Future of the GOP?

Tricky said:
The GOP needs to shake off the idea that Rush Limbaugh is their guiding light, but once they do that, they'll be okay. There is always an opening for "the party who is not in power" and the Repubs are there to fill that role. The Dem's won in 2008 by basically being "not Bush". A similiar strategy may work for the GOP if the economy continues to tank.
Click to expand...

(Bolding mine)


Rush already "resigned" as the guiding light of the GOP! :p

I am resigning as the titular head of the Republican Party. Clearly I am not the titular head of the Republican Party. It's not an office I sought. It was a position that was ladled on to me when I was appointed without my acquiescence. So the only thing I can do to remain true to myself and to you is to resign this position that I never had in the first place. But because so many people think I am the titular head of the Republican Party today, I quit.
Click to expand...


Personally, I would like to see Mike Huckabee step up as a leading figure in the Republican party...after all, he plays a mean guitar, and he has his own band! :cool:
 
OldTigerCub said:
Personally, I would like to see Mike Huckabee step up as a leading figure in the Republican party...after all, he plays a mean guitar, and he has his own band! :cool:
Click to expand...

Mike Huckabee has issues with gay people that are incompatible with current society. Unless he can reconcile some former extreme views he held on them, he'll be portrayed as a hayseed southern white christian.
 
Zogby Poll from 2007:

There are three main schools of thought regarding the 9-11 attacks. The first is the official story, and maintains that 19 Arab fundamentalists executed a surprise attack which caught US intelligence and military forces off guard. The second theory known as Let It Happen argues that certain elements in the US government knew the attacks were coming but consciously let them proceed for various political, military and economic motives; and the third theory Made It Happen contends that certain US government elements actively planned or assisted some aspects of the attacks. Based on your knowledge of 9/11 events and their aftermath, which theory are you more likely to agree with?
Click to expand...

Democrats:

Official Story: 51.4%
Let It Happen: 36.3%
Made It Happen: 6.3%
Not Sure: 6.0%

Now, I do have my problems with the poll (just as I have some concerns about the Kos poll), but I don't see how the question on Let It Happen could have been more specific.
 
JihadJane said:
How is that a "conspiracy theory"?
Click to expand...

A conspiracy theory is a theory (in the sense of an hypothesis) that explains a fact (Obama's birth) around the existence of a conspiracy (the Hawaii states/Obama/his family/some newspapers conspired to lie regarding his place of birth) instead of the mainstream explanation (he was born in Hawaii, here's his certificate, and here's newspaper clips proving it). So it fits pretty much.
 
Brainster said:
Zogby Poll from 2007:



Democrats:

Official Story: 51.4%
Let It Happen: 36.3%
Made It Happen: 6.3%
Not Sure: 6.0%

Now, I do have my problems with the poll (just as I have some concerns about the Kos poll), but I don't see how the question on Let It Happen could have been more specific.
Click to expand...

Have any elected democrats ever show sympathy toward truthers, or even claimed that their questions are legitimate?
 
gtc said:
Who have been the Democrat equivalents of Reagan and Newt and who will be there for them in 2012 or 2016 when Obama is no longer President?
Click to expand...

I would say that Bill Clinton was in many ways the Democratic analog to Reagan and Newt. His strategy of triangulation was basically the idea that one should adopt what is palatable in the other party's platform, and emphasize what you think would be palatable to the nation in your own. Seems commonsensical, but to you see the current GOP trying to adopt anything from the Democratic platform? I don't.

Clinton pushed a philosophy of fiscal responsibility, welfare reform, and free trade. Gee, that could have been a Republican platform. He peppered it with some Democratic social ideals like tolerance for homosexuals, rigorous social programs and a tolerant foreign policy, but those were either muted or unsuccessful.

I don't know yet whether Obama will be counted amongst the ranks of Democratic intellectuals, like Clinton and FDR. (I suspect he will, but would not put money on it at this point.) Only history will tell if a consistent philosophical framework emerges, and, as Tricky says, if the economy continues to tank, we might not get the chance to see a second term.

The GOP is going through a pretty basic process. First, it's cutting itself down to its crazy core. The Dems did the same thing after LBJ. Then it slowly builds itself up, probably in local elections, while the national party continues to flounder. Then it will make halting steps back to relevance.

For the Dems, the process from LBJ to the presidency took a quarter-century -- the Carter presidency was more a reaction to Watergate than an endorsement of Democrats, and the GOP bounced back quickly because it was strong enough at the time to survive even the near-impeachment of Richard Nixon. For the GOP of today, it might take a quarter-century. We might not see a truly viable candidate (barring the Dems' version of Watergate) until 2032!

Edit: As for who is on the Dems' horizon? Who knows? Obama is sucking all the intellectual ether for the Dems for now,and probably will as long as he's in office. The Presidency tends to have that effect.
 
ZouPrime said:
Have any elected democrats ever show sympathy toward truthers, or even claimed that their questions are legitimate?
Click to expand...
Not sure what the point of your question is, but Cynthia McKinney comes to mind.
 
Tricky said:
He can't resign, unless he decides to stop being a spokesman for the right, something I don't think he's about to do. As long as all Republicans fear drawing his ire, then he will be their leader, whether or not he accepts the mantle.
Click to expand...

Rahm hearts youuuuuu tricky.
 
The sign that Obama is in trouble--and, knows it--is his reversion to blaming Bush for the economy Obama "inherited" When in desperation mode and all else fails, rule #1 for politicians is to return to campaign mode and blame your predecessor for the woes of the country.
 
Marc39 said:
The sign that Obama is in trouble--and, knows it--is his reversion to blaming Bush for the economy Obama "inherited" When in desperation mode and all else fails, rule #1 for politicians is to return to campaign mode and blame your predecessor for the woes of the country.
Click to expand...

A sign that the GOP is in trouble is the fact that Republicans are saying things like this.
 
Marc39 said:
The sign that Obama is in trouble--and, knows it--is his reversion to blaming Bush for the economy Obama "inherited" When in desperation mode and all else fails, rule #1 for politicians is to return to campaign mode and blame your predecessor for the woes of the country.
Click to expand...

I haven't heard him doing this too much lately. If he does, it is a valid accusation, to a point. The trick will be to see how he can make the distinction between the problems resulting from the economy he inherited, versus the problems resulting (or continuing) due to his own actions or lack thereof.

So I think that accusation will be valid up to some point in time. I'm not certain what that point will be. A year perhaps?
 
Denver said:
I haven't heard him doing this too much lately. If he does, it is a valid accusation, to a point. The trick will be to see how he can make the distinction between the problems resulting from the economy he inherited, versus the problems resulting (or continuing) due to his own actions or lack thereof.

So I think that accusation will be valid up to some point in time. I'm not certain what that point will be. A year perhaps?
Click to expand...

Yeah, Obama is ramping up the anti-Bush rhetoric, again. I heard it at a rally yesterday or the day before. Always good for applause.
 
I think it's legitimate to remind that your presence in office will not magically improve the situation from how it was before you took office. After a while it gets old.
 
gnome said:
I think it's legitimate to remind that your presence in office will not magically improve the situation from how it was before you took office. After a while it gets old.
Click to expand...

That's not leadership.
 
Who are the leading personalities of the GOP right now?

Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Orly Taitz.

Until this changes...they are utterly screwed.

So, for the sake of the United States of America, lets keep it just the way it is.

:)
 
Tricky said:
He can't resign, unless he decides to stop being a spokesman for the right, something I don't think he's about to do. As long as all Republicans fear drawing his ire, then he will be their leader, whether or not he accepts the mantle.
Click to expand...

That's like saying Keith Olbermann is a spokesman for the DNC. Attempting to align Rush et al. with the GOP in any official capacity is a cynical political stunt that is based on desperation, not strength.
 
I find the GOP decline to be disturbing. It's not because I'm a member or even a fan of that faction. It's because I think it's unhealthy for a democracy to function as a one party state. There are plenty of valid criticisms that can and should be made of Obama's presidency, but unfortunately the best the opposition can do is cast doubt on his birthplace or attack his preferred choice of burger condiments.

Right now, the GOP should be regrouping, admitting their mistakes, and making a serious effort to provide an ideological counterweight to the party in power. But it seems they can't serve the American people well even as the minority faction. So much for the party of Lincoln.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom