Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Why Are Conservatives Still Afraid of Ted Kennedy?
Topic Started: Jul 19 2005, 05:58 AM (454 Views)
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
From a CNN article on the potential Supreme Court appointment:

Quote:
 
Sean Rushton, director of the conservative Committee for Justice, which will support Bush's nominee, said that while his group is "ready for it to be any minute," making the announcement next week would give liberals like Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, a little less time to push public opinion.

"If Ted Kennedy is not anywhere near a microphone when the nominee is announced, that is an advantage," Rushton said.


My question is this: why are conservatives so fixated on and afraid of Ted Kennedy? All we hear around here is how liberalism is passe, liberals are irrelevant, the left wing is a shrinking minority.

If that's the case, why is a smart guy like Sean Rushton afraid of what Ted Kennedy could do to the nomination if he's near a microphone?

And, please, no throwaways about how annoying it is to hear Kennedy talk, or Chappaquiddick, or anything like that. From the quote, it's quite clear that Rushton believes that Kennedy could use the power of the microphone to make trouble for the nomination. But, if Ted Kennedy is a standard-bearer for a powerless wing of a dying party, how is that possible?
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
apple
one of the angels
at least they still have him after all these years.
it behooves me to behold
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Even if the stock of the Democratic party might have fallen, it is no dying party and the liberal wing is hardly powerless. Kennedy is obviously a master politician, he knows the game, knows where the bodies are buried, and has a lot of cards to play.

Are you saying that he really is washed up, a toothless old lion, and the Republicans have nothing to worry about from him? On what grounds would you make that assertion?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Quote:
 
Are you saying that he really is washed up, a toothless old lion, and the Republicans have nothing to worry about from him? On what grounds would you make that assertion?


No, I'm not saying that. I was aiming this at various people on the board who have said that the Democratic Party is dying and that liberalism and liberals no longer have any sway in America.

I've said that, quite the contrary, the shift to the right in America is not a fundamental shift but merely a swing of the pendulum. And I think the shift back will start the day that Roe v. Wade is overturned.

So, for those who think that liberalism is a discredited philosophy and that all liberals are headed the way of the dinosaur, why is Rushton scared of Kennedy?
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
By the way, Thumperino, I don't recall you ever saying that liberalism was dead or that the Democratic Party was discredited and powerless. I do recall Larry and Jolly saying words to that effect. I don't remember whether other prominent board conservatives have expressed similar points of view.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
If that has to be explained to you, then you never will understand why the Democrat party has become the infection that it is.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Quote:
 
If that has to be explained to you, then you never will understand why the Democrat party has become the infection that it is.


But Larry, you have told us that the Democratic Party is dying, that liberalism has no power or persuasive value in America any longer.

So what is Mr. Rushton afraid of? If it has no power or persuasive value, what could Ted do to affect the nomination?

Or is it that you realize that your previous outrageous hyperbole about liberalism and the Democratic party was erroneous, and you are now onto new outrageous hyperbole ("the Democrat party has become the infection that it is")?
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
But Larry, you have told us that the Democratic Party is dying, that liberalism has no power or persuasive value in America any longer.

You are putting words in my mouth, obviously due to a combination ofyour own partisan viewpoints and a thorough inability to comprehend my point.

I never said that liberalism had no power or "persuasive value". I said the current Democrat party is dying, choking itself to death with its own self serving politics. It is dying because it has had no new ideas in 30 years. It is dying because it is nothing more than a bunch of special interest groups who are more interested in themselves than they are the country, with elected officials who are more interested in staying in office than they are in the good of the country. The current debate and ridiculous logic being displayed by yourself and a few other Democrats here regarding Rove are prime examples of this.

The Democrat Party is festering with negativism. They are the party of doom and gloom - unless of course, they are in power. The party leaders have become nothing more than a pack of blood sucking leeches on America, with Ted Kennedy being one of the head leeches. Someone said "he knows where the bodies are buried" - he should, he buried one of them.

I said the current Democrat party is dying, and it is. I never said a loyal opposition wouldn't emerge from the ashes. It should, and it will. The only hope the current Democrat party has for remaining viable is if they shed the special interest groups that infest their party's agenda, get rid of the dinosaurs that put their own politics ahead of the country, and start electing AMERICANS instead of the idiots that now make up their leadership. "Afraid" of Teddy? Nah. Afraid of what he'll say or do to once again run a stick in the spokes of common sense and the good of the country? You bet. Afraid of the fact that so many of the lemmings who continue to support this carcass of a political party will run out and support and defend the talking points this bunch of do nothing obstructionist idiots tell them to support? Sure. Afraid that these lemmings will continue to remain blind to the harm these obstructionist idiots are doing to America? Absolutely. So you see, I am not of the opinion that the Democrat party has no "persuasive value" in America. Quite the contrary. I am of the opinion that they have a *lot* of persuasive value - all negative and harmful to our country. I am of the opinion that it is a dysfunctional party made up of political leaders who would sell the country out in a heartbeat if it meant more power for themselves, their ranks infiltrated by idiots and fools, socialists, and bigots, with a membership made up of a lot of good people who aren't paying attention, calling themselves Democrats simply because that's what they've always done, and a lot of rabid fanatics who would carry whatever water the leadership of the party told them to carry, eyes firmly shut.

Unless the membership of the party opens its eyes and demands change of their leadership, and unless the party itself changes course, it is a dead party. And good riddance. But that doesn't mean I think Republicans and Conservatives will or should be all that's left. My hope is that out of the ashes of the infection we currently call the Democrat Party, a new party will emerge, one that is loyal to America instead of itself, one that isn't beholden to a pack of special interest groups, and one that rejects the do nothing obstructionist self serving feces that now make up the party's elected officials.

Is that clear enough, or do you still not get it?

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
QuirtEvans
Jul 19 2005, 06:24 AM
Quote:
 
If that has to be explained to you, then you never will understand why the Democrat party has become the infection that it is.


But Larry, you have told us that the Democratic Party is dying, that liberalism has no power or persuasive value in America any longer.

So what is Mr. Rushton afraid of? If it has no power or persuasive value, what could Ted do to affect the nomination?

Or is it that you realize that your previous outrageous hyperbole about liberalism and the Democratic party was erroneous, and you are now onto new outrageous hyperbole ("the Democrat party has become the infection that it is")?

Even in its Death Throes, I say "Shoot it again, its still moving!"

Works for me.....
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

I'm glad Ted "hiccup" Kennedy is still here...he's a blabbering idiot only hurting the liberals! :D

...plus it's fun to watch Sean Hannity make fun of him. :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Phlebas
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
QuirtEvans
Jul 19 2005, 05:58 AM
If that's the case, why is a smart guy like Sean Rushton afraid of what Ted Kennedy could do to the nomination if he's near a microphone?


Because they saw the movie:

Posted Image
Random FML: Today, I was fired by my boss in front of my coworkers. It would have been nice if I could have left the building before they started celebrating. FML

The founding of the bulk of the world's nation states post 1914 is based on self-defined nationalisms. The bulk of those national movements involve territory that was ethnically mixed. The foundation of many of those nation states involved population movements in the aftermath. When the only one that is repeatedly held up as unjust and unjustifiable is the Zionist project, the term anti-semitism may very well be appropriate. - P*D


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Phlebas
Jul 19 2005, 11:26 AM
QuirtEvans
Jul 19 2005, 05:58 AM
If that's the case, why is a smart guy like Sean Rushton afraid of what Ted Kennedy could do to the nomination if he's near a microphone?


Because they saw the movie:

Posted Image

:D
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
By the way Quirt, it isn't the "Democratic" party, it's the "Democrat" party. I do wish Democrats would learn this. It's a major distinction - there is *nothing* democratic about the Democrat party.



Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
I'll start calling them the Democrat Party when you start calling the other side the Fascist Party, because there's nothing in support of the Republic to be found there.

Or, how about we simply use the names they call themselves, and have for over 100 years?
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Or, how about we simply use the names they call themselves, and have for over 100 years?

Fine. That means we call your party the Democrat party, because that is what they have called it up until the last 20 years or so. As for the "Fascist" part, I assume you mean the Republican party. I'm not a Republican, but to think of them as fascists shows an ignorance of what they stand for. It is also a nasty attack, so I assume you think calling the Democrat party Democrat instead of Democratic is some sort of a slam against them. That also shows an ignorance on your part. Calling them Democrat instead of Democratic is not meant as a slam, it's their name. It is *not* the "Democratic" party.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Read the first three words at the top of the home page.

http://www.democrats.org/

They get to decide their own name. You don't.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Quote:
 
That means we call your party the Democrat party, because that is what they have called it up until the last 20 years or so.


Wrong again, Larry.

Quote:
 
The usual adjective used in connection with the party is "Democratic", e.g., "Democratic Party" or "Democratic candidates", whereas members of the party are "Democrats". In order to avoid the arguably positive connotation of the word "democratic", Republicans will occasionally use "Democrat" as the adjective form, but this is relatively rare and generally regarded as incorrect.


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Democratic_Party
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Miller
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Jolly
Jul 19 2005, 09:10 AM
Even in its Death Throes, I say "Shoot it again, its still moving!"


:D :D :D
Wag more
Bark less
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Buxtehude
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
Maybe they're afraid for their daughters....
Sister, they don't know what to do with one of me.

-- Riddick
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Especially if they can't swim.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Buxtehude
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
Girl? What girl?
Sister, they don't know what to do with one of me.

-- Riddick
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Buxtehude
Jul 19 2005, 06:24 PM
Maybe they're afraid for their daughters....

:D

JBryan
Jul 19 2005, 07:15 PM
Especially if they can't swim.

:D :D
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
M&M's
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
QuirtEvans
Jul 19 2005, 06:17 AM
And I think the shift back will start the day that Roe v. Wade is overturned.


That would be an awesome day! :smile:
My child shows GOOD CHARACTERIZATION in an ongoing game of D&D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Register for Free
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply