How can the Republicans win it all back?

[Mr. Lennon]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
It's simple. The Republicans need to go back to being the conservative party (both socially and fiscally), instead of trying to be the "Democrat Lite" party. They had a "moderate" candidate in 2008 in McCain, and Bush was anything but fiscally conservative. They need to get back to the Republican party of Reagan.

Go back to being fiscally conservative....yes I like that.

Go back to being socially conservative....wait.... they still haven't changed on that.

The days of being socially conservative are long gone. The only people that want our nation to be like that are old farts and christian fundies. No thanks.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: marincounty
Because it was a stupid idea that would have left many older Americans penniless?

No doubt. Bush couldnt even get the cable tv transfer right. what a boob.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Bush won 2 elections as well. I guess that means people voted and are in favor of torture and war.

Would it make you happy to think that American people voted in favor of torture and war?

Nope, but I think he did a good job of illustrating how stupid your train of thought was.

So you speak for Fear No Evil now?

Check out the polls, Obama is FAR more popular than the policies he supports. His 60% approval rating is based on personal popularity, not on support for his ideas.

What do we elect politicians for if not to implement policies. Maybe the people trust him because of his personality or whatever, that's irrelevant. What is relevant is what they trusted him with, and that is governing this country and implementing his agenda. They elected him president of the United States, not American Idol.

From a CNN poll taken in April
"As you may know, General Motors and Chrysler have received several billion dollars in government assistance to prevent them from going into bankruptcy. If those auto companies say they need more federal money, do you think the government should give them any additional assistance, or should the government let them go into bankruptcy?"
Give Additional Assistance 22%
Let Them Go Into Bankruptcy 76%
Not even close.

And we will have an election in 2010 and 2012, when the American people can vote to change course if they so choose. Until then, the Democrats have the power to implement their agenda, because the American people trusted them with that power. You don't have to like the American political system, but until we change it is what it is, we elect people whose judgment we trust to govern us and implement their platforms.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Going by history, the GOP could win the White House if the economy does not turn around by Dec 2011 and maybe if Mr Obama gets the country into a big mess like Mr Bush did with the Iraqi invasion.

It is early, 133 days into Mr Obama's presidency and the GOP is taliking about mustard, a NYC dinner and a show, etc sounding like desparate hypocrites. Is anyone but their base paying any attention to the GOP's almost daily expressions of outrage about everything Mr Obama does?

We also outraged by his massive spending, his tripling of the deficit, his doubling of the national debt, his bailouts and takeover of private companies, etc. We're outraged that he's ramming stimulus spending down our throats that he doesn't allow debate on. We're outraged that unemployment keeps going up. We're outraged he's nominating a racist for the supreme court. We're outraged that he's bailing out people that had no business ever getting a mortgage while those of us who pay continue to get screwed. We're outraged he continues to bailout financial institutions that raise rates, lower limits, and add fees to people who pay their bills. We're outraged that he's doing nothing to investigate oil speculation that once again is driving up oil prices. We're outraged he can't seem to make a statement without blaming Bush. We're outraged he promised transparency and yet he continues to refuse to release documents that will prove or disprove torture claims. We're outraged he wants to socialize our healthcare and put it under the control of the same people who have gotten us into this financial mess.

Etc.. etc.. etc. But yet you don't bring up any of those topics. Why is that? You cherry pick the ones which are superficial while ignoring the ones that aren't We are outraged over a TON of things Obama is doing.. but the left simply claims the outrage is 'faux' and ignores all of them.

My point was that the GOP's outrages about mustard and NYC dinner and a show may work for their base but it marginalizes their impact with anyone else. Which will make it harder to win the White House in 2012.

I zone out much of what the GOP and their front men, Mr Limbaugh et al, have to say because:

1. Where was the outrage when Mr Bush and the GOP were in power? Much of what is being said makes them sound like partisan hacks.

2. It is okay to be Neo-Herbert Hooverians when you are not responsible for keeping the country out of a depression. I remember a Texas republican congressman wanted to cut federal spending because the unemployment rate reached a decades high.

The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 was made law while Mr Bush was in power.

 

[BurnItDwn]

I think the GOP has ruined things enough as it is.
I don't think they will have a chance at winning anything back in 2012.
Maybe the dems will fvck enough shit up too though and we'll get some independent folks in there.

 

[marincounty]

The only way I see for Republicans to win it all back is to dig up Ronald Reagan and clone him. It takes a great communicator to sell people garbage.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: marincounty
The only way I see for Republicans to win it all back is to dig up Ronald Reagan and clone him. It takes a great communicator to sell people garbage.

Proof is in the current President.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I cannot agree with Nightmare when he says, "The last decent president that the GOP put forward was a retired actor from California who had somewhat moderate views. When they tap Jeb Bush or a former minister to run in 2012 they will seal their own fate.

Ronald Reagan had the act same spend and borrow policies of GWB and was lucky enough to escape from office before the economy tanked with GHB.

Putting forth Ronald Reagan as a GOP role model is exactly why the GOP will remain out of it for a long time. But on the plus side, Ronald Reagan at least cared about Public opinion and did not start any quagmire wars. But Ronald Reagan lived in a fantasy world, and GWB&co lived a worse fantasy, while paying not a wit about the obvious bad results.

But of nothing else, GWB&co proved why Reagan was wrong on the economy, and until the GOP realizes that many of their initial theories were wrong, their is little hope that the GOP will gain any new appeal.

If the GOP is stupid enough to run Jeb Bush, then Obama is 100 percent guaranteed to win, even if he accidentally hit the red button and nuked nebraska

Hey, it's just a flyover state.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: marincounty
The only way I see for Republicans to win it all back is to dig up Ronald Reagan and clone him. It takes a great communicator to sell people garbage.

Proof is in the current President.

Democrats learned from the master.

 

[Fern]

How can the Republicans win it all back?

I hope they don't win it ALL back.

I din't like what happens when one party has both the Exec and Congress (even worse with big majorities). We need some 'checks and balances'.

Fern

 

[Siddhartha]

New question added to the poll.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Red Irish
Preying on people's fears, advocating a few wars, blaming the Democrats for the economic situation and, in general, by appealing to the lowest common denominator.

That is what the party not in power always does...

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
It's simple. The Republicans need to go back to being the conservative party (both socially and fiscally), instead of trying to be the "Democrat Lite" party. They had a "moderate" candidate in 2008 in McCain, and Bush was anything but fiscally conservative. They need to get back to the Republican party of Reagan.

I have thought about this strategy of the GOP kicking moderates out of their party. The only way I can see this being successful is if the US voter is really "center right". I have not seen any polls or evidence that support this evaluation.

Looking back at past presidential elections for the political drivers:

1964: Goldwater was too conservative.

1968: Viet Nam war, Civil Rights for Afro-Americans, and the resultant social unrest.

1976: Watergate

1980: The economy

1992: The economy

2000: Sex scandal

2008: The economy and the Iraqi war.

The majority of Americans oppose closing Gitmo:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/w...2009-06-01-gitmo_N.htm

More Americans are pro-life than pro-choice now:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118...Choice-First-Time.aspx

Most Americans oppose bailing out the auto companies:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/03/auto.poll/

Need more proof that America is a center-right nation?

They had a choice last election: a true Democrat (Obama) or a Democrat-Lite (McCain). They didn't have a true "conservative" candidate.

Most Americans want universal healthcare

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03...ington/01cnd-poll.html

In fact, most americans want to expand medicare to everyone:

http://marketplace.publicradio...medicare_for_everyone/


Most Americans were against Bush's attempt to privatize social security

http://www.retiredamericans.or...Details/i/1487/pid/473

However, almost 70% of those polled thought private accounts, which would lead to benefit cuts, were a "bad idea," according to The New York Times/CBS poll. Despite weeks of presidential campaigning on Mr. Bush's top domestic priority, a USA Today/CNN/Gallup revealed that support for the president on Social Security has actually dropped in three weeks from 43% to 35%.

Support for President Bush on Social Security has dropped from 43% to 35%

Why do you think Republicans couldn't cut shit when they were in power? Because Americans would have thrown them out of government even faster than they did.

Shit we are already looking at a ~55% upper tax bracket in the next 20 years to cover medicare for baby boomers, thats if all other government spending is flat, which we know wont be the case. People say they want universial healthcare and are willing to pay for the tax increases, until they actually have to pay for the tax increases.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Phokus
Most Americans want universal healthcare

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03...ington/01cnd-poll.html

In fact, most americans want to expand medicare to everyone:

http://marketplace.publicradio...medicare_for_everyone/


Most Americans were against Bush's attempt to privatize social security

http://www.retiredamericans.or...Details/i/1487/pid/473

However, almost 70% of those polled thought private accounts, which would lead to benefit cuts, were a "bad idea," according to The New York Times/CBS poll. Despite weeks of presidential campaigning on Mr. Bush's top domestic priority, a USA Today/CNN/Gallup revealed that support for the president on Social Security has actually dropped in three weeks from 43% to 35%.

Support for President Bush on Social Security has dropped from 43% to 35%

Vast majorities are in favor of freebies!?!? :Q Shocking!!
:roll:

Why do you think Republicans couldn't cut shit when they were in power? Because Americans would have thrown them out of government even faster than they did.

You don't eliminate programs by cutting them - you eliminate programs by asking people to pay for them! Is it any wonder that Dems like to run on platforms promising the moon to the masses, but just then pass the costs down to future generations? Likewise, the GOP offers tax cuts, but then never really cuts any spending, also passing costs into the future. That's why a balanced budget amendment is required.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Is it any wonder that Dems like to run on platforms promising the moon to the masses, but just then pass the costs down to future generations?

Uh, you confused the Democrats and the Republicans. You might think the Democrats spend too much, but they leave far less debt than Republicans.

With rare exceptional circumstances such as WWII and this current economic crisis where economists widely back the spending as needed - and not really any exceptions in between.

Likewise, the GOP offers tax cuts, but then never really cuts any spending, also passing costs into the future. That's why a balanced budget amendment is required.

Well, you got it half right.

Unfortunately, people who don't vote (much) show why the vote is so important - whether foreign detainees or future generations of taxpayers.

IMO, you are going to see a big political war started between young and old in coming years, where a party appeals to the young by attacking older 'spent and billed you' citizens.

Most likely, it'll be the Republicans who start it because they do so badly with younger voters usually, and it's a chance for them to improve there and oppose some of their favorite targets, Social Security and Medicare at their best chance to get those programs gutted in decades.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Is it any wonder that Dems like to run on platforms promising the moon to the masses, but just then pass the costs down to future generations?

Uh, you confused the Democrats and the Republicans. You might think the Democrats spend too much, but they leave far less debt than Republicans.

With rare exceptional circumstances such as WWII and this current economic crisis where economists widely back the spending as needed - and not really any exceptions in between.

Always the loyal party soldier, eh Craig? Of course, when GOP presidents were running up the debt, they usually had a Democratic Congress happy to go along. It's been nearly 40 years since a Democratically-controlled Congress passed a balanced budget, but since the Dems can never do wrong to hacks like you, you'll never admit that.

Likewise, the GOP offers tax cuts, but then never really cuts any spending, also passing costs into the future. That's why a balanced budget amendment is required.

Well, you got it half right.

Unfortunately, people who don't vote (much) show why the vote is so important - whether foreign detainees or future generations of taxpayers.

IMO, you are going to see a big political war started between young and old in coming years, where a party appeals to the young by attacking older 'spent and billed you' citizens.

Most likely, it'll be the Republicans who start it because they do so badly with younger voters usually, and it's a chance for them to improve there and oppose some of their favorite targets, Social Security and Medicare at their best chance to get those programs gutted in decades.

And they should be gutted, at least until we can actually pay for them. You can't run huge deficits forever.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Your last question is clearly loaded and biased, as if Republicans are the only ones "stoking" the hot topics.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Mursilis
[Always the loyal party soldier, eh Craig?

No, always on the side of the truth.

Since the part of your post I read crosses the line on insulting, you won't be getting a detailed response, just a snarky note that you might try coming to this side.

We'll see if you repeat the error and move to the 'just don't read' list, or if you get better.

 

[Pneumothorax]

Originally posted by: Mursilis
You don't eliminate programs by cutting them - you eliminate programs by asking people to pay for them! Is it any wonder that Dems like to run on platforms promising the moon to the masses, but just then pass the costs down to future generations? Likewise, the GOP offers tax cuts, but then never really cuts any spending, also passing costs into the future. That's why a balanced budget amendment is required.

That just might be the ticket, look how california voted a few weeks ago. If the congress/president just raised everybody's taxes to let's say 80% of their income to FULLY FUND all the social programs, we would see how quickly the pendulum swings back or hopefully the creation of viable alternative parties.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Mursilis
[Always the loyal party soldier, eh Craig?

No, always on the side of the truth.

Since the part of your post I read crosses the line on insulting, you won't be getting a detailed response, just a snarky note that you might try coming to this side.

We'll see if you repeat the error and move to the 'just don't read' list, or if you get better.

Oh, the tragedy of not meeting the standards of someone so in love with him/herself that you use your own quote in your sig file.
:roll:

Socrates said "I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance", but you're clearly beyond that old fool, aren't you? You've already discovered truth in all its glory, but retain the humility to descend among the peons to bless us with your presence, as long as we're well-behaved, of course. Go ahead, move me to your 'just don't read' list - I'm sure I'm not worthy. How dare anyone question Craig234!

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Mursilis
[Always the loyal party soldier, eh Craig?

No, always on the side of the truth.

Since the part of your post I read crosses the line on insulting, you won't be getting a detailed response, just a snarky note that you might try coming to this side.

We'll see if you repeat the error and move to the 'just don't read' list, or if you get better.

Oh, the tragedy of not meeting the standards of someone so in love with him/herself that you use your own quote in your sig file.
:roll:

Socrates said "I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance", but you're clearly beyond that old fool, aren't you? You've already discovered truth in all its glory, but retain the humility to descend among the peons to bless us with your presence, as long as we're well-behaved, of course. Go ahead, move me to your 'just don't read' list - I'm sure I'm not worthy. How dare anyone question Craig234!

:laugh:

I hope I'm on his "do not read" list. In fact, I hope he puts almost everyone on his do not read list. That way he wouldn't respond as much, and we'd all be better off. I mean, if I wanted to listen to someone ignore the facts and spout off all kinds of stereotypical leftist philosophies, I'd turn on MSNBC or read the NYTimes.

Hmm...now that I think of it, maybe that's Craig's agenda...that way, MSNBC and the NYTimes would have their audience double from one to two!

:Q

Shucks, I almost fell for it!

Craig234 > Socrates

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Your last question is clearly loaded and biased, as if Republicans are the only ones "stoking" the hot topics.

I added the question because:
1. Homosexual rights was a driver in both the 1994 midterm and 2004 presidential elections.

2. School prayer, evolution, abortion, sex education, etc are important issues with a key part of the GOP base.

The GOP, or part of the GOP base, thinks that the US is a right central country and that these issues are inportant.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Socrates said "I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance"

You prove the adage about 'a little knowledge is dangerous' - you know enough to quote Socrates, but not enough not to miss his point.

You're like the Philistines who knew enough to quote the books, but not enough not to mistake the point.

For the record, I agree with Socrates' point and have made the same point myself here about my own ignorance, which is huge - just far less than yours.

Which, in a very large irony, makes *you* the one fulfilling your own Socrates quote, not realizing your own ignorance.

I won't push the epistemological theory to the point Socrates did, as I think I do know some other things, and this 'political forum' would be quite different and arguably useless if it actually did rely on the assumption Socrates stated ('I can't say I'm actually against Hitler because who knows if he even existed or what he really did'), but the nuance of drawing that line is wasted on you.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
I hope I'm on his "do not read" list.

Sorry, my rule has been if you have nothing to offer AND are incivil, and so far you only meet the first of those conditions.

But on the other hand, I've long also said that it seems to me that it makes sense as a matter of courtesy not to butt in to a conversation the board forces to be public, and so I offer anyone the courtesy to not respond to their posts, if they simply agree upon my request that they not respond to mine. Ask and you shall receive that (send PM).

 

[ProfJohn]

On topic...

The Republicans win it all back when they learn Obama and the Democrats are going to start taxing their currently untaxed health benefits. Another $250 billion a year to the government who will throw the money into their great black hole and declare that they need more to make their ideas 'work'