Interesting editorial from Finley

[MWmetalhead]

80% of Nolan's columns are little more than a regurgitation of prior columns or something that required less than 20 minutes of effort to write, but every once in a while, he writes something I find compelling.

Today is one of those instances.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinio ... /82575028/

I'm not so sure I'd go so far as to change the name of the GOP, but I think the party platform needs to be reevaluated from top to bottom, and in particular, its communication strategies need to be changed drastically.

Stated another way - the GOP needs to be more Jack Kemp-like and less Mitt Romney-like.

[Deleted User 8570]

80% of Nolan's columns are little more than a regurgitation of prior columns or something that required less than 20 minutes of effort to write, but every once in a while, he writes something I find compelling.

Today is one of those instances.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinio ... /82575028/

I'm not so sure I'd go so far as to change the name of the GOP, but I think the party platform needs to be reevaluated from top to bottom, and in particular, its communication strategies need to be changed drastically.

Stated another way - the GOP needs to be more Jack Kemp-like and less Mitt Romney-like.

It'll split before it has a reinvention. They way I see it there are three wings it'll split into:
Religious Right
Business
Traditional (moderate) Republicans

If these three wings become distinct parties there would be no hope of a non Democrat being elected.

Republicans made a deal with the devil by courting religious conservatives and then getting elected and doing none of what they promised and just cutting taxes. Now the GOP doesn't want to reinvent itself because they've grown addicted to courting the religious right and in many instances that wing has people in power who wouldn't let the focus off social issues. The party needs badly to appeal to minorities and young people and it buries it's head in the sand and pretends the problem doesn't exist instead.

[Lester The Nightfly]

80% of Nolan's columns are little more than a regurgitation of prior columns or something that required less than 20 minutes of effort to write, but every once in a while, he writes something I find compelling.

Today is one of those instances.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinio ... /82575028/

I'm not so sure I'd go so far as to change the name of the GOP, but I think the party platform needs to be reevaluated from top to bottom, and in particular, its communication strategies need to be changed drastically.

Stated another way - the GOP needs to be more Jack Kemp-like and less Mitt Romney-like.

Good observation that Nolan might have actually not phoned this one in. Maybe he couldn't get a tee time at the club to have his buddy's vet it before he hit the "publish" key.

But didn't Reince Priebus declare to one and all from sea-to-shining sea that the GOP was going to change (honest, really, no jive, we're serious guys) after the last time they got their collective asses handed to them? How's that going?

The only way it will change is when a bunch of the old, rich white guys who have little interest in anyone other than their own self-interests and bank accounts finally die off. But if listening to the Who has taught us anything, they'll just be replaced by younger, rich white guys (with dating issues, apparently) who have little interest in anyone other than their own self-interests and bank accounts. Reading the pages of the Potpourri section on your fine Buzzboard convinces me of that.

(BTW - If I haven't mentioned it already, superb work on keeping the heat on Snyder. Props, dude.)

[Deleted User 7769]

80% of Nolan's columns are little more than a regurgitation of prior columns or something that required less than 20 minutes of effort to write, but every once in a while, he writes something I find compelling.

Today is one of those instances.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinio ... /82575028/

I'm not so sure I'd go so far as to change the name of the GOP, but I think the party platform needs to be reevaluated from top to bottom, and in particular, its communication strategies need to be changed drastically.

Stated another way - the GOP needs to be more Jack Kemp-like and less Mitt Romney-like.

It'll split before it has a reinvention. They way I see it there are three wings it'll split into:
Religious Right
Business
Traditional (moderate) Republicans

If these three wings become distinct parties there would be no hope of a non Democrat being elected.

Republicans made a deal with the devil by courting religious conservatives and then getting elected and doing none of what they promised and just cutting taxes. Now the GOP doesn't want to reinvent itself because they've grown addicted to courting the religious right and in many instances that wing has people in power who wouldn't let the focus off social issues. The party needs badly to appeal to minorities and young people and it buries it's head in the sand and pretends the problem doesn't exist instead.

You have no idea what you're talking about. No one is buying the stuff you're selling here. I've told you SEVERAL times I'm LEAVING the Democratic Party because they aren't in touch with many of their constituents either. Yet, you believe it's only republicans. Clearly you hate Christians. You've all but said it here more than a dozen times. You can't have it both ways, sweetheart. You can't say your party is the party of tolerance and continually bash the religious right. Republicans didn't "court" the religious right. Over the years democrats have moved away from religion altogether, so Christians had nowhere else to turn.

[Bryce]

Not to mention Doc, those that complain about the Republican Club and their "special interests" all the while the Democrat Party has their nose so far up the ass of the labor unions, both private and especially public, that they could tell you what they had for lunch.

[Deleted User 8570]

80% of Nolan's columns are little more than a regurgitation of prior columns or something that required less than 20 minutes of effort to write, but every once in a while, he writes something I find compelling.

Today is one of those instances.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinio ... /82575028/

I'm not so sure I'd go so far as to change the name of the GOP, but I think the party platform needs to be reevaluated from top to bottom, and in particular, its communication strategies need to be changed drastically.

Stated another way - the GOP needs to be more Jack Kemp-like and less Mitt Romney-like.

It'll split before it has a reinvention. They way I see it there are three wings it'll split into:
Religious Right
Business
Traditional (moderate) Republicans

If these three wings become distinct parties there would be no hope of a non Democrat being elected.

Republicans made a deal with the devil by courting religious conservatives and then getting elected and doing none of what they promised and just cutting taxes. Now the GOP doesn't want to reinvent itself because they've grown addicted to courting the religious right and in many instances that wing has people in power who wouldn't let the focus off social issues. The party needs badly to appeal to minorities and young people and it buries it's head in the sand and pretends the problem doesn't exist instead.

You have no idea what you're talking about. No one is buying the stuff you're selling here. I've told you SEVERAL times I'm LEAVING the Democratic Party because they aren't in touch with many of their constituents either. Yet, you believe it's only republicans. Clearly you hate Christians. You've all but said it here more than a dozen times. You can't have it both ways, sweetheart. You can't say your party is the party of tolerance and continually bash the religious right. Republicans didn't "court" the religious right. Over the years democrats have moved away from religion altogether, so Christians had nowhere else to turn.

You're barking up the wrong tree pal, I'm proud to be a Christian thank you very much. Republicans definitely did court the religious right and then continue to not do anything about the promises they make. Even when they had majorities on the Supreme Court, in both houses and the White House they didn't get the stuff they promised done. They blamed it on the left. But they managed to cut taxes twice. This was all in the first 6 years of Bush 2...

Courting religious voters started with Richard Nixon's southern strategy in the late 1960's. Karl Rove even had an organized strategy to drive the religious right to vote in 2000 and 2004. He had no interest in their issues, only their votes. I don't hate anybody. I'm just saying that the party itself has been screwing these folks over for 40 years. I feel sorry for them actually.

[TC Talks]

Did I mention how much I am enjoying this season?

Revox years ago would whine that the political system was so corrupt that he didn't see how it would change. Now we have the Republicans falling apart, and at least 40% of the democrats not to happy with one or the other candidates.

I admire Trump for pulling a significant number of the base out from the shadows to reveal the ugly underbelly of the GOP. Bernie v Hillary has been a bit more civil, but her work behind the scenes has revealed how rigged the election system can be.

There will be a new president, not many people will like her, and the losers will have to finally decide the old system isn't working.

[screen glare]

Change the name? Act cool? Win the culture wars? Put lipstick on a pig and it's STILL a pig! As Sarah P proves. The GOP would have to have a true change of heart and mind to be attractive. Good luck with that!!

Time to put a woman of experience in the white house with a track record of hard work and accomplishment and strength. She's a caring mom and grandmother, a valedictorian from a top notch university, a forgiving wife, someone who has always fought to protect children, a tough cookie when needed, a realist, a patriot, and a woman with detailed knowledge of policy, world leaders, and world affairs.

Thank you Don Trump for making President Hillary Clinton the REAL deal come January. I look forward to her historic inauguration , and her naming a more liberal judge to fill Scalia's spot on the supreme court. And look out republicans in congressional races down ballot in November. Don Trump Deal Maker is your party's deal breaker!

[audiophile]

On the other hand, one could write...

Time to put in THE woman of Whitewater, with a track record of not baking cookies and foreign policy blunders in Libya and pushing the reset button with Russia. She's a mom and grandmother to the Mezvinsky crime family, a valedictorian from a top notch Dewey-Cheatem&Howe University, a calculating political wife, someone who has always fought to abort unborn children, is half-baked, a pessimist, a partisan that blames vast right-wing conspiracies, and knows about Bill's world 'affairs'.



PS The funny thing is if it wasn't for Benghazi that almost seems better then The Donald.

[screen glare]

I notice you have inserted references to BAKING twice in your short list of derogatory associations to former First Lady, former US Senator, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Does it irk you and all Fox News watching - Limbaugh listening junkies that she doesn't bake cookies often, and has always been a high achiever ... rarely leaving tasks "half baked"?

To hear those who've spent decades on a futile witch hunt reviewing her thoughts, words, and deeds you'd think she'd by now committed at least one deliberate transgression that would land her criminally charged, and on trial in a court of law. Instead she has been consistently tried in the court of public opinion, and even withstood 8 hours of grilling in a congressional hearing - to no avail. Whitewater probe, Benghazi investigation, Monica Lewinsky scandal, etc. have all served to help this future president become stronger, wiser, and steady under fire.

Insecure white males feel threatened by her invulnerability to their traditional sexist verbal put downs. But others of our gender feel hopeful that Mrs. Clinton will serve as a fine US president. An example to our daughters and reminder to our sons that no leader - past or present - will be free of human error, so it's important to choose a leader who tempers power with an active compassion for the poor, worldly experience, and visible courage in times of fear.

[Deleted User 8570]

I notice you have inserted references to BAKING twice in your short list of derogatory associations to former First Lady, former US Senator, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Does it irk you and all Fox News watching - Limbaugh listening junkies that she doesn't bake cookies often, and has always been a high achiever ... rarely leaving tasks "half baked"?

To hear those who've spent decades on a futile witch hunt reviewing her thoughts, words, and deeds you'd think she'd by now committed at least one deliberate transgression that would land her criminally charged, and on trial in a court of law. Instead she has been consistently tried in the court of public opinion, and even withstood 8 hours of grilling in a congressional hearing - to no avail. Whitewater probe, Benghazi investigation, Monica Lewinsky scandal, etc. have all served to help this future president become stronger, wiser, and steady under fire.

Insecure white males feel threatened by her invulnerability to their traditional sexist verbal put downs. But others of our gender feel hopeful that Mrs. Clinton will serve as a fine US president. An example to our daughters and reminder to our sons that no leader - past or present - will be free of human error, so it's important to choose a leader who tempers power with an active compassion for the poor, worldly experience, and visible courage in times of fear.

Does that make you a secure white male or ?

[Lester The Nightfly]

I notice you have inserted references to BAKING twice in your short list of derogatory associations to former First Lady, former US Senator, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Does it irk you and all Fox News watching - Limbaugh listening junkies that she doesn't bake cookies often, and has always been a high achiever ... rarely leaving tasks "half baked"?

To hear those who've spent decades on a futile witch hunt reviewing her thoughts, words, and deeds you'd think she'd by now committed at least one deliberate transgression that would land her criminally charged, and on trial in a court of law. Instead she has been consistently tried in the court of public opinion, and even withstood 8 hours of grilling in a congressional hearing - to no avail. Whitewater probe, Benghazi investigation, Monica Lewinsky scandal, etc. have all served to help this future president become stronger, wiser, and steady under fire.

Insecure white males feel threatened by her invulnerability to their traditional sexist verbal put downs. But others of our gender feel hopeful that Mrs. Clinton will serve as a fine US president. An example to our daughters and reminder to our sons that no leader - past or present - will be free of human error, so it's important to choose a leader who tempers power with an active compassion for the poor, worldly experience, and visible courage in times of fear.

Good post. Incomprehensible to the Alpha, white X-Y chromosome crowd, but a good post none the less.

[screen glare]

NS - why do you frequently post one or two-sentence, unnecessary, comments/questions regarding what another poster has written? Can't you simply discern the answers you seek by rereading carefully the post to which you are now referring? Too often the answer or clarification you seek is obvious.

[Deleted User 8570]

NS - why do you frequently post one or two-sentence, unnecessary, comments/questions regarding what another poster has written? Can't you simply discern the answers you seek by rereading carefully the post to which you are now referring? Too often the answer or clarification you seek is obvious.

If we were all pulled up to the bar I could physically see you wax philosophic about all kinds of stuff... Instead I'm left with the honor system... I suspected not because you would understand how offensive saying "white male privilege" is to the majority of white guys who haven't been privileged for a damn thing...

But I'll put some sunglasses on... ... and go to work answering your question:
When you say "insecure white males" I have two options, I can assume you are a secure white male or an insecure or secure non-white male. It really doesn't tell me anything. Unless you are saying all white males are insecure so I should assume you are non white by default?

[Matt]

I notice you have inserted references to BAKING twice in your short list of derogatory associations to former First Lady, former US Senator, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Does it irk you and all Fox News watching - Limbaugh listening junkies that she doesn't bake cookies often, and has always been a high achiever ... rarely leaving tasks "half baked"?

To hear those who've spent decades on a futile witch hunt reviewing her thoughts, words, and deeds you'd think she'd by now committed at least one deliberate transgression that would land her criminally charged, and on trial in a court of law. Instead she has been consistently tried in the court of public opinion, and even withstood 8 hours of grilling in a congressional hearing - to no avail. Whitewater probe, Benghazi investigation, Monica Lewinsky scandal, etc. have all served to help this future president become stronger, wiser, and steady under fire.

Insecure white males feel threatened by her invulnerability to their traditional sexist verbal put downs. But others of our gender feel hopeful that Mrs. Clinton will serve as a fine US president. An example to our daughters and reminder to our sons that no leader - past or present - will be free of human error, so it's important to choose a leader who tempers power with an active compassion for the poor, worldly experience, and visible courage in times of fear.

Good post. Incomprehensible to the Alpha, white X-Y chromosome crowd, but a good post none the less.

As opposed to a beta cuckold like you?

NS - why do you frequently post one or two-sentence, unnecessary, comments/questions regarding what another poster has written? Can't you simply discern the answers you seek by rereading carefully the post to which you are now referring? Too often the answer or clarification you seek is obvious.

If we were all pulled up to the bar I could physically see you wax philosophic about all kinds of stuff... Instead I'm left with the honor system... I suspected not because you would understand how offensive saying "white male privilege" is to the majority of white guys who haven't been privileged for a damn thing...

But I'll put some sunglasses on... ... and go to work answering your question:
When you say "insecure white males" I have two options, I can assume you are a secure white male or an insecure or secure non-white male. It really doesn't tell me anything. Unless you are saying all white males are insecure so I should assume you are non white by default?

Could not have said the bolded section any better myself...