feed icon

Fred Tells Newt Conservatives Aren’t Deaf And Dumb

By Kleinheider Posted on October 28, 2009 at 7:45 am

A disagreement about that race up in New York between a Republican and a conservative independent:

“Are we saying that as Americans you’ve got to have an ‘R’ by your name before you vote for them? Where do you draw the line?” he continued. “If somebody with a record like this gets our seal of approval, regardless, only because she’s got an ‘R’ by the name… You know, just because we’re Republicans doesn’t mean that we’re deaf, dumb, and blind.”

permalink

Comments

37 Responses to “Fred Tells Newt Conservatives Aren’t Deaf And Dumb”

  1. TNVolunteer73 writes
    October 28th, 2009 8:24 am

    Me thinks Newt was supporting “R” not conservitism. Me thinks Newt has lost his way on this one.

  2. Stan Scott writes
    October 28th, 2009 8:39 am

    “… You know, just because we’re Republicans doesn’t mean that we’re deaf, dumb, and blind.” So why do so many act like they are thus copying “yellow dogs”.

  3. TNVolunteer73 writes
    October 28th, 2009 8:53 am

    Acctually GOP is less likely to play the Yellow Dog game.

    Just look at the last presidental election. Many Republicans did not vote or voted 3rd party.

    Because John McCain is liberal lite.

  4. Davy writes
    October 28th, 2009 9:06 am

    “Many Republicans did not vote or voted 3rd party.”

    True to some extent.

    It’s also true that moderates and Republican leaning voters voted for Obama, as they voted for Clinton in 1996.

    If the Dow Jones stays above 10,000 it’s going to be a tough row to hoe for the GOP in 2012.

    Business people like economic stability. The GOP has yet to offer anything that might lead to it; and the status quo ain’t it.

  5. Davy writes
    October 28th, 2009 9:07 am

    What I meant TNVOL73, there was no Perot third party to speak of in 2008.

    And voter turn out was one of the biggest in history. Very few voters stayed home.

  6. Tom Arthur writes
    October 28th, 2009 9:19 am

    Can’t believe all the play NY-23 is getting!

  7. TNVolunteer73 writes
    October 28th, 2009 9:34 am

    Davy.. Yes there was it was the Anti RINO party, which was made up of loyal GOP members that were fed up with the Bush/McCain RINO wing of the party.

    this is the exact same thing that happening in NY-23. This is a referendum on Obama/Liberalism. You have 2 liberals, and the conservitive 3rd party is winning, leaving the rino in the dust. That is why NY 23 is so important and NJ and VA Governorships.

    Davy You the 10,000 dow is nto a problem for the GOP, Because even the disinterested of the Past understand the dow is growing because of 1 thing, not a growing economy, but that Companies are keeping their profits by cutting costs, which is employees.

    The Economy is still in Negaitve Growth. Since the “Stimulus Package” has passed, the GDP has DROPPED almost 15%.

    Until we have 2 consecutive Quarters of Economic Growth, the recession is still ongoing.

    No matter how manytimes Barak and Joe click their Ruby Slippers and wish it away.

  8. Sean Braisted writes
    October 28th, 2009 9:41 am

    TNVol,

    The number of self-described conservatives voting went up in 2008, many just declared themselves independents because of the embarrassment of the national GOP.

    This mythology that people didn’t vote for McCain because he was too far to the “left” is baseless.

  9. The Prof writes
    October 28th, 2009 10:01 am

    I feel the need to correct a couple numbers that were thrown around. The GDP has not dropped 15%. In real dollars the GDP has fallen 3.8% in the 12 months form June 2008 to June 2009. The 3rd quarter ‘09 is expected to see an annualized growth rate of 3.2%, which is to be released tomorrow and the 4th quarter is looking to run around 2.4% by most estimates. Barring any major incidents the recession is looking like its over.

    http://www.bea.gov/National/index.htm

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aDGvmWmB18w0

  10. TNVolunteer73 writes
    October 28th, 2009 10:02 am

    Sean yep the GOP was an imbarrassment, they lost the Conservitive Vote, because they moved away from the ideals of Reagan.

    Obama promised Change. A return to Reagan Fiscal Conservitism.

    Now we see Obama lied, we are returning to the conservitive movement.

    The GOP is beginning to return to its Reagan Base.. Not all but most.

    In 2010.. the dems will not have control of the house or senate. They May keep a very very slim control of the house if they are able to get several conservitive Democrats elected.

  11. TNVolunteer73 writes
    October 28th, 2009 10:05 am

    Sean I would really like to see 3rd party control of the house myself.. it is time to end the 2 party system, infact I am much oppose to party politics people become loyal to their party over welfare of the nation.

  12. Davy writes
    October 28th, 2009 10:06 am

    “Davy.. Yes there was it was the Anti RINO party, which was made up of loyal GOP members that were fed up with the Bush/McCain RINO wing of the party.”

    Funny, I’ve voted in every national election since 1984, at one time belonged to the NRC, and this is the first time I’ve heard of the “Anti-RINO party.”

    It’s a figment of your imagination.

    But here’s a piece of advice:

    If you puritans ever want the GOP to ever win a national general election again, you’re going to have to stop this RINO nonsense.

    The country IS NOT becoming more conservative.

    In primary elections, candidates run to the ends of the spectrum, because that’s where the votes are.

    In general elections, candidates run toward the middle, because THAT’S WHERE THE VOTES ARE.

    Politics 101.

    It hasn’t changed.

    Keep trying to “purify” the party, and pretty soon you won’t have one that’s relevant.

  13. Davy writes
    October 28th, 2009 10:08 am

    “In 2010.. the dems will not have control of the house or senate. They May keep a very very slim control of the house if they are able to get several conservitive Democrats elected.”

    If your prediction doesn’t happen, would you promise to leave this forum?

  14. TNVolunteer73 writes
    October 28th, 2009 10:28 am

    If my Prediction does not happen i will say I am incorrect.

    Apparently somthing you do not have the C.O. Jones to do yourself.

    Unless there is a major shift in the political climate from today…. I will not be wrong.

    only 42% of independents say they will vote D in 2010.

    That is a level of loss of the independent voters NEITHER party can survive.

  15. TNVolunteer73 writes
    October 28th, 2009 10:29 am

    Now if I am correct does that mean you will leave these forums? I bet not.

  16. Davy writes
    October 28th, 2009 10:41 am

    “Now if I am correct does that mean you will leave these forums? I bet not.”

    Uh, I didn’t make a prediction stated as fact.

    Of course, I don’t consistent get on here and make up stuff like “it was the anti-RINO party that cost McCain the election.”

    No it wasn’t.

    It was the economy.

    But I don’t won’t you to go anywhere.

    I’m not sure what I would do for entertainment if you left.

  17. Joe Kirkpatrick writes
    October 28th, 2009 11:38 am

    Fred, we needed this truth from you in 2008.

    To both sides of this argument, the only way the GOP builds a national majority is by having the religious right and libertarians joining together with secular right-wingers to form a coalition that wrests control from the Rinos and the neocons.

    Neocons and rinos will do what the rest of us have been forced to do since 1988. That is, hold our nose and vote.

  18. Jon writes
    October 28th, 2009 11:54 am

    >having the religious right and libertarians joining together

    So which of the two entities is supposed to completely abandon everything they believe to make that happen?

  19. TNVolunteer73 writes
    October 28th, 2009 12:01 pm

    Jon Neither, they join on their common ground.

  20. Jon writes
    October 28th, 2009 12:03 pm

    Not possible. One group wants theocracy, the other doesn’t. There is no middle. For the two to come together, one side or the other has to acquiesce. So which is it going to be?

  21. Slartibartfast writes
    October 28th, 2009 12:17 pm

    Jon, you didn’t even bother to qualify your slander with “effective” (theocracy)?

    You have quotes from religious right leaders not named Phelps who have explicitly said they want a theocracy?

    I would say that in reality, there is much common ground between libertarians and religious conservatives. For instance, they probably both oppose laws that would inhibit free speech based on subjective “hate speech” criteria.

    Anyway, it’s silly to say the two can’t form a coalition. They’ve done it before.

  22. Jon writes
    October 28th, 2009 12:34 pm

    I could care less whether it’s explicit or implicit, if you want your religious views to inform public policy it’s theocracy.

    And yes, they have formed a coalition (for the last 30-40 years), and the libertarians got the short end of the stick. I’m just asking if they will again, or will it be the religious right’s turn?

    That no one wants to give a straight answer sort of demonstrates the point.

    The reality is it takes more than just those two groups to make a big enough coalition to win, you also need the nationalists & neocons. And since the theocrats are demonstrably willing to give up small government as long as they get their “values” (see Huckabee, Mike) and the nationalist/neocons are willing to give up small government so long as the military contracts get signed (see Cheney, Dick), in the end those two always give each other what they want and the libertarians get screwed.

  23. TNVolunteer73 writes
    October 28th, 2009 1:05 pm

    Jon no the Religious right do not want a theocracy. You have been listening to Rachel Maddow and Air Head america to long.

    I am a Christian, and if someone wanted to make Christianity the “State Religion” I would oppose it.

    You seem to have a problem with the differnce between Mandating Religion and Affirming Religion.

    I support the affirmation but not a state religion.

    This Country was founded on Christian Values, you cannot walk 10 minutes in DC and not know that to be a fact.

    But one of the Christian Values in the founding Document is the Doctrine of Free Will.

  24. Jon writes
    October 28th, 2009 1:23 pm

    Yawn. OK, lemme spell it out for you.

    Is this mythical candidate that you guys want to promote pro-choice? In favor of stem cell research? Oppose cloning bans?

    Is s/he in favor of full equality under the law, even for godless heathen sinners like homosexuals?

    Does s/he oppose spending tax dollars on religious institutions, advocacy, or symbology? Does s/he oppose teaching the myths and legends of a particular religion as “science” in public schools?

    Think you can find a candidate who can answer yes to all those questions and still get the religious right to vote for ‘em?

  25. TNVolunteer73 writes
    October 28th, 2009 1:36 pm

    Jon

    I am as fundimental a christian Conservitive you will ever meet.

    I support the pro-life Canidate.

    I support Stem Cell Research, because Stem Cells can be harvested without killing an embryo. There are more Stem Cells in the 1 Placenta and in 1 Cord Blood specimen than in all the Frozen embryos in the world.

    Also Placenta and Cord Blood Stem Cells have proven to be more reliable than those harvested from embryos.

    Yes I support equal treatment under the law for homosexuals. I support Civil Unions for Homosexuals, because according to the definition of Marriage is a union of opposite gender, Civil Unions is a LEGAL term for the union of same gender couples. Legally civil unions should receive the same benifits of a marriage.

    I do believe that Homosexuality is a sin, but then again, my Faith also says each person has the free will to make their choices..

    I do oppose cloning of humans because it degrades the DNA.

    I dont see your problem.

  26. Joe Kirkpatrick writes
    October 28th, 2009 2:20 pm

    Yeah baby!

    Thanks Vol. Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ said each of the following:

    Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s

    He who is without sin, cast the first stone.

    Paul said: As thou believest, so shall it be done unto thee.

    The framers were divinely inspired. Following it ultimately protects his people from persecution by tyrants and statist, governing majorities.

    If Jon is the Jon I know, perhaps not, but he knows that my thesis becoming manifest is the death of neoconservatism and candidacies of people like Bill Haslam who either do not understand or ignore that infringing on anyone’s God given rights threatens the ones they hold most dear.

    Bring your 2/3 and 3/4, respectively, and amend it, or stand down.

  27. Jon writes
    October 28th, 2009 2:24 pm

    I never said one can’t be a Christian, fundamentalist or otherwise, and not also be a libertarian. If you personally are libertarian or libertarian-leaning, good for you, but it’s beside the point. Obviously the majority of the “religious right” is *not* libertarian already, or this discussion would be wholly unnecessary.

    So again I ask the still unanswered question, is the coalition candidate supposed to answer yes or no to these questions? Is the religious right supposed to support a candidate who answers yes, or are libertarians supposed to support a candidate who answers no?

    I’m not saying it’s impossible for the two to coalition, I’m asking y’all to define the terms, which one is supposed to acquiesce, because one of them _must_.

    Of course it’s really just a rhetorical question, because history has already shown us that it’s the libertarians who will. Most so-called libertarians will drink their own piss if they think they can get a tax cut out of it.

    The warning is that history again tells us the inevitable result — the very Republican Party that y’all want to reform *is* the result of the last time this was tried.

    But if you can change it up and get the religious right to take the backseat this time, hey, more power to you, maybe things will turn out different.

  28. Joe Kirkpatrick writes
    October 28th, 2009 3:58 pm

    Well-stated, Jon. I’m not even saying they need to take a back seat. I just want them to realize we are playing on the same team when it all boils down to it.

    There is another smaller faction that needs to join this coalition as well. It is really how I guess I define myself. That is, the secular right-wing. I am right-wing in and of itself.

    As I attach theology to my larger philosophy of the constitutional republic and allow it to affect my daily expression of a political platform, I do not ask or expect others to do the same.

    That’s the difference between a member of the Libertarian Party, per se, and a genuine, Limited Government Republican, like Barry Goldwater. People have to come to it on their on terms as citizens, no matter their moral persuasion.

  29. Joe Kirkpatrick writes
    October 28th, 2009 4:06 pm

    Oh, Jon. You must not be the one I was thinking of because that Jon knows I am running for Governor. The candidate of whom you speak is no myth. I am he.

  30. Joe Kirkpatrick writes
    October 28th, 2009 4:12 pm

    Oh, but I’m definitely not pro-choice nor do I support the cloning of beings. Other than that, I am he.

  31. Jay D writes
    October 28th, 2009 6:09 pm

    How do small government and Christian legislation meld? I’m legitimately curious about that one.

    I’m a strong Christian, and I cannot imagine the faith that I devote my life to being legislated by government. If government screws up everything else (according to most “conservatives”), how is it NOT going to screw up, or at the very least distort, Christianity? Is that not a far greater harm to God’s work on this earth? I don’t want to keep Christianity out of government as much as I want to keep government out of Christianity.

    Why can’t Christian ministry accomplish exactly what you “conservatives” want the government to accomplish? Isn’t that a lack of faith in God’s power on this earth?

    What is the point of legislating the illegalization of abortion, when abortions will still be performed? Wouldn’t Christian ministry be a far more effective and productive strategy toward actually SOLVING the problem? Or is it just about saying “Well, it’s illegal now, my moral responsibility is vanquished”? It’s”by his deeds, ye shall know him.”

  32. TNVolunteer73 writes
    October 28th, 2009 6:14 pm

    JayD very well..

    1973 39 Women died from Abortions

    2006 2800 have died from abortion complications.

    This does not include the deaths due to suicide…

  33. Jay D writes
    October 28th, 2009 7:34 pm

    What on earth does that have to do with my argument? That is no refutation, those are just two statistics. But I expected no more from you.

    Besides, in a way, you’ve proved my point. Wouldn’t REAL Christian ministry have prevented those deaths? Even more women would have died from back-alley abortions, so illegalizing and having no solution for actually stopping abortion solves nothing and even exacerbates the problem.

  34. Jay D writes
    October 29th, 2009 2:13 am

    I’ll take your silence as an agreement with my argument.

    I have posted similar arguments on these discussion threads several times now. And not once have I gotten a coherent, reasoned response. Sure do wonder why that is…

  35. Jay D writes
    October 29th, 2009 2:15 am

    I was curious to see what Joe “I am He” Kirkpatrick had to say about this… but I guess he’s too busy out working on solidifying one of the three votes he’ll get : \

  36. TNVolunteer73 writes
    October 29th, 2009 7:34 am

    Jon the GOP and Libertairans have already formed a Coalition. Just look at NY-23, VA, NJ,

    It is Happening in CA, against Boxer

    It is Happening in Nevada, Against Reed

    It is Happening in Conneticut against Dodd

    Jon I am an independent, and I am loving the GOP returning to its Conservitive Roots,

    I will vote for a Conservitive Democrat long before I would vote for a Liberal Repbulican eg. Snow.

  37. Andrew writes
    November 8th, 2009 5:54 pm

    You guys have some decent SEO. I pulled you right up on a yahoo search. Nice site too!

Leave a Reply




Partly Cloudy

The Collective

The Latest from NashvillePost.com

Archives