. I believe this only tells part of the story. Obama tapped a new block of younger voters, as well as 1st time black voters, while the disaffected conservatives within the GOP base refused to support “moderate” McCain and Romney. They believed it was the RNC “establishment” not to mention “establishment Republicans” within the media who had the money and influence to “foist” these nominees on the base, and blamed the RNC chairs for making or allowing this to happen.

    As far as primaries go, I have long argued that the GOP offers a wider array of presidential candidates to choose from, as the GOP has historically had a much deeper bench. Maybe this is why you believe they provide a better “show”. The fact that currently the GOP has 4 times the number seeking the nomination than do the Democrats illustrates this point. Going back to 1980, if you look at each party, you will see the GOP tends to have more candidates than the Democrats, although this cycle the numerical difference is more stark.

    I read an interesting study/poll, which attempts to explain the Trump phenomenon: http://spotlight.ipsos-na.com/index.php/news/the-rise-of-neo-nativism-putting-trump-into-proper-context/

    As I have said before: A portion of the country is in revolt. On the right, individuals are revolting against the “Fundamental Transformation” that has occurred under this administration, and against those who either enabled or refused to stop it. On the left, you have those who believe this transformation failed to go far enough, and believe issues of race, class, gender, and sexual orientation, need to be settled now. This explains Trump, Sanders and Black Lives Matter, which I believe is just the evolved, or perhaps devolved, Occupy Movement. Place this in a world with growing international instability and uncertainty, there is plenty of tinder piled dangerously high.

    For now, most are placing their hopes in the next election. What people fail to realize is regardless of which side wins, there will be a significant part of the population whose motivations will go unfulfilled. They won’t just go home and resume living their lives. If Trump or some other conservative GOP candidate (no moderate has a chance this cycle), do you think he or she will address the concerns of BLM in a manner acceptable to this movement? If Sanders or Clinton win, do you think they will address the concerns of the conservative GOP base?
    Regardless of outcome, the divide is deep and wide, and getting worse. I don’t like where this road leads historically. I hope I am wrong.

    1. Paragraph 1: strongly agree
      paragraph 2: agree
      paragraph 3: I think the GOP has been in revolt since Jimmy Carter. I have not seen any easing up here. I heard the same woeful story about Fundamental Transformation under Bill Clinton.

      paragraph 4: Agreed with some editorializing–I was sitting here thinking…why is Steve talking about the Bureau of Land Management…oooops. I agree. No one will satisfy that group. They turned on the very people who might have been sympathetic. Now its just fake. I think Clinton might address some concerns of the GOP–not many but a few. Clinton is a moderate, although you wouldn’t believe it now.

      The divide is deeper and worsening. You are right. However, I hope I see the emergence of a middle party. We can’t have the extremes setting the tone for this country. I think that No Labels might have actually started to address that. I have felt partyless for over a decade, in some ways. On the other hand, as the GOP moves farther right, I feel its more difficult to find any common ground there. As BLM attempts to grab the reins, I find it increasingly difficult to find common ground there also.

  4. Scout

    I used to think the word “base” meant the “core” or “foundation” of the Party. Today’s brand of politics lead me to realize that “the base” has quite another meaning, relating to its meanest, most vile, lowest common denominator qualities. Steve’s analysis in his first comment strikes me as generally correct, but the problem I am seeing for the GOP is that the transition from primary to general election politics is much more abrupt and jarring for us than it is for Democrats. Romney was a superb candidate on paper, but he simply could not make the transitions. The Democrats’ “base” seems to be closer to the general electorate mood than is the Republican base. Hillary Clinton can campaign in the primaries as a center to right Democrat and it does her little harm with the Democratic primary audience.

    1. Agreeing with Scout also. Romney was a superb candidate but he bent too far right…in an unnatural position. He put on someone else’s suit other than his own. It didn’t fit, He wasn’t comfortable and neither was the “person” he borrowed the suit from.

      I think if Romney had run as himself, he would have done better. I could have supported the governor from Massachusetts, not Candidate Romney.

  5. Ray Beverage

    Moon, your question on this post leads me to ask the second question (and borrowing it from a friend of mine):

    What happened to the GOP being the Party of Big Ideas?

    1. That party resigned with Nixon. (in my humble opinion)

  6. Watching

    @Steve Thomas

    “As I have said before: A portion of the country is in revolt. On the right, individuals are revolting against the “Fundamental Transformation” that has occurred under this administration, and against those who either enabled or refused to stop it. ”

    My goodness what does this mean, “Fundamental Transformation”? The economy is recovering, the stock market is at a high, corporations are making record profits. The military is still getting tons of my tax dollars. I don’t get it, I thought Republicans liked business and war. It sounds like some kind of coded language conspiracy websites use when they want to alert their followers that we are never going back to the 1950’s when white males dominated and there was more pervasive racial and sexual discrimination. OMG, yes we have exchanges where people can buy health insurance. Is that the problem? What exactly is this Fundamental Transformation that you hate so much? Are these social issues related to religion?

  7. Watching

    @Steve Thomas

    I went back and Googled “Fundamental Transformation of America” and found a whole bunch of Obama hater sites saying this was his plan for the country. I mean real whack job sites. Is this what you are referring to? Is there a better place to look? I also found a Politifact link that refuted these claims but it may not be what you a referring to……is there a better phrase?

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/feb/06/what-barack-obama-has-said-about-fundamentally-tra/

  8. Steve Thomas

    @Moon-howler
    “why is Steve talking about the Bureau of Land Management”

    ’cause all them damn free-range cows been getting into my tomato patch…or maybe it was just squirrels with attitudes…but yo know what I mean.

    1. How quickly I forget….yes, I am laughing.

      You gotta watch out for free range cows.

      All squirrels have attitudes. A few from Howler acres were out giving me the business this morning for being on my own deck.

  9. Steve Thomas

    Watching :
    @Steve Thomas
    I went back and Googled “Fundamental Transformation of America” and found a whole bunch of Obama hater sites saying this was his plan for the country. I mean real whack job sites. Is this what you are referring to? Is there a better place to look? I also found a Politifact link that refuted these claims but it may not be what you a referring to……is there a better phrase?
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/feb/06/what-barack-obama-has-said-about-fundamentally-tra/

    Yeah…your “fact-checking” skills…not….too…good…:
    ““We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” — Barack Obama, October 30, 2008

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/359967/obama-transforming-america-victor-davis-hanson

    1. Where is the change? I have only noted one change.

  10. Steve Thomas

    Moon-howler :
    Agreeing with Scout also. Romney was a superb candidate but he bent too far right…in an unnatural position. He put on someone else’s suit other than his own. It didn’t fit, He wasn’t comfortable and neither was the “person” he borrowed the suit from.
    I think if Romney had run as himself, he would have done better. I could have supported the governor from Massachusetts, not Candidate Romney.

    Romney moved to the right, because campaign consultants were telling him that McCain was doomed, when conservatives stayed home. What they didn’t say was this was more out of anger at GW, than it was with McCain. Oh…I heard ALL about it…going door-to-door in 2008. “Err…..I WILL NOT VOTE FOR MCCAIN, BECAUSE I’M MAD AT GEORGE BUSH!”

    1. You must have knocked on some illogical doors.

      I wouldn’t vote for him because of his choice of running mates.

      Romney should have never moved right. He lost a lot of moderates. He was never going to please the far right anyway.

      I just wish candidates would be true to themselves. Nixon comes to mind.

  11. Steve Thomas

    @Scout
    “Steve’s analysis in his first comment strikes me as generally correct, but the problem I am seeing for the GOP is that the transition from primary to general election politics is much more abrupt and jarring for us than it is for Democrats. ”

    Could it be that the profile of a GOP primary voter is much more different than is the profile of a General Election GOP “Likely Voter, than it is for the Democrat? Could it be that Democrats are less vulnerable to pettifoggery than are Republicans? I think so, and as someone whose been watching the post-election RPV internal-party machinations over a certain write-in campaign, I am even more inclined to believe so.

    1. I think that is insider talk.

      I think those who vote in Democratic primaries are less party oriented.

  12. Steve Thomas

    Moon-howler :
    Where is the change? I have only noted one change.

    Did you read the article?

  13. Steve Thomas

    Watching :
    @Steve Thomas
    “As I have said before: A portion of the country is in revolt. On the right, individuals are revolting against the “Fundamental Transformation” that has occurred under this administration, and against those who either enabled or refused to stop it. ”
    My goodness what does this mean, “Fundamental Transformation”? The economy is recovering, the stock market is at a high, corporations are making record profits. The military is still getting tons of my tax dollars. I don’t get it, I thought Republicans liked business and war. It sounds like some kind of coded language conspiracy websites use when they want to alert their followers that we are never going back to the 1950’s when white males dominated and there was more pervasive racial and sexual discrimination. OMG, yes we have exchanges where people can buy health insurance. Is that the problem? What exactly is this Fundamental Transformation that you hate so much? Are these social issues related to religion?

    Can you tell the difference between an analysis and an op/ed? Guess not. I was asked for an analysis of why the GOP base is in revolt, and I provided it. Please note all of the terms “Quotations”. If you want to disagree with my analysis of why a portion of the GOP electorate is in revolt, please provide your rationale, or, disprove my original premise; Trump’s continued popularity in the polls, as well as John Boehnor’s recent pressured resignation indicates that a certain segment of the GOP is in revolt against the GOP “establishment” (Please note the quotes here). The rise of Bernie Sanders, as well as the resurgence of BLM would indicate that a smaller, but very vocal segment of the Democrat electorate, not to mention the recent flack their chairman has taken regarding “favoritism” (again, please note the quotations) toward Clinton, would indicate a similar, yet smaller revolt on the DNC side. What do Trump and Sanders have in common? Both are appealing to the extremes of their respective electorates, and are doing so in populist terms.

    See? That is how you debate… “watching”. You make an assertion. You defend that assertion with facts and points that would support your assertion. You defend your assertion the same way. You don’t do it by making assumptions about the other person’s rationale. You don’t do it by making gratuitous assertions based on nothing but emotion.

  14. Steve Thomas

    Moon-howler :
    You must have knocked on some illogical doors.
    I wouldn’t vote for him because of his choice of running mates.
    Romney should have never moved right. He lost a lot of moderates. He was never going to please the far right anyway.
    I just wish candidates would be true to themselves. Nixon comes to mind.

    Who said voters were logical? I found them to be quite emotional. I’d ask, “do you agree with McCain’s position on thus&such?”, and they’d say, “yes” about 80-85% of the time (these were “hard R” voters). I’d ask, “Do you support Obama’s position on this-or-that?” and they’d say, “absolutely not”. When I’d say, “so, we can count on your support on election day?” Some would say, “I object to the GOP’s doing X” or “failure to do Y” or ” George Bush…McCain is the same…establishment…Iraq….Spending….Illegal Immigration…taxes…herpadepaherpaderpa….” and I would get an immediate headache in my eye.

    1. I actually understand that. I have felt your pain in the past.

      It sure isn’t the way to have your party (meaning anyone’s) win.

  15. Steve Thomas

    @clueless
    There are two types of people on public assistance: Those who want it to be temporary, and those who wish to stay on it forever. “Broke” is a temporary financial situation. “Poor” is a socioeconomic strata.

  16. Starry flights

    The GOP just lost the Louisiana governorship. That a very red state. Does not bode well for them next year

  17. Scout

    Vitter was a flawed candidate, Starry. He exemplified the unfortunate fact that candidates can use spurious issues and inflammatory rabble rousing to go a lot farther in their careers than right or reason would seem to support, but even within solid Red States, there are eventually limits, particularly if the other side puts up a solid candidate.

  18. Kelly_3406

    The premise of this thread immediately puts conservatives on the defensive, but it really shouldn’t. Inclusion should be about creating jobs and opportunities for American citizens of all races, creeds, religions, etc. Immigration should be used to bring in people LEGALLY that want to be patriotic, productive citizens. The vast majority of conservatives is all for this. It is not racist to want US borders controlled and Syrian refugees delayed entry until a reasonable vetting process is in place.

    It is unfortunate that Muslims have been threatened. However, we have seen cases of small extremist groups connected to mosques in the US. Even though the active extremists are a small percentage, it makes people suspicious. The mosques could defuse the situation by stating that its members are loyal Americans and pledging to report any extremist activity if it is detected. This does not to prove that it has not happened, but I have not read of any US Muslims reporting any extremists in their midst. It would seem to me that moderate Muslims would be in the best position to be our eyes and ears for terrorist activity.

    It is also ahistorical to pretend that America could or should accept all migrants, refugees and immigrants that want to come in. Immigration to the US has been limited at various times when it was in the national interest to do so. What is different about today that says we must take in refugees whose trustworthiness is uncertain? If uniting the country is a true objective, then we should have a rational debate about a balance between national security and accepting refugees. If the government says it can vet any refugees, then we, as good citizens, should demand to know exactly how that will be accomplished.

    1. Thus tipping off scofflaws and criminals on how to get around the vetting process? re last sentence

      I think we have to ask ourselves if we require pledges from Christian churches also. For instance, do we require them to declare that they aren’t going to picket and demonstrate? No. Do we make them sign the pledge that they won’t allow any of their congregation to join Operation Rescue, which I do consider a domestic terrorist group.

      The other night on TV I saw people from the Fredericksburg area calling Muslims who wanted to build a new mosque terrorist, after the leaders had pretty much stated they wanted peaceful coexistence. I was shocked that this bubba had such bad manners. We will have this same fight here in Prince William County over building a mosque off Vint Hill Road. The bubbas are already at it. The guise is that Vint Hill Road just can’t take the capacity. People are even saying that the call to worship is bringing 5 times the traffic.

      I have been waiting for a decade for an immigration reform bill. I do not think it will happen in my lifetime. The GOP keeps blocking it. People don’t want to be here illegally. News flash–there are no “lines.” People turned on kids over the Dream Act. The Dreamers who were under executive order? Ha. We saw what happened to that. Dreamers are decent kids who have studied hard. Hardly an enemy. All to many people want to paint them as gang members which is ridiculous.

      As for gang members, no one wants them in the community. The community wants criminals in jail.

      Now efforts locally are underway to once again stir up saber waving against immigrants, under the guise of ICE violations. I guess a couple of blog owners want to try to reclaim their relevancy. I suppose there aren’t enough refugees and Muslims to hate. Now we have to go back after the immigrants.

      Kelly, that wasn’t at you. I have just been reading the blogs and I am disgusted by what I read.

  19. Watching

    @steve Thomas Oh how I should just let this go but like a dog with a bone, I can’t. A few points of analysis on the National Review Online piece (that didn’t come up on my computer because it must have ad settings that won’t let it based on my ad setting) and I won’t even go into whether I think NRO is a whack job site….

    1. Federal Spending wasn’t “transformed by Obama” it increased because the country runs a budget deficit every year (less under Obama though) and the bail out of the banks/corporations that started under Bush.

    2. Taxes and debt I would agree that during Obama’s administration taxes on the wealthy have increased. I don’t think he did this with a stroke of a pen though, can he? Doesn’t Congress and the Senate have to buy in? Either way I wouldn’t give him sole credit though I am fine with that. Debt has increased, yes, it has every year for a long time. There are many renowned economists that argue that the debt doesn’t matter, but I can’t speak intelligently to that and I don’t think we would agree anyway. I will say taxes are historically low versus other periods like the 1960s but I guess that doesn’t matter to you as an argument.

    3. Health care and making it available to all Americans is a transformation that has occurred. I do not believe Obama did this to make government bigger as the article suggests, I think he did it so exchanges would be created to get uninsured people insured. Why it always seems in this article that Obama has some nefarious reason for doing everything is beyond me. You seem like an intelligent person, do you really believe Obama does everything he does to hurt the country? Really? Is he evil?

    4. Interests rate have been kept low in response to the massive recession Bush left us with due to the wars and then to stimulate the economy. This is not a transformation under Obama it is a calculated response to grow the economy. is Obama doing this to transform the nation? No I think he is doing it because his Wall Street banker friends suggest it. I would say they are Republicans. My gosh, he left Bush’s appointee in place and is surrounded by Republican cronies from Wall Street. How can you use this to say he is “transforming the nation” to intentionally make the rich richer and then say he also wants an entitlement society? He can’t be doing both things at once.

    5. The Presidency is not that different than in previous administrations and I believe that Obama has used his executive pen fewer times than those before him. I will say that some of his actions come because of obstructionists in Congress who just say no to everything, like appointments. What was his executive order on coal per the article before 2013, I couldn’t find it.

    6. Scandals listed in number 6 are really somewhat lame and contrived. Benghazi “deception”, IRS targeting non-profits who are really PACs, the Fast and Furious program that may have been stupid but wasn’t done to be subversive, the NSA disclosures that disclosed that the NSA continued to do things under Obama that they had been doing for years……why is this Obama transforming the nation? “Scandals” happen all the time and I don’t think these point to an underlying change in society. We are not “transforming” because these things took place.

    7. Politics. Nothing new here about politics, Obama may play the game but he certainly didn’t create it or use it to “transform the US”

    8. Energy- Wow is this paragraph totally off the charts with regard to reality. Nuclear power was being promoted by Obama and then Japan had a tsunami and that got killed. Have you looked at the price of natural gas lately? It is at an unbelievably low price due to fracking as well as the recession, which greatly reduced energy demand driving prices lower. The energy producers are switching from coal because of low energy prices with gas. Period. Obama had nothing to do with this and can’t take credit one way or the other for a “transformation” in this industry.

    This is a waste of my time I think so I will punt and say with regard to race I don’t think this “transformation” is due to Obama or something that Obama would strive for, do you? Do you think he wants to see a country this divided, is that his goal? People being shot in the streets? It makes no sense. With respect to illegal immigration he has deported more people than previous presidents and is trying to deal with a structural problem that has existed well before when he got here. Addressing the structural problem has been completely ignored by Congress and I would say it really has been ignored by those on the right who know something needs to be done but don’t want to tick off the base. Obama is not “transforming” anything here, it all remains the same.

    So I think the NRO article is a bunch of BS basically. It tries to tie Obama to “transforming” the US. The US is too big for one man to transform, especially when Congress and at least a bunch of people are against him. Obama is not some evil person set to destroy the country, he just happens to be President when due to local and world economic factors there is s shift.

    I’m done. We will never agree on anything, I think so I will stop engaging. I will go back to “watching”.

  20. Pat.Herve

    This is what is wrong with the GOP. Can any GOP defenders explain the difference in how this is treated/handled?

    Obama – look at the birthers and how much media time there was spent on him proving a negative (that he was born in Kenya).

    Cruz – not a word from any of the birthers about the fact that he was born in Canada and has only renounced his Canadian citizenship in the past few years.

  21. Starryflights

    Five Black Lives Matter protesters shot in Minneapolis; police searching for white suspects

    Simmering racial tensions have boiled over yet again after several men shot five people who had been protesting the recent police killing of an African American man in Minneapolis.

    The shooting occurred late Monday night about a block from the Minneapolis Police Department’s 4th Precinct, where protesters have held daily demonstrations since the fatal Nov. 15 police shooting of 24-year-old Jamar Clark.

    Police announced on social media that five people suffered non-life-threatening gunshot wounds and that officers were searching for “3 white male suspects” who fled the scene.

    By Michael E. Miller and Lindsey Bever November 24 at 8:53 AM

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/11/24/five-people-shot-near-minneapolis-protest-cops-searching-for-3-white-male-suspects/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_minneapolis-120am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

    If this continues, we will reach a point where no one’s children will be safe.

  22. Steve Thomas

    @Watching
    “1. Federal Spending wasn’t “transformed by Obama” it increased because the country runs a budget deficit every year (less under Obama though) and the bail out of the banks/corporations that started under Bush.”

    Do you know the cause of the decrease in the annual deficit? It was the sequestration. But are you really going to argue that Triple is less than Double? The debt doubled under Bush (shame on him), but Tripled under Obama. Banks? He bailed out GM and Chrysler. There was the “cash for clunkers” debacle. You might want to read this article. Might help you understand a bit better: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/01/07/the-story-behind-obama-and-the-national-debt-in-7-charts/

    “Energy- Wow is this paragraph totally off the charts with regard to reality.”

    Really? You might want to look at the broader energy sector. He’s weaponized the EPA, and has all but killed the coal industry. You know, that industry that some of the poorest people in the country depend upon for their livelihood. He had the nerve to try to take credit for the the Dakota’s and Texas oil booms, until it was pointed out that all of this expansion was being done on private lands. He’s pretty much closed off any drilling on Federal lands, or offshore. He’s opposed the Keystone pipeline, and refuses to lift the ban on US oil exports. We have enough natural gas in this country that we could retire the debt 17 times over. Think about that.

  23. Steve Thomas

    @Starryflights
    Here it comes. Someone’s trying to light all the piled tinder. I am thankful that reports indicate the victim’s injuries were non-life threatening. I’ve read that a suspect has been apprehended, and hope that should sufficient evidence exist, those responsible would be charged with attempted murder. I am also interested in the true identities of these “white supremacists” who were reported to have been there multiple nights, wearing ski-masks. They very well might be members of such a group, but something doesn’t smell right.

    1. Usually people wearing ski masks are told to remove them by authorities and if they don’t they are arrested.

  24. Pat.Herve

    @Steve Thomas

    Steve – do you think the debt/deficit would have grown slower under McCain?

  25. Kelly_3406

    @Steve Thomas
    Steve,
    I am a big fan of Victor Davis Hansen, but this was not one of his better pieces. Here’s my list of the primary ways that America is being transformed:

    1) Obamacare: This changes the fundamental nature of healthcare by putting the federal government in charge of health coverage for every American. Even if his followers think it is for a worthwhile cause, it is an unjustified erosion of personal liberty that has largely been unsuccessful in controlling costs and unsuccessful in substantially reducing the number of uninsured Americans.

    2) Shirked Leadership: The Administration has withdrawn the US from leadership of the free world. The deliberate decision to “lead from behind” has produced a complete mess of the Middle East. Regardless of what one thinks about GW, the Middle East was relatively stable when he left office. The poor decision making since 2009 in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Afghanistan has produced a power vacuum that gave rise to ISIS and allowed Russia to move in.

    3) Massive immigration: Whether the purpose is to import workers needed to support social security or to change the demographics of the voting public, massive immigration is changing the face of America. Massive numbers of unskilled workers have depressed wages in the US which has contributed to income inequality that the Libs claim to be concerned about.

    4) Disunity: The Administration can always be counted on for an incendiary remark that exacerbates racial strife, tension with the police, and enmity between religions. Their power increases by creating insecurities among supporters who then demand action and services by the federal government. This is an adaptation of community organizing to the national level.

    These actions have made us poorer and less secure as a nation.

    1. I am going to have to almost totally disagree.
      1. Obamacare–Don’t you have company insurance? I think the crime of Obamacare is that there are 400,000 uninsured people because of the Medicaid issue. The feds were paying for it and people without health care end up costing the government more in the long run. Penny wise and pound foolish.

      There are glitches in Obamacare. Why doesn’t Congress fix these glitches.
      Unintended pregnancy is way down. Surprise surprise. Its amazing how using contraception cuts down on the necessity of abortion.
      Unless you croak young, the government is going to be in your personal liberty anyway. Clearing throat…Medicare. Also if you are a retired federal employee or military, there is the government…right there in your business. I have found the government to be a little less obnoxious than private insurance. But then I haven’t had any catastrophic illness.

      2. I don’t feel the middle east was all that stable under Bush. I am not sure anyone in the United States really has that much control over it. The only thing we can do is make it worse. Do you think ISIS is worse than Al Qada? Different name but same breed of Aholes.

      3. There is certainly not even as much immigration under Obama as under Bush. Think housing boom. The massive number of unskilled workers were here before Obama was in office. No, I am not imagining it.

      4. I do think Obama has to address some of the racial issues in this country. It doesn’t bother me that he involves himself. He only has made me really angry once and I got over it. Maybe I don’t think his remarks are incendiary.

      I can’t think of any enmity between religions remarks. Could you provide a couple of examples. maybe I just didn’t pick up on it.

      I understand that I am not a conservative but I hardly glow in the dark liberal. (well, other than about reproductive rights and separation of church and state issues)

  26. Scout

    @ Kelly, up the thread at # 29: I have quite the opposite impression – that law enforcement and anti-terror authorities very much value the relationships they have within the American Islamic community, including with Muslim clerics in local mosques, because this is exactly the place where they need cooperation to detect radicalized youth and to head off things before they get worse. One of the great fears that law enforcement has about all this mindless Islamophobia is that it will drive peaceful Muslims away from relationships with authorities and make them, if not outright hostile, at least sullen and unwilling to cooperate. If the populace and politicians said as many stupid, insulting things about Episcopalians as they say here about Muslims, and I didn’t see the Government pushing back hard against it (as have Bush and Obama), I wouldn’t be very cheerful about working with the government on anything.

    1. About 500 years ago people did talk that way about Episcopalians, or who were to become Episcopalians. They need to look at how that worked out for those early “saints.”

      Not so good, if I am to believe history.

  27. Steve Thomas

    Pat.Herve :
    @Steve Thomas
    Steve – do you think the debt/deficit would have grown slower under McCain?

    Pat,

    Who can know? Might be an exercise in “alternate histories”, but I don’t get into those. McCain would have had a Democrat-controlled Congress, with solid majorities when he took office, so it would depend on which tack he took when dealing with them, or they with him. How would he have dealt with the recession? Way too many variables to speculate.

    What we do know is the deficit grew during Obama’s 1st term, and the debt has exploded. We can argue about the reasons, disagree on the rationale and the efficacy of it all, but the fact that the deficits exist and the debt continues to grow, is reality.

  28. Steve Thomas

    Pat.Herve :
    This is what is wrong with the GOP. Can any GOP defenders explain the difference in how this is treated/handled?
    Obama – look at the birthers and how much media time there was spent on him proving a negative (that he was born in Kenya).
    Cruz – not a word from any of the birthers about the fact that he was born in Canada and has only renounced his Canadian citizenship in the past few years.

    There were questions. At first Obama refused to acknowledge. His college records remain sealed. This fuels speculation that he applied as a foreign-born student. He could be embarrassed about his grades (which is my suspicion), or he did apply as foreign-born to obtain a preference or financial assistance. The questions remain.

    But the RNC never made an issue out of this, nor did the “establishment”. As a matter of fact, the birthers represent a tiny fraction of the overall party, and were marginalized. I always thought it a moot point.

    Maybe he was born overseas. Maybe he wasn’t. Doesn’t really matter, as his mother was a US Citizen, which would make him a US citizen born abroad, same as McCain, who was born in the Canal zone, same as Cruz in Canada. My son, born in Okinawa, is and always has been a US citizen. Japanese law recognized all children born to US parents on Japanese soil has having dual-citizenship, which would expire at age 20 (Japanese majority age) if the child did not exercise this citizenship prior. As far as the US was concerned, he was a US citizen at birth, was issued a US State Department birth certificate and a passport 3 weeks after he was born.

  29. Pat.Herve

    @Steve Thomas
    True, hard to calculate what it would have been – but I would bet that the debt/deficit would have continued on the same, increasing, trajectory that it was on before Obama took office.

  30. Pat.Herve

    @Steve Thomas
    Yes, Obama’s and every other college attendee’s records are sealed. And he did not release them, not does the majority of other candidates.

    The Establishment very much so bought into the birther mess – how many states enacted (or attempted) to enact legislation to have candidates present birth certificates? Donald Trump (the current front runner), Sheriff Joe and many others are Birthers.

    What you said still does not answer the question though – They accused Obama of being born in Kenya, but Cruz was born in Canada – both were/are treated very differently. Even Cruz’s father chest thumps that Obama should move back to Kenya.

Comments are closed.