where did the "right" lose its way?

[8manpick]

Diane Rehm.

jfc, that voice.  even when i want to hear the topic i can't force myself to listen.  how the hell did she ever get into radio?

Pretty sure she had a stroke, didn't always sound that bad.

[sys]

Pretty sure she had a stroke.

well, they should fire her.

[steve dave]

This morning some right wing talking head was calling Rubio "the Republican solution to their problem with Hispanics" and it really drove home that the Republican party still somehow has no rough ridin' idea what their "problem with Hispanics" actually is.

[Rage Against the McKee]

This morning some right wing talking head was calling Rubio "the Republican solution to their problem with Hispanics" and it really drove home that the Republican party still somehow has no rough ridin' idea what their "problem with Hispanics" actually is.

Yeah, I think they are convinced that Hispanics just don't like white people, and the way this vote went has nothing at all to do with Romney's stance on immigration.

[CNS]

This morning some right wing talking head was calling Rubio "the Republican solution to their problem with Hispanics" and it really drove home that the Republican party still somehow has no rough ridin' idea what their "problem with Hispanics" actually is.

Yeah, I think they are convinced that Hispanics just don't like white people, and the way this vote went has nothing at all to do with Romney's stance on immigration.

Rush today was saying that 70% of the Hispanics that voted dem did so for the welfare benes or similar programs.

R's will never change.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Texas wouldn't be a red state if Rush were correct, but I doubt he really believes what he is saying.

[slobber]

Rush doesn't care who wins the elections. If he does care a little bit, it might be that he wants the Dems to win. It really doesn't matter though. He will just spout off stupid stuff that his audience eats up regardless of who is in office. Maybe, maybe, 15% of what he says is valid. Valid doesn't mean accurate, it just means it is worth discussing.

[chum1]

In my personal experience, hispanics in the Southwest are pretty rough ridin' conservative.

[Panjandrum]

This morning some right wing talking head was calling Rubio "the Republican solution to their problem with Hispanics" and it really drove home that the Republican party still somehow has no rough ridin' idea what their "problem with Hispanics" actually is.

I like to think about what most of my extended family would have to say on the subject of immigration, and then I immediately realize why Republicans are so out of touch on the issue.

[chum1]

Unlike the base, it does matter if these people are misinformed.  They shouldn't have been shocked.

http://m.cbsnews.com/fullstory.rbml?catid=57547239&feed_id=null&videofeed=null

[sys]

Unlike the base, it does matter if these people are misinformed.  They shouldn't have been shocked.

http://m.cbsnews.com/fullstory.rbml?catid=57547239&feed_id=null&videofeed=null

that's amazing.  what a bunch of deluded retards.

[michigancat]

[Panjandrum]

I really enjoyed this.

[Rams]

I really enjoyed this.

yeah I generally find her pretty annoying (something about her delivery) but the message was really good.

[p1k3]

This morning some right wing talking head was calling Rubio "the Republican solution to their problem with Hispanics" and it really drove home that the Republican party still somehow has no rough ridin' idea what their "problem with Hispanics" actually is.

Yeah, I think they are convinced that Hispanics just don't like white people, and the way this vote went has nothing at all to do with Romney's stance on immigration.

Rush today was saying that 70% of the Hispanics that voted dem did so for the welfare benes or similar programs.

R's will never change.

lol yep i heard him say this. He's had a great melt down the last couple days

[chum1]

It seems to me as though some have taken the outcome of the election as license to talk about all the things they hate about FOX News type stuff.  I have no idea what the FOX News type stuff has to do with any dumbasses that run the Republican party/campaign.  Even more, though, I'm not willing to take the further leap in logic to conlude that the Democratic party/campaign is relatively free of the very same sorts of dumbasses.  But the most enjoyable part, for me, is how one can berate a group for failing to be rigorous while oneself blatantly fails to be rigorous in doing so.  I suppose if one is going to do that, one might as well do it in a self-righteous way like they do. 

[MakeItRain]

It seems to me as though some have taken the outcome of the election as license to talk about all the things they hate about FOX News type stuff.  I have no idea what the FOX News type stuff has to do with any dumbasses that run the Republican party/campaign.  Even more, though, I'm not willing to take the further leap in logic to conlude that the Democratic party/campaign is relatively free of the very same sorts of dumbasses.  But the most enjoyable part, for me, is how one can berate a group for failing to be rigorous while oneself blatantly fails to be rigorous in doing so.  I suppose if one is going to do that, one might as well do it in a self-righteous way like they do.

The difference in the two parties is that one party has used their entertainers to shape their platform and divide the party.  When Chris Matthews and John Stewart start to influence policy then and divides the party then we can talk similarities.

[sys]

It seems to me as though some have taken the outcome of the election as license to talk about all the things they hate about FOX News type stuff.  I have no idea what the FOX News type stuff has to do with any dumbasses that run the Republican party/campaign.  Even more, though, I'm not willing to take the further leap in logic to conlude that the Democratic party/campaign is relatively free of the very same sorts of dumbasses.  But the most enjoyable part, for me, is how one can berate a group for failing to be rigorous while oneself blatantly fails to be rigorous in doing so.  I suppose if one is going to do that, one might as well do it in a self-righteous way like they do.

we're all libertarians here, chum, if that's what one is worried about.

[michigancat]

It seems to me as though some have taken the outcome of the election as license to talk about all the things they hate about FOX News type stuff.  I have no idea what the FOX News type stuff has to do with any dumbasses that run the Republican party/campaign.  Even more, though, I'm not willing to take the further leap in logic to conlude that the Democratic party/campaign is relatively free of the very same sorts of dumbasses.  But the most enjoyable part, for me, is how one can berate a group for failing to be rigorous while oneself blatantly fails to be rigorous in doing so.  I suppose if one is going to do that, one might as well do it in a self-righteous way like they do.

Look at you!

[chum1]

It seems to me as though some have taken the outcome of the election as license to talk about all the things they hate about FOX News type stuff.  I have no idea what the FOX News type stuff has to do with any dumbasses that run the Republican party/campaign.  Even more, though, I'm not willing to take the further leap in logic to  that the Democratic party/campaign is relatively free of the very same sorts of dumbasses.  But the most enjoyable part, for me, is how one can berate a group for failing to be rigorous while oneself blatantly fails to be rigorous in doing so.  I suppose if one is going to do that, one might as well do it in a self-righteous way like they do.

The difference in the two parties is that one party has used their entertainers to shape their platform and divide the party.  When Chris Matthews and John Stewart start to influence policy then and divides the party then we can talk similarities.

How did the Rupublican party use its entertainers in its campaign strategy?  Why did doing so cost them the election?  In your answers, be as rigorous as Rachel Maddow expects whoever it is she's attacking to be.

[8manpick]

First time I saw this, a foreign friend in another country sent it to me as "here is what the rest of the world thinks"

[felix rex]

Americans are really intolerable winners and losers. I think it's because we can't just throw the losers in prison or violently overthrow the winners so we have to find other ways to work through those feelings.

[slobber]

Americans are really intolerable winners and losers. I think it's because we can't just throw the losers in prison or violently overthrow the winners so we have to find other ways to work through those feelings.

That is a pretty good post/observation.

[Cire]

It seems to me as though some have taken the outcome of the election as license to talk about all the things they hate about FOX News type stuff.  I have no idea what the FOX News type stuff has to do with any dumbasses that run the Republican party/campaign.  Even more, though, I'm not willing to take the further leap in logic to  that the Democratic party/campaign is relatively free of the very same sorts of dumbasses.  But the most enjoyable part, for me, is how one can berate a group for failing to be rigorous while oneself blatantly fails to be rigorous in doing so.  I suppose if one is going to do that, one might as well do it in a self-righteous way like they do.

The difference in the two parties is that one party has used their entertainers to shape their platform and divide the party.  When Chris Matthews and John Stewart start to influence policy then and divides the party then we can talk similarities.

How did the Rupublican party use its entertainers in its campaign strategy?  Why did doing so cost them the election?  In your answers, be as rigorous as Rachel Maddow expects whoever it is she's attacking to be.

I disagree with the notion that the Party "uses" fox news but when people like Karl Rove, Glen Beck, Mike Huckabee go to work for them, and Sarah Palin is on to offer her insight(wtf)  it appears that they are very connected to the party.

[Panjandrum]

It seems to me as though some have taken the outcome of the election as license to talk about all the things they hate about FOX News type stuff.  I have no idea what the FOX News type stuff has to do with any dumbasses that run the Republican party/campaign.  Even more, though, I'm not willing to take the further leap in logic to  that the Democratic party/campaign is relatively free of the very same sorts of dumbasses.  But the most enjoyable part, for me, is how one can berate a group for failing to be rigorous while oneself blatantly fails to be rigorous in doing so.  I suppose if one is going to do that, one might as well do it in a self-righteous way like they do.

The difference in the two parties is that one party has used their entertainers to shape their platform and divide the party.  When Chris Matthews and John Stewart start to influence policy then and divides the party then we can talk similarities.

How did the Rupublican party use its entertainers in its campaign strategy?  Why did doing so cost them the election?  In your answers, be as rigorous as Rachel Maddow expects whoever it is she's attacking to be.

I disagree with the notion that the Party "uses" fox news but when people like Karl Rove, Glen Beck, Mike Huckabee go to work for them, and Sarah Palin is on to offer her insight(wtf)  it appears that they are very connected to the party.

Agreed.

I don't think the Republican Party wants to use Fox News, but I think Fox commands such a large share of the base that it shapes the narrative and the candidates of the party have no choice but to conform to the message.