Longtime GOP Strategist Steve Schmidt Joins The Democratic Party

Cypress said:
Dems genuinely wanted to compromise with him on a major infrastructure bill, but Trump was too lazy to get it to the end zone, and congressional Republicans are generally loathe to spend money on huge infrastructure bills.
Click to expand...
There was no "attempt". If I recall Trump wanted money for the wall in return for infrastructure -Pelosi can't do anything but obstruct and for that pig headedness gets called a great legislator

Trump used up all of his political capital trying to get tax cuts - that led to the pre-COVID boom
I think it was even better then Reagans

-I agree Republican in Trumps 2 years were as worthless as Dems -Ryan was full of bamboozal

I refuse to be a Republican -feckless morons. Dems have become Progressive goofballs *blech*
 
anatta said:
I voted for Carter in 1980.
By 1984 we were getting fat and happy under Reagan. i couldn't bring myself to vote for Reagan.
I was wrong
Click to expand...
I believe Carter would have beat Reagan if not for the failed rescue mission.

Video footage of burning American helicopters in the Iranian desert put the stench of failure on Carter in a very visceral way.

The weird thing is, Carter turned out to be more steadfast in resisting terrorists than Reagan. Whatever faults he had, Carter never caved to the Iranians. Reagan caved to terrorists and bought the freedom of hostages by illegally giving high tech American weapons to the Iranian mullahs
 
cawacko said:
He was a long time Republican strategist, ran some major campaigns etc. A couple of years ago he left the Republican Party and then obviously he was one of main people behind the Lincoln Project. The Lincoln Project was one big grift. I'm a lifelong Republican and I didn't vote for Trump in either '16 or '20 and I want nothing to do with the Lincoln Project. Look at their ads and everything they put out. It had nothing to do with conservative principles or policy. It was strictly anti-Trump and getting rid of Congressional Republicans. They hid behind the 'dissatisfied Republican' façade which clearly b.s. and him becoming a Democrat just proves it.

I understand PoliTalker's mindset here. He doesn't see Schmidt the person, he see's somebody who was a Republican and now is a Democrat and it's validation of his political views. But that narrative leaves out who Schmidt is.

There are others who have left the Republican Party. That is their choice and they can do as they please. But Steve Schmidt being held up as some principled conservative who has left the party is a false narrative.
Click to expand...

Schmidt seems like he supports 'democracy' rather than 'autocratism' that is being displayed by Trump and other Republicans. THAT seems to be the MOST IMPORTANT THING.
 
So the guy who thought Sara Palin was qualified and foisted her upon us, is attempting to hijack the Dem party just as Kasich has and of course the corporate Dems are more right wing than they are left in their acquiescence to the corporate masters. What in his right wing ideology has changed besides him not being a Trumper???
 
Last edited:
cawacko said:
In 1960 who went to college? Not nearly as many people as today. It was mostly kids from well to do white families. If your goal was to keep it that way then maybe you could have kept tuition close to free. But it wasn't scalable once attendance started growing.
Click to expand...

People that were 'qualified' went to college. Every yokel that wanted to attend didn't get in. Plus, 'rich' people didn't 'buy' a slot for their kids. It was based on merit.
I remember the local Community College charged 2 dollars to attend.

Can you see UC Berkeley being 'free' today? :)

"The University of California, Berkeley is a public research university in Berkeley, California. Established in 1868 as the state's first land-grant university, it is the oldest campus of the University of California system and a founding member of the Association of American Universities.Wikipedia"
 
PostmodernProphet said:
oh of course.....brains of the Republican Party.....ran McCain's campaign.........won two terms for the guy, right?......and now he's left for the left?.......brilliant man......I remember how much you loved him when he picked Palin for VP.....
Click to expand...

Winning is not the only indication of a well-run campaign. I was surprised he did that. He decided he needed a female and he picked one with not enough time to vet her. He took a risk that did not pay off.
 
cawacko said:
In 1960 who went to college? Not nearly as many people as today. It was mostly kids from well to do white families. If your goal was to keep it that way then maybe you could have kept tuition close to free. But it wasn't scalable once attendance started growing.
Click to expand...

???????????????

1968 tuition in a NY state college was $14 a credit with fees = 260 a semester. when i was discharged from the navy in 72 not much more
 
Hello Cypress,

Cypress said:
Yeah, voting for trump....that is a weird one. Whatever I think about Reagan today, a vote for Reagan could at least be justified. He had a pretty decent resume to be considered a viable president (governor and union leader), and more importantly unlike Trump, he was open to compromise, and he could be a decent person.
Click to expand...

He didn't show any willingness to compromise with the Air Traffic Controllers Union...

Jimmy Carter was right. Conspicuous consumption was not the best thing for the USA. “Human identity is no longer defined by what one does but rather by what one owns.” And he was saying that was not a good thing.
 
Hello cawacko,

cawacko said:
He was a long time Republican strategist, ran some major campaigns etc. A couple of years ago he left the Republican Party and then obviously he was one of main people behind the Lincoln Project. The Lincoln Project was one big grift. I'm a lifelong Republican and I didn't vote for Trump in either '16 or '20 and I want nothing to do with the Lincoln Project. Look at their ads and everything they put out. It had nothing to do with conservative principles or policy. It was strictly anti-Trump and getting rid of Congressional Republicans. They hid behind the 'dissatisfied Republican' façade which clearly b.s. and him becoming a Democrat just proves it.

I understand PoliTalker's mindset here. He doesn't see Schmidt the person, he see's somebody who was a Republican and now is a Democrat and it's validation of his political views. But that narrative leaves out who Schmidt is.

There are others who have left the Republican Party. That is their choice and they can do as they please. But Steve Schmidt being held up as some principled conservative who has left the party is a false narrative.
Click to expand...

No, you do not understand my perspective. Schmidt obviously had his reasons for supporting conservatives, which became less justified for him. When the Republican party embraced Trump, that was pushing things too far and he could no longer pretend that the Republican party had any merit at all.

Merit. There is a word we've heard a lot lately. Court after court has thrown Trump out. What for? Lack of merit.

Schmidt made a good move when he left the Republican Party. The Democratic party is more open to diversity of views anyway.
 
Hello Cypress,

Cypress said:
I have never voted for Nancy Pelosi in my life.

Dems genuinely wanted to compromise with him on a major infrastructure bill, but Trump was too lazy to get it to the end zone, and congressional Republicans are generally loathe to spend money on huge infrastructure bills.
Click to expand...

Too bad. Shoulda done it. Woulda created jobs, helped the economy in a healthy way, improved the nation... (Unlike the tax giveaway to the rich)

Now, we can understand Trump's reluctance to put any effort into it. After all: What was in it for HIM?

Nothing directly...
 
guno said:
???????????????

1968 tuition in a NY state college was $14 a credit with fees = 260 a semester. when i was discharged from the navy in 72 not much more
Click to expand...

Admittedly I’m not familiar with New York. In California the Uc’s were tuition “free” for in state students but they were charged fees instead. Those fees steadily increased and over time tuition was added.
 
Cinnabar said:
So the guy who thought Sara Palin was qualified and foisted her upon us, is attempting to hijack the Dem party just as Kasich has and of course the corporate Dems are more right wing than they are left in their acquiescence to the corporate masters. What in his right wing ideology has changed besides him not being a Trumper???
Click to expand...
He isn’t looking to highjack the Democrat party, he would really like the Republicans to find their souls, again. He just sees the Democrats being the only party who cares about our Republic and preserving precedence.

I agree with him when he stated that we need a strong opposition party. I have always believed in balance and fear one party rule, but right now, the Trumpublican aren’t that party.
 
cawacko said:
To your first sentence doesn't that usually mean someone who thinks like me?

Let's be honest, do you think anyone would say "I can't really think for myself, I'm just a a follower"? Highly unlikely. Thus, others who believe like we do must be thinking people as well.

Lots of people have switched parties in their lifetimes (or chosen not to be a member of one and registered as an Independent). Not an uncommon occurrence.

As for Steve Schmidt this dude is the definition of a grifter.
Click to expand...

Gee I'm so surprised affirmation of everything we believe makes you angry. Suck an egg. Your dirtbag scumsucking traitor party is
shrinking. You support nazis bigots and xenophobes. Enjoy your moral failing. I'm not buying your Mr Reasonable act.
Reason can't coexist with a fascist party.

Practice tip, salvaging your party absolutely requires condemning what it has become. No fence straddling or two ways about that.
Admit, disavow, repent or disappear. If you don't come to that conclusion, thinking for yourself ain't workin for ya!
 
Phantasmal said:
He isn’t looking to highjack the Democrat party, he would really like the Republicans to find their souls, again. He just sees the Democrats being the only party who cares about our Republic and preserving precedence.

I agree with him when he stated that we need a strong opposition party. I have always believed in balance and fear one party rule, but right now, the Trumpublican aren’t that party.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I'm not buying their crap because they need a new home. Has his right wing policies and ideologies changed? Where was he when the GOP obstructed and sabotaged Obama's 8 years? Or does it really matter to the establishment wing of the Dem party who sold their soul when they started taking corporate bribes?
 
Cinnabar said:
Sorry, but I'm not buying their crap because they need a new home. Has his right wing policies and ideologies changed? Where was he when the GOP obstructed and sabotaged Obama's 8 years? Or does it really matter to the establishment wing of the Dem party who sold their soul when they started taking corporate bribes?
Click to expand...
He hasn’t changed, he’s still a conservative and has principles. You may not agree with his politics, I don’t a lot of them, but he respects our government.

You seem very young, maybe, one day you will understand how important balance is and why it important. You can not totally do away with corporations, but there can be change so that their dollars don’t control our government.
 
Phantasmal said:
He hasn’t changed, he’s still a conservative and has principles. You may not agree with his politics, I don’t a lot of them, but he respects our government.

You seem very young, maybe, one day you will understand how important balance is and why it important. You can not totally do away with corporations, but there can be change so that their dollars don’t control our government.
Click to expand...

I'm probably older that you and I know that the GOP had been hell bent on funneling money upwards and destroying Democracy while dismantling the systems that allow for upward mobility for decades. It was Reagan who began the destruction of the middle class and Steve Schmidt while not a Trumpanzee, was perfectly fine with foisting Sarah Palin on the USA within one heartbeat from the Presidency!!!
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Cypress,



He didn't show any willingness to compromise with the Air Traffic Controllers Union...

Jimmy Carter was right. Conspicuous consumption was not the best thing for the USA. “Human identity is no longer defined by what one does but rather by what one owns.” And he was saying that was not a good thing.
Click to expand...

Jimmy Carter's legacy looks much better in hindsight. Carter is almost universally admired today for his human right work, his habitat for humanity foundation, and for genuinely living his Christian principles in an authentic way.

That is a kind of universal admiration Donald Trumpf will never have.

I have reconsidered and reflected on Reagan in retrospect and am aware he was ideologically rigid and not prone to compromise.

But he did work with Tip O'Neil to save and shore up social security, he recognized trickle down economics was failing and raised taxes and revenues many times (though always protecting the rich), and he was willing to compromise with Soviet premier Gorbachev in a way which truly outraged rightwing Republicans.

I am going to take his ultra-liberal son's, Ron Reagan Jr., word that down inside Reagan was a decent and warm person.

Whatever I think of Reagan in hindsight, I will never put him on a par of incompetence and moral corruption with Donald Trumpf.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top