The future of the republican party...

[JimH52]

There you go! I gave you something to laugh about. I will try to make an "absurd statement" once a week for the next four years...LOL

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

If it is to survive, should not rest in the hands of Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin, but in the hands of governors like this:

John Huntsman
Charlie Crist

Both are moderate conservatives.

Thus; those two are the path the GOP will take to that place where the Whig Party is presently residing...

Anyone want to hazard a guess as to why a "Centrist" would want to promote the idea that the GOP should follow the same path it was on when it lost to the DNC who sent out a fleet of Democrats that campaigned as Conservatives?

Anyone?
.
.
.
.
Anyone at all...?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The Republican party does not have to go away from a traditional conservative base to survive... We/They do not have to go farther to the middle as the DEM's drift farther to the left... They need to remain in the firm core conservative values and not to fall into the same mistakes they made in recent history (turning out to be more like DEMs in huge spending and reckless governance)

I think there are places for moderates.. and communities that will embrace and want them... but they must be a counter balance to the ones that are TOO far right, and not the controlling faction of the party... wingers and centrists are parts (and important parts) of the party, but should not be leading the party

I got this email from Barbara Boxer:

More than 1000 conservative activists gathered in Sacramento last weekend for the California Republican Party Convention, plotting how to organize to win in 2010. Their solution? To tack to the right and become even less mainstream.

Indeed, at a time when Americans are urging their elected officials to work together, these 1000 activists and their leaders have transformed their party into the "Party of NO": NO to a budget agreement for California. NO to President Obama's economic recovery act that will create millions of jobs and get the economy moving again.

And these are the same 1000 right-wing activists who will nominate Barbara Boxer's opponent in 2010. Do we want the "Party of NO" to take away this Senate seat next fall? There's just one answer for that: NO!

First, there are NO 'Americans urging their elected officials to work together'... Americans are urging the elected representatives to STOP THE LEFT FROM UNDERMINING THE US ECONOMY AND USURPING OUR MEANS TO EXERCISE OUR RIGHTS...

Second, that is why the goal of CONSERVATIVES IS TO RETURN THE GOP TO CONSERVATISM... As AMERICANS RESPOND POSITIVELY TO AMERICANISM EVERY SINGLE TIME THEY ARE EXPOSED TO IT.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Conservatism and reactionaryism are choices the GOP has to make. [/quite}

ROFLMNAO... Reactionary-ism... We can be sure that Diur is not remotely Conservative, yet she's here REACTING even while she runs to define Conservatives as Reactionaries...

Kinda crazy, huh?

If they want to appeal to moderates...

Well THERE's your problem Diur... Americans aren't interested in appealing to anyone... FUCK YOU and the Dick ya rode in on... We are who we are and if you want to follow us, FINE... get in line.

For those who want to stop us... you're setting yourself up for a wicked fall and yeah... it's gonna hurt, A LOT!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Conservatism and reactionaryism are choices the GOP has to make.

If they want to appeal to moderates they will take a conservative line on social policy rather than the reactionaryism that their CPAC conference seems to be urging.

On economic policy I think they've been squeezed by the Dems. It's got to the point almost everywhere (except a few holdouts) where market economies rule and it's just a question of management of the economy rather than any ideological approach. GOP supporters need to drop the fantasy of Obama being a socialist. It's deluded. They'd be much better of focusing on the effective management of the economy by the administration rather than leaping up and down about some sort of fantasy that will not become reality.

Limbaugh and Coulter have to cease being the voice of the Republican Party. They don't care about the Party, they only care about themselves. They're salespeople, selling their image, appealing to base instinct to make money. That's fine, let them, but why the GOP is allowing these faux extremists to be their public face is beyond me. The moderates that have to be engaged for the GOP to get back into government are not convinced that Limbaugh and Coulter have any answers to difficult questions.

Ditch the reactionarysim. Forget the Reagan myth. Get back to Burkean conservatism.

Good summary and good direction. As I grow older, I see myself becoming more conservative and perhaps one day leaning more towards the GOP than Demos but if the party is going to allow Coulter and Limbaugh to call the shots they will lose every time. They are hate mongers who have become very wealthy selling their swill to the right wing masses. I honestly don't want the GOP to disappear but as I consider it, they are surely committing suicide. Voting demographics in this country are not the same as they were when Reagon won.

It seems that the stance that Rush and Coulter have taken is, "Agree with us and we will win together or don't agree with us and just go away." Wait, I think that it the GOP platform...sorry.

ROFLMNAO... Jimmy, Jimmy... this one is just too easy... you screwed up by making an assertion which is founded on an objective basis... that means that you left yourself open to haing your objective basis tested... and you can't do that sport and hope to maintain ANY discernable credibility.

Here... watch this:

Jim you've claimed that Coulter and Limbaugh are hateful people... that they foment hate and you've emphatically asserted this as a personal observation, wherein you are in possession of certain knowledge which establishes Coulter and Limbaugh as being DISTINCT from other people in their advancing hate in their rhetoric and their promoting others to hate as well...

Now for the sake of open communication and a mututal understanding, I'll use Webster's Collegiate 2009 as the source in defining "Hate"...

 

[auditor0007]

If it is to survive, should not rest in the hands of Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin, but in the hands of governors like this:

John Huntsman
Charlie Crist

Both are moderate conservatives.

Don't worry. The American people are really dumb, so the Republicans will be back.

But don't expect it to happen short of a catastrophe, because the Republicans have lost a generation. No one 18-25 is Republican.

And you can not say the youth don't vote. That is no longer true.

Those who are 18 to 25 don't yet make much money and aren't worried about retirement yet. As soon as they grow up, they'll realize just how wrong they are.

 

[auditor0007]

The Republican party does not have to go away from a traditional conservative base to survive... We/They do not have to go farther to the middle as the DEM's drift farther to the left... They need to remain in the firm core conservative values and not to fall into the same mistakes they made in recent history (turning out to be more like DEMs in huge spending and reckless governance)

I think there are places for moderates.. and communities that will embrace and want them... but they must be a counter balance to the ones that are TOO far right, and not the controlling faction of the party... wingers and centrists are parts (and important parts) of the party, but should not be leading the party

heres your problem.

Obama gave a speech the other day outlining his plans for the country, 80% of Aemricans approved fo the speech.

Right is fringe.

Here's your problem; the middle class holds all the power. They vote for whomever they feel will help them the most. They don't care if the rich are undertaxed or overtaxed, so long as it doesn't effect them. When all this out of control spending finally hits the taxpayer, the middle class is going to be pissed and they're going to become very conservative very quickly. The Dems will be extremely lucky if they can hold on past 2012.

 

[auditor0007]

It is NOT about 'catering to the lunatic fringe'.... it is about sticking on core conservative values and not making the mistakes that many did in the recent past.... it is not about shunning the far right people nor the extremely moderate REP's either... but it is also not running more left because the DEMs in control are going extremist left

There are more moderates and centrists in this country than there are conservatives and/or liberals. Pretending that the arch-conservatives should be the tail wagging the dog is what lost McCain the election.

p.s. I didn't miss the part where you wanted to treat the moderates like pets, pat us on the head and hope we'll go your way because we don't buy into what the left is selling, while offering us nothing. I just dismissed the idea that the moderates are outnumbered by conservatives in the party. If they were, obama would not have won.

It's that simple. YOU CANNOT WIN WITHOUT US. WE CAN WIN WITHOUT YOU.

First of all, you have to make a distinction between social and fiscal conservatives, because they aren't the same people. The social conservatives in many ways are not fiscally conservative and their view on social issues aren't really conservative. They want to dictate what people can and can't do just like the left does, only they are on the opposite end of the spectrum. Most moderate Republicans are fiscal conservatives but most of them just aren't that swayed by the social issues one way or the other.

So when you talk about moderates, who are you referring to?

 

[auditor0007]

What firm core Conservative values? Republicans haven't even had a Conservative candidate for President since what? Nixon?

Nixon was not a conservative, in fact, he was very liberal in his polices.

Nixon was a strange mix of conservative and moderate values... it's an interesting read on things he actually created, supported, etc

But once again we have the extreme liberal robert, and his absolute blind hatred of Reagan... so much so that he can not even come CLOSE to realizing that Reagan's core values were very conservative.... granted he made mistakes along the way and was not the 'God' that many far right wingers put him up to be, but he was indeed a conservative president and IMHO the best President in the past 50 years, bar none

The main reason Reagan was so great is that he actually got things done. He had an agenda and he was able to put most of it in place, even with a Democratic Congress. Even with the deficit spending that occurred do to the Democratic Congress, it really wasn't much of a burden because the economy really began to grow. The greatest evidence of that growth actually didn't tak place until the 90's, long after he was out of office, but it was his tax cuts that set the wheels in motion.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Conservatism and reactionaryism are choices the GOP has to make.

If they want to appeal to moderates they will take a conservative line on social policy rather than the reactionaryism that their CPAC conference seems to be urging.

On economic policy I think they've been squeezed by the Dems. It's got to the point almost everywhere (except a few holdouts) where market economies rule and it's just a question of management of the economy rather than any ideological approach. GOP supporters need to drop the fantasy of Obama being a socialist. It's deluded. They'd be much better of focusing on the effective management of the economy by the administration rather than leaping up and down about some sort of fantasy that will not become reality.

Limbaugh and Coulter have to cease being the voice of the Republican Party. They don't care about the Party, they only care about themselves. They're salespeople, selling their image, appealing to base instinct to make money. That's fine, let them, but why the GOP is allowing these faux extremists to be their public face is beyond me. The moderates that have to be engaged for the GOP to get back into government are not convinced that Limbaugh and Coulter have any answers to difficult questions.

Ditch the reactionarysim. Forget the Reagan myth. Get back to Burkean conservatism.

Good summary and good direction. As I grow older, I see myself becoming more conservative and perhaps one day leaning more towards the GOP than Demos but if the party is going to allow Coulter and Limbaugh to call the shots they will lose every time. They are hate mongers who have become very wealthy selling their swill to the right wing masses. I honestly don't want the GOP to disappear but as I consider it, they are surely committing suicide. Voting demographics in this country are not the same as they were when Reagon won.

It seems that the stance that Rush and Coulter have taken is, "Agree with us and we will win together or don't agree with us and just go away." Wait, I think that it the GOP platform...sorry.

ROFL... So you're growing up and as a result becoming more Conservative... but you're not comfortable with Coulter and Limbaugh because, you 'feel' that those two 'Hate"....


That's just FASCINATIN'!

Hate is defined as an intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury; an extreme dislike or antipathy : loathing ...

Now you're position requires that there can be NO intellectually sound, logically valid reason for a person to hold an intense hostility and aversion which is derived from fear, anger and or a sense of injury... you want to project that there is no good reason to hold another or set of others in antipathy.

What's more, your position implies by default that there is a a political party other than the GOP which agrees with you and does not accept such 'feelings'...

Two questions here...

First: on what basis does your position rest where it concludes that there is NO intellectually sound, logically valid reason for a person to hold an intense hostility and aversion which is derived from fear, anger and or a sense of injury... against another person, or to hold a person in antipathy?

Secondly: What Political Party is it that you're implying is an alternative because they do not hold intense hostilities and aversions which are derived from fear, anger and or a sense of injury and who do not hold others in antipathy?

Of course the thing here is that this idiot is using "hate" in the way that Leftists use HATE and why in the HELL WOULD WE WANT ANOTHER LEFTIST IN THE GOP?

Anyone?
.
.
.
.
.
Anyone, at all...?

 

[auditor0007]

no one 18 to 25 is ever a republican you douchebag.

That won't be true in the future when Michael Steele and the GOP try their new hip hop image.

They've already got the treatment of women down pat, along with all that wealth.

All they need now is giant clocks and we'll call em M.Cs.

M.C Palin and M.C Jindal are going for the nomination in 2012. But watch out, Romney the one and only mormon M.C has beef with that and will call them out for a war on the east side, west side, and all sides.

And don't forget Jebby Jazzy Bush who wants to continue the Bush family legacy and finish the job that OG Dubya started.

...

Republican Gangsta Party Video by Jonathan - MySpace Video

Jeb has a shot. seriously. don't forget what Churchill said.

Romney is not likely to run again. After seeing how he was treated based on his faith, I just don't see him going down that road again, but you never know. Jeb is actually the most viable candidate the Republicans have. But in order for him to have a shot, he has to distinguish himself form GW, and that will take a lot. Core Republicans won't have any problem with Jeb, in fact I think most really like him. The problem is getting independents and Conservative Democrats to make that jump.

 

[auditor0007]

Jeb has a shot. seriously. don't forget what Churchill said.

Your right:

I was.

This?

Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains - Winston Churchill

Though seriously, I understand what you're saying. The sad part is that 60% of Republicans actually would give another Bush a shot. You'd figure Bush 41 AND 43 were bad enough for this country.

Reminds me of the Who song:

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

I don't see GH Bush as having been a bad president.

 

[auditor0007]

Jeb would get the republicans. Obama the dems. It's the people in the middle that he would have to convince.

If, as has been predicted by many economist, the economy begins to revive late in 2009, the GOP is in even bigger trouble. They have been the obstructionist is the package Obama has advanced. The electorate will remember that. The centrist will remember that.

While they needed to suffer for 8 years, the Democrats should drop to their knees and thank W for bring near total ruin to the Republican party.

All those economists said the economy was fine until the bottom fell out. Very few of them predicted the fallout from the mortgage crisis. Now we are to believe them when they tell us all will be well by the end of 2009? Sorry, but the housing crisis is much deeper than anyone wants to admit, and the effect it is having and will continue to have is going to prevent any real growth for at least five years. Even if we come out of the recession, growth will be under 2% per year.

 

[auditor0007]

If Rush is now the face of the Republican party, then he should run in 2010! I am suRe lots of the far right would vote for him. But remember that there will be lots of questioons for him to answer, such as, why he used prescription drugs illegally. GO RUSH!

Rush is more than content making his millions. I assure you he has no desire to run for office. He knows he wouldn't win anyway. Besides that, he does more to sway voters from sitting in that studio three hours everyday.

 

[Diuretic]

Why would they make an issue out of that,when the could care less that Oblah blah used illegal drugs and paid a male prostitute for sex. GO Obama!

Paid a male prostitute for sex?

Yep...the same one he did drugs with in the back of his limo.

Thanks, a bit of levity goes a long way

 

[Ravi]

no one 18 to 25 is ever a republican you douchebag.

That won't be true in the future when Michael Steele and the GOP try their new hip hop image.

They've already got the treatment of women down pat, along with all that wealth.

All they need now is giant clocks and we'll call em M.Cs.

M.C Palin and M.C Jindal are going for the nomination in 2012. But watch out, Romney the one and only mormon M.C has beef with that and will call them out for a war on the east side, west side, and all sides.

And don't forget Jebby Jazzy Bush who wants to continue the Bush family legacy and finish the job that OG Dubya started.

...

Uh the dems are the kings of treating women like crap....Just ask Hillary Clinton and Sara Palin how the libs in the media,and the Obots treated them. They are also highly racist,while pointing the fingers at everyone else..cuz you see they are also lying hypocrites on top of everything else.

You're saying Republicans put women on a pedestal and believe they are actually incapable of being public figures? Sexist, much?

 

[midcan5]

Conservatives will always be around as the antagonists to progress, they have done that since the first progressive caveman moved out of the cave. Their core idea have failed since Reagan: reduced taxes and trickle down failed, less government regulation failed, sink or swim social and economic darwinism has failed, the only thing left for them is revise reality to fit some ideological fantasy and to say no to change. I am glad to see them out of power, as the pain their policies caused working people, since Reagan, has been real.

A Short History of Conservative Obstruction to Progress | Conceptual Guerilla

 

[Diuretic]

Conservatives will always be around as the antagonists to progress, they have done that since the first progressive caveman moved out of the cave. Their core idea have failed since Reagan: reduced taxes and trickle down failed, less government regulation failed, sink or swim social and economic darwinism has failed, the only thing left for them is revise reality to fit some ideological fantasy and to say no to change. I am glad to see them out of power, as the pain their policies caused working people, since Reagan, has been real.

A Short History of Conservative Obstruction to Progress | Conceptual Guerilla

They have a purpose though, they always have. They do provide a sort of deadweight that progressive ideas have to overcome. In that sense they serve to make the best progressive ideas work, because to get out from under the dead hand of conservatism a progressive idea has to be really good. But here I am talking about conservatives, not reactionaries.

 

[editec]

The Republican party does not have to go away from a traditional conservative base to survive... We/They do not have to go farther to the middle as the DEM's drift farther to the left... They need to remain in the firm core conservative values and not to fall into the same mistakes they made in recent history (turning out to be more like DEMs in huge spending and reckless governance)

I think there are places for moderates.. and communities that will embrace and want them... but they must be a counter balance to the ones that are TOO far right, and not the controlling faction of the party... wingers and centrists are parts (and important parts) of the party, but should not be leading the party

What firm core Conservative values? Republicans haven't even had a Conservative candidate for President since what? Nixon?

NiXXon was actually the LAST LEGISLATIVELY EFFECTIVE LIBERAL in the Oval Office.

Perhaps you'll need to read some of the bills that he signed into law to assure yourself that editec knows of what he speaks.

But if your definition of liberalism is someone who uses government and regulation to counter the free market, then NIXON's THE ONE, fans.

 

[editec]

Jeb would get the republicans. Obama the dems. It's the people in the middle that he would have to convince.

If, as has been predicted by many economist, the economy begins to revive late in 2009, the GOP is in even bigger trouble. They have been the obstructionist is the package Obama has advanced. The electorate will remember that. The centrist will remember that.

While they needed to suffer for 8 years, the Democrats should drop to their knees and thank W for bring near total ruin to the Republican party.

All those economists said the economy was fine until the bottom fell out. Very few of them predicted the fallout from the mortgage crisis. Now we are to believe them when they tell us all will be well by the end of 2009? Sorry, but the housing crisis is much deeper than anyone wants to admit, and the effect it is having and will continue to have is going to prevent any real growth for at least five years. Even if we come out of the recession, growth will be under 2% per year.

Yes, I agree with that.

The so called market value of real estate was wildly out of kilter with the median income everywhere in America.

I suspect until the median income and median home price are in rougly the same, the real estate prices aren't going to stabilize.

This could get especially bad if the median incomes start dropping, thanks to the depression.