• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Bobby Jindal 'republicans must stop being the stupid party'

flounder

Well-known member
Are Republicans the 'stupid party'?



25 January 2013 Last updated at 12:39 ET



Bobby Jindal is warning that the Republicans must stop being the "stupid party".


The Louisiana governor, a likely contender for his party's presidential nomination in 2016, said a number of Republicans had "damaged the brand" by making "offensive and bizarre" comments.


He's talking of course about those remarks about "legitimate rape" and how rape can't lead to pregnancy.


The Republicans who made those comments did seem to be going out of their way to back up John Stuart Mill's 1866 comment: "I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it."


OK. That's the headline grabber. But it is hardly a revelation to point out that those who make weird noises during an election campaign should shut up.


Jindal's prescription So it is worth looking at Gov Jindal's prescription in full. It is, after all, among the first contributions from a big name of the Republican party on how not to go down to defeat for a third time in a row.


He's adamant the party shouldn't change its principles. Not on taxation or big government, of course. But not on abortion or gay marriage either.


He rejects Mr Romney's apparent contention that 47% of voters were out of reach for Republicans, which was always, when you think about it, a council of despair.


Gov Jindal identifies a core Republican problem: they are overwhelmingly white in a country that is becoming more of a melting pot day by day.


"We must reject the notion that demography is destiny, the pathetic and simplistic notion that skin pigmentation dictates voter behaviour," he said.


He's a good person to say this. His parents came to the US from India in 1970. It says a lot about the way America has changed that he has become the governor of a state that resisted civil rights and defended segregation to the bitter end.


I don't want to underplay how important that is - but his speech doesn't say how Republicans can reach the fastest growing ethnic group - Latinos - without shifting their stance on immigration reform.


Moreover I am puzzled by what appears to be the core of his message. He rejects big government - but also seems to reject the fights about it in Washington.


'Sideshows' He calls not only the debates about gun control, but also those on the fiscal cliff and debt ceiling "sideshows".


"These are in reality sideshows in Washington that we have allowed to take centre stage in our country - and as conservatives, we are falling into the sideshow trap," he said.


This is not an isolated point.


"We seem to have an obsession with government bookkeeping," he says. "We as Republicans have to accept that government number crunching - even conservative number crunching - is not the answer to our nation's problems."


Of course he's underscoring an inherent irony in conservatism - those politicians who dislike government put all their time and effort and will and money into becoming part of the government, so they can do away with much of it.


Inevitably, they rather like being part of it, and stick around for years trying to slim down something they disapprove of, fanatical dieters insisting on eating at the best restaurants so they can better control the portion sizes.


It is an irony, in that one can chuckle about it, but it is not a paradox. It is, I would have thought, pretty essential for conservatives who want to control government spending to have control of that government.


His argument seems to be that Republicans should spend their time encouraging the "real economy" and leaving it up to the states to spend what little public money he deems necessary.


Maybe this is merely a coded attack on those Republicans in the House of Representatives, who seem to think they won the election.


If he is identifying them as a major part of the party's image problem, he is right, but he's not pointing a way out of their complex dilemma - the choice between being quislings to faithful Republicans or obstructionists in the mind of most Americans.


So an "A" for effort, grabbing headlines, and identifying the obvious, but a "C" for a rather confused economic approach, which looks more like a desire to say something jolting than a serious contribution.


I'm looking forward to hearing Florida Senator Marco Rubio, and even more, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, describe the way ahead.


But Gov Jindal has made a start confronting his shocked, and rather complacent, party.




http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21203235



sometimes you can't fix stupid...
 

Mike

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
There are many conservatives that agree.

Ever since the Republicans shifted left, they have appeared more stupid.

I say it's time to stop moving left to accommodate the Liberals.

Maybe a 2nd Amendment resistance movement will help eliminate some of those problems?
 

Mike

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
He's brown skinned, Rep's will never let him get anywhere

Herman Cain would have probably gotten the Rep.nomination if the Democrats had not slaughtered his reputation.

I would have voted for him............................................
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Mike said:
kolanuraven said:
He's brown skinned, Rep's will never let him get anywhere

Herman Cain would have probably gotten the Rep.nomination if the Democrats had not slaughtered his reputation.

I would have voted for him............................................

Odd but true, liberals are much more racist than conservatives.....just look at Kola's comment calling attention to his skin color.

The 'grand wizzard' as OT calls him would have voted for Herman Cain. I voted for Jindal during his first run for office. Go figure.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Whitewing said:
Mike said:
kolanuraven said:
He's brown skinned, Rep's will never let him get anywhere

Herman Cain would have probably gotten the Rep.nomination if the Democrats had not slaughtered his reputation.

I would have voted for him............................................

Odd but true, liberals are much more racist than conservatives.....just look at Kola's comment calling attention to his skin color.

The 'grand wizzard' as OT calls him would have voted for Herman Cain. I voted for Jindal during his first run for office. Go figure.

The only thing I didn't like about Cain was his having been on the "Federal Reserve Board".
 

flounder

Well-known member
Mike said:
kolanuraven said:
He's brown skinned, Rep's will never let him get anywhere

Herman Cain would have probably gotten the Rep.nomination if the Democrats had not slaughtered his reputation.

I would have voted for him............................................





:lol: :lol2: :liar: :disagree:
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
flounder said:
Mike said:
kolanuraven said:
He's brown skinned, Rep's will never let him get anywhere

Herman Cain would have probably gotten the Rep.nomination if the Democrats had not slaughtered his reputation.

I would have voted for him............................................





:lol: :lol2: :liar: :disagree:

Before you call him a liar, you should take a few minutes, type "cain" into the search engine here with "Mike" as the author and see for yourself what he had to say about the man.

Afterwards you can apologize for calling him a liar.











:lol: Sometimes I crack myself up.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Go easy on flipper the floundering fool...yoiu know he dropped out of school to become a self proclaimed DR :wink: :wink: and a expert on something the REAL experts call BS....i woinder if he has not done so much work on that subject it has not cooked his brain,,,,if he ever had one to start with
 

Steve

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
kolanuraven said:
He's brown skinned, Rep's will never let him get anywhere


Ya, kind of like Niki Haley, cause she's a woman :roll:

I sure would like to see her on the national ticket in 2016 with Rand Paul...

smart, articulate and conservative on most issues..
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
36% Say They Are Pro-Life, 54% Pro-Choice


Sunday, January 27, 2013
Rasmussen Reports Survey
Forty years after the landmark Roe vs. Wade case legalizing abortion in the United States, fewer voters than ever consider themselves pro-life, while those who say they are pro-choice remains at an all-time high.

And as Jindal says- Repubs are going to have to be smarter in picking their fights - which includes getting out of folks personal lives...
They could learn a huge lesson going back to some of their old Libertarian thinking on social issues....
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
36% Say They Are Pro-Life, 54% Pro-Choice


Sunday, January 27, 2013
Rasmussen Reports Survey
Forty years after the landmark Roe vs. Wade case legalizing abortion in the United States, fewer voters than ever consider themselves pro-life, while those who say they are pro-choice remains at an all-time high.

And as Jindal says- Repubs are going to have to be smarter in picking their fights - which includes getting out of folks personal lives...
They could learn a huge lesson going back to some of their old Libertarian thinking on social issues- and keeping big government out of social issues....



Dems. could stay out of people's personal lives, by not trying to force the majority that is "Pro-Life", into paying for the minorities personal lives.


In August, CNN released the results of a new poll showing a majority of Americans want all or most abortions prohibited — a clear pro-life majority.

The survey asked: “Do you think abortion should be legal under any circumstances, legal under only certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?” Some 62 percent want abortions illegal in all cases or legal only in certain instances while just 35% want abortions legal for any reason.

Four decades after the Supreme Court’s controversial decision in Roe v. Wade, a new Marist poll provides more details about Americans’ attitude on abortion, with 83 percent favoring significant restrictions. The poll reveals that support for significant abortion restrictions has increased by four points since last year — rising from 79 percent to 83 percent.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Why don't we just remove all "Morality" laws from politics. i.e. theft, murder, kidnapping, incest, etc. from crimes in our personal lives?

When morals leave, so leaves a society of civilization. :roll:
 

flounder

Well-known member
Op-Ed Columnist

Makers, Takers, Fakers

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: January 27, 2013


Republicans have a problem. For years they could shout down any attempt to point out the extent to which their policies favored the elite over the poor and the middle class; all they had to do was yell “Class warfare!” and Democrats scurried away. In the 2012 election, however, that didn’t work: the picture of the G.O.P. as the party of sneering plutocrats stuck, even as Democrats became more openly populist than they have been in decades.


As a result, prominent Republicans have begun acknowledging that their party needs to improve its image. But here’s the thing: Their proposals for a makeover all involve changing the sales pitch rather than the product. When it comes to substance, the G.O.P. is more committed than ever to policies that take from most Americans and give to a wealthy handful.

Consider, as a case in point, how a widely reported recent speech by Bobby Jindal the governor of Louisiana, compares with his actual policies.

Mr. Jindal posed the problem in a way that would, I believe, have been unthinkable for a leading Republican even a year ago. “We must not,” he declared, “be the party that simply protects the well off so they can keep their toys. We have to be the party that shows all Americans how they can thrive.” After a campaign in which Mitt Romney denounced any attempt to talk about class divisions as an “attack on success,” this represents a major rhetorical shift.

But Mr. Jindal didn’t offer any suggestions about how Republicans might demonstrate that they aren’t just about letting the rich keep their toys, other than claiming even more loudly that their policies are good for everyone.

Meanwhile, back in Louisiana Mr. Jindal is pushing a plan to eliminate the state’s income tax, which falls most heavily on the affluent, and make up for the lost revenue by raising sales taxes, which fall much more heavily on the poor and the middle class. The result would be big gains for the top 1 percent, substantial losses for the bottom 60 percent. Similar plans are being pushed by a number of other Republican governors as well.

Like the new acknowledgment that the perception of being the party of the rich is a problem, this represents a departure for the G.O.P. — but in the opposite direction. In the past, Republicans would justify tax cuts for the rich either by claiming that they would pay for themselves or by claiming that they could make up for lost revenue by cutting wasteful spending. But what we’re seeing now is open, explicit reverse Robin Hoodism: taking from ordinary families and giving to the rich. That is, even as Republicans look for a way to sound more sympathetic and less extreme, their actual policies are taking another sharp right turn.

Why is this happening? In particular, why is it happening now, just after an election in which the G.O.P. paid a price for its anti-populist stand?

Well, I don’t have a full answer, but I think it’s important to understand the extent to which leading Republicans live in an intellectual bubble. They get their news from Fox and other captive media, they get their policy analysis from billionaire-financed right-wing think tanks, and they’re often blissfully unaware both of contrary evidence and of how their positions sound to outsiders.

So when Mr. Romney made his infamous “47 percent” remarks, he wasn’t, in his own mind, saying anything outrageous or even controversial. He was just repeating a view that has become increasingly dominant inside the right-wing bubble, namely that a large and ever-growing proportion of Americans won’t take responsibility for their own lives and are mooching off the hard-working wealthy. Rising unemployment claims demonstrate laziness, not lack of jobs; rising disability claims represent malingering, not the real health problems of an aging work force.

And given that worldview, Republicans see it as entirely appropriate to cut taxes on the rich while making everyone else pay more.

Now, national politicians learned last year that this kind of talk plays badly with the public, so they’re trying to obscure their positions. Paul Ryan, for example, has lately made a transparently dishonest attempt to claim that when he spoke about “takers” living off the efforts of the “makers” — at one point he assigned 60 percent of Americans to the taker category — he wasn’t talking about people receiving Social Security and Medicare. (He was.)

But in deep red states like Louisiana or Kansas, Republicans are much freer to act on their beliefs — which means moving strongly to comfort the comfortable while afflicting the afflicted.


Which brings me back to Mr. Jindal, who declared in his speech that “we are a populist party.” No, you aren’t. You’re a party that holds a large proportion of Americans in contempt. And the public may have figured that out.




http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/opinion/krugman-makers-takers-fakers-.html?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto&_r=1&#h[Aarimc,1]
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
flounder said:
Op-Ed Communist

Makers, Takers, Fakers

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: January 27, 2013


Republicans have a problem. For years they could shout down any attempt to point out the extent to which their policies favored the elite over the poor and the middle class; all they had to do was yell “Class warfare!” and Democrats scurried away. In the 2012 election, however, that didn’t work: the picture of the G.O.P. as the party of sneering plutocrats stuck, even as Democrats became more openly populist than they have been in decades.


As a result, prominent Republicans have begun acknowledging that their party needs to improve its image. But here’s the thing: Their proposals for a makeover all involve changing the sales pitch rather than the product. When it comes to substance, the G.O.P. is more committed than ever to policies that take from most Americans and give to a wealthy handful.

Consider, as a case in point, how a widely reported recent speech by Bobby Jindal the governor of Louisiana, compares with his actual policies.

Mr. Jindal posed the problem in a way that would, I believe, have been unthinkable for a leading Republican even a year ago. “We must not,” he declared, “be the party that simply protects the well off so they can keep their toys. We have to be the party that shows all Americans how they can thrive.” After a campaign in which Mitt Romney denounced any attempt to talk about class divisions as an “attack on success,” this represents a major rhetorical shift.

But Mr. Jindal didn’t offer any suggestions about how Republicans might demonstrate that they aren’t just about letting the rich keep their toys, other than claiming even more loudly that their policies are good for everyone.

Meanwhile, back in Louisiana Mr. Jindal is pushing a plan to eliminate the state’s income tax, which falls most heavily on the affluent, and make up for the lost revenue by raising sales taxes, which fall much more heavily on the poor and the middle class. The result would be big gains for the top 1 percent, substantial losses for the bottom 60 percent. Similar plans are being pushed by a number of other Republican governors as well.

Like the new acknowledgment that the perception of being the party of the rich is a problem, this represents a departure for the G.O.P. — but in the opposite direction. In the past, Republicans would justify tax cuts for the rich either by claiming that they would pay for themselves or by claiming that they could make up for lost revenue by cutting wasteful spending. But what we’re seeing now is open, explicit reverse Robin Hoodism: taking from ordinary families and giving to the rich. That is, even as Republicans look for a way to sound more sympathetic and less extreme, their actual policies are taking another sharp right turn.

Why is this happening? In particular, why is it happening now, just after an election in which the G.O.P. paid a price for its anti-populist stand?

Well, I don’t have a full answer, but I think it’s important to understand the extent to which leading Republicans live in an intellectual bubble. They get their news from Fox and other captive media, they get their policy analysis from billionaire-financed right-wing think tanks, and they’re often blissfully unaware both of contrary evidence and of how their positions sound to outsiders.

So when Mr. Romney made his infamous “47 percent” remarks, he wasn’t, in his own mind, saying anything outrageous or even controversial. He was just repeating a view that has become increasingly dominant inside the right-wing bubble, namely that a large and ever-growing proportion of Americans won’t take responsibility for their own lives and are mooching off the hard-working wealthy. Rising unemployment claims demonstrate laziness, not lack of jobs; rising disability claims represent malingering, not the real health problems of an aging work force.

And given that worldview, Republicans see it as entirely appropriate to cut taxes on the rich while making everyone else pay more.

Now, national politicians learned last year that this kind of talk plays badly with the public, so they’re trying to obscure their positions. Paul Ryan, for example, has lately made a transparently dishonest attempt to claim that when he spoke about “takers” living off the efforts of the “makers” — at one point he assigned 60 percent of Americans to the taker category — he wasn’t talking about people receiving Social Security and Medicare. (He was.)

But in deep red states like Louisiana or Kansas, Republicans are much freer to act on their beliefs — which means moving strongly to comfort the comfortable while afflicting the afflicted.


Which brings me back to Mr. Jindal, who declared in his speech that “we are a populist party.” No, you aren’t. You’re a party that holds a large proportion of Americans in contempt. And the public may have figured that out.




http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/opinion/krugman-makers-takers-fakers-.html?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto&_r=1&#h[Aarimc,1]

fixed
 
Top