1,516
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 267:
Line 267: + + + + + + + +
→Reversion of "Role" comments: new section
:::The irony being that liberals wanted Bush to fail while we were at war with troop's lives on the line, but Obama failing upsets them? Liberals :P --[[User:Paulcspring|Paulcspring]] 05:44, 7 February 2009 (EST)
:::The irony being that liberals wanted Bush to fail while we were at war with troop's lives on the line, but Obama failing upsets them? Liberals :P --[[User:Paulcspring|Paulcspring]] 05:44, 7 February 2009 (EST)
== Reversion of "Role" comments ==
I'm not going to edit-war over this, but I object to the characterization that my edits reflected "liberal Bias" and were "introduced without context and without citations". This was a top news story today (3/2/2009), and coming off of the CPAC conference mentioned on the CP home page they are certainly in context. They are also sourced from the same CNN story, and a 30-second effort on news.google.com can find multiple correlating sources so there is no lack of citation. Finally, the characterization of Limbaugh as an incendiary entertainer versus a legitimate leader for conservative Republicans didn't come from me - it came from RNC Chair Michael Steel as quoted, and followed up by Eric Cantor stating that the GOP does not want Obama to fail, as Limbaugh did to great applause.
The bottom line is that many would see my edits as Limbaugh-bashing and want to censor them as liberal bias, but all I did was point out divisions of opinion within the GOP itself. This a legitimate issue that conservatives and Republicans should examine openly and be wiling to discuss in a civil manner. Does the future of the GOP lie with moderates who look to bridge differences with the Obama leadership, or with conservatives like Limbaugh who feel the party can only succeed by moving further to the right and embracing the difference of being more conservative instead?
I won't restore these edits since they were reverted by a sysop, but I hope my comments lead to the reversion being reconsidered. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:21, 2 March 2009 (EST)