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

Turn out the lights; the party's over

fff

Well-known member
Republicans in the Wilderness: Is the Party Over?
By Michael Grunwald

These days, Republicans have the desperate aura of an endangered species. They lost Congress, then the White House; more recently, they lost a slam-dunk House election in a conservative New York district, then Senator Arlen Specter. Polls suggest that only one-fourth of the electorate considers itself Republican, that independents are trending Democratic and that as few as five states have solid Republican pluralities. And the electorate is getting less white, less rural, less Christian — in short, less demographically Republican. GOP officials who completely controlled Washington three years ago are vowing to "regain our status as a national party" and creating woe-is-us groups to resuscitate their brand, while Democrats are publishing books like The Strange Death of Republican America and 40 More Years: How the Democrats Will Rule the Next Generation. John McCain's campaign manager recently described his party as basically extinct on the West Coast, nearly extinct in the Northeast and endangered in the Mountain West and Southwest.

So are the Republicans going extinct? And can the death march be stopped? The Washington critiques of the Republican Party as powerless, leaderless and rudderless — the new Donner party — are not very illuminating. Minority parties always look weak and inept in the penalty box. Sure, it can be comical to watch Republican National Committee (RNC) gaffe machine Michael Steele riff on his hip-hop vision for the party or Texas Governor Rick Perry carry on about secession or Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann explain how F.D.R.'s "Hoot-Smalley" Act caused the Depression (the Smoot-Hawley Act, a Republican tariff bill, was enacted before F.D.R.'s presidency), but haplessness does not equal hopelessness. And yes, the Republican brand could benefit from spokesmen less familiar and less reviled than Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and Newt Gingrich, but the party does have some fresher faces stepping out of the wings. (Read seven clues to understanding Dick Cheney.)

The Democratic critiques of the GOP — that it's the Party of No, or No Ideas — are not helpful either. It's silly to fault an opposition party for opposition; obstructionism helped return Democrats to power. Republicans actually have plenty of ideas.

That's the problem. The party's ideas — about economic issues, social issues and just about everything else — are not popular ideas. They are extremely conservative ideas tarred by association with the extremely unpopular George W. Bush, who helped downsize the party to its extremely conservative base. A hard-right agenda of slashing taxes for the investor class, protecting marriage from gays, blocking universal health insurance and extolling the glories of waterboarding produces terrific ratings for Rush Limbaugh, but it's not a majority agenda. The party's new, Hooverish focus on austerity on the brink of another depression does not seem to fit the national mood, and it's shamelessly hypocritical, given the party's recent history of massive deficit spending on pork, war and prescription drugs in good times, not to mention its continuing support for deficit-exploding tax cuts in bad times.

As the party has shrunk to its base, it has catered even more to its base's biases, insisting that the New Deal made the Depression worse, carbon emissions are fine for the environment and tax cuts actually boost revenues — even though the vast majority of historians, scientists and economists disagree. The RNC is about to vote on a kindergartenish resolution to change the name of its opponent to the Democrat Socialist Party. This plays well with hard-core culture warriors and tea-party activists convinced that a dictator-President is plotting to seize their guns, choose their doctors and put ACORN in charge of the Census, but it ultimately produces even more shrinkage, which gives the base even more influence — and the death spiral continues. "We're excluding the young, minorities, environmentalists, pro-choice — the list goes on," says Olympia Snowe of Maine, one of two moderate Republicans left in the Senate after Specter's switch. "Ideological purity is not the ticket to the promised land."

Some conservatives think that in the long run, the party will be better off without squishes like Specter muddling the coherence of its brand; a GOP campaign committee celebrated his departure with an e-mail headlined "Good riddance," and Limbaugh urged him to take McCain along. Inside this echo chamber, a center-right nation punished Republicans for abandoning their principles, for enabling Bush's spending sprees, for insufficient conservatism. South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, who has refused to accept $700 million in stimulus cash for his state despite bitter opposition from his GOP-dominated legislature, argues that Chick-fil-A would never let its franchisees cook their chicken however they want; why should the Republican Party let its elected officials promote Big Government? "We're essentially franchisees, and right now nobody has any clue what we're really about," Sanford tells TIME. "You can't wear the jersey and play for the other team!" (See pictures from the view of the floor of the DNC.)

No one seems to deny that many Republicans abandoned their principles — especially fiscal responsibility — while in power, but even some across-the-board conservatives see enforced homogeneity as a sure path to oblivion. "Chick-fil-A can get fabulously wealthy with a 20% market share," scoffs Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, President Ronald Reagan's political director. "In our business, you need 50% plus one." It's probably true that since 200,000 Pennsylvania Republicans have switched parties, Specter followed them to save his own political skin, but it's hard to see how the mass exodus bodes well for the GOP. You can't have a center-right coalition when you've said good riddance to the center.

Of course, politics can change in a hurry. Three years ago, books like One Party Country and Building Red America were heralding Rove's plan to create a permanent Republican majority. ***President Barack Obama is popular today, but Democrats in general are not, and they will all face a backlash if they can't reverse this economic tailspin now that they own all the Washington machinery. Tom Cole, a longtime Republican operative turned Oklahoma Congressman, recalls that shortly before the Reagan Revolution, the GOP was in such dire straits, it ran ads declaring that Republicans are people too. "We've lost our way, but we'll find our way back," Cole says. "We'll get back into the idea business, and the Democrats will overreach."

With his dramatic plans to restructure Wall Street and Detroit, overhaul health care and create a clean-energy economy, Obama is certainly taking political risks, even if he hasn't gotten around to replacing the almighty dollar with some new, one-world currency the black-helicopter crowd keeps warning about. But it's not clear that the Republicans in their current incarnation would be a credible alternative if he falters. "We've got to be at least plausible, and I worry about that," says GOP lobbyist Ed Rogers. Republicans never really left the idea business, but Americans haven't been buying what they're selling, and their product line hasn't changed. They're starting to look like the Federalists of the early 19th century: an embittered, over-the-top, out-of-touch regional party en route to extinction, doubling down on dogma the electorate has already rejected. Our two-party system encourages periodic pendulum swings, but given current trends, it's easy to imagine a third party in the U.S.

At this rate, it could be the Republican Party.

"What Have We Got to Lose?"
House Republicans, eager to shed the Party of No label, recently unveiled an alternative to Obama's 2010 budget. It was the kind of fiasco that shows why Washington thinks Republicans are in trouble — and why they really are in trouble.

The disaster began when GOP leaders, after calling a news conference to blast Obama's numbers, released a budget outline with no numbers — just magic assumptions about "reform." The mockery was instantaneous. Then Republicans began blaming one another for the stunt, which generated only more mockery about circular firing squads. And when they finally released the missing details on April 1, the notion of an April Fools' budget produced even more mockery; the substance was ignored. "The President's dog got more attention," recalls Paul Ryan, the top Republican on the House Budget Committee.

But if you pay attention, the GOP alternative is not just a p.r. disaster. It's a radical document, making Bush's tax cuts permanent while adding about $3 trillion in new tax cuts skewed toward the rich. It would replace almost all the stimulus — including tax cuts for workers as well as spending on schools, infrastructure and clean energy — with a capital gains–tax holiday for investors. Oh, and it would shrink the budget by replacing Medicare with vouchers, turning Medicaid into block grants, means-testing Social Security and freezing everything else except defense and veterans' spending for five years, putting programs for food safety, financial regulation, flu vaccines and every other sacred government cow on the potential chopping block.

Ryan is one of the smart, young, telegenic policy wonks who have been hailed as the GOP's future, and his budget includes relatively few the-Lord-shall-provide accounting gimmicks by D.C. standards. He knows its potential cuts could sound nasty in a 30-second ad, but he wants Republicans to stop running away from limited-government principles. "We've got to stop being afraid of the politics," he says. "At this point, what have we got to lose?"

Well, more elections. Big Government is never popular in theory, but the disaster aid, school lunches and prescription drugs that make up Big Government have become wildly popular in practice, especially now that so many people are hurting. Samuel Wurzelbacher, better known as Joe the Plumber, tells TIME he's so outraged by GOP overspending, he's quitting the party — and he's the bull's-eye of its target audience. But he also said he wouldn't support any cuts in defense, Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid — which, along with debt payments, would put more than two-thirds of the budget off limits. It's no coincidence that many Republicans who voted against the stimulus have claimed credit for stimulus projects in their district — or that Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal stopped ridiculing volcano-monitoring programs after a volcano erupted in Alaska. "We can't be the antigovernment party," Snowe says. "That's not what people want."

Not even in South Carolina, not now. Sanford has gone further than any other governor in passing up the Democrats' stimulus money, but he's turning down only 10% of his state's share, about 2% of his state's spending. He is still being portrayed as Scrooge, a heartless ideologue who wants to close prisons, fire teachers, shutter programs for autistic kids and ultimately shut down state government during a recession. And those portrayals aren't coming from Democrats. "The governor has one of the most radical philosophies I've ever seen," says state senator Hugh Leatherman, 78, the Republican chairman of the finance committee. "I'm a conservative, but this could be the most devastating thing our state has ever seen." To Sanford, Leatherman is a fraudulent Republican franchisee, but to most Republicans in the legislature, the governor is the one tarnishing the brand. "Most of us are Ronald Reagan Republicans, Strom Thurmond Republicans," grumbles Senate majority leader Harvey Peeler. "Republicans control everything around here. It would be nice if we could accomplish something."

Sanford was once a lonely voice for fiscal restraint in Congress, one of the few Republican revolutionaries of 1994 who kept faith with the Contract with America. Back then, his bumper stickers said "Deficit" with a Ghostbusters-style slash through it, and his apocalyptic speeches chronicled how debt had destroyed great civilizations like the Byzantine Empire. I watched him give an updated version at a tea-party rally in Columbia, S.C., on April 15 as the crowd screamed about Obama's tyranny and waved signs like "Keep the Government Out of Our Health Care" and "USA 1776-2009, RIP." Sanford himself is not a screamer; he's a provocateur. "We've become a party of pastry chefs, telling people they can eat all the dessert they want," he says. "We need to become a party of country doctors, telling people that this medicine won't taste good at all, but you need it."

It's principled leadership, but only the tea-party fringe seems to be following. "Nobody likes Dr. Doom," Sanford says with a smile. Leading a state with the nation's third highest unemployment rate, he understands the Keynesian idea that only government spending can jump-start a recessionary economy: "I get it. I'm supposed to be proactive." But if spend-and-borrow is the only alternative to a depression, he says, "then we're toast."

The Old Issue Set
His party could be too. Hispanics, Asians and blacks are on track to be the majority in three decades; metropolitan voters and young voters who skew Democratic are also on the rise. This is why Rogers recently decided to quit being a talking head: "I had a meeting with myself, and I said, Do we really need more white lobbyists with gray hair on TV?" But it's not clear that more diverse spokesmen or better tweets can woo a new generation to the GOP; support for gay rights is soaring, and polls show that voters prefer Democratic approaches to health care, education and the economy. "The outlook for Republicans is even worse than people think," says Ruy Teixeira, author of The Emerging Democratic Majority. "Their biggest problem is that they really believe what they believe."

So Republicans need to decide what Republicans need to believe. What does their three-legged stool of strong defense, traditional values and economic conservatism mean today? Does strong defense mean unqualified support for torture, outdated weapons systems and pre-emptive wars? Do traditional values mean no room in the tent for pro-choicers like Specter and Snowe? Even Joe the Plumber — who opposes abortion and homosexuality and considers America a "Christian nation" — wants the party to drop its "holier than thou" attitude on divisive social issues.

The most urgent question is the meaning of economic conservatism. Representative Patrick McHenry of North Carolina, a conservative who keeps a bust of Reagan on his desk, surprised me by declaring that the Reagan era is over. "Marginal tax rates are the lowest they've been in generations, and all we can talk about is tax cuts," he said. "The people's desires have changed, but we're still stuck in our old issue set." Snowe recalls that when she proposed fiscally conservative "triggers" to limit Bush's tax cuts in case of deficits, she was attacked by fellow Republicans. "I don't know when willy-nilly tax cuts became the essence of who we are," she says. "To the average American who's struggling, we're in some other stratosphere. We're the party of Big Business and Big Oil and the rich." In the Bush era, the party routinely sided with corporate lobbyists — promoting tax breaks, subsidies and earmarks for well-wired industries — against ordinary taxpayers as well as basic principles of fiscal restraint. South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint's Republican alternative to the stimulus included tax cuts skewed toward the wealthy; at this point, the GOP's reflexes are almost involuntary.

Now that they've lost their monopoly on power, many Republicans are warning that spending-fueled deficits will cause inflation, reduce demand for U.S. Treasuries and shaft future generations. They don't seem so worried about an imminent depression, which would explode deficits in addition to the shorter-term pain, and their newfound fear of borrowing has not cooled their ardor for budget-busting tax cuts. "They talk about fiscal restraint, but they've got an atrocious record, and they've still got atrocious plans," says Robert Bixby, executive director of the nonpartisan Concord Coalition.

Still, a 2012 presidential candidate could catch lightning in a bottle, Reagan-style or Susan Boyle–style — although when you think about it, Republicans found a nationally admired war hero with proven bipartisan appeal in 2008, and he lost to an inexperienced black liberal with a funny name. Outside Washington, moderates like Charlie Crist in Florida and Jodi Rell in Connecticut as well as pragmatic conservatives like Mitch Daniels in Indiana and Jon Huntsman in Utah have remained popular despite their brand. They all share an aversion to ideological rigidity: Rell signed a bill legalizing same-sex unions, Crist has pushed an ambitious environmental agenda, Daniels proposed a tax increase, and Huntsman has cautioned Republicans not to obsess about social issues.

There's always the chance that some new issue — immigration? Iran? cap and trade? something nobody has thought of yet? — will blow up and bring the GOP back to life. Maybe one of the new GOP chin-stroking groups will come up with some killer new ideas to help the party reconnect with ordinary Americans. But Republicans know their best hope for recovery, whether they say it like Limbaugh or merely think it, is Democratic failure. Now that Democrats control both Congress and the White House, hubris is a real possibility; it's hard to imagine Obama floating his pitiful plan to cut $100 million in waste — a mere 0.0025% of federal spending — if he had to worry about a formidable opposition.

The problem for Republicans, as the RNC's Steele memorably put it in a TV appearance, is that there's "absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions." Republicans, after all, proclaimed that President Clinton's tax hikes would destroy the economy, that GOP rule would mean smaller government, that Bush's tax cuts would usher in a new era of prosperity; now the House minority leader says it's "comical" to think carbon dioxide could be harmful, and Steele says the earth is cooling.

Polls show that most Republicans who haven't jumped ship want the party to move even further right; it takes vision to imagine a presidential candidate with national appeal emerging from a GOP primary in 2012. DeMint, the South Carolina Senator, greeted Specter's departure with the astonishing observation that he'd rather have 30 Republican colleagues who believe in conservatism than 60 who don't. "I don't want us to have power until we have principles," DeMint told TIME after firing up that tea-party crowd in Columbia. Voters certainly soured on unprincipled Republicans. But it's not clear they'd like principled Republicans better.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1896588,00.html

*** Shame on TIME. A recent national poll shows Dems with a 54 approval/40 disapproval rating compared to a 22 approval/68 disapproval rating for Republicans.

But you know that LIBERAL media; they've got to balance things out. :lol: :lol:
 

Steve

Well-known member
The backlash against liberal democrats is already starting...

it looks as if new jersey is going to vote in another republican governor..

Corzine also trailed Christie by 6 percentage points in a Quinnipiac University poll released last month. That poll, said voters disapprove of the governor's job performance,

Corzine's office declined to comment yesterday. He has dismissed recent poll results, saying voters expect him to focus on his economic responsibilities over politics.

Christie's campaign manager, Bill Stepien, said the numbers show his "message of strong leadership and real reform is being heard." The former U.S. Attorney saw his name recognition rise from 44 percent in January to 57 percent this month, according to the poll, which was conducted from Feb. 25 through March 2.

Lonegan said the numbers prove that "any Republican can beat Jon Corzine."

unless corzine figures out a way to not run...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
He has dismissed recent poll results, saying voters expect him to focus on his economic responsibilities over politics.

Economics over social issues, who ever thought of such a thing.

So he's going to go against the President to gain votes. I hope he does!

It's the way to victory!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
He has dismissed recent poll results, saying voters expect him to focus on his economic responsibilities over politics.

Economics over social issues, who ever thought of such a thing.

So he's going to go against the President to gain votes. I hope he does!

It's the way to victory!

So tell me what economically right the Republicans did in the 14 years they controlled Congress- along with the 6 they totally controlled D.C.... :???:

Tell me again what they did that was "fiscally conservative" or in the least bit "fiscally responsible" :???:

Tell me again about how they left us--- with Bush at the helm driving the ship--- in Sept/Nov of 08 with the worst economy since the Great Depression :???:

:roll: :roll: :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
He has dismissed recent poll results, saying voters expect him to focus on his economic responsibilities over politics.

Economics over social issues, who ever thought of such a thing.

So he's going to go against the President to gain votes. I hope he does!

It's the way to victory!

So tell me what economically right the Republicans did in the 14 years they controlled Congress- along with the 6 they totally controlled D.C.... :???:

Tell me again what they did that was "fiscally conservative" or in the least bit "fiscally responsible" :???:

Tell me again about how they left us--- with Bush at the helm driving the ship--- in Sept/Nov of 08 with the worst economy since the Great Depression :???:

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Why do you refuse to acknowledge the damage the Dems did to the economy via Fannie and Freddie? Geeeeze, OT, that was 90% of it right there!
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
40 % of the program cuts that Obama is purposing were Bush administration ideas.

More debt does not create more efficient debt. Sit down come up with a detailed plan, how you are going to correct the situation. Scapegoating and flying by the seat of your pants, day by day, do nothing for stability.

Bush is retired, his debt is on record. It will be paid, in one forth the time that Obama's will be, tax % being equal. (100 days in office, maybe he's going to stop spending now, for the next 4 years)

Recessions are inevitable. Growth comes to a standstill sooner or later for a period in time. How you manage that recession will determine if it becomes a prolonged recession or depression.

More of the same does not equal correction! if you are happy with your situation, then continue doing what you are doing, you will get the same results.

You voted for a change for the worse. Pick yourself up, brush yourself off, and start asking for the change you require, instead of what you desire!

Peoples' guilt is starting to show by their deflection of blame! they seem to have a deflector in front of the fan! Their faces are getting dirty!

(OT, if you are so blaming of Bush, then blame Obama for the same exact reactions to the problems he is dealing with. If Bush had the power to change those things, then so does Obama)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
Economics over social issues, who ever thought of such a thing.

So he's going to go against the President to gain votes. I hope he does!

It's the way to victory!

So tell me what economically right the Republicans did in the 14 years they controlled Congress- along with the 6 they totally controlled D.C.... :???:

Tell me again what they did that was "fiscally conservative" or in the least bit "fiscally responsible" :???:

Tell me again about how they left us--- with Bush at the helm driving the ship--- in Sept/Nov of 08 with the worst economy since the Great Depression :???:

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Why do you refuse to acknowledge the damage the Dems did to the economy via Fannie and Freddie? Geeeeze, OT, that was 90% of it right there!

Well having followed for years the actions of folks like Foreclosure Phil/Enron Scandal-and the throwing out of the US rule of law and enforcement of any regulation against the major corporates by GW- I don't agree with you...Long before I knew of any of the problems of Fannie/Freddy I was predicting to you how Bush would bankrupt the country-- but you Bush backslappers just chastised me for even questioning your anointed one...

But it looks like Congress wants to get to the bottom of it too- and hopefully a better picture will enfold....

Inquiry Panel on the Economy Nears a Vote

Published: May 5, 2009
WASHINGTON — Congress will take a major step on Wednesday toward creating an independent panel with sweeping powers to investigate the root causes of the economic crisis.

The House is expected to vote in support of a commission modeled on the Sept. 11 panel, which was made up of former lawmakers and former administration officials who used subpoena powers to investigate lapses in intelligence gathering and law enforcement that had led to the attacks.

Backed by the Democratic leadership with some Republican support, the House provision closely tracks a Senate measure already approved. The panel would probably have 10 members, most appointed by the leadership in both chambers.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Long before I knew of any of the problems of Fannie/Freddy I was predicting to you how Bush would bankrupt the country-- but you Bush backslappers just chastised me for even questioning your anointed one...

Just because you did not realize the reasons at the time, does not make your prediction about the eventual outcome incorrect.

Blaming Bush is what makes your initial prediction correct, in your mind.

How important is that to you?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Long before I knew of any of the problems of Fannie/Freddy I was predicting to you how Bush would bankrupt the country-- but you Bush backslappers just chastised me for even questioning your anointed one...

Just because you did not realize the reasons at the time, does not make your prediction about the eventual outcome incorrect.

Blaming Bush is what makes your initial prediction correct, in your mind.

How important is that to you
?

I just want the truth-- but I have no doubt I'm correct as I've watched financial industry leader after industry leader testify to that fact in Congress- along with many members of his own party repeat it many times....GW Bush's boys were asleep at the helm....
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
I just want the truth-- but I have no doubt I'm correct as I've watched financial industry leader after industry leader testify to that fact in Congress- along with many members of his own party repeat it many times....GW Bush's boys were asleep at the helm....

If you do not know the truth, then how can you blame the man?

If you watch CSPAN, then you also know that Obama is now backing away from his promises and policy and coming in line with what Bush's policies were.

When Rove starts to compliment his foreign policy to a degree, then you know that he is following the Bush doctrine to a degree, true or not?

For ever decision that needs to be made, there are only a certain number of outcomes.

Focus on the outcome and it limits your reactions. Limit your actions and it limits your outcome.

There is only one truth and outcome. And those are limited by his beliefs and plan.

What's his plan?
 

VanC

Well-known member
Apparently all these folks writing about the death of the Republican Party haven't been following politics for very long. Either that, or they're too stupid to understand the lessons of the past. Heck, just in my lifetime BOTH the Republican and Democratic Parties have been declared dead three or four times each. But they keep rising from the dead, and this time will be no different. When? I don't know, but it will happen. It always does. Things change, people and their priorities change, and along with that, their voting habits change.

You can talk about the demographics and all that crap till you hyperventilate (which some of you seem to doing already). You'll just be repeating all the things that have been said a million times before...... every time one of the parties, or conservatism, or liberalism has been declared dead. Wishful thinking. Nothing more.

The people in power right now know this. They know that their hold on power is tenuous and they're scared to death. That's why they're feeding all this crap to the media. Why else do you think they're spending so much precious time demonizing people like Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh? Because they're scared to death of them. If they were irrelevant, if the Republican Party was truly dead, then there'd be no reason to constantly go out of their way to paint them as evil, or ignorant, or intolerant, or whatever else they can come up with. It's really pretty simple. It happens every time one side or the other scores a big victory, and it's happening now. Why more people don't see it is a mystery to me.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Seems history has shown people lose faith in Republicans and they vote in Democrats, like Jimmy Carter, then they act like idiots and go hog wild like a tenager that never left the home and is in a big city for the first time. We see that happening with Obama and Democrat controlled Congress, they want everything and they want it now.

In near future people will Ground the Democrats because they could not be reasonable in their power.

Seems everyone wants Conservatives to be more moderate, but they forget how Liberal the Democrats can get once they is no check and balance system in place.

History will repeat itself again in near future!

One thing I have to give to Clinton was he was smart enough to realize after first year or two that he was going down the same road as Carter and like Obama is doing now and he changed and listened more to the Republican Controlled congress and accepted much of their Contract with America, then he set back and took credit for some of their work. Call Willy what you wish but he is not Stupid!

I think Obama is actually stupid and does not have what it takes to tell Pelosi no! He will not last like Clinton did, he will be another Carter!
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
This is an excellent article. When the Dems lost, they learned and strategized. They listened to the articles like this that analyzed why they got into trouble.

I am positive that the Republicans are doing this as well although on this forum we do not see evidence of that, but this is a teeny segment of the Republicans in the country.

Having a Canadian hall monitor clog the board with innumerable oddly sourced rants against Obama is not to my mind doing anything for our learning and growing individually or as a group.

Hardliners who spew propaganda turn off their listeners.

The people I respect here explain their views and listen and discuss and are not monolithic in their politics. That includes plenty of the most conservative people here who I respect because they can explain and debate versus only rant and insult.

Reader the adaptation the dems used was to preach and say what the crowds wanted to hear. obama did an excellent job of this. It got many congressmen elected and reelected and a new Dem. President elected. But when you then don't deliver on what you talked there will alway be a huge number of so called "followers' fall away. Not a lot different from a TV preacher who preaches about the evils of sin and the gets caught with a bottle of whiskey on the night stand and the church secretary in the bed.

And now the dems and some repubs are all saying the repubs must be this same way in order to get back in. It's more than election and re-election.
 

Mike

Well-known member
The Republicans lost an election cycle and everyone thinks "Conservatism" is dead? :lol:

If you believe that, I have some quality "Derivatives" to sell you at a bargain price. :lol:
 

Steve

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
This is an excellent article. When the Dems lost, they learned and strategized. They listened to the articles like this that analyzed why they got into trouble.

I am positive that the Republicans are doing this as well although on this forum we do not see evidence of that, but this is a teeny segment of the Republicans in the country.

Having a Canadian hall monitor clog the board with innumerable oddly sourced rants against Obama is not to my mind doing anything for our learning and growing individually or as a group.

Hardliners who spew propaganda turn off their listeners.

The people I respect here explain their views and listen and discuss and are not monolithic in their politics. That includes plenty of the most conservative people here who I respect because they can explain and debate versus only rant and insult.

or we could just wait until the "moderates" learn that your party is not all it is hyped to be.. and they return to the center right again..
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
I don't know what the dems learned. Take a look at Obama, he was a nobody that hadn't done a damn thing who's campaign was just a buzzword. If he was white, or 100% white, he never would of gotten elected. The Dems sure never offered anything spectacular or had any earth-shattering message - they just played on gullibility, image, and plain ignorance.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
The only thing I can see at this point is we have been hocked up past our eyeballs.

Everything here is still Republican at the local and state level. The Rio Grand Valley will always be strong Dem I suppose. That puts a few Dems in the state legislature.

Things were really bad under Dem presidents before but we weren't seriously looking to leave the Union like everyone advocates today.

People saying the voted for Obama are now saying it was a mistake.

Things aren't going to be much different next election.

We cannot borrow ourselves out of debt. It does not work that way. They cannot keep spending money they don't have.

We are headed back to double digit inflation, hunger and struggle. Old folks are going to be suffering big time.

Young folks are now seeing what happens when big buisness gets slammed.
 
Top