Sullivan Has Truly Lost It Over Palin

I'm linking to Macsmind, as he has the Sullivan quote on Palin I wanted to feature.

“My own view is that the mainstream media was absurdly soft on her inconsistencies and lack of qualifications.

Sullivan seems trapped in some unfortunate reality in which he so has to demonize anyone he's opposed to politically, it really does suggest serious emotional issues of some sort. Whatever Sullivan may have been at one point, people who still believe he's even a semi-honest broker in touch with objective reality are just fooling themselves.

No one in their right mind could possibly conclude the above about the media coverage of Sarah Palin and claim to have a genuine appreciation for an objective political reality. And what's even more sad is that the web editors of a once prestigious brand like The Atlantic allow it to go on.

It's beyond funny, into the realm of the sick, or disturbed. And that they apparently don't care enough about their banner to put a stop to it is a genuine disgrace. The shame, more than anywhere else, belongs on them, the editorial staff.

There is nothing professional about this. It is just sad.

Comments

[Mike G in Corvallis]

I'm afraid there's an elephant in the room.

[Mike G in Corvallis]

Whoops -- that didn't take the URL I tried to embed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_dementia_complex

[xerocky]

"Palin failed on every count. Her candidacy was absurd on it face and indicts all those who found ways to defend it.”"

There are those of us that think that her candidacy was just as called for and real as Obama's. His qualifications are if you can believe it, much thinner than hers. They both were able to deliver great speeches.

The problem that the MSM has with her is Trig. Plain and simple. She stuck to her principals and she's a Republican. She talks the talk and walks the walk. And there are a great deal of people who love her for that.
She really did go to that church that was burnt down, you could even say that she liked going. Sarah Palin is Sarah Palin. She has a birth Certificate. She's the real deal. What you see is what you get.

[Q.S.]

What is even sadder is that the Atlantic seemed to sit on another journo to defend Sullivan's Trig Trutherism. Either Sullivan or the Atlantic editors should be committed. Or both.

[Slide]

Any sane conservative that strays from the "party line" has descended into the realm of "sick or disturbed". Lol..... yeah, Sullivan is the one with emotional problems. God, you wingnuts are truly living in a Bizarro World. Fascinating to watch.

[xerocky]

"God, you wingnuts are truly living in a Bizarro World. Fascinating to watch."

Are you trying to say that Andrew Sullivan is a)sane and/or b) conservative?

[Slide]

Yes. Sullivan is conservative and quite sane in my estimation. The so called "conservative" movement has morphed in something quite unhealthy for true conservatism and more specifically the GOP. The attacks on the likes of David Frum, Christopher Buckley, Kathleen Parker, Colin Powell or anyone that doesn't agree with the Limbaugh/Hannity/Coulter wing has been quite disgraceful and self defeating. But if it gives you pleasure to regurgitate to the echo chamber go right ahead, the country in the meantime is passing you by.

[Dave C]

Isn't the only reason why Excitable Andi is still on as a blogger for The Atlantic is because he is linked by Drudge?

Hence. He brings in the hits.

Slide. It's been said many times before. Never has a gay man been so obsessed about a woman's reproductive organs.

[Coregis]

Remember when the Atlantic had the great Michael Kelly, who died during the first months of the Iraq War? Since then, the magazine has descended into the babble of Andrew Sullivan. Sigh....The loss of a great magazine and brand.

[xerocky]

"Yes. Sullivan is conservative and quite sane in my estimation."

The guy doesn't even know what HE thinks.

[Rachel]

"the country in the meantime is passing you by."

Slide, do you mean the country that polls show is growing more conservative and more pro-life, the country that is reacting against the far-left policies of Obama?

[Ran]

Dan,
It's fair to say that at one time the most prestigious Brand in America was the New York Times; Known as the Newspaper of Record, the Grey Lady, that masthead represented the finest in journalism. Under Pinky Sulzberger's compassionate ideological leadership it has become bankrupt figuratively and literally.

Similar fates await the New Yorker.

[paul zummo]

Notice that Slide doesn't bother with the merits of the argument. This wasn't a post about the relative merits of Palin, but whether or not it was delusional to claim that the MSM was "soft" in their coverage of her. But understanding that would entail a level of reading comprehension that Slide should reach roughly at the same time as my five-month old daughter does.

[Dennis D]

We know far more about the political and legislative accomplishments of Sarah Palin than we do about Obama. Journalists and Dem Lawyers scoured every trash can in Alaska looking for dirt. They used Dog Teams and Sleighs to find some librarian who they claimed would say Palin banned books. They searched for the elusive snake supposedly handled by a Palin minister. But when Barack Obama denied he ever attended hate sermons did any of them try to question other members of the church? Did anyone attempt to prove Obama lied on his relationship with Bill Ayers? We know very little about Obama and what we know is not very good. No Andrew Sullivan is not a conservative. He is just dishonest.

[Dennis D]

Dear Slide. I noticed your post which I have pasted below. Are you calling Colin Powell a true conservative? Powell endorsed the most Liberal US Senator for President. How can you call Powell a conservative? Same for Buckley. Tell us what makes Powell a conservative. This should be interesting.

Yes. Sullivan is conservative and quite sane in my estimation. The so called "conservative" movement has morphed in something quite unhealthy for true conservatism and more specifically the GOP. The attacks on the likes of David Frum, Christopher Buckley, Kathleen Parker, Colin Powell or anyone that doesn't agree with the Limbaugh/Hannity/Coulter

[Mrs. Peperium]

Could Sullivan's motivation for this destructive obsession possibly be an attempt to regain credibility?

Simply put, he supported Obama. And his and his fellow Obamacons best hope for their professional credibility and more importantly -professional viability - is that the Dems get tossed out in 2010. If that doesn't happen and Americans start feeling the realities of no stimulus but 13 trillion in new debt, cap&trade, universal healthcare, universal green cars and even universal green building codes enforced by the feds the Obamacons will be driven not only from the conservative movement but from the Republican party.

So until 2010, the Obamacons must continue to destroy Palin - the-Obama-may-be-bad-but-Palin-was-so-much-worse wheeze. It seems Palin grasped this diabolical strategy of the Obamacons and simply took herself out of their nasty little game.

Should we have expected anything different? Palin appears to the makings of a great politician.

[Anon]

Andrew Sullivan's bizarre obsession with Trig Palin and his birther conspiracy theories are an embarassment to The Atlantic Monthly, someone should have told him he was making himself look stupid a long time ago.

I have to agree w/Dan on this one, Sullivan has no credibility as a conservative, a blogger or even a human being at this point.

[syn]

"even a human being at this point."

For a deeply-devoted Catholic man such as Andrew Sullivan who believes everyone has a soul, he behaves rather soullessly; too much nasty in Andy's head will never repair the damage he has done to himself.

I have no idea what is being preached in Andrew Sullivan's church these days however considering all the hideous, ugly behavior going on I do not believe his church is preaching anything remotely reflecting the word of God or Jesus' love.

I think Africa need to send a missionary to Andrew Sullivan's church because there is too much evil coming out of his Cahtolic faith.

[William Teach]

I'd like to know Excitable Steroid Rage Boy Andy's view on how the media treated Obama in comparison to Palin. That would be interesting. The post would probably degenerate into Andy's man crush on Obama and his wish to have Obama's baby, but, well, you know.

[templar knight]

Slide reminds me of....well...Andrew Sullivan!

[El Gordo]

Sullivan had gone round the bend long before Palin became candidate for VP.
Consider this: even if Palin was hypothetically every bit as overburdened and incompetent as her detractors claim, Sulivan would STILL come off as a hysterical maniac who lost every shred of credibility due to his lack of coherence, professionalism and decency. And if you can defend this oaf, you have no business complaining about Palin, or anyone else, ever again.

[bandit]

“My own view is that the mainstream media was absurdly soft on her inconsistencies and lack of qualifications.

But he supported Obama? Take the next space shuttle to reality andy.

[Mike2Cents]

I agree...an absurd thing for AS to say considering the MSMs coverage of her lack of experience etc. was THE story.

But please...enough with 'the once prestigious Atlantic' and blah blah about eh NYT or New Yorker etc. aren't credible anymore. I know it's red meat for many here, but this whine is getting really tired. This is the rant Bill O'Reilly makes every time he gets ticked off at something that is written within them. DR would run, jump, and skip to accept an offer to write for any one of these 'rags'. You complain that these sources aren't credible because they adhere to some ideology when in fact your real issue is that they don't adhere strongly enough to an ideology...yours.
Find a comfy chair and get cozy with the NRO if that's what you want and need.
Otherwise start appreciating the aforementioned dailies and periodicals for they are...admirable long lasting repositories of a vast variety of opinions and analysis.
You'd be lost without them.

[screwed, like the rest of you]

To the extent that Andy was ever a conservative, in the Burkean sense or otherwise, that day is long gone. And his intellectual principles were devoured by his sexuality. The more Andy made being gay a central part of his worldview, the more he drifted from whatever conservative moorings he had.

That is unnecessary. It is not inconsistent to be both conservative and gay. But Andy became obsessed with the gay rights movement and specifically gay marriage. His tunnel vision focus on those issues caused him to react against a strawman of conservatism. As if but for conservatives, everyone would embrace his gayness and no one would ever look at him as different.

That's just not the case. Andy's reactionary opposition against the Republican party over gay issues bled into a reactionary stance against many conservatives. In short, it was identity politics; a binary worldview of Us v. Them. Either you supported Andy's gay rights issues, or you were wrong.

In the end, Andy represent the conquering of identity politics over intellectual principles. Andy still intellectually knows conservative principles and knows the importance of them. But he has been wholly devoured by identity politics such that he can't see anything else. Palin was one of those social conservatives and therefore a threat to his position on gay issues. And therefore she was the enemy, conservative principles be damned.

[Rob Crawford]

"You complain that these sources aren't credible because they adhere to some ideology when in fact your real issue is that they don't adhere strongly enough to an ideology...yours."

Wrong.

The problem is they filter everything through their ideology while proclaiming they have no ideology. In short, they lie.

[Anon]

No, my issue w/the New York Times is that opinion now freely bleeds into its news stories and analysis. The Times on many issues, though not all, crafts its stories with the end result in mind, and experts, quotes, and statistics are used to this purpose. I would say about 4 or 5 years ago I realized that the Times had to be fact checked because its presentation of "facts" could not be trusted to reflect truth or objective reality. I haven't seen that happen yet with the Atlantic's content, but that is probably because its all written by outside contributors not staffers. I never liked the New Yorker.

I agree that Sullivan seems to have let his orientation as a gay man overwhelm every other principle he claims to have once embraced, however, it is very possible, given the preening, narcicist, fact free commentator that he is...that he was never a conservative to begin with, and only took on the personal of a 'gay conservative' because that elevated his career a lot more than being a gay liberal.

[Elmo]

Can anyone even give me one good reason why? They mention that clown's name, read, reference, or link?

JFC. It was YEARS ago. That he flushed his rep down the drain. I don't get it.

[Ran]

"the once prestigious Atlantic' and blah blah about eh NYT or New Yorker etc. aren't credible anymore. ... but this whine is getting really tired."

That's nothing... you should see their share prices droop. Sinking ships, along with the precious "progressive" ideology of their dwindling subscribers. In terms of literature, at least there's poetry in it.

[Slide]

Dennis unintentionally makes my point with his comment, "Dear Slide. I noticed your post which I have pasted below. Are you calling Colin Powell a true conservative? Powell endorsed the most Liberal US Senator for President. How can you call Powell a conservative? Same for Buckley. Tell us what makes Powell a conservative. This should be interesting."

fiscal restraint, limited government, strong national defense, respect for institutions and traditions, non-adventurous foreign policy, etc. etc.

But hey, I'm not going to argue with you on who is or isn't a conservative. If don't want Powell... or Sullivan, or Frum, or Buckley, or Parker in your "movement" so be it. We'll take 'em. You will remain a very solid 20 % of the electorate. Enjoy the deep thoughts of Limbaugh, the nuanced acumen of Coulter the every surprising Hannity and lets not forget the wit and wisdom of Joe the Plumber. Enjoy.

[David R. Graham]

@Mike G in Corvallis: I think (could be wrong) that you meant the "elephant in the room" medical metaphor surmise to refer to A-S. That made me wonder whether an embarrassing medical condition is the or a major reason DNC/state-controlled media suppress the personal facts regarding the A-H in the White House. One merely wonders.

[screwed, like the rest of you]

Slide: "fiscal restraint, limited government, strong national defense, respect for institutions and traditions, non-adventurous foreign policy, etc. etc."

If that is what conservative means to you, and you are alleging that Colin Powell is in fact a conservative, then how do you reconcile his belief in those principles and a vote for Barack Obama?

Those are mutually inconsistent positions. It's like saying "I believe in racial equality and no bigotry, but I'm voting for David Duke." One cannot maintain adherence to a principle that one openly rejects in words and deeds.

I'm quite certain that the conservative movement will welcome anyone to its ranks who share those principles that you just noted. But the question must be asked if one has joined that movement when one openly supports positions contrary to those principles.

[Slide]

screwed, like the rest of you said: "If that is what conservative means to you, and you are alleging that Colin Powell is in fact a conservative, then how do you reconcile his belief in those principles and a vote for Barack Obama?"

because the election, like all elections, was ultimately a choice between two people, Obama and McCain. He apparently thought that Obama was the better candidate and with good reason I might add. McCain's pick of Sarah Palin was the most important decision the candidate had had and he flunked miserably. To pick someone so unqualified, so lacking in even the rudimentary knowledge and experience to be your vice president when you were in the 70's was a stunning lapse in judgment. I'm sure it played into the mix of Powell's decision.

Perhaps, just perhaps, Powell thought Obama would be better for the country. That he would inspire. That he would heal the international wounds caused by the incompetence of the last administration. To you guys it always seems so tribal. It's us against them (the big bad liberals). For me, and apparently Powell, its not always about ideology, it's about many things, leadership, competence, intellect, etc. I consider myself a liberal but I could never vote for a Jesse Jackson for instance if he were running for president. We may share ideology in many respects but I don't think he would be good for the country. Isn't that what patriotism is all about? Country first?

[screwed, like the rest of you]

Slide: "For me, and apparently Powell, its not always about ideology, it's about many things, leadership, competence, intellect, etc."

That's fine. Vote based on that. But that's not a vote based on principled conservatism. And if you are going to vote based on those things, then it is a factually correct statement to say that you are not a principled conservative. You are holding other principles above conservatism. Which is fine. But again, you can get called out for it.

No one looked at these two candidates and said that Obama was the more conservative choice. Anyone who does, it quite frankly speaking bullshit on stilts.

If Powell looked at the race and thought to himself "As a conservative, I just don't like the Palin nomination, so I can't vote for McCain," then he had options. He could support another conservative third party candidate, he could have wrote someone in, or he could have abstained from voting. Actively endorsing a candidate which is an anathema to conservative principles is not an option if you want to lay claim to being a principled conservative.

So what's the fuss? Colin Powell is not a conservative. He may have conservative beliefs in some regards, but he has other beliefs as well. And he made that clear and was called on it. There is nothing inappropriate about that, so I don't get your bitch.

The conservative movement would welcome Colin Powell, but he has to take the invitation. And supporting Obama is rejecting it.

One cannot be a conservative and support Obama; it's nonsensical. It's not a binary worldview either; it is basic common sense. Again, one cannot be a racial egalitarian and support David Duke. You somehow think that is possible.

[Slide]

"One cannot be a conservative and support Obama; it's nonsensical."

that is absolutely ridiculous and may I dare say, unpatriotic. And you're bringing up David Duke as a comparison is absurd. Obama is not a David Duke who's claim to fame is that he is very much against a whole group of Americans. The comparison is odious.

You know what I really don't get about you guys is that you believe that Obama does not truly want what is best for the country. That he really doesn't love the country as much as you patriots. You can't seem to process that people can have an honest difference in opinion about what is best for this country and that none of us know for sure now do we. The arrogance of the right presuming that it knows is quite nauseating.

I guess Bush was one of your "principled conservatives" and yet he grew the Federal Government more than any other president. He squandered the surplus that Clinton had left him. He supported the government expanding huge amounts of power to wiretap, imprison it citizens, hide its workings from it's citizens.... he had a very aggressive foreign policy... all of these things are the exact opposite of conservatism but your crowd cheered him on.. .right into the 25% approval territory. Some principles.

[Caveat Emptor]

"Slide" - is a slang term used by a select few for a very slippery substance used for, er, um, let's just say that when you bother to read "Slide" you're being "prepped." Jus' sayin'.

[screwed, like the rest of you]

Slide: "that is absolutely ridiculous and may I dare say, unpatriotic. And you're bringing up David Duke as a comparison is absurd. Obama is not a David Duke who's claim to fame is that he is very much against a whole group of Americans. The comparison is odious."

Hogwash.

If you are not going to engage in this discussion in good faith, then please bow out. Don't get indignant and scapegoat an argument you cannot hold.

I did not compare to David Duke to Obama. Read it again. Perhaps you failed the SAT, but there are these things called analogies. Try one. Obama : conservatism :: David Duke : racial egalitarianism. That does not compare Obama to David Duke. It compares Obama to conservatism.

Let me spell it out for you: Obama is opposed to is opposed to "fiscal restrain, limited government" etc. The very things you identified as conservative. In fact, he proactively works in the opposite direction. Just like David Duke is opposed to racial egalitarianism and proactively works in the opposite direction. And one cannot claim to be a supporter the principles of racial egalitarianism and also say one supports David Duke. They are mutually inconsistent.

Powell supported Obama in a campaign, so he supported something inconsistent with being an advocate of conservative principles. True?

Now, either address my points in the good faith attendant to mature discussions, or go away.

[Anon]

It doesn't matter whether Obama loves this country or that he thinks what he's doing is the right thing...it matters whether there is even a snowball's chance in hell that any of his policies will do what he says they will. In that regard, he is going to be a total failure.

I agree that no one who is a true conservative could have possibly voted for Obama, and it is ridiculous to say so. I voted for Bob Barr because I didn't like Mccain, it was easy.

It is also true that Bush was no conservative and that the Republicans basically signed their own death warrant when they supported him in all of his insanity.

So, I guess that is a double whammy against Powell, he supported Bush, who is really a neo con radical and now he supports Obama, who is a left wing radical, either way, its hard to consider him a conservative in any meaninful sense.

[Slide]

I'll respond in the way I see appropriate and you can respond in any way that pleases your little wingnut sensibilities, ok?

Your "analogies" are so restrictive as to be useless. So, let me get this straight, as a principled conservative, you would vote for ANY candidate the espouses fiscal restraint over ANY candidate that believes in Keynesian economics? Is that your argument? So some vile, immoral, ignorant, pedophile lout, that happens to believe in fiscal restraint, runs against a highly moral, upstanding, ex-combat vet that believes in Keynesian economics and you're voting for the pedophile? And if you don't you can rightly be called not a conservative? Do I have that about right? Yes, I took extreme examples to make a point, but the principle is the same isn't it? One CAN vote for a candidate even if that candidate does not support every position you take without others declaring you a traitor to your principles. There are HIGHER principles my dear friend that your ideology.

Oh and did my argument meet your "good faith" criteria or shall I be required to "go away"?

[Anon]

I wouldn't vote for someone who espoused Keynesian economics if the office for which they were running gave them access to any economic levers.

So, in a choice between a 'vile, immoral, pedophile, lout' and a Keynsian econonomist, I would have to abstain or write in a better candidate...thus, managing to stay to true to my conservative principles. Again, its easy.

You see, there are always choices beyond straw man arguments made by seeming hysterics.

[Mike2Cents]

Screwed,
To oppose Obama fully would be as ridiculous as to support him fully.
But that full and passionate opposition is now the defining mantra and motivation of the 'true conservatives' movement.
Powell, Brooks, Frum et al are indeed conservatives...who do no not entirely and automatically stand in opposition to everything Obama says and does.
And over the next few years, while you're busy with purity tests for conservatives, they will actually be present and participate - and perhaps even influence from a conservative perspective the direction of this administration.

What about his dog...do you like his dog at least?

[Slide]

"So, in a choice between a 'vile, immoral, pedophile, lout' and a Keynsian econonomist, I would have to abstain or write in a better candidate...thus, managing to stay to true to my conservative principles. Again, its easy."

Oh, see that is what makes you oh so very special. You can't even conceive that someone could be a great president unless he agrees with your economic theory?

Oh, by the way, you must have loved Bill Clinton because he actually did a much better job than Reagan at reducing the size of government. So why do folks who talk about smaller government, fiscal responsibility and growth revere the guy who gave us a relatively big government, big debt and slower growth (well, not slower growth relative to other Republicans, but relative to guys like Clinton and JFK/LBJ) and despise a guy who gave us relatively small government, managed to get debt to level off, and produced faster growth?

[Anon]

No, I don't like his dog, they should have used this opportunity to send a strong message on behalf of the millions of dogs that are euthenized every year and gotten a shelter dog!!

What their choice of an exotic pure bred dog that no one ever heard of that was owned by only a handful of Americans in a misguided attempt to get a dog that wouldn't set of allergies [doesn't exist] is going to be TENS OF THOUSANDS at least of Portugese Water Dogs who are sold and then abandoned in shelters and the corrollaries of over breeding that leads to health and disposition problems.

It was about the most lame a** choice they could have come up with.

[datechguy]

This would seem to confirm the diagnosis of Bloggers Alzheimer’s aka Sullivan’s Syndrome elaborated at the following link:

http://datechguy.wordpress.com/2009/07/01/diagnosis-bloggers-alzheimers-aka-sullivans-syndrome/

[Anon]

I did like Bill Clinton, but I am also aware of the truth of the matter that Bill Clinton only balanced the federal budget because the Republicans had control of both houses of Congress and that Bill Clinton failed to do a few things that he should have, including regulating derivatives, and he did some things that he shouldn't have including NAFTA and opening the floodgates for Chinese manufactured goods. Me, personally, I think Al Gore would have made a very good president.

Who says I revere Reagan? Again, some of the negative trends that are now bearing their mutant fruit started under Reagan, namely failure to protect the U.S. manufacturing base and failure to reign in excesses of Wall Street, because it was in the 1980's that Wall Street took center stage and started calling the shots for the rest of the economy.

And um, no I don't think a president who wrecks the country's economy, as Obama is doing, could ever be considered "great", becuase I think Keynesian economics is fatally flawed in its current application. It doesn't work, it has never worked and it will not work now, in fact, the stimulus pretty clearly HAS NOT WORKED AT ALL.

[Anon]

PS,

LBJ was a terrible president any way you want to slice it...and you might want to hit the history books again, becuase he presided over several MASSIVE expansions of the federal government, the likes of which Ronald Reagan never came close to.

[Sinestra Delenda Est]

Dan,
With regard to Boy Andy, Powell and Frum and that whole pack of 'conservative' squishes...

The Libertarian core of the Conservative base has been reawakened. It's partly due to the rise of the Web and sites such as yours, partly due to the reach of talk radio, partly to a series of books old and new being (re)discovered by Americans. It's also partly due to shock of the 'Progressive' agenda and behavior of this Administration and Congress.

Conservatives and Libertarians are looking now to the core values that underpin the Constitution and the Declaration. Leaders who reflect those values are being sought-out at all levels. Looking at Gallup's numbers, the largest voter bloc is now declared 'conservatives' at 40%, roughly doubling declared 'liberals.' It is the Base that is leading this. Palin is merely a reflection of it.

The whole point about Palin - and why the Left had to continue their assault tactics long after the election - is that she's in-sync with an ever growing anti-statist majority.

What the Left has feared is coming to play out: They've aborted and family-planned themselves into endangered-species territory. They are vulnerable, they are panicked and angry, and they play by Alinsky's Rules. "Slide" knows he's about to get ganged hard. You can smell the fear in his condescension and failed logic.

We, too, can play by Alinsky's Rules. There will be retribution owed to the corrupt, and it is coming. No 'Progressive' agenda can survive with a minority of public support. There will be roll-back, there will be investigations, the Law will be restored.

Boy Andy and One-N and Powell and that whole pack of wannabe's can bark all they wish from the sidelines, but they are not leading anything. Their squish agenda is not in the cards, the Base just ain't with them.

[Slide]

Sinestra says, "What the Left has feared is coming to play out: They've aborted and family-planned themselves into endangered-species territory. They are vulnerable, they are panicked and angry, and they play by Alinsky's Rules. "Slide" knows he's about to get ganged hard. You can smell the fear in his condescension and failed logic."

It must be fun living in a Bizarro World. The only "fear" I have is that the GOP will become so totally irrelevant that we will in essence end up with a one party system which is not good for anyone. Demographics and the self-immolation of Republicans is doing quite a nice job of destroying what was once a proud party but now is populated by fanatics, wackos, adulterers, and morons all teabagging each other in the echo chamber.

Even Republicans don't like Republicans it seems by this latest poll:

Recent Poll Examines Republicans' Image of the GOP
A recent poll asked Republicans what comes to mind when thinking of the GOP. The first of two-parts
Posted June 15, 2009

1. Conservative Say 21 percent of Republicans
2. Unfavorable Say 19 percent of Republicans
3. Favorable Say 14 percent of Republicans
4. Lost Their Way Say 9 percent of Republicans
5. Closed-minded Say 3 percent of Republicans

Welcome to the REAL WORLD Sinestra

http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2009/06/15/recent-poll-examines-republicans-image-of-the-gop.html

[Anon]

Yeah, okay, that sounds great, but where is the evidence?

Congress is squarly, overwhelmingly in the hands of the Democrats.

I have no reason to think that Americans all of a sudden got smarter in the last six months, if Obama and the Dems continue to trot out "free" goodies like free health care and no taxes then they're going to continue to get elected.

None of Obama's policy positions could withstand any kind of scrutiny beyond the soundbites and talking points. Kind of the same way that many of Bush's policies fell apart upon a serious review.

MAYBE if the economy continues to spiral for another 18 months, then the GOP will regain some seats. MAYBE if the economy still hasn't recovered in 3 years and the GOP can field a decent candidate, Obama might lose.

Other than the fact that his poll ratings have dropped, what is there to be happy about?

The stimulus money is already spent down its black hole, the TARP money, also down its black hole and nothing done about those worthless assets, Obama and the Dems look like they're going to really pass some kind of nutty health care plan that will add another trillion down yet another black hole.....

Also, please remember the GOP poll numbers are still really, really terrible.

It's time for a third party, guys, that takes the sane remnants of the GOP and adds in some libertarians and indepedents.

[Slide]

TEABAGGERS UNITE... DOWN WITH SOCIALISM

[North Dallas Thirty]

"ne CAN vote for a candidate even if that candidate does not support every position you take without others declaring you a traitor to your principles. There are HIGHER principles my dear friend that your ideology."

Herein lies the difference between liberals and conservatives; conservatives have principles. Liberals have principles only when they're convenient.

Powell is the perfect "conservative" to people like Slide because Powell never lets his principles get in the way of supporting based on skin color. He is "conservative" -- when it's convenient.

And that's really what Slide wants -- a party full of "Republicans" like Andrew Sullivan who claim to support "conservative principles", but will gladly go against them when the Obama Party orders it. It's a bit like the Peoples' Congress in Cuba and other place that Obama and his party adore as examples of democracy in action.