A Forum
There are a couple anonymous commenters posting to Obey Out who claim to be Republicans, but complain about Republican leadership and defend Obey as a better alternative to the 2006 candidate Nick Reid.
We welcome all who wish to join our party, but we have a few questions.
First, what Republicans for Congress, Senate or President have you voted for in the last 15 years?
Second, what current Republican candidate do you support to be our next Presidential nominee (other than Tommy Thompson)?
Third, what current Republican member of the House of Representatives would you most like to see be the next Speaker of the House and why?
Fourth, which two specific policy positions that Nick Reid took do you oppose and why is Dave Obey better on these issues?
Fifth, who would you support as our nominee for Congress in 2008?
For our other readers, we would like to hear who you support as our Presidential nominee, who would make a good Republican Speaker, and who you would support as our nominee?
This is an open forum, so sound off.
A caveat, any post from our regular critics that rehashes the same old comments about Tom DeLay, Democrats for Reid, corruption, etc, etc, etc, will be DELETED.
We welcome all who wish to join our party, but we have a few questions.
First, what Republicans for Congress, Senate or President have you voted for in the last 15 years?
Second, what current Republican candidate do you support to be our next Presidential nominee (other than Tommy Thompson)?
Third, what current Republican member of the House of Representatives would you most like to see be the next Speaker of the House and why?
Fourth, which two specific policy positions that Nick Reid took do you oppose and why is Dave Obey better on these issues?
Fifth, who would you support as our nominee for Congress in 2008?
For our other readers, we would like to hear who you support as our Presidential nominee, who would make a good Republican Speaker, and who you would support as our nominee?
This is an open forum, so sound off.
A caveat, any post from our regular critics that rehashes the same old comments about Tom DeLay, Democrats for Reid, corruption, etc, etc, etc, will be DELETED.
posted by ObeyOut2006 at 7:04 PM
31 Comments:
“We welcome all who wish to join our party, but we have a few questions.”
So now you have a litmus test for people to be Republican. This sounds like a perfect way to drive more people away
“Voted Republican in the last 15 years?”
Why are you dating this back to 1992? Is it your assumption that ourparty only began at that time??? There are moderate Republicans who voted straight ticket prior to seven years ago that have now been driven from our party by its hijacking to the right.
“Presidential nominee”
Romney and McCain, or even Giuliani, but all have already begun the suck up to the right wing fundamentalists that will turn off most moderates in our party. Thompson would be a joke as a Candidate.
“Next Republican Speaker of the House.” Ummm…. Don’t we have to be the majority in the House to have the speakers position? This question is just stupid.
“specific policy positions that Nick Reid took”?
Why are you discussing Reid again? Isn’t this about Obey? Rather than rehash the past, get over it.
”Congress in 2008?”
A MODERATE with centralist ideas that can meet Obey on his own terms and have a REAL chance at winning. ANY right wing christian suck-up candidate that drags out gay marriaige and abortion as the most import issuess will NOT have a chance. AGAIN.
I assume I did not pass the test. When do I get deleted and booted from my party of choice?
Dear 4:27,
This didn't sound like a litmus test to me, but a way to show who you do support since you complain a lot about Republicans.
15 years would cover every Presidential election since Reagan, a fair time.
Ummm, maybe Obey Out was saying we'd like to take the majority back and if so who should that speaker be. You are clearly the stupid one.
You've complained a lot about Reid, maybe it would be good to know what your specific beef was.
Why not give us a name, any name of someone you would support for Congress?
You failed the test because you only really answered one question.
Wrong again: there was also an election in 1988 (after Reagan), but you appear to be to young, narrow minded or stupid to remember or consider that. The Republican Party has been around a lot longer than you would seem to prefer to write it, and ultimately will survive the likes of you. An UNBIASED query would have asked: “What Republicans have you voted for on a national ballot?”
Of course we’d like to take back congress. But this ridiculous question flies in the face of the reality that we are in deep trouble and could be for a very long time. To even pose this question is to admit your head is in the sand and you have no grasp of reality.
Reid is a poster boy for how wrong our party has gone. He was recruited by the neocon right wing morons from the Heritage Foundation, dropped into a short term job with wing nut Jim Ryan (payback for Ryan being able to buy is home in D.C below market value) as some sort of sham to say he has experience, then carpetbagged back into the district as some savior by you and your backwoods buddies. Pathetic.
If we cannot find someone in the district that speaks for our TRUE values and wants to be a representative of the people, we will NEVER win this district again in our lifetime. As long as people like you and your backwoods out of touch organizations continue to shove the same regurgitated versions of Reid onto the ballot and refuse to consider ANYONE else, YOU are the problem. This is the truth, and to ignored it to shove your head deeper into the darkness, and it’s not the sand you are losing yourself in.
How about a a question for the owners of this site?
Do you support the President in the proposal he presented in the speech last night?
The ONLY answers you can give are:
1. Yes
2. No
This is also not a litmus test, but a way to show who you support on this issue....
Yes. No. Answer?
I considered the election of George H.W. Bush to really be Reagan's third term. I think historians agree that Bush was elected mostly because the American people were still approving of the course Reagan set out (and of course Dukakis was a disaster).
I noticed you still haven't provided any names to answer Obey Out's questions. You're still failing (and pontificating a lot while doing so). I bet your teachers LOVED having you in class.
Seriously, insults aside, name me anyone who fits your mold for a good Republican to run in this district. Believe me, I'll support him or her wholeheartedly against Obey. I'd like to help you recruit them if you think they can win. So who is it?
Anyone who has the 'nads to run is constantly berated and shot doen at the county level, because of people like you who think only a Reagan clone is fit. You know it, and I know it: it has been going on for years.
As I said you and your ilk are the reason we keep losing Period.
Nice response on the question about Bush's plan: since you fall into the lowly lot of 29% and falling, you obviously support the escalation. That is now on record and will be remembered as well.
5:44, conspiracy theories are not the seat of intelligent political conversation. Conspiracy allegations shift the conversation from questions of philosophy to questions of information. While information is important, it is not questions of information which distinguish us from Obey and his camp. It is questions of philosophy. As a regular reader of this website, I AM SICK OF YOUR BULLSHIT. Please stop posting your crap. It makes me want to stop visiting this site.
I've been reading the crazy responses on this site recently, and decided to offer who I'm supporting.
I like Romney, Huckabee, Brownback, Giuliani. I don't care for McCain.
I voted for Reagan, Bush, Dole, Bush and Nick Reid.
I don't like the current Republican leadership in the U.S. House. I'd support Paul Ryan for Speaker, but if Wisconsin is disqualified, how about a more unknown - Eric Cantor from Virginia or Todd Tiahrt from Kansas.
I would support Duffy if he ran in 2008 against Obey, but I'd also support Reid if he was the nominee again.
6:49:
You are right: conspiracy theories are not the seat of intelligent political conversation.
However, OPEN and free speech is. Without the ability to question the direction, motivation and intent of any leadership, duly elected or self-proclaimed, we are reducing ourselves voluntarily to a status that is equivalent to sheep. When any free society blindly accepts being muted by the pressure of leadership or peers, they begin treading the same path that Germans citizens did in the 1930’s.
As a Republican, I’m no Obey fan. But I do look at politics from a neutral standpoint for perspective, which I’ve realized most people do not. This semi-blog berates and bashes Obey to the point of obsession, inflaming the choir but doing NOTHING to add to the philosophical debate about which party best represents the values of this district.
When it further and blatantly shows that it was created not specifically to beat Obey, but to solely elect Reid, it loses what credibility it has remaining as a voice of philosophical reasoning. Rather than showing the differences of candidates, it stretches to show that Reid represents ALL voters in the district, which neither he nor Obey do.
To stand by and watch while this blog pushes to elect an inexperienced Heritage Foundation drafted far right wing extremist nonresident out of touch candidate, and the agenda that comes with him, is unacceptable to me.
Obviously 60% + of northern Wisconsin feel the same way.
7:21
Duffy.
I will say it again as an incredulous question.
Duffy?!?
This is yet another no-brainer. You know it and I know it. Google search Duffy and related links. I will say no more. The Dumbocrats would have a field day.
Cantor and Tiahrt?
You're kidding right? This is some sort of inside sick joke, correct?
Cantor is a Delay clone who has had his strings pulled by the Heritage Foundation for years. Just what we do NOT need leading us again: Look where that type of leadership got us in the November election.
Tiahrt ONLY got elected due to the gerrymandering done in his district the first time he ran. He is as much a right wing-nut whack job as Jim Ryan was, and as much out of step with what our party needs right now as Reid.
My suggestion: don't follow the spoon fed party line of people at the local level or those who have led us back into the minority wilderness the last six years and are now whining about it. It’s time for all of us to take responsibility for what has happened to our party, read and accept the truth for a change, and make our own intelligent decisions based on truth and fact, rather than the “Rovespeak” groupthink propaganda that we have allowed ourselves to believe is reality.
It seems to me that only one person is truly reducing this blog to a negative level, and it's not the authors. It's one commenter, who while claiming to be a Republican, has not named one Republican he would support against Obey, nor one he would support to lead us back into the majority.
And, tell me this, why would he continue to claim this blog is only around to elect Reid when Reid isn't running again? At least that's what I hear.
You are the whacko nut job, not the authors of this site. I wish they would delete all your comments.
I would suggest santitizing the entire blog, but wouldn't something like that just prove his point?
"I would suggest santitizing the entire blog, but wouldn't something like that just prove his point?"
I don't care what point it proves...you've lost this reader. I've been hanging on for a while, but "one has ruined this for all." The lack of productive conversation is astonishing and no longer deserves people's time.
I've been in government and politics for a while now and have seen these kind of people before. They think they know everything and think the world is a better place because of their ideas. It's not.
I offer my fairwell comments: This guy, whoever he/she is, can come back with whatever comments he or she pleases. I don't care, because I will never visit this site again to view them.
He probably sits by his computer day in a day out really getting a kick out of these conversations. For the sake of our country, please shut up or grow up. I'm all for free speech, don't get me wrong. But, it is the free speech of the ignorant variety that puts me over the edge. Talk all you want. I'm not listening.
I have a suggesstion-Mr. Conspiracy Guy, please start your own blog. Name it whatever you want. Then, come to this site and post your blog title so we never make the mistake of visting it. Then, these people can continue with productivity and you, sir, can enjoy your world of free speech in your little bubble. Alone.
But, wait...........maybe someone will be watching you......it'll probably be Reid or Ryun with a "u" by the way. Or, maybe his name is a conspiracy all in itself because who would substitute a "u" for an "a"? oooooooooooo.......I can hardly wrap my mind around that brain buster.
14 comments. That's one more than the last time you visited. Go to work here, sir. Make me feel stupid.
Finally, I say drop this site and start a new one. A blank slate. Instead of dwelling in the past, look to the future. Obey Out 2008. I'll visit that one.
"Speak grasshopper, for I am not listening."
"To stand by and watch while this blog pushes to elect an inexperienced Heritage Foundation drafted far right wing extremist nonresident out of touch candidate, and the agenda that comes with him, is unacceptable to me."
1:03, What the hell is this? I know Nick Reid personally. If you think he is those things, you obviously haven't talked with him. Have you talked with him?
Perhaps the description was written by someone else...
“The lack of productive conversation is astonishing and no longer deserves people's time.”
The lack of productive conversation is due to the one-sidedness of issues that this site was created for. However, their “rose colored glasses” view of things is way off base. And their refusal to budge an inch when faced with the reality of our parties misdeeds and decline the last few years further adds to our problems.
“I’ve been in government and politics for a while now and have seen these kinds of people before. They think they know everything and think the world is a better place because of their ideas. It's not.”
This is laughably tautological.
Perhaps your time “in government and politics”, a short period I assume, has closed your mind to the fact that elected officials are supposed to represent EVERYONE, not just a narrow demographic group obsessed with power.
Were you old enough to vote in ’94? The Contract With America was supposed to revolutionize how government worked, make it more efficient, reduce waste and change America for the better forever. Now it has been squandered.
When America voted for the CWA, we forgot to read the fine print in the contract: it was inserted by the religious right as payback for receiving their support.
Fine print was inserted in the CWA by greedy vultures who claimed to be Republican, but where only seeking office for power and personal gain, and who’s priorities were about radically changing district boundaries, getting re-elected and loosening ethics rules for their benefit.
Fine print was inserted by oil companies to insure billions of dollars of tax breaks and guarantees of rock bottom fees for public land and middle east oil access to make billions more.
Fine print was inserted by the overly rich and powerful, whose children are not on a second or third tour in Iraq.
I never claimed to know “everything “ or “think the world is a better place” because of my ideas. But I do know that there has been a lot of BS fed to rank and file members the last few years. And I, along with others, will no longer chew it blindly and swallow it with a smile.
”I'm all for free speech, don't get me wrong. But, it is the free speech of the ignorant variety that puts me over the edge.”
In other words, anyone that disagrees with you is ignorant. Wow. That is brilliant.
You simply mock what you refuse to believe and leave. Sticking your head in the sand and running only proves that you cannot argue against facts when you are faced with them. The only reason anyone would be upset with the posts myself (and others) have added is these do not fit in with the narrow-minded tunnel-vision view that is represented here. The real problem for you is that these posts ARE based in FACT, which cannot be disproved. And you claim to be a mouthpiece that it speaks for our entire party?
Reality is a tough thing and can be difficult to adjust to. For those of you who have only been in politics since the religious right hijacked us, get used to it: the coming ride back to our senses could be very rough on you.
”14 comments.” Considering the lack of rapport here before I began speaking out about the truth, I’d say this has been a benefit to this site.
"Speak grasshopper, for I am not listening." Wow. Good one. But fitting.
Less then brilliant quotes and overused phrases are now a trademark of our party and emblematic of our leadership. I’ll gladly place this in with other witty examples of intelligence, like: “compassionate conservatism”; “we will be greeted as liberators”; “Mission Accomplished”; “shock and awe”; “nuclear option”; “activist judges”; “vicious cycle of sectarian violence”; “surge”.
I and other Republicans have tired of the sleight of hand and smoke and mirrors that has been used to keep us in line. We’re tired of being told what to think, how to think and how to vote. We’re tired of the overt negativism that is now the hallmark of every conversation and election.
If this is too much for members of the extreme right, who have used these tactics for years, too bad. The majority of the party will no longer accept it.
Get used to it.
Funny how you forgot to quote and refute this portion of 11:30's comments:
"I have a suggesstion-Mr. Conspiracy Guy, please start your own blog. Name it whatever you want. Then, come to this site and post your blog title so we never make the mistake of visting it. Then, these people can continue with productivity and you, sir, can enjoy your world of free speech in your little bubble. Alone.
But, wait...........maybe someone will be watching you......it'll probably be Reid or Ryun with a "u" by the way. Or, maybe his name is a conspiracy all in itself because who would substitute a "u" for an "a"? oooooooooooo.......I can hardly wrap my mind around that brain buster."
Frankly, I agree with 11:30 in what he/she is trying to say.
”I'm all for free speech, don't get me wrong. But, it is the free speech of the ignorant variety that puts me over the edge.”
I agree with the above statement; not because you disagree with us, but because you are ignorant. Big difference. Let me attach an example.
"Hey Bill, I think the sky is dark blue."
"I disagree, Frank. Today the sky is light blue."
That is a disagreement.
"Hey Bill, I think the sky is dark blue."
"I disagree, Frank. The sky is flourescent brown."
That is ignorant.
More of the same: ignore, dodge, obuscate and refuse to acknowledge reality.
A man admits when his party has made mistakes, learns from it, and he and his party become stronger for it. Egocentric power mongers ignore issues, deny mistakes and and continue trying to herd the rapidly dwindling flock.
Attack. Attack. Ignore fact and reality. Suck up to the religious right. Bleet loudly in support of the phrase of the week. Lose the 7th again in two years.
Repeat in 2010.
A truly sad cycle we are in.
"More of the same: ignore, dodge, obuscate and refuse to acknowledge reality"
What?!?!?!? HELLLLLLLOOOOOO! Anyone there? Your double talk and hypocricy is rediculous! You continually prod the authors of this site to respond to your nonsense...now it's your turn. Please read below and try to refute. This is your game, bud. Time to play.
Funny how you forgot to quote and refute this portion of 11:30's comments:
"I have a suggesstion-Mr. Conspiracy Guy, please start your own blog. Name it whatever you want. Then, come to this site and post your blog title so we never make the mistake of visting it. Then, these people can continue with productivity and you, sir, can enjoy your world of free speech in your little bubble. Alone.
But, wait...........maybe someone will be watching you......it'll probably be Reid or Ryun with a "u" by the way. Or, maybe his name is a conspiracy all in itself because who would substitute a "u" for an "a"? oooooooooooo.......I can hardly wrap my mind around that brain buster."
Frankly, I agree with 11:30 in what he/she is trying to say.
”I'm all for free speech, don't get me wrong. But, it is the free speech of the ignorant variety that puts me over the edge.”
I agree with the above statement; not because you disagree with us, but because you are ignorant. Big difference. Let me attach an example.
"Hey Bill, I think the sky is dark blue."
"I disagree, Frank. Today the sky is light blue."
That is a disagreement.
"Hey Bill, I think the sky is dark blue."
"I disagree, Frank. The sky is flourescent brown."
That is ignorant.
P.S. What the hell is "obuscate"?
Are your big words getting too big to handle?
Furthermore, if you think we are all young, ignorant and right-wing nuts, why do you continue to read this and comment?
How old are you? What makes you so smart?
To Obey Out, I would take all of this as a compliment! This wacko must think you guys are so influential that he needs to spend his time here. I highly suggest making this a site that prevents anonymous comments.
Hey ignoramus, don't forget about the comment above this one. I'll calmly wait for your response.
More of the same. Typical.
But not unexpected.
Dude, do you have a heart beat or is this an automated response? YOU are the one who TYPICALLY asks the authors of this site to respond to YOUR inquiries. How is my statement TYPICAL?
As you say, "I'll patiently wait for a response."
Or, "This is typically representative of all the simian gutter tramps and marble-sharp simpletons that are similarly prevalent as the ambiguous proprietors of this type of media: rather than showing the testicular fortitude needed to validate and defend their beliefs, they prefer obscurity, anonymity and cowardice."
Or,"In and of its own, this lack of moral fiber invalidates any credence to your words."
Or, ".... again, more lack of guts in not response to any valid questions."
Or, "And how about the non-response to this:"
SOUND FAMILIAR? AND I AM THE TYPICAL ONE?
"I have a suggesstion-Mr. Conspiracy Guy, please start your own blog. Name it whatever you want. Then, come to this site and post your blog title so we never make the mistake of visting it. Then, these people can continue with productivity and you, sir, can enjoy your world of free speech in your little bubble. Alone.
But, wait...........maybe someone will be watching you......it'll probably be Reid or Ryun with a "u" by the way. Or, maybe his name is a conspiracy all in itself because who would substitute a "u" for an "a"? oooooooooooo.......I can hardly wrap my mind around that brain buster."
Frankly, I agree with 11:30 in what he/she is trying to say.
”I'm all for free speech, don't get me wrong. But, it is the free speech of the ignorant variety that puts me over the edge.”
I agree with the above statement; not because you disagree with us, but because you are ignorant. Big difference. Let me attach an example.
"Hey Bill, I think the sky is dark blue."
"I disagree, Frank. Today the sky is light blue."
That is a disagreement.
"Hey Bill, I think the sky is dark blue."
"I disagree, Frank. The sky is flourescent brown."
That is ignorant.
"P.S. What the hell is "obuscate"?
Are your big words getting too big to handle?
Furthermore, if you think we are all young, ignorant and right-wing nuts, why do you continue to read this and comment?
How old are you? What makes you so smart?
To Obey Out, I would take all of this as a compliment! This wacko must think you guys are so influential that he needs to spend his time here. I highly suggest making this a site that prevents anonymous comments.
THE FIRST TIME THE QUESTIONS WERE POSED WAS YESTERDAY, SO THEY CAN"T BE TYPICAL.
Frankly, this is rediculous that we have to have these kinds of conversations, but in your case we must fight the ignorant fire with ignorant fire until it burns itself out.
If I were one to try to obfuscate the subject, I would start with this:
P.S. What the hell is "rediculous"?’
But that really just dodges answering questions, right?
However, as I do respond to questions I will again, as before, state that there are a lot of Republicans tired of the neocon leadership diatribe which consists of attacking ANYONE in the party that has any semblance of a differing opinion from what they proclaim are the only issues of importance. If nothing else, the lack of openness here is representative of that.
The only real problem that must exist then, is that there are people in our party who are now unafraid to question this type of failed leadership, and who are beginning to demand answers. Not just here, but across the country. So tell me: WHY is this a problem?
Therefore, again you offer no answer yourself. In response to your post: you’ve again offered more of the same. Typical.
But not unexpected.
I tire of this… if nothing else, it is a losing case simply due to this being a site that is only read by the choir…. Its time for it to return to its obscure, unimportant place, regardless of just how close the owners truly are to Reid. hint, hint ;)
We have better forums for conversation opening in the not to distant future. And open to ALL people to speak, not a few self designated mouths...
See you soon…
"Therefore, again you offer no answer yourself."
Ummmmmmm...I've read through your responses. What anwser have you offered? I'm not arguing because you disagree, I'm arguing because that is ALL you do...disagree.
Still no answers...
...The bitterness that is felt on this site towards the national party is well founded. I, too, was pissed about this election. The problem is, that some commenters on this website are trying to tie Reid to the national party scene. The national party didn't help Reid. The national party helped Gard and Green, not Reid. So Reid was no party tool. For those who continue to call Reid right-wing, let me issue the call:
I am calling you out. If you are saying that he was right wing in that he was Conservative, bring out your issues, and tell me what you think on those issues. Calling someone too right wing is just bullshit. It doesn't get to the heart of the matter.
The hard right/christian conservatives are going to drive moderates out of the party. We will never take back the House if this end of the party shuns fiscal conservatives who may have more socially liberal tendencies.
"this end of the party"?
There seems to presume that the electorate is either Republican or Democrat, and where one "ends" the other begins. This is outdated, pre-1990's thinking.
What is overlooked in this is the fact that more than 1/3 of the people in this country now identify themselves as independent, and that number is growing. This centralist group increasingly includes those of our party who are "fiscal conservatives who may have more socially liberal tendencies".
They are turned off by buzzword phrases used by our leadership wind up the far right, including "right of every life", "war on terror", "intelligent design", "activist judges" and "traditional marriage". This growing group is also increasingly skeptical of the hypocritical people that the national leadership has entwined us with, including the likes of the Heritage Foundation, Jack Abramoff, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Ted Haggard and Kent Hovind.
I read the anger exhibited here as an echo of the growing internal argument happening across the country, where one group is now standing up for the future of the party and the other is clawing to stay on its pedestal.
I apologize for the typing errors. That's what editors are for.
President: Mitt Romney
Vice Pres: Rick Santorum
Speaker: Mike Pence
Sen. Leader: Trent Lott
WI-7: Jeff Tyberg (I do not think Nick should run in '08 because I don't think the party will make a real effort against Obey. But Jeff will make at least a case, and can work with limited funds. Reid could run again in a cycle or two when the prospects are better.)
I support Romney because he is a Governor who has shown he can win in a very liberal state. He also has an interesting Health Care plan, and seems to fully understand the issue of terrorism. And compared to McCain and Rudy, he is conservative enough. I think that Santorum would be a good VP candidate because he is solidly conservative, has experience with Foriegn policy from the senate, and is a strong speaker. Although he lost last year, he was more a victim of circumstances, and still ran a credible race in a very blue state. We do not have many qaulity senators right now so I think this would be a good choice.
Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!
Post a Comment
<< Home