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.

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: 6056
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: 6056
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: 1412
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: 6056
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

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Nov 02, 2008 2:39 pm

Vince wrote:Greater civil rights are a far right issue. Civil rights legislation wins with Republican support, unlike Southern Democrats.

Civil Rights broke down along the Mason/Dixon line, not partisan lines. Lyndon Johnson was a liberal Democrat, not a conservative Republican. And more Democrats than Republicans voted for both the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the 1965 Voting Rights Act in both the House and the Senate. Furthermore, it is liberal Democrats who have always supported affirmative action, while conservative Republicans have always opposed it.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Cooter Brown » Sun Nov 02, 2008 5:58 pm

jazzcyclist wrote: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:


"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill
Cooter Brown
 
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Austin

Postby Vince » Sun Nov 02, 2008 6:13 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Vince wrote:Greater civil rights are a far right issue. Civil rights legislation wins with Republican support, unlike Southern Democrats.

Civil Rights broke down along the Mason/Dixon line, not partisan lines. Lyndon Johnson was a liberal Democrat, not a conservative Republican. And more Democrats than Republicans voted for both the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the 1965 Voting Rights Act in both the House and the Senate. Furthermore, it is liberal Democrats who have always supported affirmative action, while conservative Republicans have always opposed it.

That's only because there were more Democrats in both houses. By the way Affirmitive Action isn't a civil right. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.
Vince
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gm » Sun Nov 02, 2008 6:24 pm

Cooter Brown wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote: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:


"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill


I would certainly rather be stupid, than be a prick.
gm
 
Posts: 4555
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: "What's the pre-cooked weight on that lab?"

Postby tandfman » Sun Nov 02, 2008 6:25 pm

One could be both, you know. They're not mutually exclusive.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15041
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby rasb » Sun Nov 02, 2008 6:32 pm

Vince wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
Vince wrote:Greater civil rights are a far right issue. Civil rights legislation wins with Republican support, unlike Southern Democrats.

Civil Rights broke down along the Mason/Dixon line, not partisan lines. Lyndon Johnson was a liberal Democrat, not a conservative Republican. And more Democrats than Republicans voted for both the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the 1965 Voting Rights Act in both the House and the Senate. Furthermore, it is liberal Democrats who have always supported affirmative action, while conservative Republicans have always opposed it.

That's only because there were more Democrats in both houses. By the way Affirmitive Action isn't a civil right. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.


Vince buddy,
Are you trying to state that the fact Abe. was a Republican has any relevance to 2008 politics?
rasb
 
Posts: 2008
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:48 pm
Location: South of the 49th

Postby Vince » Sun Nov 02, 2008 6:40 pm

rasb wrote:
Vince wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
Vince wrote:Greater civil rights are a far right issue. Civil rights legislation wins with Republican support, unlike Southern Democrats.

Civil Rights broke down along the Mason/Dixon line, not partisan lines. Lyndon Johnson was a liberal Democrat, not a conservative Republican. And more Democrats than Republicans voted for both the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the 1965 Voting Rights Act in both the House and the Senate. Furthermore, it is liberal Democrats who have always supported affirmative action, while conservative Republicans have always opposed it.

That's only because there were more Democrats in both houses. By the way Affirmitive Action isn't a civil right. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.


Vince buddy,
Are you trying to state that the fact Abe. was a Republican has any relevance to 2008 politics?


Just pointing out hypocrisy. He has as much relevance as LBJ.
Vince
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Nov 02, 2008 6:43 pm

Vince wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Civil Rights broke down along the Mason/Dixon line, not partisan lines. Lyndon Johnson was a liberal Democrat, not a conservative Republican. And more Democrats than Republicans voted for both the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the 1965 Voting Rights Act in both the House and the Senate. Furthermore, it is liberal Democrats who have always supported affirmative action, while conservative Republicans have always opposed it.

That's only because there were more Democrats in both houses. By the way Affirmitive Action isn't a civil right. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.

I only brought up the Republican and Democrat voting patterns to refute your inference that civil rights were opposed by leftist. LBJ certainly couldn't have passed civil rights without the help of non-Southern Republicans, but to say that it was a "far right issue" is patently false, since Johnson did all the heavy lifting. With a few exceptions like Goldwater, all of the opposition came from Dixiecrats who were in the process of abandoning the Democratic party for the Republican party.

Whether you consider Affirmative Action to be a form of civil rights is irrelevant. The point is that it's a leftist ideology that has won out. My point is that the country has moved to the left over the last 50 years.

By the way, Lincoln had already been dead for a hundred years when all this was going on.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Vince » Sun Nov 02, 2008 7:03 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Vince wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Civil Rights broke down along the Mason/Dixon line, not partisan lines. Lyndon Johnson was a liberal Democrat, not a conservative Republican. And more Democrats than Republicans voted for both the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the 1965 Voting Rights Act in both the House and the Senate. Furthermore, it is liberal Democrats who have always supported affirmative action, while conservative Republicans have always opposed it.

That's only because there were more Democrats in both houses. By the way Affirmitive Action isn't a civil right. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.

I only brought up the Republican and Democrat voting patterns to refute your inference that civil rights were opposed by leftist. LBJ certainly couldn't have passed civil rights without the help of non-Southern Republicans, but to say that it was a "far right issue" is patently false, since Johnson did all the heavy lifting. With a few exceptions like Goldwater, all of the opposition came from Dixiecrats who were in the process of abandoning the Democratic party for the Republican party.

Whether you consider Affirmative Action to be a form of civil rights is irrelevant. The point is that it's a leftist ideology that has won out. My point is that the country has moved to the left over the last 50 years.

By the way, Lincoln had already been dead for a hundred years when all this was going on.

Yeah and LBJ has been dead for 35 yrs. and out of office for 40. Your insistence about the right being against civil rights are the only thing "patently false".
Vince
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Nov 02, 2008 7:19 pm

Vince wrote:Yeah and LBJ has been dead for 35 yrs. and out of office for 40. Your insistence about the right being against civil rights are the only thing "patently false".

I never said that the right was against it. I'm just rejecting your insistence that the left was against it. Neither side was against it. It was a bipartisan effort, but LBJ did the heavy lifting.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Vince » Sun Nov 02, 2008 7:32 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Vince wrote:Yeah and LBJ has been dead for 35 yrs. and out of office for 40. Your insistence about the right being against civil rights are the only thing "patently false".

I never said that the right was against it. I'm just rejecting your insistence that the left was against it. Neither side was against it. It was a bipartisan effort, but LBJ did the heavy lifting.


My insistence is that being pro-civil rights doesn't move you to the left. Defending rights guaranteed by the Constitution is a right wing ideology, and there are plenty of historical and modern examples of it.
Vince
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Nov 02, 2008 7:42 pm

Vince wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
Vince wrote:Yeah and LBJ has been dead for 35 yrs. and out of office for 40. Your insistence about the right being against civil rights are the only thing "patently false".

I never said that the right was against it. I'm just rejecting your insistence that the left was against it. Neither side was against it. It was a bipartisan effort, but LBJ did the heavy lifting.


My insistence is that being pro-civil rights doesn't move you to the left. Defending rights guaranteed by the Constitution is a right wing ideology, and there are plenty of historical and modern examples of it.

I get your point. You took exception to me lumping civil rights with women's rights, gay rights and abortion.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tandfman » Mon Nov 03, 2008 7:44 pm

Paul Krugman's view of the future of the Republican Party, assuming they lose the White House:

the G.O.P.’s long transformation into the party of the unreasonable right, a haven for racists and reactionaries, seems likely to accelerate as a result of the impending defeat.

This will pose a dilemma for moderate conservatives. Many of them spent the Bush years in denial, closing their eyes to the administration’s dishonesty and contempt for the rule of law. Some of them have tried to maintain that denial through this year’s election season, even as the McCain-Palin campaign’s tactics have grown ever uglier. But one of these days they’re going to have to realize that the G.O.P. has become the party of intolerance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/03/opini ... ugman.html
tandfman
 
Posts: 15041
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby bad hammy » Mon Nov 03, 2008 7:58 pm

tandfman wrote:Paul Krugman's view of the future of the Republican Party, assuming they lose the White House:

the G.O.P.’s long transformation into the party of the unreasonable right, a haven for racists and reactionaries, seems likely to accelerate as a result of the impending defeat.

This will pose a dilemma for moderate conservatives. Many of them spent the Bush years in denial, closing their eyes to the administration’s dishonesty and contempt for the rule of law. Some of them have tried to maintain that denial through this year’s election season, even as the McCain-Palin campaign’s tactics have grown ever uglier. But one of these days they’re going to have to realize that the G.O.P. has become the party of intolerance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/03/opini ... ugman.html

Sounds about right. It bypasses the fiscal mismanagment that the Reps have been known for since 1980 . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Previous

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest