The GOP goes both ways...

And it isn't as fun as it sounds.

There seems to be a contradiction: some on the left (and some Republicans) say that the GOP has become too right-wing and needs to moderate. Conservatives say that the exact OPPOSITE is true, that the GOP has moved to far to the left. Well, which is it?

It is both.

In terms of social issues, the GOP has been solidly on the right. Republican politicians' public positions on gay marriage, stem cell research, abortion haven't moved a cat's whisker to the left since at least 2000. Some of these issues were brought to the forefront in elections and gave victory to Republicans. But as social issues giveth, so do they taketh. The position among many fiscal conservatives/social liberals is that the GOP has become too Evangelical and too conservative on social issues.

Conservative social issues win as a generic social issue when presented by a FACELESS ballot. I doubt that most Blue states would vote for gay marriage. California just voted it down.

But that does NOT mean that Republican POLITICIANS can derive victory from these issues. People might have conservative social views but they DO NOT like to be lectured by conservative politicians. Politicians that in many cases turn out to be hypocritical (is that Larry Craig's hand under my chair?). For every Carrie Prejean that legitimately expresses her opinion against gay marriage, there will be nude photos, a DUI, a drug conviction, prostitutes, gay lover, whatever.

You will never find a sinless politician, so Republican politicians calling something sinful will ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS expose AT LEAST ONE Republican politician as a hypocrite.

Banning gay marriage always passes in California, yet no social conservative has a shot in he-double toothpicks to win statewide office. The reason is that people by and large think politicians that preach social conservative values are either hypocritical and/or self-righteous. Let's save the preaching to the experts: priests, rabbis, and...preachers.


On the concept of FISCAL issues, where the GOP has moved is at best mixed, and more clearly the GOP has moved to the LEFT since the Gingrich Congress of the mid-1990's. Huge spending increases, even on discretionary spending, have left many fiscal conservatives believing Obama when he said DEMOCRATS were fiscal conservatives. I'm sure they all get a big chuckle thinking now about how Obama punked them (lied to them) and turned out to be the biggest fiscal liberal since FDR; but Obama was only able to MAKE the argument that Democrats were fiscal conservatives...because the GOP was NOT.

The Republicans Party will have success again when they are not so outspoken on conservative issues (yet still remain QUIETLY supportive) and return to fiscal conservativism. That means cutting the budget people. That means not going bankrupt. Americans support not going bankrupt, that's a winning issue.


So, which way has the GOP gone the past few years, to the left or right? They have gone both ways, and it doesn't seem to be something American voters approve of.

Obama/Emanuel bully Israel to mask their weakness

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710862759&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

"Emanuel: Thwarting Iran easier with Israeli-Palestinian talks"

"Israeli TV stations had reported Monday night that Emanuel had actually linked the two matters, saying that the efforts to stop Iran hinged on peace talks with the Palestinians. The remarks were reportedly made in a closed-door meeting previous day with 300 major AIPAC donors on Sunday"

Obama via Emanuel is strong-arming Israel like he does all his enemies: media outlets he doesn't like, businesses he doesn't like, politicians he doesn't like. He threatens and cajoles and bullies. This is blackmail, a direct threat TO ISRAEL that says they will NOT help deal with Iran's nukes unless Israel brokers a deal with the Palestinians.

Obama is strong-arming ISRAEL, NOT Iran, NOT Palestinians.

Obama will never do anything militarily vs. Iran, regardless of what Israel agrees to. They are weak leftists and have no desire to attack Iran and would also lose their leftist base. Iran knows that.


So what Obama is now doing it to put the blame on Israel.
If Israel capitulates and trades land for dealing with nukes, they can take credit for the elusive Israeli/Pali peace.

If Israel does not captiulate, then they can say they WOULD HAVE gone after Iran...but shucks, Israel didn't play along.

If Israel attacks Iran they have cover with Muslims. They can say "we tried to broker a deal, but Israel would not have it".

This is merely a ploy to deflect the weakness of Obama on to Israel; blaming them for Iranian nukes. The problem is that it is so transparent. It is transparent to Jews, to Israel, and to any thinking American.

Before the election Obama said Iran nukes were unacceptable. So now Iran nukes ARE acceptable if Israel/Palis don't agree on a deal?

Iran nukes are either acceptable or not, it should be obvious to everyone that if Iranian nukes are unacceptable (which they are), then it doesn't matter WHAT Israel does. Iran nukes are unacceptable means they are unacceptable.

Obama trying to paint ALL conservatives as extremist

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," according to Obama.

And Obama and other leftists want to marginalize all conservatives as "hate-filled", "right-wing extremists".

The campaign for Obama is to portray himself as a moderate/centrist, and everyone that disagrees with him as an "extremist".

Obama and other leftists will do their utmost to do this. Janeane Garofalo's rant against the tea parties on MSNBC was no accident or off the cuff. It was intentional and part of a larger pattern to paint ALL conservatives as extremists. This is a Stalinist technique.

Consider Obama's quote above, trying to paint Rush as an ideologue whose views would be anathema to getting things done.

Consider Janet Napolitano's DHS report about "right-wing extremists", including groups that "oppose abortion or illegal immigration".

Consider Michael Savage being BANNED from the UK (!!!!) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/16-banned-from-britain-named-and-shamed-1679127.html for his views on immigration and Islam.


Michael Savage has NOTHING to do with the UK. I don't recall any big push for Savage to broadcast in the UK, or to have townhalls there. So why would UK ban him?

Because Gordon Brown, a fellow leftist, is helping Obama paint ALL conservatives as "extremists" by painting the conservative Savage on the same list as committed terrorists. It's a smear tactic against conservatives.

This also helps Brown appease the left and Muslims in his own country.

But what leads one to think this is Obama colluding with Brown to smear conservative critics of Obama?
1 Savage does not broadcast in the UK, no plans to, and no plans to give speeches there.
2 Gordon Brown was elected as PM in June 2007 yet it's now that Savage goes on the list.
3 Savage's comments were made years ago yet now he goes on the banned list.
4 Plenty of leftists and Muslims INSIDE the UK routinely advocate violence yet are not deported


I would not be surprised if there was actual collusion between Obama and Brown to put Savage's name on the UK "banned" list. This, along with other comments and Napolitano's DHS report, helps Obama to demonize critics and conservatives.

It is not an accident, it is not arbitrary that Savage is banned in the UK. This is a full-scale assault to silence and/or marginalize any opposing viewpoints and especially critics of Obama.

This will only continue as time goes on.