jerseyhoya wrote:Werthless and I aren't in the same GOP.

pacino wrote:you both still pretty fairly ignore social issues, do you not?

We agree on social issues, and we're fairly liberal on them. We don't "ignore" social issues, we simply don't toe the line with some of the more religious sects of the GOP.

A coalition built around being anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion won't win nationwide elections, and I think Republicans realize that. Any new GOP coalition will need to be a coherent opposition to the current Democratic consensus of "We can solve your problems for you." They probably need to come up with some updated Contract with America to unify the message, and express it to the people.

In my ideal world, it would reaffirm the GOP's commitment to:
-Responsible government management, with a promise to balance the budget in times of normal economic growth.
-Securing the domestic borders, and then tackling immigration reform. Maybe this would entail a solution with fines for current illegal immigrants, but then allowing most to stay under a generous worker program.
-Simplification of the tax code
-An audit of the Federal Reserve's activities, and re-evaluate the mission of this branch of government (should we have them managing the money supply, regulating our markets, all while serving as appointees of the President)
-free trade
-following the Constitutionally accepted restraints on government

In the most likely scenario, it would also include stuff about the sanctity of the family, furthering our national security interests abroad, and fluffy stuff like being tough on crime. I think if the GOP wants to win coming elections, it can't run on a joint platform of "we want less economic government intrusion" and "we're the morality police protecting against the degradation of traditional culture." Besides being internally inconsistent, the latter platform turns off youngish voters and moderates.

drsmooth wrote:

Rococo4 wrote:both sides have staked out a niche where they think they can attract viewers. fox kicks the you know what out of msnbc. thus the animosity.

fox viewership: home in their basement, lots of time on their hands, cowering from the joos

msnbc viewership: brainless twitterers, multitasking social butterflies, no time to watch more than 10 min of teevee unless they're on it

thus the ratings discrepancy

Liberals like to watch Fox News so they have something to complain about.

Eagleton poll shows Corzine and Christie tied (within margin of error) and Daggett with 20%.

Rococo4 wrote: just like day time fox hosts lean right, so do the day time people at MSNBC lean left - and we arent even discussing CNN.

Do you "know" this, or is it just what your team spirit tells you?

Seriously, if there's a video clip of MSNBC daytime anchors as close to their nighttime folks as the one I posted for Fox, let's see it. I haven't watched "Morning Joe" in awhile, but my recollection is that he's pretty far from Olbermann. And the rest seem like basic news drones, with no perspective other than being credulous toward whoever's in office and interested not in "pushing an agenda" but in further dumbing the world down.

Werthless wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

Rococo4 wrote:both sides have staked out a niche where they think they can attract viewers. fox kicks the you know what out of msnbc. thus the animosity.

fox viewership: home in their basement, lots of time on their hands, cowering from the joos

msnbc viewership: brainless twitterers, multitasking social butterflies, no time to watch more than 10 min of teevee unless they're on it

thus the ratings discrepancy

Liberals like to watch Fox News so they have something to complain about.

It's the leggy newsbabes. MSNBC needs to wise up and get some teleprompter reading Hooters girls if they want to stand a chance in the ratings war.

Joe Ferriero, who more than anyone else was responsible for the transformation of Bergen County (the largest in NJ) from a Republican stronghold to a Democratic county on the local level over the past dozen years, was found guilty today on mail fraud and conspiracy charges and faces up to 20 years in jail.

Between him and John Lynch (Middlesex County), two of the four or five most powerful Democratic party bosses in the state will be watching election night results in jail. Hopefully Norcross gets popped for something and gets to watch the 2013 race from inside.

Err...looks like Lynch got out in July and is under house arrest till November. The overall point still holds.

jeff2sf wrote:Sorry dajafi, but that's quitter talk (a cross between Kucinich and Buchanan).

3 things:

1. Barack talked all through the campaign that Afghanistan was the war we should be fighting. Ok, he got elected, now fight it. There is nothing, short of a nuclear bomb, that could have changed things so quickly in the last 8 months.

2. The guy Obama installed to fight this war wants more troops to fight it properly. Dems skewered Bush for ignoring his commanders. Listen to the man, give him the troops and re-assess in a year. This isn't Vietnam, not even close. We can prevent it from being so.

3. Political calculus. Dems wonder why people think they're soft. This is a prime example. Point B, if you stress bi-partisanship at every turn, why not listen to some sane GOP'ers who think this needs to be fought.

This isn't a suicide pact, I'm not saying we can't re-assess in a year. But 8 months? Give me a friggin break.

One thing that happened is that Karzai fixed the election and was caught doing so. Our goal in Afghanistan should be to destroy the remnants of Al Qaeda leadership and prevent the Taliban from toppling Pakistan. We need to be inside Afghanistan to accomplish this, but going all out to prop up the ruling drug lord or to try to turn Afghanistan into a little America is kind of futile. Will the Taliban come back? Possibly, not really our problem. We are their because of the importance of Pakistan and AQ leaders. There are plenty of other potential AQ sanctuaries for its foot soldiers and mid-level guys, from Yemen, to Somalia, to Indonesia, to Saudi Arabia, and even Albania/pieces of Yugoslavia.

dajafi wrote:

Rococo4 wrote: just like day time fox hosts lean right, so do the day time people at MSNBC lean left - and we arent even discussing CNN.

Do you "know" this, or is it just what your team spirit tells you?

Seriously, if there's a video clip of MSNBC daytime anchors as close to their nighttime folks as the one I posted for Fox, let's see it. I haven't watched "Morning Joe" in awhile, but my recollection is that he's pretty far from Olbermann. And the rest seem like basic news drones, with no perspective other than being credulous toward whoever's in office and interested not in "pushing an agenda" but in further dumbing the world down.

yes i do know (or "know") this because i see it all the time

allentown wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:Sorry dajafi, but that's quitter talk (a cross between Kucinich and Buchanan).

3 things:

1. Barack talked all through the campaign that Afghanistan was the war we should be fighting. Ok, he got elected, now fight it. There is nothing, short of a nuclear bomb, that could have changed things so quickly in the last 8 months.

2. The guy Obama installed to fight this war wants more troops to fight it properly. Dems skewered Bush for ignoring his commanders. Listen to the man, give him the troops and re-assess in a year. This isn't Vietnam, not even close. We can prevent it from being so.

3. Political calculus. Dems wonder why people think they're soft. This is a prime example. Point B, if you stress bi-partisanship at every turn, why not listen to some sane GOP'ers who think this needs to be fought.

This isn't a suicide pact, I'm not saying we can't re-assess in a year. But 8 months? Give me a friggin break.

One thing that happened is that Karzai fixed the election and was caught doing so. Our goal in Afghanistan should be to destroy the remnants of Al Qaeda leadership and prevent the Taliban from toppling Pakistan. We need to be inside Afghanistan to accomplish this, but going all out to prop up the ruling drug lord or to try to turn Afghanistan into a little America is kind of futile. Will the Taliban come back? Possibly, not really our problem. We are their because of the importance of Pakistan and AQ leaders. There are plenty of other potential AQ sanctuaries for its foot soldiers and mid-level guys, from Yemen, to Somalia, to Indonesia, to Saudi Arabia, and even Albania/pieces of Yugoslavia.

I'm relieved we have plenty of alternative battlegrounds we can potentially go to. We'd hate to have idle resources.

This NY-23 race is really interesting. Palin and Bachmann endorsed the Conservative party candidate. I mean we're probably just going to end up helping the Dem get elected, but for people looking to see a full scale center/right crack up in the GOP, keep an eye on this one.

jerseyhoya wrote:This NY-23 race is really interesting. Palin and Bachmann endorsed the Conservative party candidate. I mean we're probably just going to end up helping the Dem get elected, but for people looking to see a full scale center/right crack up in the GOP, keep an eye on this one.

im all for a big tent party, but not to this length. this lady who is running as a republican is a democrat. she makes the maine twins look like tom coburn and jim demint.

Yeah she's running to the left of the Democrat. Didn't Kos endorse her, somewhat seriously?

Beyond that she seems like a joke. Apparently her husband tried to see if the Democratic party would give her the nomination before she decided to run on the GOP line. The way they handled the reporter flap by calling the cops on that Weekly Standard guy was so bush league. She held an impromptu press conference in front of the Conservative candidate's headquarters but didn't bring any staff/volunteers, so she's giving the conference surrounded by Hoffman volunteers holding up signs.

I would absolutely vote for the Conservative candidate over her. The NY State GOP is a total joke. We're about to be down to 2 out of 29 Congressman in that delegation.

CNN doesn't lean left, it leans stupid.

dajafi wrote:

Rococo4 wrote: just like day time fox hosts lean right, so do the day time people at MSNBC lean left - and we arent even discussing CNN.

Do you "know" this, or is it just what your team spirit tells you?

Seriously, if there's a video clip of MSNBC daytime anchors as close to their nighttime folks as the one I posted for Fox, let's see it. I haven't watched "Morning Joe" in awhile, but my recollection is that he's pretty far from Olbermann. And the rest seem like basic news drones, with no perspective other than being credulous toward whoever's in office and interested not in "pushing an agenda" but in further dumbing the world down.

I've only watched Morning Joe a few times recently, and he seems like MSNBC's version of Alan Colmes (only better). Mike Barnicle and Mika Brzezinski are definitely left of center. Barnicle's the typical Boston liberal, but Mika's not afraid to criticize those on the left. I get the feeling she's may be one of the few "feminists" (probably a poor choice of words, not meant as a slight), along with Camille Paglia, that hasn't sold her soul to the Democratic Party. She even stood up for Palin.

Regarding Fox, while there's definitely a conservative leaning throughout the day, I've seen exceptions. Shepard Smith has gone against the party line when it comes to health care. He doesn't go as far as wanting a public option, but has been vocal quite a few times about the need for some significant changes, even when the idea was still less popular in the GOP.

Me being a partisan asshole ahead warning:

In light of Ferriero's conviction, the impressive sum Corzine gave Ferriero's Dem organization in Bergen ($441,600) over the years, the importance of Ferriero's endorsement in 2000 and 2005 for Corzine beating Florio and staring down Codey, and Corzine claiming in the last debate that he took on Ferriero before the prosecutors did (not wholly untrue, but mostly meaningless when the money kept flowing)...

The way back machine brings us to 2000, when then Senate candidate Corzine made his down payment on buying the state Democratic Party, from the ground up.

are you going to vote christie or daggett? obviously christie right? it's weird how much better daggett seems than both of these chumps (in my mind) and yet he's polling low basically because he's an independent. is there ANY chance he sneaks away with it?

I'm going to vote for Christie because he has the better chance of winning. If something were to change in the polls in the next week and Daggett became more likely to beat Corzine, I'd vote for him.

It's not just a lack of party affiliation hurting Daggett. Related problems like a lack of $$ and not much of a recent public record are holding him back too.

If Christie doesn't win (that is, if either Corzine or Daggett wins) the entire leadership of the NJ Republican party should commit hari kari.

And I would run ads criticizing Corzine for his failure to wear a seat belt.

It's not easy to win a race in a state where you start out 10 points behind on partisan ID when you get outspent 3-1. I don't care who you're running against.

jerseyhoya wrote:It's not easy to win a race in a state where you start out 10 points behind on partisan ID when you get outspent 3-1. I don't care who you're running against.

Maybe so, but how did it come to that point anyway? That is, it wasn't too long ago when the Republicans were doing well statewide. In the 90s, they held the state legislature and the governor's mansion.

This despite the fact that until about 3 years ago, national trends also favored Republicans.