DescentBB

“I just wish that moderates like myself — more moderate Republicans and more socially liberal Republicans — weren’t looked at as, ‘Get rid of the dirty moderates. Get rid of them,’” -Meghan McCain

Well, Specter, take McCain with you. And his daughter. Take McCain and his daughter with you if you're gonna go.-Rush Limbaugh

For the most part I always consider the tit-for-tat on both sides to be equivalent. But this is one thing, where if it exists on the democratic side it is overshadowed by the extremity of it on the conservative side.

Joe Lieberman got hit pretty hard, but he did endorse the republican candidates, and regularly appears on Hannity's radio show for years now.

I have no doubt that the liberal bloggers would rather the democrat moderates be more liberal, but for the most part they keep their targets in sight and choose their battles.

It's nothing compared to how I can drive home on any given night, and hear conservative talk show hosts/entertainers just literally eating their own. Tearing any moderate 're-pube-icans' (not my word) to shreds.

Why the contrast? Why is it so important to conservatives to have everyone exactly locked in step? And ultimately, in a country that is more-or-less based on majority rule, is it healthy for the party?

It is as if they would rather you be cold, then luke warm...

...which doesn't help much when it comes time to count the votes.

Even though you have some conservative leanings, Gooberman, you think like a liberal in a lot of ways.

Gooberman wrote:Why is it so important to conservatives to have everyone exactly locked in step?

It's not a matter of being "locked in step." Conservatives have absolutes. The only absolute in the liberal mind is that there is absolutely no absolutes... that we know of... yet. Therefore you're a conservative if you really are conservative, and if you're not you're something else. There are "conservatives" who are liberals at heart, that recognize certain conservative values, but liberal or conservative is first a mindset, and anything following after that, that doesn't follow that mindset is... confusion. But we're not mind-readers, so I would say that it's when it becomes evident by a "conservative's" actions or words that they lack a real conservative foundation, conservatives feel betrayed or deceived.

There is a huge difference between conservatives and liberals, and it's much more than is seen in the political arena. Like I said it's a totally different mindset. If you're thinking of it as basically two very different flavors then no wonder it doesn't make sense.

I'm sorry if that doesn't mean anything to you, or if it's unclear (I can understand what I said ). Frankly it's a difficult subject to deal with accurately and concisely outside of scripture, but I doubt you could see the connection in scripture.

Lol, Goob that’s because liberals never get out of “lock step”, just take a look around here, do you ever see any liberals disagree with each other?

Now on the other hand, how many times do you see me disagree with Thorne, Will, Woody or even CUDA…A lot!

Lock Step….lolololol

Do you know the feeling when someone joins your group, whether at a party or any other social event, and they're trying to convince you and everyone else that they're like you--they're one of the gang, but you know they're not?

They're not trying to lie, they just have no idea.

Wouldn't you rather that person either really actually be like you, or stop trying to say they are (and either go away or approach you as what they are--someone who is not like you)?

That's the best I can do for you, I think, as far as an analogy. It's ugly, but I'm trying to help you out, here.

spidey wrote:oob that’s because liberals never get out of “lock step”, just take a look around here, do you ever see any liberals disagree with each other?

Liberals come in just as many different flavors as conservatives.

The real crime is that we try to cram everyone into two political parties when the spectrum of beliefs is way to wide to fit into those small pigeon holes. Each side tries to claim the party as their own, when they really ought to be divided into several parties.

And Meghan McCain can take a hike, as far as I'm concerned. Conservatives need people who are soundly conservative and can show the value and importance of conservative values; we don't need a new conservative to \"appeal\" to those who don't fully appreciate conservatism. I watched a bit of a video introduction she did, and I was disgusted. I was brought up to stand for what's right, not to trick people into conforming to what's right through appealing to their other senses; probably the most important reason being it does not yield genuine results. You don't try to make what's right hip, or people who are attracted to it for the wrong reasons will not have the strength or depth of character they will need.

It may interest you to know that my only exposure to Meghan McCain (that video), was ostensibly positive.

Kilarin wrote:Liberals come in just as many different flavors as conservatives.

Yea, but liberals are far more politically astute, and normally don’t break the unwritten rule by publicly disagreeing with each other.

...................

See, I’m getting ready to disagree with Thorne…but nahhh, I think I’ll do a liberal…

Before I voted for the first time, I researched both parties and quickly realized how much the republicans were tied to theocracy. When I read that President Bush spoke to God on a regular basis and might soon be replaced by people like Mike Huckabee or Sarah Palin I became genuinely worried. Religion is the ultimate \"lock-step\".

I have other major problems with the Republican party but that was most important to me. I don't like politics being influenced by religion.

Bee

Bet51987 wrote: Religion is the ultimate "lock-step".

Heh, have you heard these guys? They can’t agree on very much…

Right off the bat I disagree with Democrats on gun control (I'm right-leaning/moderate) and abortion (I have an opinion, but it's so emotionally driven I don't really like to say anything on it). I am overall economically liberal, but I do lean to the conservative side of that more often than you'd think. I mainly am opposed to social conservatives, those are my main \"enemy\", so to speak.

To be honest, if we were to have a two party system, I'd prefer for the Republican Party to die and the Libertarian Party to take it's place. Then my wanted social issues would be assured (except gun control and abortion), and all that would be left are economic issues, in which I could freely choose whoever I felt represented my views, instead of often choosing democrat even though I disagree with some economic policies.

I’m very much a Conservative/Libertarian, but I could never join the Libertarian party, mainly because the local and national branches seem to be usurped by WACKOS!

I also had to leave the Republican party because they have lost their way as well.

Bet51987 wrote:Religion is the ultimate "lock-step".

Well that show just how little you really understand or know about religion. if that were the case you wouldnt have so many different denominations forst starters

CUDA wrote:Well that show just how little you really understand or know about religion.

I know more than you think and enough to make the right choices...

Bee

Your comment shows otherwise

CUDA wrote:Your comment shows otherwise

You're not telling me anything when you post.

Bee

Folks, lets try to disagree without insulting or yelling at each other.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Conservatives need people who are soundly conservative and can show the value and importance of conservative values;

That's true, if the Republican party stands for the values that you stand for. But it doesn't necessarily. It stands for the values of the people who call themselves Republicans, and that list includes MANY shades of variation.

Spidey wrote:but liberals are far more politically astute, and normally don't break the unwritten rule by publicly disagreeing with each other

Did you miss the last presidential campaign? Seriously, Liberals disagree with each other all the time. In public.

Bettina wrote:Religion is the ultimate "lock-step".

Well, there is some truth to this, but only if everyone is in the same narrowly defined religion. A country run by only Catholics, or only Southern Baptists, or only one branch of Islam, would experiance a LOT of lock step. But Spidey is dead on, Our current religious "right" is way to diverse to be in lock-step. Yet.

Bettina wrote:I have other major problems with the Republican party but that was most important to me. I don't like politics being influenced by religion.

I agree. The Republican party is NOT all religious, but there is a very frightening and dangerous theocratic movement there. Of course, there is an equally frightening and dangerous anti-religion movement in the Democratic party.

Spidey wrote:I could never join the Libertarian party, mainly because the local and national branches seem to be usurped by WACKOS!

Sad but true. It goes all the way up. They want no public road system. <sigh> That was one of the reasons I so admired Ron Paul. He was a rational Libertarian.

Bet51987 wrote:

CUDA wrote:Your comment shows otherwise

You're not telling me anything when you post.

Bee

Dictionary wrote:lockstep

noun
1. a standard procedure that is followed mindlessly;

Mindlessly following a religion is foolish. Christ's teachings required you to think or you wouldnt understand his points. mindless followings "may" be taught in the religion you practice. but it is far from it in many others.

I don't like politics being influenced by religion.

and those of us that are "religious" dont like our religion being influenced by Politicians

Are you talking about democrat/liberals who have a voice/power the way Limbaugh does on the other side?
Because if you are then you just don't notice it because the lefty's will do the same.
Who removed all entries of democrat Senator Zell Miller in 2004 from the official Democrat Party web page because he backed Bush over Kerry?

I think you don't hear them on radio doing it because liberals don't do well in a medium that doesn't use pictures to explain things....

Maybe the perception that you have that repub's attack their own more often is actually proof of their tolerance. Repub's have more diversity. Dem's don't let the same thing happen so you don't hear the bickering among the factions as much.

CUDA wrote:

Dictionary wrote:lockstep

noun
1. a standard procedure that is followed mindlessly;

Mindlessly following a religion is foolish. Christ's teachings required you to think or you wouldnt understand his points. mindless followings "may" be taught in the religion you practice. but it is far from it in many others.

You're twisting or trolling, or both. Shame on you.
I'm fully aware of Christ's teachings and I don't follow it mindlessly. Go insult someone else. I'm not biting

Lock-step: (Wiki) The term acquired a number of other meanings by the way of analogy, referring to synchronous or imitating movement or other behavior, following something or someone ("in lockstep with...")

Members of the Republican party are in lockstep with each other when it comes to religion and politics. That's something they make no bones about.

...and those of us that are "religious" dont like our religion being influenced by Politicians

That makes sense only to Republicans.

Bee

Bettina wrote:Members of the Republican party are in lockstep with each other when it comes to religion and politics. That's something they make no bones about.

That's just not true.

Edit: "lockstep" contains a sense of extreme synchronicity.

Both the Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives are all in near perfect Lock Step with each other. Together always putting their party BS before everything else, then themselves, then special interests, and somewhere far down at the very bottom you might fight serving the country or the people if it is on the list at all. It doesn't really matter which side you are on, screwing the ordinary people in every neighborhood across the whole country has always been priority one.

People who believe their party is working for the common good all have their heads buried in the sand and its a good portion their fault we are stuck with such a retarded one and a half party system where both parties put together equals less than the sum of their parts. Put a Conservative Republican and a Liberal Democrat together and the total sum of gray matter will be less than half a brain.

That's a big part of why I hardly ever read this idiotic subforum, too many morons on both extremes clashing over which way is the proper way to screw over the public.

I don't even know why I'm bothering to post this, something must be wrong with my head today...please ignore this post. kthxbye [/rant]

Will Robinson wrote:I think you don't hear them on radio doing it because liberals don't do well in a medium that doesn't use pictures to explain things.

Ha! The jab gets points for style, but not content. I suppose you don't ever listen to NPR then? As far as radio goes, liberals, in general, have more style, and certainly more "Intellectual" content.

Bettina wrote:Members of the Republican party are in lockstep with each other when it comes to religion and politics. That's something they make no bones about.

Cuda wrote:"lockstep" contains a sense of extreme synchronicity.

Both of you are right. Lockstep implies complete agreement. There is a strong movement in the Republican party (although it certainly does not cover the entire party) that is in "lockstep" on the notion of bringing God back into our government. They will all join together and fight for that concept. BUT, once they've achieved their goal, there is no agreement whatsoever on how it should be implemented.

Take the 10 commandments, for example. You get a lot of conservatives (not all!), pushing for governmental acknowledgment of the 10 commandments. Displays in courthouses and schools, resolutions stating that our laws are based on the Decalogue, etc. Sounds lockstep, and it is. BUT, dig a bit further down and you discover that the Catholics and Protestants have different versions of the 10 commandments. And the protestants don't agree from one denomination to another on how or whether the 10 commandments apply to new testament Christians. Not lockstep at all.

Krom wrote:Both the Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives are all in near perfect Lock Step with each other. Together always putting their party BS before everything else, then themselves, then special interests, and somewhere far down at the very bottom you might fight serving the country or the people if it is on the list at all

Now THAT is a very deep insight. Very true, most often missed. I'm glad you decided to read this particular forum today.

sorry; I just thought that this thread needed a commercial. Carry on.

Kilarin wrote:Did you miss the last presidential campaign? Seriously, Liberals disagree with each other all the time. In public.

You mean the campaign where the Democrats spent 99% of the time attacking Bush, and the remaining 1% trying to decide who is more qualified than debating the issues…that campaign?

I heard the words “we agree on the issues” more during that last campaign then I can recall in a very long time.

Bet51987 wrote:

...and those of us that are "religious" dont like our religion being influenced by Politicians

That makes sense only to Republicans.

Bee

so what your saying is that Democrats are in favor of Government having influence in religion and Republicans are not.

Spidey wrote:I heard the words “we agree on the issues” more during that last campaign then I can recall in a very long time.

Ok, after some further thought, I'm going to have to concede that Obama and Clinton mainly indulged in personal attacks, they were both very similar socialists during the campaign.

Which does not mean that all liberals are alike. Just Obama and Clinton.

Kilarin wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:I think you don't hear them on radio doing it because liberals don't do well in a medium that doesn't use pictures to explain things.

Ha! The jab gets points for style, but not content. I suppose you don't ever listen to NPR then? As far as radio goes, liberals, in general, have more style, and certainly more "Intellectual" content....

I do listen to NPR but can't remember hearing liberals tear down other liberals on there. As far as intellectual content I'd put Neil Boortz up against your average NPR contributor as having a better grasp of the issues and intelligently being able to address them...and still belittle and mock the opposition with plenty of style.
When I read your 'lack of style' complaint I suspected you are mistaking arrogance and condescension for style because that is the delivery mechanism used by liberals.

It's funny when people argue over these two political brand names because the system they run on doesn’t test who would actually be the best for the US president job position. You get the impression, from the media, that we have the best eligible people of today, running for office. How is that possible?

It reminds me of sports franchises battling, for the bowl/cup. People swear up and down they’ll never vote for a “dang democrat,” assuming that brand will never adjust policy to pull in more voters (clients). It’s the Packers verses the Cowboys or the Red Socks verses the Giants every four years. And you’ll see these two brands compete in raising money to buy mountains of communications. Our political system might have worked back when the country was smaller and had a simple economy.

The fact is, every US citizen can be president. If we let everyone in the country (who wanted) ‘test’ for office we would end up voting for the top candidates, none of which is professionally involved in politics.

Will Robinson wrote:As far as intellectual content I'd put Neil Boortz up against your average NPR contributor as having a better grasp of the issues and intelligently being able to address them

I haven't listened to Neil Boortz, so I can't compare on that point. I'll have to check out one of his programs.

Will Robinson wrote:and still belittle and mock the opposition with plenty of style.

But that's part of the point. NPR seldom waste time belittling conservatives. They have a definite and strong liberal slant, but they ATTEMPT to be fair.

Octopus wrote: You get the impression, from the media, that we have the best eligible people of today, running for office. How is that possible?

Very true, we don't. We have some of the least qualified.

Octopus wrote:If we let everyone in the country (who wanted) ‘test’ for office we would end up voting for the top candidates, none of which is professionally involved in politics.

You have more faith in the voters than I do.

Kilarin wrote:..

Will Robinson wrote:and still belittle and mock the opposition with plenty of style.

But that's part of the point. NPR seldom waste time belittling conservatives. They have a definite and strong liberal slant, but they ATTEMPT to be fair....

Well a couple of things.
First, see my comment about condescension and arrogance because maybe you just don't notice the 'style' of belittling and mockery that takes place under the guise of intelligent discussion. You could simply go back and listen with an open mind at commentary regarding Sara Palin, small towns, Alaska, religion and find tons of "intelligent" and "fair" commentary that if turned around and applied to a liberal candidate it would be classified as rightwing hate speech.

Second, "fair" is usually a relative term because it depends on the persons point of view where the "fairness" lies. I prefer they simply be honest and let the feelings be hurt, that is the Boortz style and it works well.
Example of liberals giving us "fairness": the "Fairness Doctrine" is merely a liberals attempt to squelch free speech. You can tell me all about the 'peoples air waves' and why newspapers don't get included but I bet you won't find a liberal who would let conservatives monitor state universities or K-12 schools for fairness in content even though they are also the "peoples" institutions....

My two cents is the Republican Party with people like Specter and McCain in it is trying too much to become \"centrist\". Perhaps those Rep. and Dems. that want to be centrist should start a party and promote that ideology instead of being in a party that by definition is not centrist. I have a feeling in 2012 if someone like Palin decides to run, you will see how strong the conservative side of the political spectrum gets involved.
Last election we had no real conservative choice, yet when Palin was picked as VP you could see all the conservative energy sky rocket. Unfortunately she was hamstrung by the almost liberal McCain and the major news organs being in \"lockstep\" with the Obama love affair campaign and collectively doing their best to character assassinate Palin.
Limbaugh's comment on Specter and McCain is spot on.In Specters case, he did a jumping Jim because he saw a real threat from a conservative republican in a upcoming home state election and so in a classic politicians \"It is all about me\" philosophy, bailed from the republican party and went democrat. Good riddance. BTW, when is the last time you heard of a democrat jumping ship?

I hope Specter loses to a true Democrat in the next election. He doesn't deserve reelection. Pennsylvania voters will hopefully see him as a political mercenary that wants to keep his post at all costs.

First he claims he's a 'loyal Democrat' to ABC's Stephanopoulos, then denies it a few days later in the main press.

Will Robinson wrote:First, see my comment about condescension and arrogance because maybe you just don't notice the 'style' of belittling and mockery that takes place under the guise of intelligent discussion.

Actually, I haven't heard a lot of mockery on most NPR programs. I DO have to admit that they express an attitude of superiority at times. I happen to enjoy BOTH "All Things Considered" and right wing talk radio. BUT, there is simply no denying that NPR is pretty sophisticated and talk radio is very NOT. Comparing the two, well, it would be difficult for NPR to NOT have a bit of a superior attitude.

Will Robinson wrote:Second, "fair" is usually a relative term because it depends on the persons point of view where the "fairness" lies. I prefer they simply be honest and let the feelings be hurt, that is the Boortz style and it works well.

In general, I agree. It's best to acknowledge your slant upfront instead of trying to pretend being unbiased. However, I don't consider being "fair" to mean being unbiased. Being fair means treating the other side with some respect, and giving them their say. "All Things Considered", "Morning Edition", and other left leaning NPR programs usually try very hard to achieve this. They will at least attempt to present all of the facts, and the other sides point of view. They do NOT always succeed, but they usually try, and I give them points for that.

And they very seldom drop to the level of ridicule and insult that is prevalent in right wing talk Radio.

Woodchip wrote:Perhaps those Rep. and Dems. that want to be centrist should start a party and promote that ideology instead of being in a party that by definition is not centrist.

Who defines what the Republican Party is? It's an organization, like our country, that is defined by it's membership. I agree that it would be much better off (and much fairer) to split BOTH parties. At LEAST twice.

The Republicans are by no means the “conservative” (not centrist) party by “definition”, that would indeed be the Conservative party. And anybody that knows the history of the GOP would never make such a claim.

But, it has been made very clear that moderates are no longer welcome….see ya…

Have fun filling that “big tent”.

Kilarin wrote:...
Actually, I haven't heard a lot of mockery on most NPR programs. I DO have to admit that they express an attitude of superiority at times. I happen to enjoy BOTH "All Things Considered" and right wing talk radio. BUT, there is simply no denying that NPR is pretty sophisticated and talk radio is very NOT. Comparing the two, well, it would be difficult for NPR to NOT have a bit of a superior attitude. ...

Well I don't think it's fair to compare something like Limbaugh with All Things Considered. Certainly the NPR show is more fair by both your definition and mine but Limbaugh is a self proclaimed rightwing conservative ideologue...his show is dedicated to expanding the conservative movement where as most NPR programming is more of a running commentary on the events of the day. Those comments are presented by liberals usually so the slant is evident but they aren't all advocates for the democrat party, many are just liberal in their views and don't try to swing votes the democrats way so obviously comparing "talk radio" and NPR using Limbaugh as the model you are right.
Comparing democrats/liberals with republicans/conservatives however, as the initial post seemed to be asking about, with regards to eating their own if they step out of line or even in the realm of hateful commentary about their political counterparts, I don't think you can show a difference between them. The right may use radio much more but the left pumps out the party line and attacks in the TV and Movie medium just as viciously and with more outlets by far.
An example is when celebrities that are conservative have to hide their politics so they don't lose work opportunities in Hollywood and only speak out if they are the top of the top relatively immune to studio and producer blacklisting. People like Spielberg sheepishly admitting he owns guns and belongs to the NRA can get away with it while Ron Silver, a lesser personae, was dropped from finding work.

You don't find anyone dropping liberals from the lists in Hollywood or faulting them for turning out partisan political propaganda labeled as documentary film making....
So singling out talk radio, which is a small force compared with the pop culture keystone that is Hollywood, is a bit of misdirection.

What about click and clack the tappet brothers vs Limbaugh?

Will Robinson wrote:with regards to eating their own if they step out of line or even in the realm of hateful commentary about their political counterparts, I don't think you can show a difference between them. The right may use radio much more but the left pumps out the party line and attacks in the TV and Movie medium just as viciously and with more outlets by far.

UGH! Sorry, I have miscommunicated terribly. Entirely my fault. Let me back up and explain.

You said:

Will Robinson wrote:I think you don't hear them on radio doing it because liberals don't do well in a medium that doesn't use pictures to explain things.

I thought this was funny, but wrong. Or more specifically, I thought the BOLDED section was wrong. All I meant to say was that I think NPR is a generally liberal outlet that excels in the audio only media. Does a much better job than most conservative radio programs, actually (although, like I said, I enjoy both, and see failings in both)

Of course, the way I quoted and responded made it look like I was trying to say that NPR was used as a format to attack other liberals, and you are absolutely correct, it isn't. And I also agree with you completely that liberals DO attack other liberals, NPR just isn't the place they do it.

So, again, my fault, and my apologies.

Octopus wrote:What about click and clack the tappet brothers vs Limbaugh?

Ah, now that is a better line up in style. Dang but they have a good show though!

Kilarin wrote:
\"All I meant to say was that I think NPR is a generally liberal outlet that excels in the audio only media.\"

Would this be true if NPR did not receive govt. money?
Would they be on the air if they were dependent for revenue from advertisers? Careful because if you answer yes, then my response is....why the heck should taxpayers be paying for NPR in the first place?

woodchip wrote:why the heck should taxpayers be paying for NPR in the first place?

If you were expecting disagreement from me, you'll be disappointed. I no longer support NPR for exactly this reason. As soon as they quit taking government dollars, I'll start supporting them again.

Every time the government turns conservative, NPR and PBS panic that they will be controlled and censored. They usually alter their programming a bit to try and be less offensive. The solution to this problem is, CUT THE APRON STRINGS!!!!!

Public Television and Radio need to be supported by the public, not by the government.

One of my brother-in-laws usually calls NPR \"National Public Radicals\"