Look at how Rove went after Palin and et. al! No conscience! Well what goes around...comes around! Now he's getting what's coming to him! Looks like his lies and smears are coming back to bite HIM in HIS a&%!
Rove is a Bushite loser! Ignore him. Up to this point, I am impressed with Ted Cruz. We need a list of organizations that actually support conservative causes. Is there a website with a list?
Why is it we give air times to these establishment Republicans? If we are to win we need to stop giving air time to these people!
"Most conservative candidate who can win" is code for big government Republicans. That is why Mitt Romney got the nomination and that is why he lost...along with Dole and others that are too many to list.
I'm also sick and tired of Rove smearing O'Donnell along with Angle and others. He has got to go. Who is he to smear anyone?
To me Rove symbolized the sound proof wall between the Republican Party and the electorate. They can't hear us by design. We are being taken advantage of. They know we find the repulsive so they presume continually that we will vote for them regardless. Enormous losses don't seem to deter them. I also bet that Akin and Mourdock, Mourdock especially, lost because people are fed up and stayed home. Those 3 million voters that stayed home are going to translate out more than just the Presidential election. Rove is costing races at every level and legislation as well.
I am more convinced than ever now that Mark Levin and Karl Rove have to have a televised debate to hash this out. This is THE cutting edge issue within the Republican Party as to who should be in control of this party and what ideals drive its identity. They can have this debate on the Hannity show; take the entire hour with Sean Hannity moderating. At the conclusion of the show we would all know without a doubt where the Republican Party needs to go and who should be booted.
Karl Rove is a phony and has fully become the enemy. Sean ought to know better as a self-avowed Tea Party Patriot.
Rove is a liar... plain and simple and I'm glad Mark and others are nailing this fraud with the truth.
Hannity has no intellectual standing and is in awe of Rove, as are most at Fox. However, hopefully he will soon follow Sarah Palin. Looks like even Fox is moderating a little bit.
I'm hopeful Hannity will come to his senses. I don't see Dick Morris around anymore.
I thought Levin was to be on Hannity twice a week - haven't seen him yet.
Dick Morris has to be in hiding after his massive failure on calling the election. I used to watch his little piece at lunch time. After the election I "unfriended" him. There is nothing he has to say that could possibly interest me again.
Replacing Dick Morris with Mark Levin... MASSIVE improvement. Now if Sean would keep Karl Rove and Juan Williams off his show... wishful thinking.
The difference to me personally is that Bob is big buffoon... a paid for punching bag. I think he's supposed to say the stupid things... even if he believes some of the things he says.
Karl Rove is dangerous and subversive. And Juan is racist and ignorant. Bob's a big goofball in comparison...
But point taken. I'd also lock Alan Colmes out too.
Elitists like Rove are going to be the primary reason there is a third party in this country. As I've always said, after Bush won in 2004 did the Democrats throw liberals under the bus and say that they had to be more "conservative" to be more "electable?" Not for a minute. And whatever happened to all those "conservative" "blue-dog" Democrats? The Democratic party really "embraced" them in their big tent, didn't they? I don't think there is one blue dog left in Congress, and if there are, there are only one or two of them.
Ronald Reagan won because he stood by and was proud of his conservative principles. He didn't hide them and, in fact, tried to promote them every chance he had. The American people respect politicians that actually stand for something and stick by their principles. Perhaps that is why Obama is such a polarizing figure. The liberals love him because he's so liberal and makes no bones about it. The conservatives hate him because Obama claims to be a "centrist" when in fact he's a liar and an ultra-liberal. If economic times remain as bad as they are, even the low information voters will embrace anyone of principle that has a plan to get us out of this mess. THAT is what got Reagan elected, that and a disastrous economy created by Carter.
Ultra-liberal? Look at the US political spectrum and what both parties stood for fifty to sixty years ago. Obama's "ultra- liberalism" of today would back then have been considered moderate. Nixon would have been considered pretty much the same, especially because of his attitude toward China and engagement rather than isolation. Eisenhower would be considered today a liberal, even farther to the left than Obama. After all, look historically at Eisenhower's policies throughout the fifties, and not just rebuilding our infrastructure. As for the "disastrous" economy created by Carter, how about the mess Reagan left his vice-president? The economy was so bad George H W Bush could not get re-elected, and it wasn't just because of his "read my lips" fiasco. The historic record clearly demonstrates that the political spectrum has shifted far to the right over the past two generations. JFK was a liberal in the early sixties. Today, you cannot find anyone in Washington with the same set of goals and principles. Real liberals no longer exist in Washington, only in the deluded minds of conservatives.
Libertyship reminds me of my Mother and Grand Father working side by side during WWII as welders building Liberty ships and the Portable Docks for them.
I don't get why he does that... being a so-called Tea Party Patriot. It's oil and water. He's a different person on the radio... I wonder if FNC is pressuring him or something.
HA! Rove is so transparent ... sending his flunkey out to attack Steve King's Candidacy for US Senate from Iowa, because he is "unelectable" --- > BULLSCHMIDT!
The real reason Rove is trying to stop Steve King running in the Primary is because the Ruling Class GOPe FEAR more ALLIES for Cruz and Rand Paul! .... They know Tim Scott from SC will not be towing the Establishment line either ... and then we have Ron Johnson WI, Deb Fischer NE and Mike Lee UT ... Independent Thinkers are not appreciated by the Elites in DC ... so sad, too bad, Tokyo Rove!
The group of non-fake Conservatives is growing bigger, and the Ruling Class GOPe don't like it ... YEAH
Just tweeted these:
Rove's flunkey is going after Steve King as *unelectable* in IA Senate race, bcs Ruling Class GOPe don't want more DC support 4 Paul & Cruz!
Rove trying 2 stop Steve King from being IA Senator bcs Ruling Class GOPe fear more ALLIES 4 Cruz & Paul! Patriots ---> #WAR ---> #CrushROVE
Steve King would make a terrific Senator; I'll be praying for him and sending him money, just like I did for last year's congressional race. Thank you, Mark, for inviting him on the show today.
WE HAVE TO GET OUT OF THE ALBATROSS REPUBLICAN PARTY. The Republicans started the Department of Health, Education and Welfare under Republican President Eisenhower, that department is now HHS, the Department of Education. Nixon established the EPA; Bush 1 signed into law the ADA; Bush 2 strengthen the department of Education, created Homeland Security, and took away our privacy rights with warrantless wiretaps. These are NOT actions of small Federal government believers. They INCREASED spending, not lowered it.
They made the federal government BIGGER, not smaller. But what did they promise us? There were carrots put out that the Department of Education would be disbanded and allow the states to run their own education, there was promises of defunding the National Endowment of the Arts, there were promises of defunding PBS, and when Newt came into power, he not only did NOT defund PBS, but made a big show of giving them a donation. Newt also endorsed the LIBERAL of the NY23 over the much stronger Conservative Party candidate, he was repaid when the Republican pulled out of the race in a huff and endorsed the DEMOCRAT.
The Republican party name is not popular with either the left, nor the right, so why is there NOT a push to leave it like Reagan left the Democrat party? They want to run their moderate candidates, let them, we can go out on our own and run conservatives.
STRENGTHENED the Department of Education? You,ve got to be kidding! No Child Left Behind was the worst thing to happen to American education in the past 100 years. A mandated program with no funding was an improvement? A mandated program that teachers all around the country (even in Texas) hated, that did not teach life skills only taking tests, and whose success was gauged by how well the students did on TESTS, not on the practical application of learned skills. I certainly wish you folks WOULD go out on your own and run your conservatives. A fringe party like The Tea Party would last about as long as Ross Perot did, or should I say George Wallace sinceyou probably relate better to him.
No Robert, you are just simply wrong, it indeed STRENGTHENED the DOE with greater control over state and local education with it's mandate. You obviously do not have much in way of comprehension skills. The key here at this site is to engage your brain before typing. Remember who were the partners in NCLB? UH, Bush and Teddy Kennedy
I read your "spongbongo" item, and, as I expected, it is from anything but a reputable source. McCarthy was right? Then why was he so discredited, and why is he constantly vilified to this day? Your sources have no validity. If you want to carry on a reasoned arguement, find some verifiable and reasonable sources.
Since it is impossible to engage you in a reasonable conversation in which you can use anything but your stupid, hackneyed conservative lies, there is really no point in continuing this lunacy. You wouldn't understand logic if it slapped you in the face, since your only response to it is negativism and insult. Your list of 45 is BS, and you know it. Proof of your inability to present a reasoned response is your comment about "any change". Conservatives pursue the "status quo", which is Latin for "that which is present", and "any change" to the status quo is viewed by conservatives as a bad thing, hence their resistance to anything that changesthe status quo. I have simplified that as much as I can. I just hope you are able to comprehend it.
I am tiring of your liberalism. All but THREE have been foisted on our country, it is not a pipe dream, the only pipe involved here is your crack pipe if you can't admit how well that plan has worked. Your arguments are not only trite, they are so logically flawed as to be laughable if it were not so serious. The fact that you have had your hand on the cradle of young peoples minds is a most scary, dangerous thing.
"Any change" indicates you think "Any" is a good thing, your opinion of "advance" may actually be regressive, I could list the unintended consequences that liberal policies have had on the poor in this country, but it would be wasted on you.
Tell me, smart guy, why is it, that in cities that liberals have controlled in the last 50 years, that blacks are in abject poverty? You cannot blame that on conservatives, because conservatives have not won office in those areas in 50 years. Tell me smart guy why more people are on food stamps under Obama than has ever been before. Tell me smart guy, why, after 4 years of Obama's policies are more people not able to find a job, not just those who are receiving unemployment, but those who's benefits ran out, almost 100,000,000 people. You try to say Bush, I say it is liberal policies that started 2 years before Bush left office when the Democrats won the House and Senate. Bush did not help by agreeing with them on that bail out.
spongobongo? Do you people even know what a legitimate source is? And your "45 ponts" are your pipe dream. The only people in this country who REALLY want to control public thought and action are those who fear anything original, namely, conservatives, who wish to maintain the status quo. Any change is viewed as harmful, any advance is viewed as a deviation from the old ways and unChristian, any desire to improve the lives of all Americans is viewed as unpatriotic. And, really, a "liberal republican"? You people have such a childish way of disavowing your own.
The only "Smoke and Mirrors" going on is the push polling that UCS foists on unsuspecting scientists to get their signatures on fake evidence.
A Western conservative cannot be a fascist. A fascist is a system whereby the Government allows private business, but so regulates the private sector that it is the government that tells them what they can and cannot do. The EPA is a great example of fascism, and a liberal republican started it, but liberal democrats have put it to great use.
As far as McCarthy is concerned he was a little late in the game, most of the communists were already exposed, http://www.spongobongo.com/em/em9820.htm
This however does not dismiss the fact that of the 45 stated goals of communism in the US 90% have been achieved, you should be quite proud.
Jimmy Stewart, or any number of other totally innocuous actors or actresses. It washistotally erroneous ASSUMPTION that Hollywood was a hotbed of communist activity, and of those he accused and brought before his committee, NONE were convicted, although they suffered the long-term stigma. McCarthy was a fascist, in the truest sense, and his sins cameback to haunt and to eventually totally discredit him and those whoassociated with him.
I didn't think that you would read the article I suggested. Don't want the facts to interfere with your opinion, do you? McCarthy was PROVEN to be wrong and, just like his modern counterparts of Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, felt it was necessary to inspire by fear rather than by fact.
McCarthy was correct on those in the CPUSA. It was the communists who had invaded the news media and still own it that made him out to be a bad man. And that list of 45 seem to have all happened, didn't they. Then the colleges got infiltrated and started teaching teachers communist propaganda and voilà! out pops RobertCHastings.
I read your little thingy on the 45 goals of Communism. And what does it demonstrate? That McCarthyism is alive and well in America. Or should I say, to modernize, Cruzism and Rubioism. You probably have no idea of the origins of the Tea Party, do you? Try reading "Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air": Redux on The Union of Concerned Scientists website. They actually cite reviewable sources. Your darling Tea Party is nothing but a bunch of unwitting shills.
You should read this, and your recollection of history is a little skewed!
Ray. Believe it or not you had me for the first four lines. We can both agree that both sides of the aisle are entirely too enraptured with big money, the Republicans with oil, pharma, etc. and The Democrats are beholden to oil, pharma, etc. All after that you sort of lose me. I am 67 years old. When I was in HS, I canvassed door-to-door for Barry Goldwater (mostly, because I didn't know any better, but I wanted to get involved in the political process). My first year at college I went to an SDS meeting, and was equally turned off - seemed like a bunch of little kids playing at being important. JFK was the first president I voted for. When he came into office, the top tax rate was 90% (it had not changed since the end of WWII). Kennedy dropped that rate to 70%. While Kennedy was not able to accomplish as much as he would have liked, due to a tragic turn of events, his successor finished things up for him. These two presidents (Kennedy and Johnson) would today be far left of the farthest left Democrats you can now name. Nixon, who followed Johnson, although a crook, was still far to the left of today's Republican leaders, like Lindsey Graham and John McCain and Mitch McConnell. The political spectrum has shifted way to the right in the past forty or so years, mostly due to the influence of money, BIG money. Candidates brought in money back then, from individual donors and some from other larger sources. However, this is another point we both agree on - money is entirely TOO much the issue in elections. Money should not buy votes, nor should it be used to influence votes. What money does today in elections and campaigns would have been considered bribery forty years ago. We are both disappointed in the influence money has on elections and on public policy. However, what you seem to see as a shift toward socialism is not. Socialism is, simply, government OWNERSHIP of the resources and means of production of goods and services. If you see Obama's leadership as pointing us in the direction of socialism, then you have not been watching, just listening to the wrong people. Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck are NOT the intellectuals they pretend to be; in fact, both are reminiscent of "The Emperor's New Clothes". They are selling their listeners a bill of goods that is shoddy and built on lies.
You can have Lincoln. He was the first cog in the wheel of the Big Government catastrophe we have now. They can't agree on a budget because the Republican Party doesn't want to grow government as fast as the Democrats, but they both are beholden to the rich, Democrats have helped GE, Trial Lawyers, BIG TV, BIG Pharma and Wall Street. Republicans have helped BIG Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, and other Big Industry. All to the detriment of the individual voter. Obama is NOWHERE near center left. You could only come to that conclusion is you are a far left wacko and he is a little right of you. I will tell you two center people; Sen. Lindsey Graham and Rep. Mike Ross of Ark.
BTW, your view of great and strong may have a different aspect as to what I view great and strong. We WERE great and strong, we now are WEAK and atrophying due to the policies of the last year of Bush (BTW, the democrats took both houses two years before Bush left office, and their legislative priorities were what Bush signed into law and led to the downfall in the banking industry. They would not let Fanny and Freddie be regulated way back in 2002, in fact Barney Frank stated they were in perfect shape because they were funneling money to the Democrat party, just like Countrywide was. But guess what, the Republicans allowed it to continue, and BTW this Violence Against Women Act that was just passed funds far left liberal organizations which will launder taxpayer money back to the democrat party through their "Charitable" giving. You don't mind that, however what if the same thing were done by Republicans which you THINK are conservative?) and Obama's massive shift to socialism.
So, apparently, what you are saying, is that BOTH parties are for big government and pursue liberal agendas? Wow! Then why can't they agree on a budget, and make other decisions to keep this country great and strong.? I guess you believe that Herbert Hoover was a big government liberal, who believed in regulation and big spending, too. And, just for a little historic perspective, in the 1860's. when Lincoln was president, the Republican and Democratic parties were both 180 degrees from where they are now. Lincoln was, in fact, more like Obama, located somewhere near center-left, and his Democrat opponents were the conservatives.
I am not conflicted, I know what the Republican party is, has been since it's inception, it is a strong centralized government party. Lincoln did away with the 10th amendment, Eisenhower brought us the Health, Welfare, and Education Department, Nixon gave us the EPA, Bush 1 the ADA, Bush 2 the DHS, and full circle as to why we are chatting, the NCLB.
They are big government liberals, I am a conservative.
And who passed it through a Republican Congress, and signed it as a Republican President? You folks are really conflicted.
RobertCHastings, it does not matter if it was unfunded or not, it gave the Federal Government more control.
And Ted Kennedy, bless his liberal heart, lived long enough to regret having supported "No Child Left Behind". In case you have forgotten, the "mandate" was unfunded, which means the money to implement had to come from other sources. I as a teacher, my wife as a teacher, and many other teachers we both know hated the program. It taught "to the test", not to the needs of the students. In Texas NCLB was known as a program that encouraged those kids who would bring down the overall test scores to drop out, making Texas' dropout rate one of the highest in the country. The state of Texas abandoned NCLB shortly after Bush left the governor's office, because it DID NOT improve education in the state.