The Future of the Republican Party


Normally open July 4th only---the one day a year when partisan politics, religion, etc. are acceptable topics on this Board (within reason). The forum is now closed.

Re: The Future of the Republican Party

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Oct 31, 2008 7:59 am

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:The Couric interview only revealed a dearth of knowledge and intellect, but said nothing about her political skills. Palin can't touch McCain when it comes to knowledge and preparedness for President, but McCain can't match Palin in the political arena.

I clearly sensed a lack of political awareness (not just ignorance) in her answers, as though she did not understand how they would be perceived. I'm sure she THOUGHT she did much better than she did. That seems to be her heroic flaw, she thinks she glib and 'together', but she's not.

The only time I got the impression that she was confident and actually thought her b.s. was creditable is when she touted Alaska's proximity to Russia as giving her foreign policy experience. The other times it seemed like she knew she was in over her head, but knew that she couldn't answer all the questions with, "I'll get back to you on that." When Charlie Gibson asked her about the Bush Doctrine, she looked like a deer caught in headlights. And when Couric asked her about the government bailout, she seemed like a nervous 12 year-old in a spelling bee.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Future of the Republican Party

Postby gh » Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:05 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Great political acumen doesn't necessarily require great knowledge or intellect and no one illustrates this better than Sarah Palin.

Who has ascribed great political acumen to Palin?!

To get so far with so little requires great political acumen, IMHO.


I think Palin is a very good politician. Question is, if Obama wins, who do the Republicans throw up against him in '12? With four years to hone her knowledge and become better known nationwide, is she a viable presidential candidate?

Are there a lot of disillusioned Hillary fans out there who wouldn't defect for a woman as VP candidate, but might for a Prez?
gh
 
Posts: 46295
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: The Future of the Republican Party

Postby Marlow » Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:09 am

gh wrote:Palin . . .is she a viable presidential candidate?

I think the more we know about her, the less likely she will be a viable candidate.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21076
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: The Future of the Republican Party

Postby racewalker » Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:56 am

gh wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Great political acumen doesn't necessarily require great knowledge or intellect and no one illustrates this better than Sarah Palin.

Who has ascribed great political acumen to Palin?!

To get so far with so little requires great political acumen, IMHO.


I think Palin is a very good politician. Question is, if Obama wins, who do the Republicans throw up against him in '12? With four years to hone her knowledge and become better known nationwide, is she a viable presidential candidate?

Are there a lot of disillusioned Hillary fans out there who wouldn't defect for a woman as VP candidate, but might for a Prez?


No, she won't be a good candidate:
1) You never get a second chance to make a first impression.
2) Her politics scale well to Alaska, but will be too extreme for the general populace. She was brought in to shore up the base, while McCain could go after the independents.

As to who the ReShrublicans might put up in 2012, it takes one of two forms:
1) If Obama is a poor president, they will go to a "standard" candidate. Someone who is for God and country and can point to a record that basically says "I told you that Obama was a loser and his politics/values would ruin the country." Think Ronnie Ray-gun vs. Carter.
2) If Obama is a good president, they will put up a sacrifical lamb a la Bob Dole and put more energy into winning back the Congressional seats it looks like they will lose. However, it also means that they will start grooming someone for 2016 along the Obama lines - younger, articulate and positive, but with conservative values.
racewalker
 
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: The Future of the Republican Party

Postby Conor Dary » Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:57 am

gh wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Great political acumen doesn't necessarily require great knowledge or intellect and no one illustrates this better than Sarah Palin.

Who has ascribed great political acumen to Palin?!

To get so far with so little requires great political acumen, IMHO.


I think Palin is a very good politician. Question is, if Obama wins, who do the Republicans throw up against him in '12? With four years to hone her knowledge and become better known nationwide, is she a viable presidential candidate?

Are there a lot of disillusioned Hillary fans out there who wouldn't defect for a woman as VP candidate, but might for a Prez?


Come on, gh, the gal is 44 years old has no curiosity in anything except herself. Doesn't read anything. Never had a passport until last year. Is a creationist. Doesn't believe humans have anything to do with global warming. Lies about everything, even trivial things. You think she is going to change much in that time?

Women are going like the idea of her as president rather than VP? Those disillusioned Hillary fans will want Palin even less as a Presidential candidate.

Right now according the polls Palin is a bigger drag on McCain than even Bush is.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/31/us/po ... ref=slogin

"The increase in the number of voters who said Ms. Palin was not prepared was driven almost entirely by Republicans and independents."

Having this wingnut a heartbeat away from the presidency is rightfully scary. So you're saying in 4 years people are going to forget and support Palin? Right.

Palin is the future of the GOP the same way Michael Foot was the future of Labour in Britain. A complete losing operation.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: The Future of the Republican Party

Postby Flumpy » Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:17 am

eldrick wrote:
Flumpy wrote:Berlusconi isn't a 'sophisticate' or have a 'huge knowledge of history, economics, foreign affairs, etc,'


you don't become italy's one time richest man by being a dumbf*ck

as for politics, he had to endure a system which threw up machiavelli !

the guy knows more about politics than 1/2 the world leaders combined !


Never accused him of being a 'dumb f*ck' as you so crudely put it (Sounds like something Berlosconi might say actually). Knowing a lot about politics is hardlt the same as being a 'sophisticate'.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Future of the Republican Party

Postby bad hammy » Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:24 am

Marlow wrote:
gh wrote:Palin . . .is she a viable presidential candidate?

I think the more we know about her, the less likely she will be a viable candidate.

Palin is the Joe the Plumber of politicians: plucked from obscurity by John McCain and shown to be terribly unprepared for life in the big lights. If she were smart she would leverage this election into a high-paying job hosting a poli talk show on Fox News.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Future of the Republican Party

Postby eldrick » Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:53 am

Flumpy wrote:
eldrick wrote:
Flumpy wrote:Berlusconi isn't a 'sophisticate' or have a 'huge knowledge of history, economics, foreign affairs, etc,'


you don't become italy's one time richest man by being a dumbf*ck

as for politics, he had to endure a system which threw up machiavelli !

the guy knows more about politics than 1/2 the world leaders combined !


Never accused him of being a 'dumb f*ck' as you so crudely put it (Sounds like something Berlosconi might say actually). Knowing a lot about politics is hardlt the same as being a 'sophisticate'.


obviously you personally know him to tell us how "sophisticated" he is...

i'll go with the observation he took a law degree before even starting his legendary business career , had the political nuance to 3 times win the italian prime-ministership & off course tv interviews - jose napoles nickname comes to mind - mantequilla
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Re: The Future of the Republican Party

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:11 am

eldrick wrote:
Flumpy wrote:Never accused him of being a 'dumb f*ck' as you so crudely put it (Sounds like something Berlosconi might say actually). Knowing a lot about politics is hardlt the same as being a 'sophisticate'.


obviously you personally know him to tell us how "sophisticated" he is...

i'll go with the observation he took a law degree before even starting his legendary business career , had the political nuance to 3 times win the italian prime-ministership & off course tv interviews - jose napoles nickname comes to mind - mantequilla

I should remind you that Bush has an MBA from Harvard and was elected Governor twice and (s)elected President twice.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:27 am

wiki quotes him as saying he was an "average" student at yale - getting into any ivy league college & excelling are 2 very different propositions ( i got into one equivalent in britain but was very poor student ) - besides his pa was also yale graduate & a member of house of representatives when W applied for colleges - i'd bet good money his father being an alumnus & congressman helped a lot with his application

as for his political career - i'd suggest most of all of it was due to name recognition of his father rather than any political acumen
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Oct 31, 2008 12:08 pm

eldrick wrote:wiki quotes him as saying he was an "average" student at yale - getting into any ivy league college & excelling are 2 very different propositions ( i got into one equivalent in britain but was very poor student ) - besides his pa was also yale graduate & a member of house of representatives when W applied for colleges - i'd bet good money his father being an alumnus & congressman helped a lot with his application

as for his political career - i'd suggest most of all of it was due to name recognition of his father rather than any political acumen

If you're saying that he owes all of his major life accomplishments to his father and grandfather, I agree.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:35 pm

Former Secretary of State Larry Eagleburger and McCain supporterweighs in on Palin. With friends like these, who needs enemies. It funny how some the worst damage done to McCain and Obama, has been done by their own supporters.

McCain
Larry Eagleburger
Phil Gramm
Michele Bachmann
John Hagee

Obama
Joe Biden
John Murtha
jeremiah Wright
Michael Pfleger
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tandfman » Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:21 pm

tandfman
 
Posts: 15041
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: The Future of the Republican Party

Postby cullman » Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:30 pm

Marlow wrote:
gh wrote:Palin . . .is she a viable presidential candidate?

I think the more we know about her, the less likely she will be a viable candidate.

From musician Tom Russell's blog:

>> Alaska? Governor? Credibility? Cool place, but they'd elect Old Dan Tucker governor, because "he washed his face in a fryin' pan."<<

http://russelltom.blogspot.com/2008/09/ ... oment.html

cman :lol:
cullman
 
Posts: 2065
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: ...in training...for something...

Postby gm » Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:34 pm

It's amazing how well some of you personally know Palin. I am impressed. It's probably because Democrats are much, much more intelligent.
gm
 
Posts: 4555
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: "What's the pre-cooked weight on that lab?"

Postby rasb » Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:46 pm

gm wrote:It's amazing how well some of you personally know Palin. I am impressed. It's probably because Democrats are much, much more intelligent.


Not a Democrat, not a Republican, not a USAnian, and I don't know Sarah personally, so I have no dawgs in this race. However, I have listened to many of her public offerings, and she strikes me as one who believes she is right, even when she doesn't have a clue what she is talking about. Somewhat scary for a VP of the USA, imho.
rasb
 
Posts: 2008
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:48 pm
Location: South of the 49th

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:52 pm

gm wrote:It's amazing how well some of you personally know Palin. I am impressed. It's probably because Democrats are much, much more intelligent.

It's funny that you should mention that. In the last two elections, do you know how a person's education level corresponded to their voting preferences? I think you already know the answer, but I'll let you find out for yourself. :wink:
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gm » Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:52 pm

rasb wrote:
gm wrote:It's amazing how well some of you personally know Palin. I am impressed. It's probably because Democrats are much, much more intelligent.


Not a Democrat, not a Republican, not a USAnian, and I don't know Sarah personally, so I have no dawgs in this race. However, I have listened to many of her public offerings, and she strikes me as one who believes she is right, even when she doesn't have a clue what she is talking about. Somewhat scary for a VP of the USA, imho.


Well, Biden's incipient senility does scare me, so I can see your point.
gm
 
Posts: 4555
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: "What's the pre-cooked weight on that lab?"

Postby mojo » Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:56 pm

Palin can read a telepromter, look good in suit and produce lots of kids.

Her strident know it all attitude fades pretty quickly when she actually has to think on her own.

She can't even name a newspaper-heck she doesn't have to have actually read it, no one would know otherwise. :roll: :roll:


Give her a talk show on FOX (I don't get that channel any more! :D )
mojo
 
Posts: 5519
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: at the finish line freezing my butt off

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:58 pm

gm wrote:Well, Biden's incipient senility does scare me, so I can see your point.

Now be honest. Would you really feel more comfortable with Palin as commander-in-chief than Biden?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Daisy » Fri Oct 31, 2008 6:07 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
gm wrote:Well, Biden's incipient senility does scare me, so I can see your point.

Now be honest. Would you really feel more comfortable with Palin as commander-in-chief than Biden?


GM, do you agree that support of Palin for 2012 should be the new litmus test for a real republican? Or would you feel more comfortable with other candidates and hope she finds a TV job?
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby rasb » Fri Oct 31, 2008 6:23 pm

gm (with full respect for your positions and opinions), :)
When you talk about "incipient senility", you must be aware that there will be those who will vote against McCain for that very reason, especially with VP Palin waiting in the wings.
rasb
 
Posts: 2008
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:48 pm
Location: South of the 49th

Postby gm » Fri Oct 31, 2008 7:36 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
gm wrote:Well, Biden's incipient senility does scare me, so I can see your point.

Now be honest. Would you really feel more comfortable with Palin as commander-in-chief than Biden?


100%
gm
 
Posts: 4555
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: "What's the pre-cooked weight on that lab?"

Postby gm » Fri Oct 31, 2008 7:38 pm

Daisy wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
gm wrote:Well, Biden's incipient senility does scare me, so I can see your point.

Now be honest. Would you really feel more comfortable with Palin as commander-in-chief than Biden?


GM, do you agree that support of Palin for 2012 should be the new litmus test for a real republican? Or would you feel more comfortable with other candidates and hope she finds a TV job?


I don't have much to say about how the R's choose their candidate. The last R I voted for in a presidential election was Reagan.
gm
 
Posts: 4555
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: "What's the pre-cooked weight on that lab?"

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Oct 31, 2008 7:59 pm

gm wrote:I don't have much to say about how the R's choose their candidate. The last R I voted for in a presidential election was Reagan.

Have you voted in Presidential elections since 1984?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gm » Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:03 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
gm wrote:I don't have much to say about how the R's choose their candidate. The last R I voted for in a presidential election was Reagan.

Have you voted in Presidential elections since 1984?


All five of 'em
gm
 
Posts: 4555
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: "What's the pre-cooked weight on that lab?"

Postby eldrick » Sat Nov 01, 2008 1:03 am

gm wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
gm wrote:Well, Biden's incipient senility does scare me, so I can see your point.

Now be honest. Would you really feel more comfortable with Palin as commander-in-chief than Biden?


100%


i've had girlfriends far brighter than palin ( judged on strength of her interviews ) & they weren't capable of running a hot dog cart...
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Re: The Future of the Republican Party

Postby gh » Sat Nov 01, 2008 7:04 am

racewalker wrote:
gh wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Great political acumen doesn't necessarily require great knowledge or intellect and no one illustrates this better than Sarah Palin.

Who has ascribed great political acumen to Palin?!

To get so far with so little requires great political acumen, IMHO.


I think Palin is a very good politician. Question is, if Obama wins, who do the Republicans throw up against him in '12? With four years to hone her knowledge and become better known nationwide, is she a viable presidential candidate?

Are there a lot of disillusioned Hillary fans out there who wouldn't defect for a woman as VP candidate, but might for a Prez?


No, she won't be a good candidate:
1) You never get a second chance to make a first impression.
2) Her politics scale well to Alaska, but will be too extreme for the general populace. She was brought in to shore up the base, while McCain could go after the independents.

As to who the ReShrublicans might put up in 2012, it takes one of two forms:
1) If Obama is a poor president, they will go to a "standard" candidate. Someone who is for God and country and can point to a record that basically says "I told you that Obama was a loser and his politics/values would ruin the country." Think Ronnie Ray-gun vs. Carter.
2) If Obama is a good president, they will put up a sacrifical lamb a la Bob Dole and put more energy into winning back the Congressional seats it looks like they will lose. However, it also means that they will start grooming someone for 2016 along the Obama lines - younger, articulate and positive, but with conservative values.


Her people say she's not going away

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/oct/31 ... ons-radar/
gh
 
Posts: 46295
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: The Future of the Republican Party

Postby bad hammy » Sat Nov 01, 2008 7:19 am

gh wrote:Her people say she's not going away

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/oct/31 ... ons-radar/

Basically the right-wing of the Republican party gets to say whether she goes away or not on the national political scene. If she is the best they have then go for it, because it means that they are doomed.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tandfman » Sat Nov 01, 2008 7:24 am

gh wrote:Her people say she's not going away

But of course, what do you expect them to say, "Hey, this is great. If she wins she's a hearbeat away from the Presidency, and if she loses, she can always slink back into the political obscurity whence she came"?
tandfman
 
Posts: 15041
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Nov 01, 2008 7:36 am

If Obama wins, then I think that in 2012, you'll see Democrats launch their own "Operation Chaos" a la Rush Limbaugh, by participating in the Republican primaries to help Palin get the nomination.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby dukehjsteve » Sat Nov 01, 2008 8:44 am

If and when McCain loses, Sarah is much deader meat than Dan Quayle was after the 1992 election. North to Alaska, Sarah !
dukehjsteve
 
Posts: 6054
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Fishers, IN

Re: The Future of the Republican Party

Postby dukehjsteve » Sat Nov 01, 2008 8:48 am

bad hammy wrote:
gh wrote:Her people say she's not going away

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/oct/31 ... ons-radar/

Basically the right-wing of the Republican party gets to say whether she goes away or not on the national political scene. If she is the best they have then go for it, because it means that they are doomed.


How many millions of ex-Republicans are there, just like myself ?! I did not leave the Republican Party; they left me.
dukehjsteve
 
Posts: 6054
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Fishers, IN

GOP Future

Postby bijanc » Sat Nov 01, 2008 8:49 am

They'll run Huckabee-Jindal vs. Obama in 2012. Not sacrificial lambs, but base appeal.
bijanc
 
Posts: 1411
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:30 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
Mennisco wrote:Elizabeth Dole is quite the lady, it seems:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/29 ... odless-ad/

Tacky, vicious, crude, irrelevant. Maybe she's the Antichrist. [Marlow, don't even think of it. :lol: ]

That has to be the most dishonest ad I've ever seen. Campbell Brown summed it up perfectly.

Elizabeth Dole doubles down on the God card. :( Dole is no doubt trying to live up to the legacy of her predecessor, Jesse Helms. I'll be glad when these dinosaurs are all gone.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby dukehjsteve » Sun Nov 02, 2008 6:49 am

I thought I would never see the day that I would dog a fellow Dukester, but Ms. Dole has got to go. Idiot.
dukehjsteve
 
Posts: 6054
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Fishers, IN

Postby Flumpy » Sun Nov 02, 2008 11:26 am

Why would she do this. considering how badly the first one was recieved why would you release a 2nd???
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Daisy » Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:50 pm

Flumpy wrote:Why would she do this. considering how badly the first one was recieved why would you release a 2nd???


She must be desperate and hopes most of her voters do not follow the news. She may well be right?
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Vince » Sun Nov 02, 2008 1:38 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Per Andersen wrote:In America there is always very little room on the left and the Dems can never move far from the center if they hope for more than 4 years.
As we have seen there is lots of room on the right.

That may be true, but it's only because the country has moved further to left over the last 40-50 years, which has had the effect of shrinking the amount of room on the left. Look at how far we've come on issues like civil rights, women's rights, gay rights and abortion. It's similar to an offense finding it harder to score once it gets inside the 20-yard line in a football game, because the defense no longer has as much ground to defend.


Greater civil rights are a far right issue. Civil rights legislation wins with Republican support, unlike Southern Democrats.
Vince
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby bad hammy » Sun Nov 02, 2008 1:55 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:That may be true, but it's only because the country has moved further to left over the last 40-50 years, which has had the effect of shrinking the amount of room on the left.

Others would argue we have been moving to the right, at least for the last 30 years:

Yet for partisans, it is the threat or hope of ideological change that matters most. The mood among conservatives has grown darker each day. Not only McCain but much of the conservative intellectual elite warn of an impending turn to European-style socialism at home and appeasement abroad, especially if Democrats seize a monopoly in Washington.

Historians call the fears exaggerated, a reflection of the country's 30-year rightward shift. On many issues, Obama is to the right of Nixon, the Republican who proposed a guaranteed income for all Americans, supported affirmative action, imposed wage and price controls, and established much of today's environmental regulation.

"A conservative in 1968 was far more liberal than a liberal is in 2008," said (Boston University historian Bruce) Schulman.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 13RUA5.DTL
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest