• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cracking Up--The power struggle in the New Republican Party

wastepanel

Muse
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
572
I believe that the Republican Party may be showing some major cracks in its armor. Unfortunately for them, it is coming at a very difficult time and can easily lead to a power demise shortly.

Many Republican Senators and Representatives have been distancing themselves from George Bush. This is being done for a few reasons. Due to Bush's low approval ratings, many GOPers are afraid that the unhappiness will be transferred to themselves. Others have gone so far as to proclaim George W. Bush as not being a "conservative", and that the real party power lies in haveing "conservative" leadership. Finally, a lack of action and responsibility on all issues seems to purvey through the party at just the wrong time (a month before the mid-term elections).

Current approval ratings for GWB are around 40% (give or take). During the rougher times, they slipped to as low as 30%. When this happened, many Republicans that had managed to sit on the GWB policy fence bolted to the other side. McCain has become enemy of Limbaugh, and many Repulbicans began speaking out against the President.

During this time, the Republican Party began a policy change. GWB no longer appealed to the conservative base of the Republican Party despite a veto of stem cell research, an amendment for flag burning, and practically promising that he would fill the Supreme Court with Justices that would make abortions illegal.

Pat Robertson made a call that Republicans were using religion as a marching point, and didn't respect its followers (hello, pot?). This was an easy attempt to steal conservative votes. There are many observers that are saying losing the midterms may be better for the Republicans overall as the leadership may listen to the people.

The Republican Party is tumbling. Its base is split. It has controlled the legislative and executive branch of the government for nearly 7 years, and does not have much to show for it. They argued that the nation is constantly under attack from Middle Eastern threats, yet it ignored North Korea (probably due to its location) and wanted to sell port security to a middle eastern company. They held that 9/11 was no fault of theirs, and that the Democrats were ultimately responsible.

The Republicans are saying that the polls are faulty, and reminding us that they were supposed to lose in 2002 also. I'll give them that. I don't know. I do, however, remember 2002. The Republican base was cohesive, and battle cries of "Protect America" rang throughout their ads. I don't see that now.

I'm predicting that the Republicans lose the House, retain the Senate by 1-2 seats, and John McCain is the Republican nomination in 2008. The "conservative" base is split enough that party leadership will work its way to the middle.

Maybe I'll finally have a party again...

What are your thoughts? Is the political pendulum swinging back to the middle again? If it is, does that mean that the Democrats will put Hilary up in 2008?
 
Many Republican Senators and Representatives have been distancing themselves from George Bush.

McCain has become enemy of Limbaugh, and many Repulbicans began speaking out against the President.
I'll take John McCain over Rush Limbaugh any day, thanks.
During this time, the Republican Party began a policy change. GWB no longer appealed to the conservative base of the Republican Party despite a veto of stem cell research, an amendment for flag burning, and practically promising that he would fill the Supreme Court with Justices that would make abortions illegal.

I'm predicting that the Republicans lose the House, retain the Senate by 1-2 seats, and John McCain is the Republican nomination in 2008. The "conservative" base is split enough that party leadership will work its way to the middle.

What are your thoughts? Is the political pendulum swinging back to the middle again? If it is, does that mean that the Democrats will put Hilary up in 2008?
Pat Robertson is a corrupt piece of garbage.

As to the House, Ron Paul has nothing to worry about, he's been singing the same song for some years now.

By the way, wastemeister, your assertion that BushCo ingored Korea is complete crap. Different problem, different region, different regional powers, different approach. Clinton also approached Korea differently from the Mid East. Quelle suprise. He shot cruise missiles as Saddam, Sudan, and Afghanistan, but not at North Korea.

DR
 
Last edited:
I'll take John McCain over Rush Limbaugh any day, thanks.

Pat Robertson is a corrupt piece of garbage.

As to the House, Ron Paul has nothing to worry about, he's been singing the same song for some years now.

By the way, wastemeister, your assertion that BushCo ingored Korea is complete crap. Different problem, different region, different regional powers, different approach. Clinton also approached Korea differently from the Mid East. Quelle suprise. He shot cruise missiles as Saddam, Sudan, and Afghanistan, but not at North Korea.

DR
And there's poor little NK desperately wanting some decent missles and nukes and we won't drop them some.:D
 
And there's poor little NK desperately wanting some decent missles and nukes and we won't drop them some.:D
Sometimes, one wonders if the folks in DC aren't just a gaggle of greedy bastidges. :D A few glowing green raindrops, and it's Merry Christmas, Pyongyang!

How miserly that they hold back ! The cads!

DR
 
I'll take John McCain over Rush Limbaugh any day, thanks.

Pat Robertson is a corrupt piece of garbage.

As to the House, Ron Paul has nothing to worry about, he's been singing the same song for some years now.

By the way, wastemeister, your assertion that BushCo ingored Korea is complete crap. Different problem, different region, different regional powers, different approach. Clinton also approached Korea differently from the Mid East. Quelle suprise. He shot cruise missiles as Saddam, Sudan, and Afghanistan, but not at North Korea.

DR[\QUOTE]

A bit touchy?

I threw it out there because I thought it was interesting.

I bring up North Korea because GWB listed them in the Axis of Evil many years ago. Let's visit the North Korea argument since that is what you want to discuss.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1908571.stm

This article is from 2002.

The US Government has announced that it will release $95m to North Korea as part of an agreement to replace the Stalinist country's own nuclear programme, which the US suspected was being misused.
Under the 1994 Agreed Framework an international consortium is building two proliferation-proof nuclear reactors and providing fuel oil for North Korea while the reactors are being built.

In releasing the funding, President George W Bush waived the Framework's requirement that North Korea allow inspectors to ensure it has not hidden away any weapons-grade plutonium from the original reactors. [\QUOTE]

So, instead of reacting to the situation then, he let them out of the treaty and didn't follow up because Saddam was a bigger threat.
 
I bring up North Korea because GWB listed them in the Axis of Evil many years ago. Let's visit the North Korea argument since that is what you want to discuss.
.
Toiuchy? No, calling you on a line of BS that has been around long enoug to smell.

Is it your position that a rhetorical device -- Axis of Evil -- is a substitute for actual policy and regional strategy? If that is your position, please don't vote, you aren't smart enough to understand the issues at hand. If it isn't, why do you throw that nonsense up against the wall?

"Because Saddam was a bigger threat? " Bugger all for cause and effect. The Mid East problem was a different problem than the Asian problem, and was being solved simultaneously, not in series. The approach was unique to the region, all clumsy rhetoric aside, primarily due to an 800 pound gorilla called China, and a couple of smaller gorillas called South Korea and Japan.

FWIW: I thought the Axis of Evil speech was one of the dumbest public utterances I ever heard.

DR
 
Last edited:
During this time, the Republican Party began a policy change. GWB no longer appealed to the conservative base of the Republican Party despite a veto of stem cell research, an amendment for flag burning, and practically promising that he would fill the Supreme Court with Justices that would make abortions illegal.

Um, you may not have intended to write what you just wrote -- but I wouldn't have used the word "despite" in that context.

The "veto of stem cell research, " and so forth are part of why GWB is no longer appealing to the "conservative base of the Republican party." The veto on stem cell research (and the push to overturn Roe v. Wade) are not attempts to pander to the "conservative" base in any meaningful sense, but to pander to the religious base, the so-called "religious right." And part of the problem that the Bush administation is currently facing is because the social invasiveness that the RR demands doesn't sit well with either the conservative libertarians in the Republican party or the fiscal conservatives.

"Conservative" has always been a tricky word in US politics because it has so many meanings. But it's never meant "religious wing-nut" until relatively recently. And many of the old-time "conservatives" in the Republican party don't like the way that religion is being used and abused as a policy-making tool.
 
UBut it's never meant "religious wing-nut" until relatively recently. And many of the old-time "conservatives" in the Republican party don't like the way that religion is being used and abused as a policy-making tool.
How about since the mid 1980's, when abortion got forced into the fabric of political issues by the RR's. I am one such conservative who has been appalled by this development, this loyalty test, this deceit. I have been mad at the RR for turning a non issue into a political deal breaker, namely abortion, since it came up in the 80's as a banner around which to rally votes.

DR
 
I'll take John McCain over Rush Limbaugh any day, thanks.
Darth, here is my favorite pundit's take on McCain: The Rude Pundit. "Maverick" he is not. Neither is he principled. Oh, and just today he was quoted as saying if the Democrats take the Senate he'll kill himself. The very exemplar of detached, considered statesmanship. Take him? You can have him!
 
Darth, here is my favorite pundit's take on McCain: The Rude Pundit. "Maverick" he is not. Neither is he principled. Oh, and just today he was quoted as saying if the Democrats take the Senate he'll kill himself. The very exemplar of detached, considered statesmanship. Take him? You can have him!
Senators... bleecch!
Senators make the worst... presidential candidates... ever.
 
Darth, here is my favorite pundit's take on McCain: The Rude Pundit. "Maverick" he is not. Neither is he principled. Oh, and just today he was quoted as saying if the Democrats take the Senate he'll kill himself. The very exemplar of detached, considered statesmanship. Take him? You can have him!


So, if we vote in all Dems in the Senate and he kills himself can we be arrested for conspiracy to commit mayhem?
 
I believe that the Republican Party may be showing some major cracks in its armor. Unfortunately for them, it is coming at a very difficult time and can easily lead to a power demise shortly.

Many Republican Senators and Representatives have been distancing themselves from George Bush.
This is especially true in Ohio where Republicans are in full retreat.
Sensing danger, they urge voters not to lash out indiscriminately, despite unhappiness with President Bush, outgoing Republican Gov. Bob Taft and a steady diet of scandals.

"Some things have happened over the years that shouldn't have happened," State Auditor Betty Montgomery confessed to a Republican gathering in western Ohio recently. "But that isn't everybody's fault."
 
This is especially true in Ohio where Republicans are in full retreat.

Well, the idiots voted them in - maybe if they would constantly keep in mind what tends to occur when republicans are a majority they would halt the silliness of ever letting that happen again.

I would not personally (because of Selection 2000) ever vote for a Republican - but a few should be there to balance the over-the -top Dems (yes, I admit there are a few - greens and such).
 
Last edited:
Darth, here is my favorite pundit's take on McCain: The Rude Pundit. "Maverick" he is not. Neither is he principled. Oh, and just today he was quoted as saying if the Democrats take the Senate he'll kill himself. The very exemplar of detached, considered statesmanship. Take him? You can have him!
Note who I compared him with, Slippy. Rush Limbaugh. :p That's not a choice of anything but two less bad choices.

Keating Five for 50, Alex. :)

DR
 
This is especially true in Ohio where Republicans are in full retreat.

Nice article Tricky. Strangely, that's my state also.

DR...I assume you are Republican. Do you not see the same thing that I do in the Party seeing a split at the wrong time? Even if you find my logic "dumb", you asked that I don't vote. This is one of the arguments I've seen from some factions of Republicans. Others argue the exact opposite because not voting is the same as voting against (I'm Republican).
 
Nice article Tricky. Strangely, that's my state also.

DR...I assume you are Republican. Do you not see the same thing that I do in the Party seeing a split at the wrong time? Even if you find my logic "dumb", you asked that I don't vote. This is one of the arguments I've seen from some factions of Republicans. Others argue the exact opposite because not voting is the same as voting against (I'm Republican).
No, I am not a Republican, and I am a bit of a mongrel conservative with liberal streaks. (I am for decriminalizing pot. The war on drugs has done little good as waged) I understand the dilemma you bring up. There is no useful third party. I have never registered for either party, though I have tended to vote for Republicans more often than others over the past 26 years, due to my rabid anti Communist position and associated disdain for bleeding heart, American, elitist Socialists. I believe in Fair Trade, not "Free Trade" given what our own history shows as the costs of Laize Faire capitalism.

I might register as Libertarian if there was acutally a party of substance, rather than a whole cacophony of anarchic grousers.

I was already irritated at the hijacking of the Right wing by the RR by the late 1980's. It has only gotten worse, except now the Reps have gone fiscally irresponsible: "we'll have a war, and then cut taxes, we believe in a free lunch." This after 6 years of bipartisan and hard fought deficit reduction.

Kinky Friedman for Texas governonr, 2006: at least he's funny on purpose, the rest are laughable by accident.

DR
 
Ah, the Daily Double

I keep telling you, there are no $50 clues in Jeopardy ($200 is the minimum). And no, it doesn't scan better. It just identifies you as "old". But that's pretty obvious anyway.
;)

It scans better when said aloud, so I'll stick with my old school Jeopardy line, just as I still use blades to golf with.

And I drink my whiskey neat.

Old school.

DR
 
Others have gone so far as to proclaim George W. Bush as not being a "conservative", and that the real party power lies in haveing "conservative" leadership. Finally, a lack of action and responsibility on all issues seems to purvey through the party at just the wrong time (a month before the mid-term elections).
Did you see this Sixty Minutes story?
In his book, Kuo wrote that White House staffers would roll their eyes at evangelicals, calling them "nuts" and "goofy."

Asked if that was really the attitude, Kuo tells Stahl, "Oh, absolutely. You name the important Christian leader and I have heard them mocked by serious people in serious places."

Specifically, Kuo says people in the White House political affairs office referred to Pat Robertson as "insane," Jerry Falwell as "ridiculous," and that James Dobson "had to be controlled." And President Bush, he writes, talked about his compassion agenda, but never really fought for it.
Evangelicals must simply learn to forgive and forget.
 

Back
Top Bottom