Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nuclear1 on April 28, 2009, 11:35:12 pm
-
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/28/specter.party.switch/index.html
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Veteran Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter switched from the Republican to the Democratic Party on Tuesday, saying he has found himself increasingly "at odds with the Republican philosophy."
...
The switch puts Senate Democrats one vote shy of a filibuster-proof majority of 60 seats. They can reach the 60-seat mark if Al Franken holds his current lead in the disputed Minnesota Senate race.
"As the Republican Party has moved farther and farther to the right, I have found myself increasingly at odds with the Republican philosophy and more in line with the philosophy of the Democratic Party," Specter said.
...
Specter, a five-term Senate veteran, was facing what most political observers believed would have been a tough fight for the Pennsylvania GOP Senate nomination in 2010.
GOP then decides it's not to blame for one of its longest-serving Senators turning to the other side:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21811.html
Senate Republican leaders are pushing back hard against the notion that their party is to blame for Sen. Arlen Specter’s defection to the Democrats.
"This is not a national story. It is a Pennsylvania story," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky told reporters in a news conference following Tuesday’s GOP policy luncheon.
Texas Sen. John Cornyn, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said that Specter — who spoke at the lunch — had been “very candid to acknowledge that this was nothing more, nothing less than political self-preservation.”
Two GOP senators said earlier in the day Tuesday that Specte's decision underscored the hostility Republican centrists feel in a party that's increasingly conservative. Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe said that the GOP hasn't been offering "warm encouraging words" about moderates. South Carolina Sen. Lindsay Graham suggested that the Republican Party risked becoming little more than the Club for Growth. "I want to be a member of a vibrant national Republican Party that can attract people from all corners of the country — and we can govern the country from a center-right perspective," he said.
McConnell said Specter told him of his decision late Monday, and that Specter had said he decided to make the switch because he couldn't win reelection as a Republican or an independent.
McConnell acknowledged that the GOP was now at the mercy of Democrats, who will have a 60-vote majority if Al Franken is seated from Minnesota.
Note especially the bold part. The Republicans are coming apart, and frankly it was their own doing, despite what they want to claim. Thoughts?
-
Thoughts?
Not so much thoughts as feelings-- feelings in the form of a raging hard-on.
-
It was a pressure cooker from the start, now it is starting to balkanize.
-
What makes it even worse (well, better to some people) is that even while a fair amount of their constituents are angry as hell for losing the country because they were too bigoted and partisan, they decide the solution to their problems is make the GOP even further right wing, and threatening to pull the plug on moderate Republicans who vote for the stimulus package or support Obama's policies.
That and the RNC Chairman actually isn't in control of his party, and everyone in the GOP is so terrified of offending Rush Limbaugh they feel the need to apologize at any slight offense.
-
I'm getting kinda worried, the USA is moving closer and closer to a one party system.
-
What do you mean moving towards? We've been run by the greedy power hungry idiot's party ever since I can remember.
-
American politics have been dominated by a single party before. We're still here, and we're still free. Democracy still exists. The minority still has a voice. Now, one party is indeed gaining in prominence, but that is no cause for alarm. This isn't the end of disagreement between the common people, and as long as the people stay at odds on their views and ideologies and have the rights to express those opinions, the system in America will continue: there will be different parties. It's just that one might not be as powerful as the other, or might not be able to stop the other side from passing their own agenda, but the right to dissent is still preserved, and that minority can still become a majority. As long as we hold true to the Constitution, the odds of a one-party system becoming reality are incredibly slim.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/28/specter.party.switch/index.html
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Veteran Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter switched from the Republican to the Democratic Party on Tuesday, saying he has found himself increasingly "at odds with the Republican philosophy."
...
The switch puts Senate Democrats one vote shy of a filibuster-proof majority of 60 seats. They can reach the 60-seat mark if Al Franken holds his current lead in the disputed Minnesota Senate race.
"As the Republican Party has moved farther and farther to the right, I have found myself increasingly at odds with the Republican philosophy and more in line with the philosophy of the Democratic Party," Specter said.
...
Specter, a five-term Senate veteran, was facing what most political observers believed would have been a tough fight for the Pennsylvania GOP Senate nomination in 2010.
GOP then decides it's not to blame for one of its longest-serving Senators turning to the other side:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21811.html
Senate Republican leaders are pushing back hard against the notion that their party is to blame for Sen. Arlen Specter’s defection to the Democrats.
"This is not a national story. It is a Pennsylvania story," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky told reporters in a news conference following Tuesday’s GOP policy luncheon.
Texas Sen. John Cornyn, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said that Specter — who spoke at the lunch — had been “very candid to acknowledge that this was nothing more, nothing less than political self-preservation.”
Two GOP senators said earlier in the day Tuesday that Specte's decision underscored the hostility Republican centrists feel in a party that's increasingly conservative. Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe said that the GOP hasn't been offering "warm encouraging words" about moderates. South Carolina Sen. Lindsay Graham suggested that the Republican Party risked becoming little more than the Club for Growth. "I want to be a member of a vibrant national Republican Party that can attract people from all corners of the country — and we can govern the country from a center-right perspective," he said.
McConnell said Specter told him of his decision late Monday, and that Specter had said he decided to make the switch because he couldn't win reelection as a Republican or an independent.
McConnell acknowledged that the GOP was now at the mercy of Democrats, who will have a 60-vote majority if Al Franken is seated from Minnesota.
Note especially the bold part. The Republicans are coming apart, and frankly it was their own doing, despite what they want to claim. Thoughts?
I think there is a bigger story here.
Minnesota still hasn't figured its **** out after five months. GG FrankenColeman.
Also:
I'm getting kinda worried, the USA is moving closer and closer to a one party system.
Uh, no its not, not by a long-shot. The Democrats being in power does not equal a one party system. Nor does a lack of a coherent Republican party. There will always be, at the very least, political bi-polarity, in one form or another. I'm sure a full democrat majority would still manage to piss enough people off eventually to flip the switch to Conservatism again.
There is truth in Republican fail though. Fools put all their chips on Iraq and random religious values, and forgot what it was to actually be conservative politics.
-
If the republicans continue to slide to the right then other parties will appear to take their old position. Especially since the slow disintegration of the party means that the Democrats can take a more left-wing approach than they previously could.
-
Funny thing about this, most of the GOP is still in the same place it was when Reagan was in office.
Specter has never been particularly reliable on votes, often siding with the other side on important stuff. He was one of 3 Republicans to vote for the stimulus bill last year.
In most camps this won't change much, his common title was RINO(Republican In Name Only).
Honestly, all he's really done is show how petty and uncaring for his constituency he is. He has been quoted in several places from his announcement that the reason for the swtich is that he refuses to let his political future be determined by the voters of the state of Pennsylvania. We got ourselves a modern Marie Antoinette in Mr. Specter. If he gets reelected next year then I'll start wondering how he did. Not even democrats, notorious for ignoring the specifics about they're candidates, could reelect this moron.
That said, I'm glad he's gone, we can give his seat to a true conservative.
-
He's a ****ing politician, of course he's doing it for his agenda. What did you expect?
-
Honestly, all he's really done is show how petty and uncaring for his constituency he is.
If he didn't care for his constituency then why did they keep electing him?
-
Funny thing about this, most of the GOP is still in the same place it was when Reagan was in office.
Specter has never been particularly reliable on votes, often siding with the other side on important stuff. He was one of 3 Republicans to vote for the stimulus bill last year.
In most camps this won't change much, his common title was RINO(Republican In Name Only).
Honestly, all he's really done is show how petty and uncaring for his constituency he is. He has been quoted in several places from his announcement that the reason for the swtich is that he refuses to let his political future be determined by the voters of the state of Pennsylvania. We got ourselves a modern Marie Antoinette in Mr. Specter. If he gets reelected next year then I'll start wondering how he did. Not even democrats, notorious for ignoring the specifics about they're candidates, could reelect this moron.
That said, I'm glad he's gone, we can give his seat to a true conservative.
You don't know anything about Specter, right?
Because if you knew anything about him, you couldn't say stuff like "petty and uncaring" without at least making a passing mention of Gonzales farce.
Hell, I am not even American and I have pretty deep respect for Specter as a kind of senator who is more bound by the law and morality than the petty politics.
-
21% identified as Republicans in a recent poll (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/parsing-the-polls/21-percent.html)
More people think the country is on the right track than the wrong track.
Obama's approval rating hover somewhere between 60 and 65%
The far right wing is going nuts over release of torture memos, Obama not punching South American guys in the face and the like. The problem is everyone else loves it.
They just don't know how to turn off the "hate". I have seen more of Dick Cheney since the election than I have ever seen in 8 years. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) says it's "interesting" that we have a second swine flu outbreak under another Democrat (she means Carter) but it really started under Ford (A Repub).
<a href="http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/43699772.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUnciaec8O7EyUsl'>A majority in Minnesota think Norm Coleman should just quit, and that includes people who voted for him.[/url] It's turning moderate Republicans and Independents away. Which is exactly the opposite of what you want to be doing.
-
I'd love to see the GOP collapse, then the Democratic party would break up as well under the weight of not having a common foe. A refreshing of the parties would probably be one of the best things that could happen. Not that I have realistic hopes of it happening but still having the Dems and GOP disintegrate would warm the cockles of my heart.
-
Speaking as a Canadian, it's puzzled me that there were only ever two political parties in the United States. Two parties is, in my opinion, not nearly enough to represent the diverse political ideologies of America.
In conclusion, I think that an American Parliament would be awesome.
-
Michele Bachmann (R-MN) says it's "interesting" that we have a second swine flu outbreak under another Democrat (she means Carter) but it really started under Ford (A Repub).
And she's apparently a ****ing moron if she thinks who is running the country has anything to do with what diseases pop up on the global map. But then again, it's what I've come to expect from politicians.
-
Michele Bachmann (R-MN) says it's "interesting" that we have a second swine flu outbreak under another Democrat (she means Carter) but it really started under Ford (A Repub).
And she's apparently a ****ing moron if she thinks who is running the country has anything to do with what diseases pop up on the global map. But then again, it's what I've come to expect from politicians.
She's the one who suggested we investigate Congress for anti americans.
-
I'd love to see the GOP collapse, then the Democratic party would break up as well under the weight of not having a common foe. A refreshing of the parties would probably be one of the best things that could happen. Not that I have realistic hopes of it happening but still having the Dems and GOP disintegrate would warm the cockles of my heart.
Yeah, same here. I doubt they would disappear, but I can see a scenario where both parties rebuild themselves from scratch. That would be healthy, I think.
Speaking as a Canadian, it's puzzled me that there were only ever two political parties in the United States. Two parties is, in my opinion, not nearly enough to represent the diverse political ideologies that America represents.
In conclusion, I think that an American Parliament would be awesome.
Well, there are (and have been) more parties, they just don't get very much representation (at least these days).
Also, some questions about parliamentary governments (since I don't live under one and only have a fuzzy idea of how they work). Don't the many diverse parties usually end up grouping into two opposing coalitions? And don't you sometimes end up with situations where some small party ends up being disproportionally important because they are the "tiebreaker" that everyone is trying to woo? Or am I totally misunderstanding how things work?
-
He has been quoted in several places from his announcement that the reason for the swtich is that he refuses to let his political future be determined by the voters of the state of Pennsylvania.
That's not entirely correct. He refuses to let his political future be determined by the Republicans of the state of Pennsylvania. His concern was about being able to win the GOP primary, not a general election. He's got the support of most of his constituents for re-election, even if he doesn't have the support of most of his Republican constituents.
-
It's because in a country the size of the US, you need money to be seen, and industries will only fund party members that will tow their particular party line. It's that little problem with the system that needs fixing, and, last I heard, something that Obama is planning to fix.
-
Some polls show him losing the Primary and about 200k Republicans switched to Democrat in PA.
The writing is on the wall "We don't want you"
Why should he stay? Why would you stay and lose a primary for a party that increasingly doesn't match up to your ideals?
-
His concern was about being able to win the GOP primary, not a general election. He's got the support of most of his constituents for re-election, even if he doesn't have the support of most of his Republican constituents.
In which case Liberator's little rant gives that argument credibility.
It's one thing for a politician to swap sides because he wants to be on the winning side and from what I originally read that was the picture I had of this. But after what Liberator said it seems that what actually happened is that this guy has stayed constant in his beliefs while the party has shifted to the right beneath him to the point where he now has more in common with the democrats.
When Liberator stated that they were already calling him names even before he decided to switch it made it clear why he feels in such danger for the GOP Primary. Can't say I blame him one iota for deciding to switch parties.
-
Also, some questions about parliamentary governments (since I don't live under one and only have a fuzzy idea of how they work). Don't the many diverse parties usually end up grouping into two opposing coalitions? And don't you sometimes end up with situations where some small party ends up being disproportionally important because they are the "tiebreaker" that everyone is trying to woo? Or am I totally misunderstanding how things work?
Canada has only had two government coalitions in its past: the first was The Great Coalition which lasted from 1864 until 1867, before Canada was Canada. After Confederation this coalition ceased to exist.
Since Confederation there has only been one coalition government in Canada’s history: the Union Government of World War I (from 1917 to 1920). This was a coalition between the Conservative Party, led by Robert Borden, and Liberals and independents. The coalition was formed in order to broaden support for the Borden government and its controversial conscription policy.
On the whole the supposition that small parties are the "tiebreaker" is debatable because federal legislation votes in Canada fall under different categories: "free" votes and votes where Members of Parliament are expected to tow the party line. A free vote is a vote wherein the Speaker of the House declares that the vote in question is a matter of conscience, or else is too important for party ideologies to get in the way. Votes where MPs are expected to tow the party line are, of course, usually dictated by the party's ideology if not by the leader of that party. It is not uncommon to attempt soliciting votes from another party, but this tends to happen only when there is a bizarre imbalance between the seats held by the ruling party, the opposition party, and all other parties--i.e. the gap between seats held by the governing party and opposition parties is smaller than anticipated.
As of Canada's latest election, the Conservative Party was able to snag 143 of 308 seats in the House of Commons, therefore making it a "minority government": a government which has achieved a majority vote without having more than half the seats. However, it is rather large minority, so we've not seen our government become truly impotent yet.
(Just rather dictatorial.)
-
Actually in my opinion a nice solution to corporate/special interest donations is that they go into a election pool and are then divided evenly between all candidates. Campaign contributions more then anything else seem to be what make politicians beholden to special interests. If you removed their ability to directly bribe candidates it might help quite a bit. Another benefit would be evening the playing field for different candidates other then Republican/Democrat. If you left only personal contributions open to going to a specific candidate then it might also make the candidates more dependent on their constituents.
-
The corporations just send money to action groups and such.
-
If you left only personal contributions open to going to a specific candidate then it might also make the candidates more dependent on their constituents.
So how do you distinguish between a corporate contribution by Apple and a personal contribution by Steve Jobs? Or are we going to say that once you get to a certain level of wealth, you aren't allowed to contribute? I don't think there is any way to get rid of "special interest" donations without also getting rid of personal donations.
And even if you decide that's a good and legally feasible idea, what about the whole deal where you can simply evade contribution caps by creating independent groups for the sole purpose of campaigning? If I can't donate to Ron McBama directly, and I have enough money, I can simply buy advertisement time on TV and run my own ads about how awesome he is. Is there any way to prevent that without some serious first amendment infringement?
I don't think that there is any legal and constitutional way (or that there should be) to prevent people or organizations from spending gobs of money on their preferred candidate.
-
There is donation limit
1300 or 2600 dollars, I forget which.
-
Not to mention how would you stop some of this pot going to small parties that no one wants to support? Such as the KKK's political wing.
-
"Blue Lion for ruler of the world party"
-
Not to mention how would you stop some of this pot going to small parties that no one wants to support? Such as the KKK's political wing.
Amok Battle Royale
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyhhFzE5O5U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyhhFzE5O5U)
-
:blah:
Oh, but for the days of yore (maybe not that far), when Republicans weren't as big of flaming idiots as they are now. I still identify myself as republican, but not the GOP type of Republican (which I will now denote with a captial letter). In reality, it has more to do with not agreeing with the Democrats, and then not to the point of idiocy (they have some good ideas), than agreeing with the flaming stupidity coming from Republicans.
-
This. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/opinion/29snowe.html?_r=3&ref=opinion
wru reagan
-
If republicans can get out of trying to run everyone's life and go back to being fiscally conservative, then they'll go back to being respectable.
-
As a Libertarian-minded Republican, I am of the opinion that the problem the Republican party has is that they are offering a larger government. Both they and the Dems want to increase the size of the government. The Dems want the Nanny State, and the GOP wants the Daddy State, and the voters go for the more appealing form of big government. If the GOP would get its sh*t together and focus on limited government and individual liberty and responsibility, they wouldn't be quite so close to imploding.
-
As a Libertarian-minded Republican, I am of the opinion that the problem the Republican party has is that they are offering a larger government. Both they and the Dems want to increase the size of the government. The Dems want the Nanny State, and the GOP wants the Daddy State, and the voters go for the more appealing form of big government. If the GOP would get its sh*t together and focus on limited government and individual liberty and responsibility, they wouldn't be quite so close to imploding.
qft
-
He has been quoted in several places from his announcement that the reason for the swtich is that he refuses to let his political future be determined by the voters of the state of Pennsylvania.
That's not entirely correct. He refuses to let his political future be determined by the Republicans of the state of Pennsylvania. His concern was about being able to win the GOP primary, not a general election. He's got the support of most of his constituents for re-election, even if he doesn't have the support of most of his Republican constituents.
Well the problem for him was that even though most people generally support him, the radicalization of the republican party makes it hard to get past the primary, especially since it is increasingly being controlled by mastadons.
-
(http://www.leftycartoons.com/wp-content/uploads/housepets.png)
-
(http://www.leftycartoons.com/wp-content/uploads/housepets.png)
The author of said cartoon completely fails to understand what libertarianism is. In fact, those house pets are parodying a particular brand of middle-class conservativism.
-
It appears to me that the democratic party is moving ever so slightly to the center (in order to gain more numbers). Thus the right wing people are either joining the Democrats (at least in voting) or moving to the far right.
If I'm not mistaken the Brits did this in the 90's with Blair's New Labour? The Conservative party went further and further right, with Labour embracing more centrist ideas.
It's time for a major party change in the US.
-
Well no, the Dems aren't moving to the center. They just want everyone to think that. Taking over private institutions like the Obama Administration has done is a very left-wing act. The amount of government control Obama wants over the economy is a very left-wing notion. Obama is extremely left-wing man, and he got elected because he portrayed himself as a centrist. What people are and what they are perceived to be are often two different things.
-
What private institutions are run by the government now?
-
If I'm not mistaken the Brits did this in the 90's with Blair's New Labour? The Conservative party went further and further right, with Labour embracing more centrist ideas.
You're mistaken. New Labour was never centrist.
The moved all the way to the right wing.
The Lib Dems are the most left wing main party, and they're solidly centrist.
-
Technically, Chrysler (?, need a source check on that. I know it's an auto company) is de-facto run by Obama. The bailout allowed him to fire the CEO and basically take control until it gets better :ick:.
-
Technically, Chrysler (?, need a source check on that. I know it's an auto company) is de-facto run by Obama. The bailout allowed him to fire the CEO and basically take control until it gets better :ick:.
No CEO of any car company was fired by the President. He doesn't have that power.
Wagoner, the CEO of GM, resigned.
GM is still an independent company. The government does not make it's decisions.
-
If I'm not mistaken the Brits did this in the 90's with Blair's New Labour? The Conservative party went further and further right, with Labour embracing more centrist ideas.
You're mistaken. New Labour was never centrist.
The moved all the way to the right wing.
The Lib Dems are the most left wing main party, and they're solidly centrist.
I stand corrected. In my mind New Labour always seemed "centrist", but that was because I was comparing them to Thatcher (not her government...just her). They embraced many of her ideas, but didn't go quite so far to the right.
I guess the problem with that situation and my mind is that when EVERYBODY is to the right of center, or on the center, do you start calling "left" and "right" relative to where everybody's at?
-
Labour are still more left wing than the Tories (although even that is starting to change, if the tories lose the next election I wouldn't be surprised if they simply shift to the left) but they are pretty far to the right. #
This page (http://www.politicalcompass.org/extremeright) has a pretty good explanation of their positions (and their test is pretty interesting too). In fact I think it's about time to post it again.
-
"While 54% of Americans overall say that President Obama has clearly explained his policies, just 25% say that Republican leaders in Congress have clearly explained why they oppose his approach. Even among Republicans themselves, as many say their party’s leaders have failed to clearly articulate their position (42%) as say they have explained themselves clearly (41%).'
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1184/partisanship-back-obama-economic-confidence-high-gop-image-low
Even Republicans don't know what they're doing. "Not Obama" is not a plan.
-
Which is the biggest problem the GOP is facing. They have no idea of how to get their message out, or even a message. The only conservative of note that is sending a message is *GASP* Rush Limbaugh.
-
The only conservative of note that is sending a message is *GASP* Rush Limbaugh.
Unfortunately.
That man paints a very very bad face for the GOP. If any moderate or sensible Republicans had the balls to stand up to that fat lard, then that party might be able to get back on track. Sadly, even the RNC Chairman's afraid of him. Limbaugh essentially runs the Party, which might very well be one of the factors that are grinding it into the dirt.
-
Michael Steele wasn't all that great when he ran for Governor here in Maryland. We were all shocked when they gave him the spot.
-
I am of the opinion that if it wasn't for Rush holding the GOP together by acting as a bastion of conservatism, it would have fallen by the wayside long ago. Rush is the GOP's voice because no-one else has the testicles to do it.
-
I am of the opinion that if it wasn't for Rush holding the GOP together by acting as a bastion of conservatism, it would have fallen by the wayside long ago. Rush is the GOP's voice because no-one else has the testicles to do it.
Be that as it may, it still stands that Limbaugh essentially doesn't seek compromise or even bipartisanship in Congress. He wants all GOP, all conservatism, or nothing at all. That's the exact opposite of what the GOP needs right now. People are turned off from the conservative moment because of pundits like Limbaugh. If he's the sole bastion of conservatism and unity the GOP has, then that party as a respectable force is done for. This is the guy who told moderate Republicans to "get out" (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_110608/content/01125108.guest.html) if they didn't stop reaching across the aisle. He managed to turn Obama's rescue of the Maersk Alabama's captain into a racial and religious issue (http://www.wowowow.com/politics/limbaugh-attacks-obama-over-muslim-somali-pirate-shooting-268262), essentially not making him any better than the birth certificate crowd.
If he's the only hope the GOP has, then his party isn't going to last the entirety of Obama's administration.
-
Well no, the Dems aren't moving to the center. They just want everyone to think that. Taking over private institutions like the Obama Administration has done is a very left-wing act. The amount of government control Obama wants over the economy is a very left-wing notion. Obama is extremely left-wing man, and he got elected because he portrayed himself as a centrist. What people are and what they are perceived to be are often two different things.
Obama is still somewhat of a centrist by Canadian political standards. It all depends on your perspective. The weird part for Canadians is that our right wing parties still have more in common with the US Democrats than they do with the Republicans.
-
Well Nuclear, we will have to agree to disagree. You see the Republican Party's problem as they will listen to Rush and not compromise with Obama, and I see it as they will allow Obama to dictate their policy because they are scared of speaking out against a popular president.
-
Well Nuclear, we will have to agree to disagree. You see the Republican Party's problem as they will listen to Rush and not compromise with Obama, and I see it as they will allow Obama to dictate their policy because they are scared of speaking out against a popular president.
They should feel free to speak out when policy disagrees, but there's too much of the Republican Party simply refusing to work with Obama or the Democratic majority at all. That's simply unproductive and it turns moderates and independents off.
The GOP has nearly collapsed thanks to listening to extreme right pundits such as Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck, and continuing to do so and push their platform further right in a country that already hates that concept isn't doing them any good.
What the GOP really needs to do is:
1) Give up support for the Religious Right and make them form their own party
2) Return to true conservatism--minimal spending and small government. Essentially give up the principals of the Bush Administration
3) Get a party leadership with the charisma and authority to clearly state the GOP's position
If those don't happen, I don't see the GOP surviving for very long.
-
1) Give up support for the Religious Right and make them form their own party
2) Return to true conservatism--minimal spending and small government. Essentially give up the principals of the Bush Administration
3) Get a party leadership with the charisma and authority to clearly state the GOP's position
Now THAT'S a party I'd join up with. As it is now I label myself a conservative (although pretty close to the center) but refuse to be associated with the Republican party...The way they're acting right now there's really nowhere for me to go but independent.
EDIT: ...anyone else getting Ann Coulter Google ads? :lol:
-
Yes. Like in the other threads I was getting Christian Singles ads.
-
I just got a Newt Gingrich newletter ad :wtf:.
-
I see one about Alzheimer's...wonder what that says. :lol:
-
Christian singles ads. Oy.
-
Wow. Nuclear, you and I actually agree on what the Republican Party needs. True conservatism.
-
That's why I think the GOP needs to bite the bullet and just go with the plans now but stress saving money and such. The party may have a real change but people won't suddenly forget everything and say "Oh the GOP wants fiscal responsibility, let's vote for them"
Republicans aren't going to get credit for any of this really, so their best option to be constructive instead of whiny. Then when the next set of elections roll around they have an actual track record to play off of.
-
No, the Republicans shouldn't bite the bullet. That would be giving ground. The federal budget is the last place you should be retreating from. They should however out together a plan of their own that stands up to some scrutiny that is in direct opposition to Obama's plans. They need someone or something to rally around besides Rush. He is too easy a target to denigrate.
-
And then when they get ignored because they're offering an opposite plan?
-
They need a good plan, they can't just have a 8th grader libertarian wannabe scribble 'cut spending' on a napkin and call it a plan and then whine when nobody pays attention.
-
While I'm glad they chose Rush instead of Glenn or Coulter, they really need a true "leader" to rally behind. One who could actually run for president at some point. I know the US Congress doesn't work exactly like Parliament, but without an "opposition leader" for the "opposition" to follow, there's no opposition.
Their lack of leadership was what disenfranchised me in the first place. During the election, McCain and Palin were the best they could come up with? I've talked to plenty of people who just didn't have faith in either of them. Sometimes it's not the policies that get you into trouble, but the fact that you have no leadership to present them.
-
Sometimes it's not the policies that get you into trouble, but the fact that you have no leadership to present them.
Except in this case, the policies sucked too, so they were extra screwed (plus Obama ran a really tight campaign)
-
The policies weren't ALL bad, but if the GOP had known the race was going to be based on the economy, not foreign policy, they definitely (hopefully) would have fielded a different candidate. I don't think it was entirely the Republican's policies (a political parties beliefs are fairly general at times) but rather McCain's bad policy ideas.
Of course Obama hasn't really followed through with a lot of the "big worry" policies yet anyway (thankfully, we've got no NHS).
-
While I'm glad they chose Rush instead of Glenn or Coulter, they really need a true "leader" to rally behind. One who could actually run for president at some point. I know the US Congress doesn't work exactly like Parliament, but without an "opposition leader" for the "opposition" to follow, there's no opposition.
Their lack of leadership was what disenfranchised me in the first place. During the election, McCain and Palin were the best they could come up with? I've talked to plenty of people who just didn't have faith in either of them. Sometimes it's not the policies that get you into trouble, but the fact that you have no leadership to present them.
McCain would have made a great GOP candidate 9 years ago...
-
8th grader libertarian
This is kind of redundant.