The Grand New Party

Global warming is real -- it's just debated whether man has anything to do with it or not. I'd be inclined to say yes, it's just to what level we are.

There's a large , uncrackpot contingent of the scientific community who thinks you're wrong. The data on global warming from everything I have read really is pretty debatable.

Cityfile: Meltdown With Keith Olbermann! (http://cityfile.com/dailyfile/5807)
what a cheap shot. the guys mom suddenly dies, but that had nothing to do with him missing work. come on 70, your better then that

what a cheap shot. the guys mom suddenly dies, but that had nothing to do with him missing work. come on 70, your better then that

Are you kidding? His mom died two weeks prior the incidents in question. As the article points out, he threw a three episode long temper tantrum, and has a history of temper tantrums and grudge holding. It's not like this stuff is isolated. Why couldn't David Shuster have filled for him as soon as his mother passed? Why did Shuster tweet some BS about flu season and say he hopes Olberman will be back with the network? Exactly.

I appreciate you coming to the defense of this uber-liberal mouthpiece, but a cheap shot it was not. What's cheap is Olberman using his mother's death as an excuse for his unprofessional crybaby behavior.

There's a large , uncrackpot contingent of the scientific community who thinks you're wrong. The data on global warming from everything I have read really is pretty debatable.

Those scientists can usually be put into a list, the ones supporting man's impact is too long of a list to generate. It seems that quite a number of those who don't agree either say that it's too inconclusive or that man isn't the MAIN cause of it, which I didn't say that we were. In addition, a number of these professionals are geologists (many petroleum geologists) and many others are meteorologists, which may seem surprising, but they're more familiar with short term changes.

It is still of advantage of us to look into more efficient and responsible practices.

No American politician has ever spoken more eloquently against abortion than Ronald Reagan. He couldn't, for instance, ban partial birth abortion because the Democrats always controlled the house. But he said things that Bush 43 would never have dreamed of. As for gay marriage, it did not emerge as an issue until the late 1990s, so it's not really valid to use it as sign of the right's increasing influence. Also, to suggest that the religious right "came into it's own" in the 1990s is a misreading of history. It came into it's own as a movement in the 1970s. People who try to seperate Reagan from the evangelicals are revisionists.

You're right. I was talking somewhat off the cuff and trying to remember events. I agree that the evangelical movement started in the 70's and was a powerful force then. I would suggest, however, that after Bush I, they reinvented themselves as a more grassroots organization and that it was then that they started to become more aggressive in formulating and pushing a legislative agenda. I haven't done a study, and I don't have a link but I remember reading some articles about how the religious right lost influence in Bush I and in the Clinton era and so began looking for ways to organize.

The Moral Majority, generally considered the beginning of the religious right as a political movement was founded in 1979.

"[Jerry] Falwell was an important figure in the early days of the Religious Right, but his influence had waned considerably[.] ... The Lynchburg, Va., televangelist shut down his Moral Majority in 1989, after a decade of political activity, to spend more time on building his Liberty University. Although Falwell still frequently appeared in the media and worked through various religious and educational organizations, he never recovered his former prominence.

Lessons Learned From Falwell's Failings

The new breed of Religious Right leaders has learned from Falwell's mistakes. Falwell's rhetoric was often intemperate. While they made for lively television, his over-the-top remarks probably alarmed more people than they attracted. Even in his home state of Virginia, polls showed Falwell with high negative ratings.

Falwell also failed to truly cultivate the grassroots. By the time the Moral Majority collapsed, it had become apparent that the group was essentially a large mailing list with little local presence. By contrast, groups like the Christian Coalition Christian Coalition saw the value in local organizing. The Coalition, founded by TV preacher Pat Robertson at one time had viable chapters in most states and even some at the county level. "

The religious right after Falwell: fundamentalist political movement is less visible but more powerful than ever. - Free Online Library (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+religious+right+after+Falwell%3a+fundamentalis t+political+movement...-a0166751119)

There already is a party devoted to fiscal conservatism and is liberal on social issues -- it's called the Libertarian Party. They're able to get about 1% in a typical election.

The sad reality for limited government conservatives is that voters today actually do want bigger government. They want government to take care of them if they become unemployed, they want prescription drug coverage, health care, they want gov't to handle their retirement, they want their kids educated by government . . . it just goes on and on.

What makes matters worse is that capitalism is under attack and everybody is just fine with it. People are okay with CEOs having their salaries and bonuses dictated by Congress, government taking over businesses, oil company execs have to go before House and Senate committees to answer for their "windfall profits". Ugh.

Call me a pessimist, but this is a chain of events that may never get turned around.

I wouldn't say that all Libertarians are liberal on social issues. They're just so far to the right that they seem strange. Ron Paul and Bobb Barr are so far to the right that things like, let the States decide for themselves when it comes to drugs, abortion, and homosexual special interest seem almost foreign to the average person. Auditing the Federal Reserve is a libertarian / conservative Ron Paul idea that is gaining strength in the House right now. If you have to take the good and the bad, well . . . . there's a lot more good to that idea than bad.

I wouldn't say that no one notices either. You and I have. I'll go out on a limb and say that a lot of people on this thread have too. Capitalism isn't under attack because we're not really practicing it. Our government already had it's hand in the socialist cookie jar to begin with. Capitalism is the answer. The liberal media doesn't like capitalism so they smear it every chance they get.

Perhaps the majority of Americans don't do their homework. Many of the ones I know don't. A lot of them are just ignorant. Even they read the news papers and get fed up. No one that I know truly likes these bailouts.

The problem for many of the voters that I know is that they're to lazy to get involved in the process. I vote in the primary, or I used to. One thing that should be done IMO is to stop having the Northern wing of the Republican Party decide who the nominee is. Everyone knows that the Republican's bread and butter is in the South and Midwest. Yeah, there are conservatives up North and on the Left Coast, but they're out numbered five to one.

I liked Romney and Giuliani but I wouldn't have voted for them. Giuliani would've made a great addition to the State Department and Romney would've been nice to have in a public office with this economy. I might have voted for Romney. I dunno . . . .

There already is a party devoted to fiscal conservatism and is liberal on social issues -- it's called the Libertarian Party. They're able to get about 1% in a typical election.

The sad reality for limited government conservatives is that voters today actually do want bigger government. They want government to take care of them if they become unemployed, they want prescription drug coverage, health care, they want gov't to handle their retirement, they want their kids educated by government . . . it just goes on and on.

What makes matters worse is that capitalism is under attack and everybody is just fine with it. People are okay with CEOs having their salaries and bonuses dictated by Congress, government taking over businesses, oil company execs have to go before House and Senate committees to answer for their "windfall profits". Ugh.

Call me a pessimist, but this is a chain of events that may never get turned around.


Bravo sir, mighty fine observation on your part. The people get what the people want and what they want is what the people is getting.

All this talk of a new party is worthless if one can not convince the people of their ideas. People are selfish to the teeth and self-preservation is always at the forefront consciously and subconsciously.

Bravo sir, mighty fine observation on your part. The people get what the people want and what they want is what the people is getting.

All this talk of a new party is worthless if one can not convince the people of their ideas. People are selfish to the teeth and self-preservation is always at the forefront consciously and subconsciously.

Sadly this statement will be written on the tombstone of American History.

"the people" are an easily driven mass, guided by media, the internet, and talking heads. "They" have no sense of historical presence and can be guided by a skilled orator into drinking poison, or voting for unsustainable obligations. A wise leader, which Obama may, or may not be, will guide the people through deserts, hills and valleys. A crafty or unwise leader, which Obama may, or may not be, will guide the people into the desert.

I give as my proof:
The Lion King. Mufasa, a good and wise king, knows what the whole herd needed, and put herd above the self desires and the whole herd and valley prospered. Scar, a crafty and evil animal, used the resources which Mufasa had so carefully nurtured and grew, and the herd eventually starved and rebelled.

What more need be said

Sadly this statement will be written on the tombstone of American History.

"the people" are an easily driven mass, guided by media, the internet, and talking heads. "They" have no sense of historical presence and can be guided by a skilled orator into drinking poison, or voting for unsustainable obligations. A wise leader, which Obama may, or may not be, will guide the people through deserts, hills and valleys. A crafty or unwise leader, which Obama may, or may not be, will guide the people into the desert.

I give as my proof:
The Lion King. Mufasa, a good and wise king, knows what the whole herd needed, and put herd above the self desires and the whole herd and valley prospered. Scar, a crafty and evil animal, used the resources which Mufasa had so carefully nurtured and grew, and the herd eventually starved and rebelled.

What more need be said


We should not underestimate the people, they could have after all stayed at home like the many that currently do. They may not know everything they need to know but they do know enough to want to go vote. Whether they take a left or a right they control their destiny.