GOP’s trifecta of doom: How candidates, issues & culture are building a 2016 calamity (Bizarre)

Salon ^ | May 23, 2014 | Paul Rosenberg

[2ndDivisionVet]

Who knew that Donald Sterling was a major Republican figure?

[TBP]

Donald Sterling is a Democrat, at least in terms of where his donations go. Salon knows that.

[Sarah Barracuda]

WOW so this is a first..I never knew that a supposed Republican would give money to Patrick Leahy of Vermont..Yep that’s right, Donald Sterling, the supposed Republican, gave big bucks to a SOCIALIST from Vermont

[Cheerio]

The bottom-up furor that resulted brought about a massive exodus of advertisers, which had damaged the entire talk-show industry by its one-year anniversary.

Could we see some facts substantiating that?

[zeestephen]

Sterling was also scheduled to receive an award from the Los Angeles NAACP.

That would be the same NAACP that votes close to 100% for Obama and all other Democrats.

[2ndDivisionVet]

No, because it didn’t happen that way, at all.

[DemforBush]

Man, this dude is really reaching with some of his points. Pro-life has never been stronger in the country, and the Democrats are losing on a host of issues besides economic. Guns, foreign policy, and so on. There are areas where the GOP is in trouble, no question. But this guy is in a pipe dream if he thinks the Democrats are poised to capitalize in the near-term.

[Jack Hydrazine]

The article is a bunch of crap.

[EQAndyBuzz]

I lost interest s soon as I saw it was Salon.

[Viennacon]

Unbelievably re7arded. Gotta drop that Don Sterling message in there.

You have to laugh at how idiotic these economic illiterates are. Obviously expects Democrat disaster management to keep the economy ticking till 2016. It will have imploded before Hillary even arrives at the first debate.

[JPX2011]

Indeed. What a load of sh*t! Even if I accepted the entire premise of this garbage, so what? The country is lost. It has devolved into a morass of balkanized tribalism. Do we really think 2014/2016 is going to make a difference?

I’m sorry but the notion of the silent/baby-boomer generation that this battle is being played out under marquess of queensbury rules is dead. Oh sure, we speak of things like Alinsky and critical race theory now but where was that understanding 30-50 years ago when it could’ve made a difference. Not to be found except in the rarified settings of the ivory tower intellectuals. But it’s too late. The right failed to recognize the enemy and on what field they were advancing. And now we sit here and argue about the trivials of language when that ship sailed years ago. Too late.

As a result we have a lawless judiciary, a permament political class, a tyrannical executive and a rigged electoral system. And the order of the day is vote in order to manage the decline? No thanks. Personally, I’d rather see the whole thing burn to the ground at this point. Why should I care if the Democrats hold the Senate in ‘14 or if Hillary wins in ‘16?

P.S. Vet: not directed to you personally. Just a general rant.

[FlingWingFlyer]

More goofiness from the loons down at the Saloon.

[Rome2000]

They must be smoking lots of that medical marijuana

[dowcaet]

Executive Director Suzanne Buckley of NARAL’s state chapter situates reproductive freedom in broader moral and ethical terms, refusing to cede morality to the Christian Right. She tells the audience, “Let me be clear – being pro-choice is a moral position. Women’s lives matter. Women deserve our trust and respect.”

What can you say about a statement like that. These lefties are sick people. I don’t want to find common ground with these idiots. They’ve done enough damage to our country. I know we won’t right the ship in this country until we can defeat these people and their sick, twisted ideas.

[JPX2011]

What can you say about a statement like that. These lefties are sick people.

Yes they are. This could've been stopped 40 years ago. People were too busy earning livings and raising families to be bothered with it I suppose. Just goes to show how far the left has been able to advance the ball. And with a today's relativistic society what these baby-killers say resonates.

Defeat for them will not be found in court opinions, legislative decrees or electoral victories. It's too late for that.

[FreedomPoster]

tl; dr

Based on the comments here, I’m glad I didn’t.

[nathanbedford]

From time to time we see the left disgorging analysis pieces schooling Democrats about how to spin their message at election time. Sometimes it has to do with capturing the vocabulary; this time it appears rather unfocused with some sort of reference to social media. The point is that the underlying facts are not important, it is only spin that matters to these people.

A good illustration of this from this article can be seen in his treatment of the Trayvon Martin affair which conservatives well know was a case of the truth pulling its boots on while the lie spun around the world. The author simply advocates pandering to the predilections of the audience, in this case the victimology which obsesses African-Americans.

The same approach can be seen at work when the author explores the contrived war on women.

Before we conservatives dismiss this as the left promoting lying as a virtue let us at least acknowledge that it wins them elections, or rather, they win elections while doing it and the question is, why? Is it to spin or are there other factors at play?

What about the media, is it not true that Sandra Fluke was a created creature of the media? Indeed, was not the entire war on women a crusade conducted by the media? What about homosexual marriage?

If it is not the spin but the media spin which wins the election, what about the role of academia? Has it not produced a generation of journalists ready to spin? Has it not produced generations of women vulnerable to spin? Has academia produced victims across the land susceptible to spin?

My point is that articles like this are exercises in self absorption but conservatives who want to win elections had better find ways of winning the culture and that cannot be done by reason alone, it must be done the way the left has done it, by co-opting the institutions which shape the culture.

[Redmen4ever]

The only thing correct in the original article is that no candidate has yet emerged as the consensus Republican candidate for 2016. Because of name-recognition and party-solidarity, Hillary currently has a big advantage in the polls. But, you cannot conclude from this that she will maintain this advantage through the election.

First, a Republican might emerge who catches fire, possibly one of those currently being considered (e.g., Sen. Cruz because of his oratorical skills), possibly someone not generally thought of as a candidate (e.g., Gov. Pence of Indiana). (BTW, that’s my ticket.)

Second, whether or not we wind up with a candidate on fire, we will wind up with a candidate and that candidate will become known to the American people. Name-recognition will not be a factor in the election.

Third, there is always the question of whether a candidate will be able to unite the party. Sometimes this doesn’t happen, as in 1964, when the Rockefeller wing of the party undermined Goldwater. Sometimes it doesn’t happen, and the candidate still wins, as in 1980 when Anderson bolted and Reagan still won.

[Georgia Girl 2]

I always love to hear Salon’s concerns about the republicans. :-)

[USS Alaska]

The 2014 midterms still seem like a major challenge to Democrats, although some signs of hope are starting to appear.
If the Democrats do perform better than currently projected, it could signal that the deeper trends discussed above will be even more powerful in 2016 than they now appear — perhaps even powerful enough to give the Democrats another White House/Senate/House trifecta again.

If this loon even can hope for a demonRAT house, white hut and senate in 2016, getting him quickly into a hospice is the only humane thing to do, because he is in the final stages of a lethal brain disease.