Uncategorized

Did Charlotte convention reveal an ideological divide on the right?

Steve Harrison highlighted a fascinating article in Bloomberg Businessweek yesterday over at Blue NC . The article is entitled “Democrats Party in Charlotte’s Republican-Backed Public Projects,” and it includes some rather startling quotes from GOP standard-bearer Pat McCrory that appear to be diametrically opposed to the currently accepted ideological orthodoxy in the state’s conservative power structure.

Here is an excerpt:

“McCrory’s willingness to spend public money on major construction projects runs counter to the rhetoric from national Republicans, who say government needs to be smaller and spend less money.

‘The national political scene has changed dramatically, which is why McCrory is campaigning far to the right of how he governed in Charlotte,’ said Mary Newsom, associate director for urban and regional affairs at the UNC Charlotte Urban Institute. ‘He’s having to campaign in a way that gives him credibility with the extreme right wing of the Republican Party.’

Democrats and Republicans should work together to make progress on infrastructure, said McCrory, who lost his first bid for governor in 2008 as President Barack Obama won North Carolina by about 14,000 votes.

‘We ignore one of our best presidents ever, and that’s Eisenhower,’ he said, referring to Dwight Eisenhower’s creation of the interstate highway system. ‘Obama had a chance to be a Roosevelt-type figure with infrastructure, but he failed miserably.’”

Eisenhower was “one of our best presidents ever”? Obama failed to be a “Roosevelt-type figure”??

Wow! This kind of talk cannot be going over well in the Pope Empire.

 

 

 

19 Comments

  1. Frank Burns

    September 7, 2012 at 9:17 am

    As Charlotte’s Mayor, McCrory pushed for the light rail system and coliseums (2 and 3). He does have a record of spending public funds for infrastructure. Many conservatives in Charlotte weren’t too happy with that spending but he never exceeded the bond limits.

    Obama failed by just writing checks to State and Local governments who used those funds to help balance their inflated budgets. Rooseveldt spent money on projects which gave some people work and actually produced something tangible. Obama got nothing for his expenditures.

  2. gregflynn

    September 7, 2012 at 9:28 am

  3. Rob Schofield

    September 7, 2012 at 9:37 am

    My week is made — Frank lauds FDR.

  4. Frank Burns

    September 7, 2012 at 10:00 am

    OK Greg, Obama got a few things for the stimulus spending but not much. Most of it was just grants to state and local governments.

  5. david esmay

    September 7, 2012 at 10:23 am

    Yes, the presence of Lincoln Chafee, the last sane Republican, confirmed the divide. If the GOP wants to survive, the Teavangelicals need to get their own party, if they want the supposed ideological purity they demand from their candidates. The Republican party is a deeply troubled and divided institution. Frank a huge portion of the stimulus package, once it was eviscerated by congressional Republicans, ended up being tax cuts.

  6. Frank Burns

    September 7, 2012 at 10:39 am

    The Tea Party has been the best thing for the Republican Party. We have a fiscal problem facing us and thanks to the Tea Party, politicians are taking notice. I’m grateful to the efforts of the Tea Party. Every party has it’s various factions there’s nothing wrong with that. How about those Dems booing the inclusion of God in their platform? Not a very good image for the average American. In addition the Dems tilt towards liberalism has been damaging for them, the abortion issue comes to mind. The stimulus was not cut, it was enacted with a Democratic controlled Senate and House. That was the reason for the big shift to the GOP in 2010.

  7. david esmay

    September 7, 2012 at 11:05 am

    I didn’t say the stimulus was cut, a deal with house repubs in order to pass it included way to many tax cuts and little flowed down to people on mainstreet. The Tea Party is a nightmare of ignorance. What about the booing? I don’t think religion has a place in political platforms, I was booing myself. Liberalism trumps conservatism, history supports this and the President never had control of the House and the Senate. In 2009 there were not 60 Democratic senators, repubs hijacked the stimulus to get tax cuts. Republican Sen. Susan Collins cut billions from the original stimulus package and job stimulating measures were traded for these cuts. At no time has the President had a filibuster proof senate.

  8. david esmay

    September 7, 2012 at 11:10 am

    I think the Tea party and right wing evangelicals should join together and form The Insane Clown Party, or ICPee for short. They could have Jesus riding a dinosaur for their mascot.

  9. jlp75

    September 7, 2012 at 11:12 am

    Keep spinning the facts Frank. The Dems were booing the fact that they declared it a 2/3’s vote when it clearly wasn’t. They basically said we are adding this in no matter what and ignored the vote. God belongs in church not in government, period. Don’t like it? Take it up with the founding fathers. Better yet maybe you should move to Iran. Perhaps they have the theocracy you so yearn for.

  10. Frank Burns

    September 7, 2012 at 11:35 am

    JLP,
    Call it what you want but it didn’t look good and was a disastor for the Dems to be booing the inclusion of God into their platform. Obama tried to blame somebody else for this fiasco but he was jumping all over himself to reinstate the reference to God and the capital of Israel being Jerusalem after the uprising from the public. Is this an example of good leadership coming from Obama?

    You can take it up with our founding fathers, remember the Declaration of Independance? “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” In other words, they are gifts from God.

  11. gregflynn

    September 7, 2012 at 12:28 pm

    It was, among other things, a declaration of independence from a king who considered himself the leader of the official state-sponsored church. Some of the unjust taxation was mandatory tithing to the Anglican church. The references to God were an appeal to a higher authority than the King as head of the Church of England. Freedom of religion extended rights to to non-Anglicans: Quakers, Baptists, Moravians, Catholics, Jews, non-believers and others alike. They didn’t pick one god to worship or build a nation on. They were saying they shouldn’t be subject to the whims of one mortal who acted as one god’s proxy.

    What independence from publicly funded religion has to do with publicly funded infrastructure, I don’t know.

  12. Frank Burns

    September 7, 2012 at 12:45 pm

    Agreed. Our creator is the one God whom many different religions worship. I happen to worship under the Lutheran faith, but I make no claims that is is the only religion.

    I admit that I strayed a tad off topic but I was responding to a nattering nabob of negativity who had posted.

  13. jlp75

    September 7, 2012 at 1:21 pm

    …”nattering nabob of negativity”. This coming from the biggest “nabob of negativity” here. Thanks for the laugh I needed that today.

  14. david esmay

    September 7, 2012 at 1:31 pm

    Frank, you keep quoting disgraced Republican Spiro Agnew. FYI, the only VP in hi-sto-ry to resign office because of criminal charges, extortion, bribery, conspiracy, and tax fraud. I like the tax fraud part, kind of a recurring theme among repubs.

  15. Frank Burns

    September 7, 2012 at 1:51 pm

    David,
    Should I remind you that the Democrats asked Bill Clinton, the only president convicted of perjury to make a speech? Why should we believe anything he says?

  16. jlp75

    September 7, 2012 at 3:27 pm

    Perhaps because no one has been able to dispute the facts that Bill Clinton included in his speech. He has told some lies in his day but none were to be found in that speech. Contrast that with Lyin’ Ryan who can’t even be honest about things that don’t even matter such as a foot race, much less about policy proposals or the reality that the rest of us live in.

  17. david esmay

    September 7, 2012 at 4:46 pm

    Another false claim from the right, President Clinton was not convicted of perjury, vote was 55-45 against. Step up and take another swing. Coincidentally right-wing saint Ronald Reagan’s administration was marred by the indictment or conviction of 138 administration officials, 14 cabinet level, the most in history, surpassing U.S. Grant’s in level of corruption.

  18. Frank Burns

    September 7, 2012 at 7:54 pm

    David, Clinton did not misplace his license to practise law, it was revoked for committing perjury.

  19. david esmay

    September 10, 2012 at 10:25 am

    Not revoked Frank, suspended for five years, his Arkansas license, and he resigned his Supreme Court license. Still not a revocation or disbarment.