• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Republican Party Needs Major Change

A

Anonymous

Guest
I had the chance to watch David Frum on Bloomberg TV last night promoting his new book "Comeback"...Frum is a conservative journalist for many conservative publications- former GW speechwriter- and the writer that gave GW the "Axis of Evil" phrase.....

Anyway while I don't agree with all his ideas on globalism and such-- I think ole Red Robin, A+, and others who chastise my comments about the death of the Republican party should read his book....

He says the Republican party of today is almost dead in the water- and stands only the slightest chance of taking the White House - and of holding on to seats in Congress- and only if they make some major changes, fast...And he says much of the cause is because of GW's/Republican parties failure to change with the changing populace of the country...And while he blamed much of the Parties demise on GW- he also said that he thinks GW actually believed he was doing right invading Irag- and that they had WMD's (which I too believe he was sincere about back then)-- but then after being misled and outed- and misled by key advisors (Rummy ?) that this would be a 90 day war and out, with the minimum of troops, he just began sinking into a quagmire of deception and lack of transparency... He puts much of the blame of GW's failure of a Presidency (which he believes) on the neocon staff and advisors that GW surrounded himself with...He said that in talking with the President- he believes GW is disappointed in himself for taking the misguided advise that he did...

He says the Republican party for 7 years has totally deserted the middle class American-- and that has led to the protectionist and change waves that are sweeping the country...And it will take some drastic moves by the Party to get many of these Independent, former Republican and Reagan Democrats back...

And it's also true that I am no kind of populist. My big concern at the moment is precisely that the radical rise in American economic inequality since 1980 - and the serious slowdown of midde-class income growth that has set in since 2000 - will tempt America to adopt quack economic ideas that will impoverish this country and do radical damage to the world economy.

One of the big concerns in Comeback is the relative economic decline of Europe and the possibility of similar decline in the US. Together, the major democratic nations (the US and Canada, western Europe, Japan, Australia, and the Asian allies) produced 50% of world economic output in 1985. As things are going, that group of nations - now reinforced by central Europe, South Korea, Taiwan, and Mexico) will produce only 33% of world output in 2025. That's a huge negative swing in world economic power!

If it is correct that China's economy is about half the size of the US economy today, and if it is true that China is growing at the 9% claimed by the Chinese authorities, a simple calculation can plot the convergence of the US and China. If the US grows at its current 3%, China will not catch up in this century. But if the US slows to the 2% of the 1970s - or the 1% of western Europe in the 1990s - then American hegemony will end in the lifetimes of most readers of this website.

Sustaining 3% economic growth is thus a vital national security - as well as economic - concern. My prescriptions for how to maintain the desired 3% are relentlessly orthodox: free trade, low taxes on saving and investment, lawsuit reform, transparent capital markets, etc. etc. etc.

Where I have become heterodox is that it is glaringly apparent to me that the things that need to be done to sustain America's economic greatness are not going to win many votes in middle-class America. If conservatives are to protect the US economy against the John Edwardses of this world, they have to take seriously the economic discontents of a middle that (wrongly) blames globalization for its economic woes.

My prescription for that - for raising middle-class incomes - involves universal (private-sector) health insurance, curtailment of unskilled immigration, greater subsidies to lower-middle-income saving, and tax reforms aimed at lightening the burden of the payroll tax rather than the income tax - and a bunch of other ideas that will alas cause my old colleagues at the Wall Street Journal editorial page to sputter and cough.

You can call that technocracy if you want. I call it inoculation against the distempers of the times.
http://frum.nationalreview.com/

The other major thing he mentioned that caught my Libertian ear-- was the fact that he also believes the US population as a whole is changing/has changed on many social issues such as same sex marriage- and abortion-- and that both have become more acceptable to the majority of the population - and that its an issue the Republican Party has to get off their live and die stance on-- or they will continue to die......
 

Clarencen

Well-known member
Nope, Nope Nope OT. Both parties need get get back more into the middle. The top heavy Republican party needs to change, but even more so, the the Democrate party needs to get rid of its ultra liberal fringe.
Perhaps our society has changed, but we need a way to show those with un-responsible lifestyles and moral values the way, still showing them the respect they deserve. The so called moral right is not the way, it is to discriminating. Still we must stand by our values.

Our country was based on the principle that all should have equal opportunities, at the same time all need to have equal responsibilities.

The two party system has worked pretty well. It can work again if we focus on the right things.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Clarencen said:
The two party system has worked pretty well. It can work again if we focus on the right things.

It is time for a new second party. I was democrat until they started embracing morals that I cannot support. After the back stab Brady Bill and all the other garbage they came out with, I can never go back.

I'll hang with the Reps for now. GW did not try to win popularity contests like others have. He just went with what he thought was the right thing. Now he is a lame duck anyway. But I truly would vote for him again if he was running.

Nothing truly fits me. Libertarian has some points that I can embrace but I cannot embrace them as a whole. The democrats want to tax away everything I have worked for all my life and embrace the moral decay of the U.S.

It is my vote and my ancestors fought and died to give it to me. No matter how bad it gets, I will always vote for the lessor of the evils.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Everyone should stand by their values, but not shove them down the throat of their neighbor.

I don't care what the Republican party does or if there is even one left in four years. Clarencen says Dems should get rid of the "liberal fringe" but the Republicans have pandered to the religious right for years. Where's his call for Republicans to distance themselves from them?

Our society has changed. Polls show a majority of Americans have no problem with homosexual unions. Maybe not "marriage", but some sort of civil union. Polls also showed the majority of Americans approved of the last immigration bill, but the Right threw out the usual "be afraid of brown people" crap and it died because we still have too many obstructionist Republicans in Congress.

Somebody in this country has to pay the bills. Bush gave a big tax cut to the richest people in this country and most Republican presidential candidates are vowing to make it permanent. How do you think we're going to pay for Bush's wars, medical care of wounded vets, rebuilding our military? Not to mention repairing the infastructure of our roads, dams, highways. I'm not watching the debates, but I think Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who has said going into Iraq was wrong. The others may quibble a bit about how the invasion and war were managed, but have any of them said it was a mistake from the beginning? Have any of them said they'll get us out of there if they're elected? $2 Billion a week is going into that fiasco and already 15 Americans have died in Iraq this new year. For what? Does anyone on this board think that by the end of the "surge" the Iraq government will have settled their oil issues with each other, held elections, or allowed Saddam's party back into the government?

BTW, I think a third party is a wonderful idea. Go for it. :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Oldtimer said:
I had the chance to watch David Frum on Bloomberg TV last night promoting his new book "Comeback"...Frum is a conservative journalist for many conservative publications- former GW speechwriter- and the writer that gave GW the "Axis of Evil" phrase.....

Anyway while I don't agree with all his ideas on globalism and such-- I think ole Red Robin, A+, and others who chastise my comments about the death of the Republican party should read his book....

He says the Republican party of today is almost dead in the water- and stands only the slightest chance of taking the White House - and of holding on to seats in Congress- and only if they make some major changes, fast...And he says much of the cause is because of GW's/Republican parties failure to change with the changing populace of the country...And while he blamed much of the Parties demise on GW- he also said that he thinks GW actually believed he was doing right invading Irag- and that they had WMD's (which I too believe he was sincere about back then)-- but then after being misled and outed- and misled by key advisors (Rummy ?) that this would be a 90 day war and out, with the minimum of troops, he just began sinking into a quagmire of deception and lack of transparency... He puts much of the blame of GW's failure of a Presidency (which he believes) on the neocon staff and advisors that GW surrounded himself with...He said that in talking with the President- he believes GW is disappointed in himself for taking the misguided advise that he did...

He says the Republican party for 7 years has totally deserted the middle class American-- and that has led to the protectionist and change waves that are sweeping the country...And it will take some drastic moves by the Party to get many of these Independent, former Republican and Reagan Democrats back...

And it's also true that I am no kind of populist. My big concern at the moment is precisely that the radical rise in American economic inequality since 1980 - and the serious slowdown of midde-class income growth that has set in since 2000 - will tempt America to adopt quack economic ideas that will impoverish this country and do radical damage to the world economy.

One of the big concerns in Comeback is the relative economic decline of Europe and the possibility of similar decline in the US. Together, the major democratic nations (the US and Canada, western Europe, Japan, Australia, and the Asian allies) produced 50% of world economic output in 1985. As things are going, that group of nations - now reinforced by central Europe, South Korea, Taiwan, and Mexico) will produce only 33% of world output in 2025. That's a huge negative swing in world economic power!

If it is correct that China's economy is about half the size of the US economy today, and if it is true that China is growing at the 9% claimed by the Chinese authorities, a simple calculation can plot the convergence of the US and China. If the US grows at its current 3%, China will not catch up in this century. But if the US slows to the 2% of the 1970s - or the 1% of western Europe in the 1990s - then American hegemony will end in the lifetimes of most readers of this website.

Sustaining 3% economic growth is thus a vital national security - as well as economic - concern. My prescriptions for how to maintain the desired 3% are relentlessly orthodox: free trade, low taxes on saving and investment, lawsuit reform, transparent capital markets, etc. etc. etc.

Where I have become heterodox is that it is glaringly apparent to me that the things that need to be done to sustain America's economic greatness are not going to win many votes in middle-class America. If conservatives are to protect the US economy against the John Edwardses of this world, they have to take seriously the economic discontents of a middle that (wrongly) blames globalization for its economic woes.

My prescription for that - for raising middle-class incomes - involves universal (private-sector) health insurance, curtailment of unskilled immigration, greater subsidies to lower-middle-income saving, and tax reforms aimed at lightening the burden of the payroll tax rather than the income tax - and a bunch of other ideas that will alas cause my old colleagues at the Wall Street Journal editorial page to sputter and cough.

You can call that technocracy if you want. I call it inoculation against the distempers of the times.
http://frum.nationalreview.com/

The other major thing he mentioned that caught my Libertian ear-- was the fact that he also believes the US population as a whole is changing/has changed on many social issues such as same sex marriage- and abortion-- and that both have become more acceptable to the majority of the population - and that its an issue the Republican Party has to get off their live and die stance on-- or they will continue to die......

George W. Bush nominated former coal industry executive Richard Stickler to run the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration. When Congress refused to approve Stickler, Bush gave him a “recess appointment”. The Senate sent Stickler’s nomination back to the White House twice because of his troubling mine safety record—the mines he managed from 1989 to 1996 incurred injury rates double the national average.

Now his recess appointment is up. Did Bush nominate someone else? No. He's named Stickler as the "acting" head of the agency and nominated him again for the job. Congress isn't going to approve him and Bush knows it. It's just his way of showing he doesn't give a rip about the health and safety of miners in this country or the Congress of the US.

Don't let anyone tell you Bush is sorry about anything. He's done exactly what he wanted since he's been President and plans to continue on that way until the last day of his term.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
FF, you have valid points. Very valid.

You all can call me a homophobe or any other title you want to. I don't want to live near or around them, shop around them - not even see them on television. Anything comes up accepting that lifestyle and I hit the remote. It is a very serious issue for me.

Border enforcement is down the list on my priorities. Yes it is a concern but not the number 1 issue. Not even top 10.

Hungry babies are the number 1 issue. There's no excuse for it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Yep-- What many out there are saying is that the thinking of the majority of the US population has changed--and what Mr. Frum is saying that the Republican party either needs to "progress" with that changes or it will die on the vine....He said he hated to use that "progressive" word, but he said we can/will never go back to the day of Ronald Reagan, no matter how much some of us old fogies want to....

The have all said a major amount of voters of today are Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Generation Y, that were brought up in a much more worldly (Globalist) view and more socially liberal ( almost a Libertarian none of our business if my neighbor has an abortion attitude) and were more open to accepting all races and sexual preferences-- and that if the Republican Party didn't get off their high horse as being morally "better than thou"- and making these into political issues- they were done...

Frum also commented that GW's failure to close the border or remove those illegals here was a huge mistake- as altho now they can't (legally)vote-and so don't have a lot of impact on the election- they are multiplying like rabbits- and their kids, born in the US are given US citizenship, and will soon be joining the voting roles in a major bloc-All voting Democrat-- further negating the Republican strength- because unlike the immigrants of 100 years ago that were going from poverty to riches- those opportunities are few and far between in the US anymore (actually more available overseas he said)- and most of these illegals and legal unskilled labor immigrants remain at or near poverty levels for generations--which further erodes our social structure and adds to our increasing social costs...
 

Frankk

Well-known member
backhoeboogie said:
You all can call me a homophobe or any other title you want to. I don't want to live near or around them, shop around them - not even see them on television. Anything comes up accepting that lifestyle and I hit the remote. It is a very serious issue for me.

.

I understand this is the way most latent homosexuals feel about homosexuals
 

jigs

Well-known member
look how many tv shows push the gay lifestyle..... the one with Sally Field is the worst. we were fliping through, and saw the two males talking, wife says "lets see what this is" then a few minutes later the guys kiss.
click click click

could not get away from that channel fast enough!

if you want to go bury your bone in some guys back yard, fine. just do NOT do it where I can see, and you do NOT deserve any rights given that of the Holy sanctaty of marriage.

only right you have, is to be stoned to death for public homo expression.
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
Frankk said:
backhoeboogie said:
You all can call me a homophobe or any other title you want to. I don't want to live near or around them, shop around them - not even see them on television. Anything comes up accepting that lifestyle and I hit the remote. It is a very serious issue for me.

.

I understand this is the way most latent homosexuals feel about homosexuals

I agree with backhoeboogie. Frankk, I thought you were a Bible-reading Christian. What part of "abomination" do you not understand?

When it comes to homosexuals, we can treat them nice. We should hate the sin but still show God's love to the sinner. We do not have to condone the practice, or encourage it in any way.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Soapweed said:
Frankk said:
backhoeboogie said:
You all can call me a homophobe or any other title you want to. I don't want to live near or around them, shop around them - not even see them on television. Anything comes up accepting that lifestyle and I hit the remote. It is a very serious issue for me.

.

I understand this is the way most latent homosexuals feel about homosexuals

I agree with backhoeboogie. Frankk, I thought you were a Bible-reading Christian. What part of "abomination" do you not understand?

When it comes to homosexuals, we can treat them nice. We should hate the sin but still show God's love to the sinner. We do not have to condone the practice, or encourage it in any way.
:agree:
 

Frankk

Well-known member
Soapweed said:
Frankk said:
backhoeboogie said:
You all can call me a homophobe or any other title you want to. I don't want to live near or around them, shop around them - not even see them on television. Anything comes up accepting that lifestyle and I hit the remote. It is a very serious issue for me.

.

I understand this is the way most latent homosexuals feel about homosexuals

I agree with backhoeboogie. Frankk, I thought you were a Bible-reading Christian. What part of "abomination" do you not understand?

When it comes to homosexuals, we can treat them nice. We should hate the sin but still show God's love to the sinner. We do not have to condone the practice, or encourage it in any way.

I don't condone the practice of homosexuality. I was just poking a little fun a backhoe about being so fearful of homosexuals. What's the deal with your guys, are you afraid being around them will lead you to become one? Or do you have supressed feeling you hate.
 

jigs

Well-known member
with this ice, I trip and fall a lot.....not really sure I want to be in the bent over position with a bunch of sword fighters around....
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
Frankk said:
backhoeboogie said:
You all can call me a homophobe or any other title you want to. I don't want to live near or around them, shop around them - not even see them on television. Anything comes up accepting that lifestyle and I hit the remote. It is a very serious issue for me.

.

I understand this is the way most latent homosexuals feel about homosexuals
Sounds like a closet dweller to me
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
backhoeboogie said:
FF, you have valid points. Very valid.

You all can call me a homophobe or any other title you want to. I don't want to live near or around them, shop around them - not even see them on television. Anything comes up accepting that lifestyle and I hit the remote. It is a very serious issue for me.

Border enforcement is down the list on my priorities. Yes it is a concern but not the number 1 issue. Not even top 10.

Hungry babies are the number 1 issue. There's no excuse for it.

I won't call you anything. You have the right to associate with whomever you want. But my guess is that you do have contact with a homosexual on a regular basis and probably don't know it. If there's not one in your family, there probably will be in another generation. Then what? Will you deny your grandchild if he/she's a homosexual?
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
Soapweed said:
Frankk said:
backhoeboogie said:
You all can call me a homophobe or any other title you want to. I don't want to live near or around them, shop around them - not even see them on television. Anything comes up accepting that lifestyle and I hit the remote. It is a very serious issue for me.

.

I understand this is the way most latent homosexuals feel about homosexuals

I agree with backhoeboogie. Frankk, I thought you were a Bible-reading Christian. What part of "abomination" do you not understand?

When it comes to homosexuals, we can treat them nice. We should hate the sin but still show God's love to the sinner. We do not have to condone the practice, or encourage it in any way.
Looks like more than one enjoys the closet
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
ff said:
backhoeboogie said:
FF, you have valid points. Very valid.

You all can call me a homophobe or any other title you want to. I don't want to live near or around them, shop around them - not even see them on television. Anything comes up accepting that lifestyle and I hit the remote. It is a very serious issue for me.

Border enforcement is down the list on my priorities. Yes it is a concern but not the number 1 issue. Not even top 10.

Hungry babies are the number 1 issue. There's no excuse for it.

I won't call you anything. You have the right to associate with whomever you want. But my guess is that you do have contact with a homosexual on a regular basis and probably don't know it. If there's not one in your family, there probably will be in another generation. Then what? Will you deny your grandchild if he/she's a homosexual?
Of course he will......the kid will be an abomination that should be hung on a fence. That's what Jesus would have done, isn't it?
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Goodpasture said:
ff said:
backhoeboogie said:
FF, you have valid points. Very valid.

You all can call me a homophobe or any other title you want to. I don't want to live near or around them, shop around them - not even see them on television. Anything comes up accepting that lifestyle and I hit the remote. It is a very serious issue for me.

Border enforcement is down the list on my priorities. Yes it is a concern but not the number 1 issue. Not even top 10.

Hungry babies are the number 1 issue. There's no excuse for it.

I won't call you anything. You have the right to associate with whomever you want. But my guess is that you do have contact with a homosexual on a regular basis and probably don't know it. If there's not one in your family, there probably will be in another generation. Then what? Will you deny your grandchild if he/she's a homosexual?
Of course he will......the kid will be an abomination that should be hung on a fence. That's what Jesus would have done, isn't it?

Some people are getting a bit of a laugh at my expense, and I even laughed myself. The truth doesn't hurt.

Then there are those who are complete jerks. Little weaklings bullied by everyone including little girls most of their lives. They can come on a forum and hide behind the net. No friends in life so they can come here and be miserable, ruin good debate, and try to ruin a good thing in this forum. Pitiful. I feel sorry for you. Try to achieve something and build some confidence in yourself. Maybe a little self respect. That little girl who pushed you around back in high school is out of your life now. Forget about her. Get over it. Get a life.

There is a homosexual in the distant family. I pity him as well. I don't associate or communicate in any way and he is not welcome in my home. No hard feelings. His choices are beyond my control and I have no need to control such things. But I don't associate with it. His loss. His children are okay and they communicate on a regular basis. They are ashamed and I pity that part of their lives as well. We simply don't talk about it because it would be like me picking a wound in a very sore place of their lives.
 

Steve

Well-known member
BackHoeBoogie
Then there are those who are complete jerks.

The same one who drags every topic down to the lowest point and then when you confront "them", he either lets go a string of insults or threats.. but the saddest part is that some people acually defend his tactics...
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Steve said:
some people acually defend his tactics...

They have an audience here - they could probably get on the Jerry Springer show too. Doesn't it still come on some time in the early morning hours? In behind I Love Lucy or something on the odd channels?
 
Top