The bullet points Moe Lane pulls seem easily walked over. They seem innocuous, mere signals.
Response to Moe Lane's response to Nickki Haley's response to SOTU, the ostensible point of discussion.
- “Today, we live in a time of threats like few others in recent memory. During anxious times, it can be tempting to follow the siren call of the angriest voices. We must resist that temptation.”
- “In many parts of society today, whether in popular culture, academia, the media, or politics, there’s a tendency to falsely equate noise with results.”
- “Some people think that you have to be the loudest voice in the room to make a difference. That is just not true. Often, the best thing we can do is turn down the volume. When the sound is quieter, you can actually hear what someone else is saying. And that can make a world of difference.”
1) It's not "a time of threats" nor "anxious time" that are tempting the clarion call, not siren call, rather, it's abject absence of representation. Misidentified problem there, misidentified characterization of the call. And it's not the angriest voices either, it's regular voices and even tempered voices. And no, there is no good reason to avoid the temptation of something better than your party that's become useless in checking the crazy. Acknowledging some party responsibility elsewhere in the speech doesn't cut it.
2) Agreed, falsely equating noise with results in all those areas listed is exactly why your party is deemed useless and all those areas listed no longer trusted.
I understand Nikki Haley gave a good speech. Loyal Republicans liked it. Their analysis has a lot to do with her being a fine new image for Republican party sorely in need a change in image. Always image.
22 comments:
If the GOPe "turns down the volume" any further we'll have to lean in and shout "Can't hear you!" Then we will of course be accused of being...oh, I don't know...uncouth knuckle-draggers. And who wants them anywhere near the reins of all that delicious - mumble mumble mumble mumble - POWER?!
Rush was talking about how PC, to leftists, is the absence of manners. (they lie!)
Political Correctness is censorship, and dropping it is called freedom of speech.
I'd say that's pretty much spot on, Chip.
Agreed.
Bagoh/Chip 2016.
Campaign slogan: "All that and a bag-o-chips."
landslide.
Establishment fighting dirty because they know their meal ticket is about to be canceled, one way or the other. There's no going back from here.
If Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins had a child.......
Why didn't the GOP just recruit Thomas J. Donohue to give the rebuttle.
Analysis : True.
I didn't see her speech because I want to the kitchen and by the time I came back he had finished.
But from Rush and Chip now I'm getting the bullet points.
My take is the GOP establishment is convinced 3rd time's the charm.
They are going to force feed the base another McCain x Romney squared.
If they do, they are going to have the same results as the last two.
Much worse than that. If the GOPe is successful in ramming a Dem clone down our throats it will be an 1860 moment -- death of the GOP/Whigs and birth of a party that may not be conservative but will at least be nationalist.
I don't care if Nikki Haley wants to criticize Trump. But it seems inappropriate to do so in the rebuttal to Barack Obama's State of the Union speech. Why didn't she do it today or Thursday before the debate, or in the spin room after the debate. The GOPe should not be trying to pick winners and losers, but let the voters do that.
She wants to be Rubio's running mate.
But it does show how afraid they are of The Donald
"She wants to be Rubio's running mate." Or Bernie's
I was listening to Rush today too and now I hate that Haley indian.
Nicky isn't even her real name...and she is brown.
Agree with Evi. If she disagreed with Trump in any other forum, I would accept it as a simple disagreement. But this speech is called the "rebuttal" of the President's speech. She didn't rebut the President, but a candidate in her own party. I've thought the practice of the rebuttal was dumb before, but now it is just a second speech of more of the same.
I had qualms in the past, because I agreed walking in the polling booth in 2008 and 2012, that better to have a GOP person you didn't trust than a Democrat you knew would work against you. Obama certainly did his best to prove that notion. But the stupid party just can't help itself, and I'm no longer interested in helping it even with a vote of support.
I heard snips of her speech - it was really very good.
Agree with that 100% Evi.
Nikki hits rubio for his pro-amnesty stance
snip of her speech:
"Barack Obama’s election as president seven years ago broke historic barriers and inspired millions of Americans. As he did when he first ran for office, tonight President Obama spoke eloquently about grand things. He is at his best when he does that.
Unfortunately, the President’s record has often fallen far short of his soaring words.
As he enters his final year in office, many Americans are still feeling the squeeze of an economy too weak to raise income levels. We’re feeling a crushing national debt, a health care plan that has made insurance less affordable and doctors less available, and chaotic unrest in many of our cities.
Even worse, we are facing the most dangerous terrorist threat our nation has seen since September 11th, and this president appears either unwilling or unable to deal with it."
...
[skip ahead.. the best part - read to the end.]
"If we held the White House, taxes would be lower for working families, and we’d put the brakes on runaway spending and debt.
We would encourage American innovation and success instead of demonizing them, so our economy would truly soar and good jobs would be available across our country.
We would reform education so it worked best for students, parents, and teachers, not Washington bureaucrats and union bosses.
We would end a disastrous health care program, and replace it with reforms that lowered costs and actually let you keep your doctor.
We would respect differences in modern families, but we would also insist on respect for religious liberty as a cornerstone of our democracy.
We would recognize the importance of the separation of powers and honor the Constitution in its entirety. And yes, that includes the Second and Tenth Amendments.
We would make international agreements that were celebrated in Israel and protested in Iran, not the other way around."
Sorry April, but disagree about that being a good speech. I'll show it via a simple substitution:
"If we held the majority in Congress..."
It is the same story from 2014, but updated in 2016 to the White House. We don't have lower taxes, and the Omnibus is the peddle to the metal on runaway spending and debt.
They could stop common core now and fight the Title IX abuses of the administration, but they don't say a word against it. They funded Obama's health care program. Who knows what "respect differences in modern families" is supposed to mean. As for recognizing the importance of separation of powers, the GOP majority has not once voted to rescind regulatory power that it granted to the Executive Branch. It's that regulatory power, the ability to "complete" laws that Congress decided to just outline that gave Bush and now Obama so much power with Executive Orders.
Most important on the substitution, who is she supporting for the White House? Who is the "we"? It is not Trump for sure. Didn't sound like Cruz either. And she attacked Rubio today. That's the 3 highest polling GOP candidates representing 66% of likely GOP voters. So Haley's "we" is something less than 1/3rd Republican voters. Which of that minority does she think will gain the White House?
Who knows what "respect differences in modern families" is supposed to mean
That's a shout out that respect goes both ways. Most leftists preach to their brain dead morons that the GOp hates gays.
I agree that Haley didn't need to hit the GOP candidates like she did. She needed to keep it a response to Obama.
It's just a speech. Usually the GOP screws it up. Some of the snippets I heard were fine. esp :
"We would encourage American innovation and success instead of demonizing them, so our economy would truly soar and good jobs would be available across our country.
We would reform education so it worked best for students, parents, and teachers, not Washington bureaucrats and union bosses.
We would end a disastrous health care program, and replace it with reforms that lowered costs and actually let you keep your doctor.
We would recognize the importance of the separation of powers and honor the Constitution in its entirety. And yes, that includes the Second and Tenth Amendments.
We would make international agreements that were celebrated in Israel and protested in Iran, not the other way around."
Post a Comment