Former Republican Sen. Warns GOP May "Have Gone So Far Overboard That We Are

[Psychoblues]

BEYOND REDEMPTION"

Pretty strong message to the GOP coming from a pretty strong former Republican Senator from Missouri. Perhaps it's time for some of the more astute amongst the party elite to start heeding these warnings. I long for the day when I could trust the Republican Party and the commitment to abide their own platform.

Good article, enjoy:

source: Think Progress
by Alex Seitz-Wald
Nov. 27, 2010

In an age when far-right tea party activists have taken over the Republican Party and demanded lockstep allegiance, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) has been one of the few GOP lawmakers to step out of line. In particular, Lugar, the ranking GOP member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has blasted his own party for relentlessly blocking ratification of the New START nuclear arms treaty with Russia, calling on his fellow GOP senators to “do your duty for your country” and complete the pact.

Not surprisingly, this insubordination has earned Lugar significant scorn within the Republican base, which now seems to value blind obedience over principled independent decision-making. In a New York Times profile of Lugar published today, former GOP Sen. John Danforth feared that the backlash against Lugar from his own party signals that the GOP has gone “far overboard” with no hope of turning back:

“If Dick Lugar,” said John C. Danforth, a former Republican senator from Missouri, “having served five terms in the U.S. Senate and being the most respected person in the Senate and the leading authority on foreign policy, is seriously challenged by anybody in the Republican Party, we have gone so far overboard that we are beyond redemption.”

Mr. Danforth, who was first elected the same year as Mr. Lugar, added, “I’m glad Lugar’s there and I’m not.”

Danforth’s fears are not unfounded. Lugar, who is up for reelection in 2012, has already been targeted by tea party groups. “If I was Dick Lugar, I would certainly expect a challenge,” noted veteran political analyst Stuart Rothenberg. As Diane Hubbard, a spokeswoman for the Indianapolis Tea Party, told the Times, removing Lugar “will be a difficult challenge. But we do believe it’s doable, and we think the climate is right for it and we believe it is a must.” .................................................. ............................................

More and more links: http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/27/danforth-lugar-overboard


Beyond redemption, indeed.


Psychoblues

[Missileman]

BEYOND REDEMPTION"

Pretty strong message to the GOP coming from a pretty strong former Republican Senator from Missouri. Perhaps it's time for some of the more astute amongst the party elite to start heeding these warnings. I long for the day when I could trust the Republican Party and the commitment to abide their own platform.

Good article, enjoy:

source: Think Progress
by Alex Seitz-Wald
Nov. 27, 2010

In an age when far-right tea party activists have taken over the Republican Party and demanded lockstep allegiance, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) has been one of the few GOP lawmakers to step out of line. In particular, Lugar, the ranking GOP member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has blasted his own party for relentlessly blocking ratification of the New START nuclear arms treaty with Russia, calling on his fellow GOP senators to “do your duty for your country” and complete the pact.

Not surprisingly, this insubordination has earned Lugar significant scorn within the Republican base, which now seems to value blind obedience over principled independent decision-making. In a New York Times profile of Lugar published today, former GOP Sen. John Danforth feared that the backlash against Lugar from his own party signals that the GOP has gone “far overboard” with no hope of turning back:

“If Dick Lugar,” said John C. Danforth, a former Republican senator from Missouri, “having served five terms in the U.S. Senate and being the most respected person in the Senate and the leading authority on foreign policy, is seriously challenged by anybody in the Republican Party, we have gone so far overboard that we are beyond redemption.”

Mr. Danforth, who was first elected the same year as Mr. Lugar, added, “I’m glad Lugar’s there and I’m not.”

Danforth’s fears are not unfounded. Lugar, who is up for reelection in 2012, has already been targeted by tea party groups. “If I was Dick Lugar, I would certainly expect a challenge,” noted veteran political analyst Stuart Rothenberg. As Diane Hubbard, a spokeswoman for the Indianapolis Tea Party, told the Times, removing Lugar “will be a difficult challenge. But we do believe it’s doable, and we think the climate is right for it and we believe it is a must.” .................................................. ............................................

More and more links: http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/27/danforth-lugar-overboard


Beyond redemption, indeed.


Psychoblues

If he's complying with the wishes of his constituency, he hasn't anything to worry about. Let me also add that these douchebags who keep trying to paint the Tea Party movement as extreme far right are full of shit...smaller government, lower taxes, and listening to constituents is hardly an extreme expectation.

[Psychoblues]

The tea baggers paint themselves in many ways but the words of the former Senator John Danforth hold true in every respect. Just who are you calling douchebags, Mm? And smaller government, lower taxes and a closer relationship with constituencies has always been the claims of pretty close to everyone that ever campaigned for an office. I gave up on the Republican Party with President George H.W. Bush. And the behavior of the GOP'ers towards President William Jefferson Clinton solidified my my total disdain for the dishonest and unAmerican tactics and policies of the Party of Lincoln.

I think Sen. Danforth is on to something here concerning Sen. Lugar. Did you read the article?

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

And the behavior of the Dems towards President George Walker Bush solidified my my total disdain for the dishonest and unAmerican tactics and policies of the Party of FDR.

Psychoblues

I'm sure we'll never hear those words from you.

[fj1200]

“If Dick Lugar,” said John C. Danforth, a former Republican senator from Missouri, “having served five terms in the U.S. Senate and being the most respected person in the Senate and the leading authority on foreign policy, is seriously challenged by anybody in the Republican Party, we have gone so far overboard that we are beyond redemption.”

Legislators should be challenged in the primaries far more often than they are. Primaries shouldn't be a rubber stamp.


If he's complying with the wishes of his constituency, he hasn't anything to worry about. Let me also add that these douchebags who keep trying to paint the Tea Party movement as extreme far right are full of shit...smaller government, lower taxes, and listening to constituents is hardly an extreme expectation.

Very true.

[Missileman]

The tea baggers paint themselves in many ways but the words of the former Senator John Danforth hold true in every respect. Just who are you calling douchebags, Mm? And smaller government, lower taxes and a closer relationship with constituencies has always been the claims of pretty close to everyone that ever campaigned for an office. I gave up on the Republican Party with President George H.W. Bush. And the behavior of the GOP'ers towards President William Jefferson Clinton solidified my my total disdain for the dishonest and unAmerican tactics and policies of the Party of Lincoln.

I think Sen. Danforth is on to something here concerning Sen. Lugar. Did you read the article?

Psychoblues

Where's your disdain for the lying sack of guts who currently resides in the White House...or is it reserved only for the half of the dishonest politicians from the right?

[Kathianne]

Running out of excuses, sic Biden, dis Putin, any others?:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-start-20101128,0,5931736.column


'Do it for Dmitry' doesn't wash
Obama's attempts to sell the New START treaty to Republicans are becoming increasingly desperate.

Doyle McManus

November 28, 2010


The Obama administration has rolled out all the arguments in its attempt to persuade Republican senators to vote for ratification of its pending nuclear arms control treaty with Russia: It's a good treaty; it's a modest treaty; it would enable the United States to resume inspecting Russian arsenals; it's a necessary step toward more important arms pacts in the future.

But as conservative senators have dug in their heels, administration officials have shifted to ominous mode, painting a dire picture of the consequences if New START, as the treaty is called, is not ratified: Nuclear security will be set back; the word of the United States will be devalued; Russians will question whether their newly improved relationship with the West is worthwhile; Russia's willingness to cooperate on other issues, such as Iran and North Korea, will be weakened.

In recent days, they've added another approach: We have an obligation to our favorite Russian leader, President Dmitry Medvedev, to ratify this deal.

"President Medvedev has made every effort to move Russia in the right direction," President Obama said last weekend at the NATO summit in Lisbon. "It's also important that we don't leave a partner hanging after having negotiated an agreement like this."

Vice President Joe Biden, in Washington, made the point a little more bluntly, as Biden often does. Medvedev, he said, has been the key Russian leader pushing for a "reset" of better relations with the United States — not Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who has been more skeptical — and it's in our interest to give Medvedev a boost.

"I do believe that there is a [political] play here," Biden told me and half a dozen other columnists recently. "Medvedev has rested everything on this notion of a reset. Who knows what Putin would do? My guess is he would not have gone there."

...

[Psychoblues]

I'm sure we'll never hear those words from you.

Changing quotes isn't winning an argument, fj2000. I reject your premise altogether.

Psychoblues

[Psychoblues]

Where's your disdain for the lying sack of guts who currently resides in the White House...or is it reserved only for the half of the dishonest politicians from the right?

I know of no "lying sack of guts who currently resides in the White House", Mm. Are you trying to say something specific about the President of the United States of America?

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

Changing quotes isn't winning an argument, fj2000. I reject your premise altogether.

Psychoblues

I wasn't making an argument, I was sayin' somethin' about cha. ;) Guess what it was.

BTW, what was my premise?

[DragonStryk72]

I know of no "lying sack of guts who currently resides in the White House", Mm. Are you trying to say something specific about the President of the United States of America?

Psychoblues

Um that he hasn't fulfilled even one of his campaign promises?

[Missileman]

I know of no "lying sack of guts who currently resides in the White House", Mm. Are you trying to say something specific about the President of the United States of America?

Psychoblues

Gee...you're pretty astute!:slap:

[Psychoblues]

Um that he hasn't fulfilled even one of his campaign promises?

New to politics I see, DS72. President Barack Hussein Obama has achieved more in the first 2 years of his Presidency than any President in my lifetime. It hasn't been without pitfalls and compromise, no thanks to the reichwingers, but our nation is by a wide margin a better one today than it was on January 19, 2009.

Psychoblues

[Missileman]

New to politics I see, DS72. President Barack Hussein Obama has achieved more in the first 2 years of his Presidency than any President in my lifetime. It hasn't been without pitfalls and compromise, no thanks to the reichwingers, but our nation is by a wide margin a better one today than it was on January 19, 2009.

Psychoblues

Two percent more Americans unemployed and 3 TRILLION dollars more in debt...just how in hell do you arrive at your conclusion? Please list specific legislation or achievements and how each has made this a better country.

[PostmodernProphet]

but our nation is by a wide margin a better one today than it was on January 19, 2009.

Psychoblues

no, it's been fucked over since January 19, 2009.....hopefully, some of it can be repaired but there is much that will take decades to recover from......

[Psychoblues]

Two percent more Americans unemployed and 3 TRILLION dollars more in debt...just how in hell do you arrive at your conclusion? Please list specific legislation or achievements and how each has made this a better country.

As simple as it is, it may still be above your head. This is a partial listing and it is open to additions if you have them. Pardon the obnoxious name of the website but I understand their purpose and hope you do as well.

Enjoy: http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

Just press on the buttons and the pages will turn. I call myself keeping up fairly well but I learned a few things buttoning through. Interesting.

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

Enjoy: http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

See, the problem is most of those aren't really GOOD things. Unless of course you see things as better just by the shear number of things that can be put into a list. Because by that measure even Jimmy Carter was a good president.

[Psychoblues]

See, the problem is most of those aren't really GOOD things. Unless of course you see things as better just by the shear number of things that can be put into a list. Because by that measure even Jimmy Carter was a good president.

I think Jimmy Carter was a good President and a FANTASTIC American. Do you have evidence contrary to that?

And, yes, I think most of these accomplishments by this President and administration are good for the overall health of the country. There are a few that I am not sure about but that is my own ignorance and/or disinterest.

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

I think Jimmy Carter was a good President and a FANTASTIC American. Do you have evidence contrary to that?

Of course you do because that's the standard that you set. Yes, the late 70's.


And, yes, I think most of these accomplishments by this President and administration are good for the overall health of the country. There are a few that I am not sure about but that is my own ignorance and/or disinterest.

Psychoblues

Debt, false reliance on government spending, increased government intervention in the private sector, higher taxes, etc. My statement stands.

[Missileman]

As simple as it is, it may still be above your head. This is a partial listing and it is open to additions if you have them. Pardon the obnoxious name of the website but I understand their purpose and hope you do as well.

Enjoy: http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

Just press on the buttons and the pages will turn. I call myself keeping up fairly well but I learned a few things buttoning through. Interesting.

Psychoblues

I asked you to explain how each of these achievements has made America a better country...are you passing on that? Not to mention the fact that some of the claims on that site are dubious at best, like for instance the claim that Obama has created more jobs than were created in the entire Bush admin. I suppose it might be true if it's in reference to the massive expansion of government beaurocracies, but he sure as hell can't claim creating private sector jobs with a 2% increase in unemployment. I admit, I stopped going any further when I reached the page about him signing the new START treaty. It's got too many pitfalls in it to even consider ratification. He might have noticed them if he had been doing his job instead of playing campaigner-in-chief.

[PostmodernProphet]

I think Jimmy Carter was a good President and a FANTASTIC American. Do you have evidence contrary to that?

of course there is contrary evidence.....interest rates topped 20% during his administration....inflation was runaway.....he didn't have a clue how to stop it......

[Kathianne]

Obama is right with Carter regarding foreign affairs. He doesn't bother to understand other countries, while under the guise of being so gifted in intellectualizing the problems. He believes that wanting to do the right thing is the same as doing it:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/jimmy_carters_human_rights_dis.html


August 26, 2007
Jimmy Carter's Human Rights Disaster in Iran
By Slater Bakhtavar
In the mid twentieth century, US-Iran relations prospered. Many Americans celebrated Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as a model king. President Lyndon B. Johnson pronounced in 1964: "What is going on in Iran is about the best thing going on anywhere in the world".

During the 1970's Iran's Shah propelled Iran into becoming a dynamic middle-east regional power. The Shah implemented broad economic and social reforms, including enhanced rights for women, and religious and ethnic minorities. Economic and educational reforms were adopted, initiatives to cleanse politics of social upheaval were systematized, and the civil service system was reformed. When sectors of society rioted to demand even greater freedom, the Shah promised constitutional reform to favor democracy. In the face of Soviet and fundamentalist Islamic pressures, constitutional reform remained on the back burner, as the Shah built what on paper was the world's fifth or sixth largest armed force. In 1976, it had an estimated 3,000 tanks, 890 helicopter gunships, over 200 advanced fighter aircraft, the largest fleet of hovercraft in any country and 9,000 anti-tank missiles.

The Shah used Iran's military might to address regional crises consistent with foreign relations goals of the United States. The Nixon and Ford administrations endorsed these efforts and allowed the Shah to acquire virtually unlimited quantities of any non-nuclear weapons in the American arsenal.

In accord with the pleasant US-Iran relations then-existing, President Carter spent New Year's Eve in 1977 with the Shah and toasted Iran as "an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world". Nonetheless, between 1975 and 1978, the Shah's popularity fell due to the Carter administration's misguided implementation of human rights policies.

The election of Mr. Carter as president of the United States in 1976, with his vocal emphasis on the importance of human rights in international affairs, was a turning point in US-Iran relations. The Shah of Iran was accused of torturing over 3000 prisoners. Under the banner of promoting human rights, Carter made excessive demands of the Shah, threatening to withhold military and social aid. Carter pressured the Shah to release "political prisoners", whose ranks included radical fundamentalists, communists and terrorists. Many of these individuals are now among the opponents we face in our "war on terrorism"...

Obama now has messed up even more the Israeli-Palestinian problem; has frightened our allies with monetarizing our debt; created a huge problem with Eastern Europe with his START fiasco, leaving them and ourselves under threat; has encouraged Iran to proceed with nuclear weapons development; has seen North Korea expand their nuclear weapons and potential for sales; has encouraged through weakness a more belligerent North Korea to the point that our troops throughout the Pacific are now on high alert...

[fj1200]

Obama is right with Carter regarding foreign affairs.

They're both FANTASTIC Americans.

[Kathianne]

They're both FANTASTIC Americans.

Because they both managed to do grievous harm to it? You would like that, I can't believe you forgot this. :clap::clap:

[Psychoblues]

Obama is right with Carter regarding foreign affairs. He doesn't bother to understand other countries, while under the guise of being so gifted in intellectualizing the problems. He believes that wanting to do the right thing is the same as doing it:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/jimmy_carters_human_rights_dis.html



Obama now has messed up even more the Israeli-Palestinian problem; has frightened our allies with monetarizing our debt; created a huge problem with Eastern Europe with his START fiasco, leaving them and ourselves under threat; has encouraged Iran to proceed with nuclear weapons development; has seen North Korea expand their nuclear weapons and potential for sales; has encouraged through weakness a more belligerent North Korea to the point that our troops throughout the Pacific are now on high alert...

Kath, I don't agree with anything you say here about Presidents Carter and Obama. It appears to me that you are parroting the talking points of an agenda driven media and the opinions of it's hosts and trained monkey anchorpeople. That's unfortunate. It is also unfortunate that you don't recognize that it is the republicans ruining the START treaty and causing danger to the entire world due to their obstinacy. Of course that brings us back to the very purpose of this thread, doesn't it? GOP has gone so far overboard we are beyond redemption. Remember that? It becomes more relevant and apparent each hour!

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

Because they both managed to do grievous harm to it? You would like that, I can't believe you forgot this. :clap::clap:

Is my sarcasm and subtle mockery not obvious enough? :laugh:

[Psychoblues]

Is my sarcasm and subtle mockery not obvious enough? :laugh:

10,000 comedians out of work and we get this shit?!

Psychoblues

[Kathianne]

Kath, I don't agree with anything you say here about Presidents Carter and Obama. It appears to me that you are parroting the talking points of an agenda driven media and the opinions of it's hosts and trained monkey anchorpeople. That's unfortunate. It is also unfortunate that you don't recognize that it is the republicans ruining the START treaty and causing danger to the entire world due to their obstinacy. Of course that brings us back to the very purpose of this thread, doesn't it? GOP has gone so far overboard we are beyond redemption. Remember that? It becomes more relevant and apparent each hour!

Psychoblues

PB, you cite your and an author's opinion while I based mine upon history, (Carter) and news reports of today.

We respectfully disagree with your conclusions.