Republican Civil War

[Midtowner]

This is a big day of reckoning for Republicans. The country is headed in a decidedly leftward direction. In the next two or three election cycles, assuming Republicans stay their current course, Texas will be a blue state and there will essentially be little hope of any sort of presidential or Senate victory for the foreseeable future. As Senator Todd Graham said, there just aren't enough angry white men.

So what happens? Do they continue to bow to the extremist Koch Brothers or do they go back to the days of Jack Kemp and Reagan? Moderates you could really support.. They need to figure it out or the Republican Party will go the way of the Whigs.

[okie52]

Pubs can certainly cave to the Hispanics like the dems. That's all it would take.

Of course, America would be screwed but that doesn't seem to matter.

[Midtowner]

I dunno... the pubs' base demands an anti-immigrant policy and I think for the foreseeable future, minority communities are going to be Democrat simply because the Republican brand has been so terrible with Hispanics. Lots of rehab to do in that area.

[okie52]

I dunno... the pubs' base demands an anti-immigrant policy and I think for the foreseeable future, minority communities are going to be Democrat simply because the Republican brand has been so terrible with Hispanics. Lots of rehab to do in that area.

Yep, being against illegal immigration has really given the pubs a black eye with Hispanics.

Remove that issue and pubs are much closer ideologically to Hispanics.

[Midtowner]

Yep, being against illegal immigration has really given the pubs a black eye with Hispanics.

Remove that issue and pubs are much closer ideologically to Hispanics.

Better hurry up. The damage the Republicans did to themselves by opposing the Voting Rights Act and accompanying legislation still gives the Democrats the black vote regardless of what the Democrats do policy-wise. It may already be too late to recover.

[cleller]

The Republicans have screwed themselves with all that Grover Norquist crap, and kowtowing to the anti abortion folks. There is no way they could ever court the illegal hispanic vote, too ideologically different. Hispanics want what the Dems offer, not the Repubs.

Its wrong the way our elections are being influence by the votes of illegals. Non-citizen votes in Texas are going to be a huge problem, like they are already in N Mex, Nev, Colo, and Florida.

[okie52]

Better hurry up. The damage the Republicans did to themselves by opposing the Voting Rights Act and accompanying legislation still gives the Democrats the black vote regardless of what the Democrats do policy-wise. It may already be too late to recover.

True, the Blacks will follow the dems blindly no matter how they are ignored by the dems.

There's always the vocal minority role for the pubs rather than selling out to Mexico....at least they could maintain some dignity rather than grovel like the dems.

But that, unfortunately, won't happen. There will be a Rubio or some hispanic candidate that will come along and make outrageous overtures to the Hispanic community for their vote and virtually open borders will be here to stay.

[delhalew]

Simply choosing a true Goldwater Conservative that realizes s ocial issues are none of his business, would have worked.

Remember that next time you want to vote for a social conservative in your primary.

[Breadburner]

Most lazy folks like free ****...Thats what O and dims have to offer....

[okie52]

Simply choosing a true Goldwater Conservative that realizes s ocial issues are none of his business, would have worked.

Remember that next time you want to vote for a social conservative in your primary.

You think social issues beat the Pubs? Well, if you call illegal immigration a social issue then you would be right.

[badger]

The Republicans need another Contract with America. I was still in elementary school back then, but it seemed to me back then that Republicans feared that they lost their majorities for good with a (semi?) popular President Clinton and a Democratic majority Congress. As such, they needed a solid plan to get voters back on their side.

If Republicans once again fear that they are a grand ole party of the past, they need to connect with today's voters more!

[jkjsooner]

Pubs can certainly cave to the Hispanics like the dems. That's all it would take.

Of course, America would be screwed but that doesn't seem to matter.

The Republicans in power love our immigration policy. They love bringing over good cheap labor. Unfortunately for them, that cheap labor tends to have children who are US citizens. But they don't care because they care about their short term profit margin.

[delhalew]

You think social issues beat the Pubs? Well, if you call illegal immigration a social issue then you would be right.

No. Abortion. Marriage. Big bad marijuana. Those are social issues. It makes younger independents feel like republicans live in an pisode of Leave it to Beaver, even though they've never seen that show.

[hawaii 5-0]

I did notice that several Tea Partiers lost yesterday.

Seems to be a trend.


5-0

[badger]

I did notice that several Tea Partiers lost yesterday.

Seems to be a trend.


5-0

Yeah, it's like a gimmick offense in football -- the defenses eventually adjust and it's no longer super effective. Otherwise, we'd all be running Mike Leach's ninja formation while Texas A&M goes WTF all over again like it's 1999. :rcmad:

[okie52]

The Republicans in power love our immigration policy. They love bringing over good cheap labor. Unfortunately for them, that cheap labor tends to have children who are US citizens. But they don't care because they care about their short term profit margin.

You are absolutely correct. Organizations like the US chamber of commerce and local chambers (with many business pubs support) have supported illegal immigration for a long time. And you have Pubs like W, Jeb Bush, McCain, etc...that have wither turned a blind eye to illegal immigration or supported amnesty.

[okie52]

No. Abortion. Marriage. Big bad marijuana. Those are social issues. It makes younger independents feel like republicans live in an pisode of Leave it to Beaver, even though they've never seen that show.

But abortion, Marijuana, gay marriage didn't lose them this election. Hell, Obama was the one cracking down on marijuana parlors in California...much worse about it than W. Obama only recently "evolved" to embrace gay marriage. Abortion has been an issue that cuts 50/50. I'm fine with all of those issues being passed. The Hispanic vote is doing in the pubs and it will continue to do so until the Pubs grovel for their vote like the dems. It's really that simple.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Yeah, it's like a gimmick offense in football -- the defenses eventually adjust and it's no longer super effective. Otherwise, we'd all be running Mike Leach's ninja formation while Texas A&M goes WTF all over again like it's 1999. :rcmad:

The Tea Party's been hijacked from what it originally was. It was a movement of fiscal conservatives who were concerned about the burgeoning deficits. When that was the movement, the Reps swept the 2010 elections. Then these idiots like Akin and Mourdock took up the TP flag and it's no longer what it was intended to be.

[sappstuf]

But abortion, Marijuana, gay marriage didn't lose them this election. Hell, Obama was the one cracking down on marijuana parlors in California...much worse about it than W. Obama only recently "evolved" to embrace gay marriage. Abortion has been an issue that cuts 50/50. I'm fine with all of those issues being passed. The Hispanic vote is doing in the pubs and it will continue to do so until the Pubs grovel for their vote like the dems. It's really that simple.

Yep.

Edit: Enter stage right: Marco Rubio..

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Pubs can certainly cave to the Hispanics like the dems. That's all it would take.

Of course, America would be screwed but that doesn't seem to matter.


Okie, for you there seems to be no middle ground between the Sheriff Joe crowd and the UC Berkeley La Raza crowd. Why not work to make tourist visas allowable to those who are in line for residency? Why not work to reduce regulatory red-tape and expense for seasonal worker visas? Enough with the suffering hero stuff.

If anyone did any caving, it was Romney caving to the Sheriff Joe crowd, in order to help win the nomination.

[TitoMorelli]

The Tea Party's been hijacked from what it originally was. It was a movement of fiscal conservatives who were concerned about the burgeoning deficits. When that was the movement, the Reps swept the 2010 elections. Then these idiots like Akin and Mourdock took up the TP flag and it's no longer what it was intended to be.

I might be wrong on this, but I don't think Akin wasn't the TP candidate in Missouri. Steelman was.

[ouwasp]

I think any hope of a Classic Republican revival died last night. I guess I'd e okay with the Repubs becoming more like a Libertarian party.

But I'm really discouraged after last night, so I wish I could just do the ostrich thing and not give a d***.

What will the Supreme Ct look like in a few yrs? Where will my kids find meaningful jobs? Who will pay for all this?

We are in trouble.

[TitoMorelli]

I think one statistic that has been under-reported is that the vote total for Romney (57,095,396) is less than what McCain received in 2008 (59,934,814). So what happened to the enthusiasm gap that most thought would buoy Republican candidates?

[BetterSoonerThanLater]

the only reason Obama won the election is bc he was able to get votes from 57 states. ;)

[okie52]

Okie, for you there seems to be no middle ground between the Sheriff Joe crowd and the UC Berkeley La Raza crowd. Why not work to make tourist visas allowable to those who are in line for residency? Why not work to reduce regulatory red-tape and expense for seasonal worker visas? Enough with the suffering hero stuff.

If anyone did any caving, it was Romney caving to the Sheriff Joe crowd, in order to help win the nomination.

Yeah, because we owe 12,000,000 illegals amnesty. We owe them family reunification. We owe them the dream act. We owe them bilingual schools. We owe them bilingual ballots and government forms. And, after they receive those bribes the larger hispanic population will demand open borders.

Did you forget Reagan gave 3,000,000 illegals amnesty 25 years ago? That was supposed to end illegal immigration and secure our borders. Well, hows that working out?

[okie52]

I think one statistic that has been under-reported is that the vote total for Romney (57,095,396) is less than what McCain received in 2008 (59,934,814). So what happened to the enthusiasm gap that most thought would buoy Republican candidates?

Is that total including florida?

[TitoMorelli]

Is that total including florida?

I think it reflects Florida votes at the time they'd been reported. CNN.com currently shows Romney with 57,307,956 votes nationwide.

[okie52]

I think it reflects Florida votes at the time they'd been reported. CNN.com currently shows Romney with 57,307,956 votes nationwide.

Surprising.

[FaninAma]

This is a big day of reckoning for Republicans. The country is headed in a decidedly leftward direction. In the next two or three election cycles, assuming Republicans stay their current course, Texas will be a blue state and there will essentially be little hope of any sort of presidential or Senate victory for the foreseeable future. As Senator Todd Graham said, there just aren't enough angry white men.
.
So what happens? Do they continue to bow to the extremist Koch Brothers or do they go back to the days of Jack Kemp and Reagan? Moderates you could really support.. They need to figure it out or the Republican Party will go the way of the Whigs.


Totally wrong about Texas. Texas is in no danger of turning blue anytime soon. And remember, elections have consequences and when you allow the least educated, most irresponsible amd poorest members of a society to call the shots you are probably in trouble........see Europe.

[TUSooner]

If the far-right-wing-anti-immigrant-religious zealots are the GOP's "base", then I suggest somebody has the pyramid upside down. This sort of narrow minority can't be the "base" of anything solid.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

It's over. The US is now a liberal country and will never be conservative again. The President will make sure that is the case by the end of his term. Time for the Repubs that are left to become real obstructionists and be the minority party.

[FaninAma]

Totally wrong about Texas. Texas is in no danger of turning blue anytime soon. And remember, elections have consequences and when you allow the least educated, most irresponsible amd poorest members of a society to call the shots you are probably in trouble........see Europe.


If the far-right-wing-anti-immigrant-religious zealots are the GOP's "base", then I suggest somebody has the pyramid upside down. This sort of narrow minority can't be the "base" of anything solid.
Yes, by all means lets become exactly like Europe.

[TUSooner]

It's over. The US is now a liberal country and will never be conservative again. The President will make sure that is the case by the end of his term. Time for the Repubs that are left to become real obstructionists and be the minority party.

You might actually feel better if you didn't have such a narrow view of what is conservative. As it is, you sound like the stereotypical "angry white man" who can't imagine any change for the better and who whines forever because the world is not like it was back in some mythical day that never was. Obstructionism = suicide for the GOP this time around. (Well, maybe.) They no longer have even the pathetically narrow "1-Term Obama" mantra to fall back on as a justification for ****ing over the country.

[TUSooner]

Yes, by all means lets become exactly like Europe.

Look up "non sequitur."

[TitoMorelli]

Surprising.

Yep. Obama will have received in the neighborhood of 9 million fewer votes than in 2008, yet wins handily.

Hard to explain the 2012 GOP turnout. In 2008 many conservatives either crossed over to vote for Obama or just stayed home to spite Republicans over the September economic meltdown.

So what happened? Maybe the predominantly negative "attack-dog" tone of the Obama campaign - his only chance to win, given his dismal performance over the past four years - succeeded in depressing overall voter turnout. Maybe significant numbers of Americans were so sick of 24/7 political reporting and "gotcha" journalism that they didn't even bother to vote.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

TU, the repubs are dead nationally. Way too many people with free obama phones and on welfare/section 8 ever to vote for a conservative. The progressive agenda is too entrenched in education to be negated...

And no, i don't want to look like Europe. If that's narrow minded angry old white guy, then fine. Thats what I am.

[East Coast Bias]

I think the Pubs have a chance if they can shed the Tea-Party and other extremists and move to the center. Politics is cyclical and the Tea-Party politicians are on a short string.The automatic budget cuts that are on the horizon are a direct result of Republican obstructionism. They would be well served to offer compromise going forward to get some credibility back and to do the right thing for the country...

[TitoMorelli]

You might actually feel better if you didn't have such a narrow view of what is conservative. As it is, you sound like the stereotypical "angry white man" who can't imagine any change for the better and who whines forever because the world is not like it was back in some mythical day that never was. Obstructionism = suicide for the GOP this time around. (Well, maybe.) They no longer have even the pathetically narrow "1-Term Obama" mantra to fall back on as a justification for ****ing over the country.

By obstructionism are you referring to their failure to vote for O-care, an overbearing and unmanageable boondoggle on which they were allowed no say, and which has been rejected by a majority of voters? Or to the stimulus spending, which benefited only those who had worked hardest to fill Obama's campaign coffers? If Republicans in Congress should now rubber-stamp Obama's naive and underhanded initiatives and send this nation over the fiscal cliff once and for all, will you heap praise upon them for dumping their old ways or will you act like most other libs and keep blaming Bush?

[okie52]

If the far-right-wing-anti-immigrant-religious zealots are the GOP's "base", then I suggest somebody has the pyramid upside down. This sort of narrow minority can't be the "base" of anything solid.

Anti immigrant? Has any pub stated that he wanted to stop legal immigration? You know, that long held process that allows for about 600,000 new citizens every year, LEGALLY.

Who knew that the broad, open borders, territorial sovereignty be damned crowd would be the base of the pyramid? Enlightening.

[TUSooner]

TU, the repubs are dead nationally. Way too many people with free obama phones and on welfare/section 8 ever to vote for a conservative. The progressive agenda is too entrenched in education to be negated...

And no, i don't want to look like Europe. If that's narrow minded angry old white guy, then fine. Thats what I am.

Well, you really are missing the picture if you think "welfare n*ggas" with free phones got Obama elected -- twice. (There sure must be a LOT of 'em.) But I won't change your mind or your two-tone worldview. And at least you're usually right about football!

[TUSooner]

Anti immigrant? Has any pub stated that he wanted to stop legal immigration? You know, that long held process that allows for about 600,000 new citizens every year, LEGALLY.

Who knew that the broad, open borders, territorial sovereignty be damned crowd would be the base of the pyramid? Enlightening.

Your views on "illegal immigration" are well known. I won't play semantics with you about it except to say that some conservatives are anti-all-immigration, and even those who are sincerely anti-illegal-immigration tend to overlook the effect that their position has on the views and votes of legal immigrants who are family of illegal immigrants. It's complicated and lines can get blurred.

[TUSooner]

By obstructionism are you referring to their failure to vote for O-care, an overbearing and unmanageable boondoggle on which they were allowed no say, and which has been rejected by a majority of voters? Or to the stimulus spending, which benefited only those who had worked hardest to fill Obama's campaign coffers? If Republicans in Congress should now rubber-stamp Obama's naive and underhanded initiatives and send this nation over the fiscal cliff once and for all, will you heap praise upon them for dumping their old ways or will you act like most other libs and keep blaming Bush?

I meant it in the most general way, as I think the person I was quoting meant it. That is, blocking everything for the mere sake of blocking it and denying your opponent anything like success. I'll leave specific examples of what might be justifiable obstruction to you.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

TU; what I fail to see or understand is the number of people that want their government in their life. Be them rich or poor. I see that many don't see the role of government as I do. I am for a general weak fedgov, not a strong fedgov. Perhaps you can explain it better to me. My general question is why continue generations of government assisted people and why do successful people want to let the government decide where their money goes, versus them making that decision via charitable giving?

[TitoMorelli]

I meant it in the most general way, as I think the person I was quoting meant it. That is, blocking everything for the mere sake of blocking it and denying your opponent anything like success. I'll leave specific examples of what might be justifiable obstruction to you.

Seems that "general obstructionism" is exactly what Dems did throughout the previous president's tenure. It's what opposing parties do. Except when they vote strongly to support foreign military action, and then spend the next six years condemning the other party for voting the same way that they did.

[TUSooner]

TU; what I fail to see or understand is the number of people that want their government in their life. Be them rich or poor. I see that many don't see the role of government as I do. I am for a general weak fedgov, not a strong fedgov. Perhaps you can explain it better to me. My general question is why continue generations of government assisted people and why do successful people want to let the government decide where their money goes, versus them making that decision via charitable giving?

All I can say is it's not a black-white, on-off, yes-no issue. Governments are created to do SOMETHING, otherwise who needs them at all?

There's a huge area for maneuvering in between totalitarian oppression and lawless anarchy. What and how much a government should do is what the debate is about.

To build a road or manage a national postal system were once unarguably government functions. Nowadays, even that's seems debatable. To provide lots of personal social services was once unimaginable, but now, it's done often, and occasionally even well.

What I find discouraging and contemptible is the attempt to reduce this complex matrix into a yes-no / us-them proposition. Currently, the unchallenged masters at doing this are the rightwing radio hosts and talking heads, led by the original, inimitable Rush. These folks have no desire to govern, they make their dough by stirring up conflict, fear, and rage (which = ratings = money=influence). What better way to do that than to divide the good guys from the bad, and to declare that if you're not exactly like the good guys (us) then you are a bad guy (all of the rest of them), and not only bad, but very bad indeed - the polar opposite of good.

Declaring a bi-polar political world denies the real complexities of politics, economics, and life itself. But it's so delightfully simple, that anyone can play. You don't really need a supple mind, just a quiver full of slogans and epithets. That's my gripe with so many political posters on this board: They accept the bipolar construct and see things in only blackety black and whitest white. If you disagree with their position, you MUST be extremely the opposite. That makes for a lots of fireworks on the internet and on TV and radio, but it makes for a pretty effed up world. It also makes for anger and overreaction, but that's what the talking heads love.

[okie52]

Your views on "illegal immigration" are well known. I won't play semantics with you about it except to say that some conservatives are anti-all-immigration, and even those who are sincerely anti-illegal-immigration tend to overlook the effect that their position has on the views and votes of legal immigrants who are family of illegal immigrants. It's complicated and lines can get blurred.

Its not really complicated at all. The Legal Hispanics in the US want all of the illegals to be granted citizenship as well as any other hispanics that may want to come here and their vote reflects it.

The Legal immigrants represent a broad cross section of cultures that are skilled labor and/or well educated...and its 600,000 of them a year.

[8timechamps]

I think one statistic that has been under-reported is that the vote total for Romney (57,095,396) is less than what McCain received in 2008 (59,934,814). So what happened to the enthusiasm gap that most thought would buoy Republican candidates?

IMO, it was the candidate the Republicans fielded. From the beginning of the primary's, there was no great choice. Romney ended up with the nomination, and until Ryan joined him, I was going to go Obama. Unless/until the Republicans can put someone on the ticket worth voting for, it'll continue this way.

[SoonerAtKU]

Someone posted a well thought out piece on what problems Fox News has caused with the Republican party, particularly their influence on primary elections. Candidates are lambasted 24 hours a day for weeks regarding any position they might hold that might stray from the traditional, hyper-conservative line. This is great for ratings, but terrible for selecting candidates. You set up a guy like Romney by having him start out as a moderate, force him to veer hard-right to win the primary, then have to re-correct to center to try and catch up in the General. All the while, every comment he had to make in the primary to appease Fox and the pundits so as not to get skewered early, can be thrown back into his face at any point by the other side.

In essence, pandering to Fox and allowing them to control the message for Republican primaries puts their candidates in a really tough position when the spotlight gets bright.

[okie52]

Someone posted a well thought out piece on what problems Fox News has caused with the Republican party, particularly their influence on primary elections. Candidates are lambasted 24 hours a day for weeks regarding any position they might hold that might stray from the traditional, hyper-conservative line. This is great for ratings, but terrible for selecting candidates. You set up a guy like Romney by having him start out as a moderate, force him to veer hard-right to win the primary, then have to re-correct to center to try and catch up in the General. All the while, every comment he had to make in the primary to appease Fox and the pundits so as not to get skewered early, can be thrown back into his face at any point by the other side.

In essence, pandering to Fox and allowing them to control the message for Republican primaries puts their candidates in a really tough position when the spotlight gets bright.

That isn't really any different than what happens with the dems...they start out further left in the primaries and veer towards the middle in the general election. Its the nature of the beast.

[FaninAma]

Look up "non sequitur."

Don't need to because I both understand the definition and realize it does not apply to my post.

[FaninAma]

Someone posted a well thought out piece on what problems Fox News has caused with the Republican party, particularly their influence on primary elections. Candidates are lambasted 24 hours a day for weeks regarding any position they might hold that might stray from the traditional, hyper-conservative line. This is great for ratings, but terrible for selecting candidates. You set up a guy like Romney by having him start out as a moderate, force him to veer hard-right to win the primary, then have to re-correct to center to try and catch up in the General. All the while, every comment he had to make in the primary to appease Fox and the pundits so as not to get skewered early, can be thrown back into his face at any point by the other side.

In essence, pandering to Fox and allowing them to control the message for Republican primaries puts their candidates in a really tough position when the spotlight gets bright.

But we don't need a Democrat and a Democrat-lite party. We need an alternative to the Democrats. If the nation wants to buy the progressive swill the Democrats are laddling out then fine...that's what democracy is all about. I just want an alternative party that sticks to its principles to be around to pick up the pieces of the train wreck caused by the liberal progressive vote-buying scam.

[FaninAma]

TU, the repubs are dead nationally. Way too many people with free obama phones and on welfare/section 8 ever to vote for a conservative. The progressive agenda is too entrenched in education to be negated...

And no, i don't want to look like Europe. If that's narrow minded angry old white guy, then fine. Thats what I am.

There will not be a change in the trend until the progressive fraud is allowed to play out and collapse under its own weight like the Soviet Union's system of governance did. It will happen......just look at what is going on in Europe. Today NPR stated that Southern Europe was in a depression, no a recesssion....a depression. It won't take long for that to hit our shores. And as the Titanic goes down the libereals will be on the ddeck spending, spending, spending. It's the only thing they know how to do.

[FaninAma]

Anti immigrant? Has any pub stated that he wanted to stop legal immigration? You know, that long held process that allows for about 600,000 new citizens every year, LEGALLY.

Who knew that the broad, open borders, territorial sovereignty be damned crowd would be the base of the pyramid? Enlightening.

But that is how the progressives, with the aid of mainstream media megaphone, controls the terms of the debate.

[FaninAma]

One question for the staunch progressives on the board: How do we get the deficit under control since Obama has essentially taken entitlement cuts off the table with the way he campaigned. If he agree to entitlement cuts in any meaningful way the GOP will take back the Senate and capture an additional 50 seats in the HoR because his base will totally freak out.

Obama has poisoned the well on deficit reduction.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Its not really complicated at all. The Legal Hispanics in the US want all of the illegals to be granted citizenship as well as any other hispanics that may want to come here and their vote reflects it.

The Legal immigrants represent a broad cross section of cultures that are skilled labor and/or well educated...and its 600,000 of them a year.

incorrecta, mi amigo

[okie52]

incorrecta, mi amigo

Really juan...hows that voting record looking?

[usmc-sooner]

Republicans had the same problem the Democats had running against Bush, they didn't field any electable candidates.

Gore was Mitt
Kerry was McCain

I think they have an agreement will give you 8 years and you give us 8 years.

[SoonerProphet]

http://www.nationalinterest.org/blog/jacob-heilbrunn/will-the-gop-reboot-7709

Ultimately, the problems afflicting the party are so obvious that they barely require enumeration, from the neocon control of the foreign-policy debate to moralistic flapdoodle about women. This should have been an election that the GOP had a strong shot at winning. Its self-destructive tendencies mean that it didn't. The bottom line is that the Karl Rove model for creating a Republican majority that he boasted about in 2004 is broken. There is no evangelical coalition that can put the GOP over the top. On the contrary, it almost singlehandedly destroyed the GOP's hopes of capturing the Senate. The GOP can reboot or it can follow the model of the Democratic party that lost three straight presidential elections before turning to Bill Clinton in 1992. What will it choose?

[Midtowner]

What's interesting about this thread and about the zeitgeist of the conservative movement today is that they appear to be blaming everyone but themselves. The election was not that far off. They didn't lose their Senate seats by huge margins. This isn't about some sort of Democratic fairydust, Republicans are loosing on ideas and on connecting with people.

The Republican Party self-destructed in 2007 when the hardliners tanked Bush's immigration reform bill. It's going to be tough to bounce back from that one. It may be so devastating as the Republicans' refusal to back the Voting Rights Act under Johnson with regard to the black vote.

If they continue to cater exclusively to the angry white man, they'll go the way of the Whigs.

[Turd_Ferguson]

http://www.nationalinterest.org/blog/jacob-heilbrunn/will-the-gop-reboot-7709

Ultimately, the problems afflicting the party are so obvious that they barely require enumeration, from the neocon control of the foreign-policy debate to moralistic flapdoodle about women. This should have been an election that the GOP had a strong shot at winning. Its self-destructive tendencies mean that it didn't. The bottom line is that the Karl Rove model for creating a Republican majority that he boasted about in 2004 is broken. There is no evangelical coalition that can put the GOP over the top. On the contrary, it almost singlehandedly destroyed the GOP's hopes of capturing the Senate. The GOP can reboot or it can follow the model of the Democratic party that lost three straight presidential elections before turning to Bill Clinton in 1992. What will it choose?

Still got that stick up your ***?

[Soonerjeepman]

All I can say is it's not a black-white, on-off, yes-no issue. Governments are created to do SOMETHING, otherwise who needs them at all?

There's a huge area for maneuvering in between totalitarian oppression and lawless anarchy. What and how much a government should do is what the debate is about.

To build a road or manage a national postal system were once unarguably government functions. Nowadays, even that's seems debatable. To provide lots of personal social services was once unimaginable, but now, it's done often, and occasionally even well.

What I find discouraging and contemptible is the attempt to reduce this complex matrix into a yes-no / us-them proposition. Currently, the unchallenged masters at doing this are the rightwing radio hosts and talking heads, led by the original, inimitable Rush. These folks have no desire to govern, they make their dough by stirring up conflict, fear, and rage (which = ratings = money=influence). What better way to do that than to divide the good guys from the bad, and to declare that if you're not exactly like the good guys (us) then you are a bad guy (all of the rest of them), and not only bad, but very bad indeed - the polar opposite of good.

Declaring a bi-polar political world denies the real complexities of politics, economics, and life itself. But it's so delightfully simple, that anyone can play. You don't really need a supple mind, just a quiver full of slogans and epithets. That's my gripe with so many political posters on this board: They accept the bipolar construct and see things in only blackety black and whitest white. If you disagree with their position, you MUST be extremely the opposite. That makes for a lots of fireworks on the internet and on TV and radio, but it makes for a pretty effed up world. It also makes for anger and overreaction, but that's what the talking heads love.

believe it or not, you make sense! LOL but as long as you understand the libs do the exact same thing...THAT is my issue, the MAJORITY of the media and libs thinks it's all pubs doing this...

[Turd_Ferguson]

What's interesting about this thread and about the zeitgeist of the conservative movement today is that they appear to be blaming everyone but themselves. The election was not that far off. They didn't lose their Senate seats by huge margins. This isn't about some sort of Democratic fairydust, Republicans are loosing on ideas and on connecting with people.

The Republican Party self-destructed in 2007 when the hardliners tanked Bush's immigration reform bill. It's going to be tough to bounce back from that one. It may be so devastating as the Republicans' refusal to back the Voting Rights Act under Johnson with regard to the black vote.

If they continue to cater exclusively to the angry white man, they'll go the way of the Whigs.

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic".-Benjamin Franklin (aka old angry pasty white guy)

[yermom]

when so many of the talking points of the party alienate so many different groups, you are going to have a bad time.

the pubs won with older voters, but those people aren't going to be around forever. how do you appeal to new voters as they arrive? you can't control the changing population...

Guliani is nailing it on CNN right now. stay out of the pocketbook and the bedroom and you might have a majority party

[cleller]

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic".-Benjamin Franklin (aka old angry pasty white guy)

Sigh.

[olevetonahill]

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic".-Benjamin Franklin (aka old angry pasty white guy, Now get off my Lawn)

FIFY Bro

[FaninAma]

Your views on "illegal immigration" are well known. I won't play semantics with you about it except to say that some conservatives are anti-all-immigration, and even those who are sincerely anti-illegal-immigration tend to overlook the effect that their position has on the views and votes of legal immigrants who are family of illegal immigrants. It's complicated and lines can get blurred.

Lets just have totally open borders and do away with ICE.

[rock on sooner]

FIFY Bro

Izzat what you say to them gov't "visitors"?

[JiminyChristmas]

I think one statistic that has been under-reported is that the vote total for Romney (57,095,396) is less than what McCain received in 2008 (59,934,814). So what happened to the enthusiasm gap that most thought would buoy Republican candidates?

Also under reported is that the total vote count for Obama dropped by 10 million votes. From 69m to 59m.

Don't buy into the "death of the republican party". When the money runs out and all these folks are protesting in the streets with their hands out, there will be no one to blame but Obama.

You can't have fewer and fewer people paying for more and more welfare programs. THE MATH DOESN'T WORK!

[sappstuf]

What's interesting about this thread and about the zeitgeist of the conservative movement today is that they appear to be blaming everyone but themselves. The election was not that far off. They didn't lose their Senate seats by huge margins. This isn't about some sort of Democratic fairydust, Republicans are loosing on ideas and on connecting with people.

The Republican Party self-destructed in 2007 when the hardliners tanked Bush's immigration reform bill. It's going to be tough to bounce back from that one. It may be so devastating as the Republicans' refusal to back the Voting Rights Act under Johnson with regard to the black vote.

If they continue to cater exclusively to the angry white man, they'll go the way of the Whigs.

94% of Republicans in the Senate voted for the VRA versus only 73% of Dems that voted for it. In the House it was 82% Repubs in support versus 78% of Dems.

Your narrative is false.

[kevpks]

That whole lot of GOP candidates was a joke from the start. I just can't believe candidates as laughable as Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum were ever seriously considered by anyone. And Romney? How many times can a candidate reinvent himself. He's been running for president for about a decade. Obama was vulnerable and the party leadership and kingmakers chose to give primary voters a choice between extremists, nitwits, and retreads. Why not run Rubio, Paul Ryan, Jindal, or anyone a bit more dynamic that could match Obama? Many of Obama's supporters are passionate about him as a candidate. I live in the middle of the reddest of the red states and I have never met a passionate Mitt Romney supporter. Maybe there are some in Salt Lake City.

Note: I liked Ron Paul a lot but he was too much of an outlier for the base to accept.

[FirstandGoal]

Also under reported is that the total vote count for Obama dropped by 10 million votes. From 69m to 59m.

Don't buy into the "death of the republican party". When the money runs out and all these folks are protesting in the streets with their hands out, there will be no one to blame but Obama.

You can't have fewer and fewer people paying for more and more welfare programs. THE MATH DOESN'T WORK!

In a way, I take solace in this.
Okay fine, the libs won. My paycheck will continue to go down while I continue to work harder. I will have to learn to make due with less through no fault of my own. Through this process I will become tougher, smarter, more frugal and a better steward. Adversity makes the tough tougher and winnows out the weak. When the day comes that the handouts decrease or stop, I will have the skill set to carry on through years of learning how to suck it up and GADOCADWI. The entitlement group is going to be up **** creek.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

That whole lot of GOP candidates was a joke from the start. I just can't believe candidates as laughable as Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum were ever seriously considered by anyone. And Romney? How many times can a candidate reinvent himself. He's been running for president for about a decade. Obama was vulnerable and the party leadership and kingmakers chose to give primary voters a choice between extremists, nitwits, and retreads. Why not run Rubio, Paul Ryan, Jindal, or anyone a bit more dynamic that could match Obama? Many of Obama's supporters are passionate about him as a candidate. I live in the middle of the reddest of the red states and I have never met a passionate Mitt Romney supporter. Maybe there are some in Salt Lake City.

Note: I liked Ron Paul a lot but he was too much of an outlier for the base to accept.


The clue was that those of us who aren't pubs loved watching the primary debates for pure entertainment value. Also needing mention are Mr. Herman 9-9-9er Pizza Godfather Cain, Gov. Rick Brain-Freeze Perry, Gov. Jon Space Cadet Huntsman, and Sir Isaac Newt Gingrich.

Perry started out in first place but, once he started live debating, dove in the pool without realizing it had no water in it. Ouch. Did Perry ever remind you of that OU quarterback who fell off the back of the pickup?

Then Herman Cain skyrocketed to first until the scorned ladies from his past came a knockin...

Running circles around the cast of characters in a couple of early debates, Newt jumped to the lead for 96 hours until he self-destructed in the following debate.

Then Santorum, who languished in the low digits 1<x<3 for months, filled the vacuum when others fell by the wayside, and became savior of the unborn.

But all the while, Romney played a safe, pedestrian rope-a-dope strategy, laying out positions designed to appeal to the base - never mind what he actually believed.


Cain, Perry, Huntsman, Gingrich, Bachmann, Santorum, Paul, and Romney. Pub version of SNL cast. My only disappointment was Palin didn't join the crew.

[StoopTroup]

The clue was that those of us who aren't pubs loved watching the primary debates for pure entertainment value. Also needing mention are Mr. Herman 9-9-9er Pizza Godfather Cain, Gov. Rick Brain-Freeze Perry, Gov. Jon Space Cadet Huntsman, and Sir Isaac Newt Gingrich.

Perry started out in first place but, once he started live debating, dove in the pool without realizing it had no water in it. Ouch. Did Perry ever remind you of that OU quarterback who fell off the back of the pickup?

Then Herman Cain skyrocketed to first until the scorned ladies from his past came a knockin...

Running circles around the cast of characters in a couple of early debates, Newt jumped to the lead for 96 hours until he self-destructed in the following debate.

Then Santorum, who languished in the low digits 1<x<3 for months, filled the vacuum when others fell by the wayside, and became savior of the unborn.

But all the while, Romney played a safe, pedestrian rope-a-dope strategy, laying out positions designed to appeal to the base - never mind what he actually believed.


Cain, Perry, Huntsman, Gingrich, Bachmann, Santorum, Paul, and Romney. Pub version of SNL cast. My only disappointment was Palin didn't join the crew.

You are onto one of the problems the GOP had and it lost lots of votes that otherwise might have kept many longtime GOP Moderates like my Wife and I voting a straight ticket. The Tea Party is a distraction to the Party. All of the GOP Candidates for Nominee filled the TV airwaves with mud about Romney who had the deepest pockets and was able to outlast the rest of them to become the Nominee. I don't understand how anyone can blame the Liberal Media for the Bain Attacks when nearly everyone of the GOP Candidates in the debates attacked Romney about being a job killer and outsourcing and being a Vulture. People's memories seem short but it's why so many folks on the talking head shows kept talking about the Republican Bubble. The bubble has burst and still the GOP Talking Heads are looking for Scapegoats. They need only look into the mirror. Especially Sarah Palin who drove around in her bus disrupting a process. Tea Party Supporters nearly begged her to run for POTUS. Had she run and won...(which I think was highly unlikely as Romney's plan was to outspend and outlast all of them and become the GOP Nominee) I think she would have lost but the Tea party would be in check and Romney wouldn't have ruined his Political Career. I don't think America is ready for a Mormon POTUS but I think he represented his Faith well. Still Catholics (in exit polls) voted 52% for Obama to 48 for Romney. I didn't think that would happen but it did. It's another one of those things that I think voters don't get credit for noticing when a guy doesn't have a clear message or plan for the voters to digest....they split their vote. I think many of the groups in exit polls show this was the case.

[Midtowner]

94% of Republicans in the Senate voted for the VRA versus only 73% of Dems that voted for it. In the House it was 82% Repubs in support versus 78% of Dems.

Your narrative is false.

Trouble is that the Southern Dems switched to being Pubs.

--and that whole perception > reality concept.

Ignore history or repeat it.

[KantoSooner]

I have not looked at the data in several days, but the first cut indicated that the Republicans won with white men over 30 making more than $50K per year. And only with that group. They lost every other demographic. By a landslide.
Now, does that make the Republican message wrong? Of course not. It does mean that a lot of people aren't buying what they're selling, however. And if the Repubs don't start getting more buyers, a lot more buyers, they are not going to have the privilege of putting any of their ideas into effect.
Should Republicans simply poll a lot of people and conform the party to policies that seem popular? No. But they should look very carefully at their own core philosophy and prune off the extraneous bull****. Here are some things that will sell like cranberries at Christmas time:

1. Small government that doesn't cost much.
2. Unintrusive government that doesn't meddle much.
3. Honest government that doesn't get caught with its hands in the cookie jar.

Here are some things that the vast majority of people don't like:

1. Government that attempts to get involved in private industry.
2. Government that attempts to enforce religious beliefs (ie, gay marriage bans, abortion bans, substance consumption prohibitions, dietary restrictions, blue laws and other affilated crap)
3. Government that attempts to steer society thorugh tax policy.

Notice that the first list pretty much describes the core philosophy of the Republican party and that the latter pretty much describes what the Republicans have tried to do for the last 25 years? You do. Congratulations, you're smarter than Karl Rove.

[SoonerorLater]

In the end it won't be a Republican Civil War it just might be a real Civil War. Over the past fifty years this country has slipped to the left mainly through a sucession of Supreme Court decisions that do not reflect the original intent of the constitution. Through the nefarious motives of these people they have subverted the democratic process and have attemped to homoginize the entire country in the cultural image of the liberal population centers. ie. New York, SanFrancisco etc.

In the end the government has co-opted so many wards of the state and flooded the country with Democrtic Voters (read illegal aliens) that the more traditional value oriented states will not be able to
gain enough votes to overturn this trend. At some point in the not to distant future there will be serious and well organized secession movements. I would say that time will be when the economic SHTF.

[FaninAma]

when so many of the talking points of the party alienate so many different groups, you are going to have a bad time.

the pubs won with older voters, but those people aren't going to be around forever. how do you appeal to new voters as they arrive? you can't control the changing population...

Guliani is nailing it on CNN right now. stay out of the pocketbook and the bedroom and you might have a majority party


So if you stay out of the pocketbooks then there is no need for a Democratic party. If you stay out of the bedroom then you should vote Libertarian. I agree with him.

[FaninAma]

Kanto, a landslide? Really? A 2% difference in the popular vote is a landslide and I assume you feel it's okay for the Dems to ignore the voters who make over $50K who went overwhelmingly for Romney? And remeber that Obama got about 9 million less votes this election than he did in 2008. And the majority of Obama's popular cote victory came from the 3 states taht have the worst state governments in the nation....California, Illinois and NY.

It's a 2 way street but I don't see any indication that the Dems care to listen to those who oppose them.

[LiveLaughLove]

The hispanics are liberal. They come here for the big government nanny state handouts. The exit polls showed 75% voted for those reasons. Only 20ish% voted Dem because of immigration.

Can we please dispel the myth that they are some how morally superior to other minorities here. They are not. A large section of them come from socialist/communist countries, or countries that have been socialist/communist in recent times.

They LIKE being taken care of, and we do it better than their former countries. Now maybe, the difference is they don't mind working too. But the exit polls clearly showed they want nanny.

There is only one solution for Republicans, but they will never do it. So yes, it is over for them. They are finished as a party.

This country started moving left on July 5th, 1776 and it has always been a fait accompli that we would eventually get to where we are today. As conservatives the only thing we could hope for was to slow the demise. I feel horrible for my children, and I am deeply sad that I had to live to see it.

[kevpks]

Bush did much better with hispanics. It was probably because he did not talk about electric fences and self-deportation.

[Pricetag]

There is only one solution for Republicans, but they will never do it. So yes, it is over for them. They are finished as a party.

You're mad at them because they won't do it, and you won't even say it. What is it?

[rock on sooner]

Bush did much better with hispanics. It was probably because he did not talk about electric fences and self-deportation.

This might be oversimplification but Bush did better with Hispanics because
he spoke Spanish, imo..if you travel to a foreign country and can speak the
native language you are looked upon more favorably than those who don't. I
think that applies in Bush's case.

[okie52]

Bush did much better with hispanics. It was probably because he did not talk about electric fences and self-deportation.

Probably because he groveled for illegals when he was governor of tX and continued to do so as president with his many attempts at immigration reform or better put...amnesty.

[LiveLaughLove]

Any Republican that takes any advice on illegals from a democrat should be immediately recalled by his electorate.

They know inevitably the only ones illegals help are the democrat party. Period.

[LiveLaughLove]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/332916/why-hispanics-dont-vote-republicans-heather-mac-donald#


It is not immigration policy that creates the strong bond between Hispanics and the Democratic party, but the core Democratic principles of a more generous safety net, strong government intervention in the economy, and progressive taxation.


A March 2011 poll by Moore Information found that Republican economic policies were a stronger turn-off for Hispanic voters in California than Republican positions on illegal immigration.


Twenty-nine percent of Hispanic voters were suspicious of the Republican party on class-warfare grounds — “it favors only the rich”; “Republicans are selfish and out for themselves”; “Republicans don’t represent the average person”– compared with 7 percent who objected to Republican immigration stances.


The idea of the “social issues” Hispanic voter is also a mirage. A majority of Hispanics now support gay marriage, a Pew Research Center poll from last month found. The Hispanic out-of-wedlock birth rate is 53 percent, about twice that of whites.

At least Republicans, if you are going to demand amnesty now because you think it is a savior for you, go in to it with your eyes wide open. You are only hastening your demise. Which I have no problem with actually.

Oh and keep Boehner in as Speaker. He's the Rock of Gibraltar.

[kevpks]

This might be oversimplification but Bush did better with Hispanics because
he spoke Spanish, imo..if you travel to a foreign country and can speak the
native language you are looked upon more favorably than those who don't. I
think that applies in Bush's case.

Another oversimplification. Put Rubio on the ticket instead of Ryan and win the presidency. I actually like Paul Ryan, he has substance and is willing to propose bold solutions. I just don't know that a guy who looks like the villain in an 80s college movie brought in new voters.

[bluedogok]

You think social issues beat the Pubs? Well, if you call illegal immigration a social issue then you would be right.
Here in Colorado a good 80% of the Democrats or Democrat PAC ads were social issue or class warfare based and we averaged over 5,000 TV ads a week over the last two months for the national races (President and Congress). The economy was a big issue for the Republicans but was hardly a mention in the Democrat ads. We were bombarded with ads about how the Republicans were going to take healthcare away from all, ban gay marriage and take women's rights back to the 50's all while taxing the little people so millionaires wouldn't have to pay taxes. Ignoring that fact that to get the countries fiscal house in order and pay all the entitlements promised taxes are going to have to be raised on everyone.


Its not really complicated at all. The Legal Hispanics in the US want all of the illegals to be granted citizenship as well as any other hispanics that may want to come here and their vote reflects it.

The Legal immigrants represent a broad cross section of cultures that are skilled labor and/or well educated...and its 600,000 of them a year.
Many of the ones who went through the entire legal immigration process are not in favor of it. Most do admit the immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed but not that it be scrapped.


If the far-right-wing-anti-immigrant-religious zealots are the GOP's "base", then I suggest somebody has the pyramid upside down. This sort of narrow minority can't be the "base" of anything solid.
They need to purge that "base" out of the party if they hope to win national elections, let the "evangelicals" splinter off and form their own party instead of pandering to them in the primaries creating fodder for the Democrats in the general election, they make the material for the negative ads too easy for them. The ironic thing about the evangelicals is they demand such an extreme stance from Republican candidates that it cripples them in a national race but if they do get elected most ignore the evangelicals after the election just like both parties do about the middle class except during election time. The fact of the matter is evangelicals are a shrinking demographic and their power as a voting block has waned in most states. The successful Republican candidates only gave lip service to the evangelicals.

Another thing is the urban/rural divide, look at the county voting color maps for the previous few elections, the urban areas are blue and the rural areas are red. The large urban areas are growing at exponential rates and typically are going to vote Democrat, the suburban and rural areas are not growing or are growing at a much smaller rate, that exacerbates the issues for the Republican party as it is currently constructed. The Urban Archipelago is accurate no matter how distasteful the original article about it was. When getting into states changing colors, it might be hard in Texas as the number of rural legislators there effectively block any power by the cities and gerrymander most of the urban the districts to include large swaths of suburban and rural areas in an attempt to dilute the power of the city. Our former district in Austin was decidedly Democrat but after the last legislative map redraw all of a sudden our Congressman had to campaign in rural areas far away from South Austin. It will be awfully hard to rewrite the map in Texas to favor Democrats until they have the power in the state, the results of the Presidential election has little impact on state houses were much of that policy is created.

One other effect is the power of the incumbent, it is almost like boxing used to be, to beat the world champ you had to knock them out. Unless there is a wild card present like Perot in 1992 or everything completely falling apart for Carter in 1980 it is hard to bean an incumbent.

[FaninAma]

Before you start throwing dirt on the Republican party please consider the following numbers:

30: the number of governorships controlled by the GOP
25: the number of state legislatures controlled by the GOP
17: the number of state legislatures controlled by the Democrats.
8: The number of state legislatures split or unicameraeral with supposed non-partisan affiliation(Nebraska)

Yep, looks like the GOP is dead.

Actually it appears that the GOP has flipped with the Democrats from 25 years ago when the GOP fared better in national elections and the Democrats controlled everything at the local level.

Perhaps the Democrats are only able to get their multi-faceted base motivated for the national elections.

[LiveLaughLove]

Before you start throwing dirt on the Republican party please consider the following numbers:

30: the number of governorships controlled by the GOP
25: the number of state legislatures controlled by the GOP
17: the number of state legislatures controlled by the Democrats.
8: The number of state legislatures split or unicameraeral with supposed non-partisan affiliation(Nebraska)

Yep, looks like the GOP is dead.

Actually it appears that the GOP has flipped with the Democrats from 25 years ago when the GOP fared better in national elections and the Democrats controlled everything at the local level.

Perhaps the Democrats are only able to get their multi-faceted base motivated for the national elections.

The demographics aren't in the GOPs favor. There's no way around that. As our country becomes more and more secular and the religious voters disappear, the base the GOP could most count on leaves too.

Meanwhile, the Dem's are doing everything they can to get the illegals legal so they can vote. They will succeed, because idiot Republicans will help, and voila around 9 million or more new Democrats are born.

The GOP has to move left to survive probably. My inclination is for them to move further right and actually let a true conservative have a chance, but it won't happen. Just as well.

[cleller]

The GOP is just about to go under. With the influx of illegals, the Dem voting block has exploded. Higher birth rates outside marriage will push the trend even further. The country is going more in the direction of an electorate that is mostly concerned with what the gov will do for them.

They'll vote in whatever candidate makes it easier on them. That is, who is giving away the most. There will be less, or no, concern about the US standing in the world, economic policy, fiscal responsibility, the future, etc. The more the gov gives, the less the people will push themselves in areas of education and responsibility. We'll continue to slide down the ignorance slope.

Gradually, the candidates themselves will reflect this electorate. Credentials won't mean a thing, only promises for more gov help. Gov funds will be pulled from every area and re-directed to social programs. Slowly, the US will move off the world stage, and GDP will drop....

[SoonerProphet]

Interesting read on the Asian-American vote and it trending towards the Democratic Party.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-gops-asian-american-fiasco/

[kevpks]

The GOP is just about to go under. With the influx of illegals, the Dem voting block has exploded. Higher birth rates outside marriage will push the trend even further. The country is going more in the direction of an electorate that is mostly concerned with what the gov will do for them.

They'll vote in whatever candidate makes it easier on them. That is, who is giving away the most. There will be less, or no, concern about the US standing in the world, economic policy, fiscal responsibility, the future, etc. The more the gov gives, the less the people will push themselves in areas of education and responsibility. We'll continue to slide down the ignorance slope.

Gradually, the candidates themselves will reflect this electorate. Credentials won't mean a thing, only promises for more gov help. Gov funds will be pulled from every area and re-directed to social programs. Slowly, the US will move off the world stage, and GDP will drop....

Does anyone have any actual data on illegal aliens voting? There are approximately 11 million in the whole country (the highest number I've seen is 20). I doubt enough vote to cost Romney any swing states.

[FaninAma]

[URL="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/332916/why-hispanics-dont-vote-republicans-heather-mac-donald#"]http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/332916/why-hispanics-dont-vote-republicans-heather-mac-



At least Republicans, if you are going to demand amnesty now because you think it is a savior for you, go in to it with your eyes wide open. You are only hastening your demise. Which I have no problem with actually.

Oh and keep Boehner in as Speaker. He's the Rock of Gibraltar.

Reagan was pro-amnesty but it has to be accompanied by real border control reforms that stop the influx of illegal immigramts across the border.

[FaninAma]

Interesting read on the Asian-American vote and it trending towards the Democratic Party.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-gops-asian-american-fiasco/

Which is interesting because in the pecking order under the progressive policy of racial preference Asians rank below even whites in terms of college admission
preferences and government business subsidies.

It is amazing how the Democrats can keep all of their different party racial voting blocks voting for them when it seems that they often have divergent interests except
apparently for one thing.....the desire for more government involvement in our lives.

Although Bush and the idiot Neocons took that issue away from the GOP with the Patriot Act. All the GOP can hope is that Obama turns out to be the Democrats' George Bush.

[okie52]

Here in Colorado a good 80% of the Democrats or Democrat PAC ads were social issue or class warfare based and we averaged over 5,000 TV ads a week over the last two months for the national races (President and Congress). The economy was a big issue for the Republicans but was hardly a mention in the Democrat ads. We were bombarded with ads about how the Republicans were going to take healthcare away from all, ban gay marriage and take women's rights back to the 50's all while taxing the little people so millionaires wouldn't have to pay taxes. Ignoring that fact that to get the countries fiscal house in order and pay all the entitlements promised taxes are going to have to be raised on everyone.

That is a lot of ads but nationally polls show that public has trended towards pro life positions in the last few years...to the tune of 53% I believe. Either way that wouldn't be deal breaker. Obama just "evolved" to embrace gay marriage this year and it still isn't legal in most states so I'm not sure the pro gay marriage stance really moves voters one way or the other at this time. Maybe these issues resonate more liberally in CO but nationally I just don't see it.

The class warfare angle has been played by the dems for 50 years or more...sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Raising taxes on ONLY THE RICH has been a constant battle cry for the dems. All through the W regime we heard about HUGE TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH but never heard about the tax cuts for everyone else. Well, those tax cuts for everyone else account for over 4 times the debt as opposed to tax cuts for the "rich". Maybe the Dems have done a good job on selling "tax the other guy". Sometimes Pubs run from issues they ought to be fighting just to point out the obvious.

Personally I don't care about most of the social issues...one way or the other but I don't think they are what lost the pubs the election. Hispanic population growth and greater percentages of them voting dem are what I see as the election losses in CO and NV and probabably some other states. I fully expect the pubs to cave to the hispanic vote on illegal immigration...Hell, you'll probably see the pubs moving their convention date up to May 5th and flying the US flag upside down beneath the Mexican flag.


Many of the ones who went through the entire legal immigration process are not in favor of it. Most do admit the immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed but not that it be scrapped.

If our system needs to be improved to allow immigrants faster processing then that's fine with me. We are admitting 600,000 new citizens every year so it's not like America has turned its back on immigration...quite to the contrary we are allowing more legal immigrants than most countries. But our legal immigrants aren't all from south of the border and that seems to cause the hispanic community great angst....and they vote that way.

Our immigration system is broken because we have 11,000,000 people here illegally and do little to change that status by either deportation, self deportation, punishment of employers and securing the border. When you have a president that fights punishing employers that hire illegals through the court system (which he thankfully lost) and refuses deportation of any illegals other than criminals it is hard to have an effective immigration policy. And let's not leave out sanctuary cities that go unpunished with their open defiance of our immigration laws.



They need to purge that "base" out of the party if they hope to win national elections, let the "evangelicals" splinter off and form their own party instead of pandering to them in the primaries creating fodder for the Democrats in the general election, they make the material for the negative ads too easy for them. The ironic thing about the evangelicals is they demand such an extreme stance from Republican candidates that it cripples them in a national race but if they do get elected most ignore the evangelicals after the election just like both parties do about the middle class except during election time. The fact of the matter is evangelicals are a shrinking demographic and their power as a voting block has waned in most states. The successful Republican candidates only gave lip service to the evangelicals.

Another thing is the urban/rural divide, look at the county voting color maps for the previous few elections, the urban areas are blue and the rural areas are red. The large urban areas are growing at exponential rates and typically are going to vote Democrat, the suburban and rural areas are not growing or are growing at a much smaller rate, that exacerbates the issues for the Republican party as it is currently constructed. The Urban Archipelago is accurate no matter how distasteful the original article about it was. When getting into states changing colors, it might be hard in Texas as the number of rural legislators there effectively block any power by the cities and gerrymander most of the urban the districts to include large swaths of suburban and rural areas in an attempt to dilute the power of the city. Our former district in Austin was decidedly Democrat but after the last legislative map redraw all of a sudden our Congressman had to campaign in rural areas far away from South Austin. It will be awfully hard to rewrite the map in Texas to favor Democrats until they have the power in the state, the results of the Presidential election has little impact on state houses were much of that policy is created.

One other effect is the power of the incumbent, it is almost like boxing used to be, to beat the world champ you had to knock them out. Unless there is a wild card present like Perot in 1992 or everything completely falling apart for Carter in 1980 it is hard to bean an incumbent.

You don't have to purge the evangelicals...just give them lip service like the dems do the blacks.

I didn't know urban areas were growing exponentially. Suburbs and Metropolitan areas, yes. Cities are often constricted on their growth by their own city limits. I never thought of the suburbs as a bastion of democratic strength. In New England I'm sure they are strongly liberal and in the south I would assume they will be conservative. How did the gerrymandering occur? Doesn't that require state legislatures to approve the new districts?

I agree with your point on the power of an incumbent. They are usually hard to beat.

.

[okie52]

Interesting read on the Asian-American vote and it trending towards the Democratic Party.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-gops-asian-american-fiasco/

Interesting article. The Black and Latino votes can be explained but this article really points to a more liberal, younger Asian population

[okie52]

Reagan was pro-amnesty but it has to be accompanied by real border control reforms that stop the influx of illegal immigramts across the border.

There's the problem...Reagan was supposed to have real border security in exchange for amnesty and it never happened. And it won't this time around either.

[FaninAma]

The demographics aren't in the GOPs favor. There's no way around that. As our country becomes more and more secular and the religious voters disappear, the base the GOP could most count on leaves too.

Meanwhile, the Dem's are doing everything they can to get the illegals legal so they can vote. They will succeed, because idiot Republicans will help, and voila around 9 million or

more new Democrats are born.

The GOP has to move left to survive probably. My inclination is for them to move further right and actually let a true conservative have a chance, but it won't happen. Just as well.

I agree with you. That is why the GOP does not need to morph into the Democrat-lite party as they have been doing for 50 years. They need to allow the consequences of the progressive philosophy play out like they are in California, Illinois and New York. If that doesn't convince voters that that philospohy is a failure then nothing will and this country is doomed to the same fate as Europe and every other socialist based country that has crossed the world stage.

[FaninAma]

There's the problem...Reagan was supposed to have real border security in exchange for amnesty and it never happened. And it won't this time around either.

Well then the economic status of many in the liberal base will face the consequences as cheaper labor streams in across the border to take jobs away from those in the lower socioeconomic groups that tend to vote for the Democrats. and now the governmemt cannot step in and support those groups as they lose jobs because the country is broke.

Quite a quandry for the progressives.....don't you think?

[okie52]

Well then the economic status of many in the liberal base will face the consequences as cheaper labor streams in across the border to take jobs away from those in the lower socioeconomic groups that tend to vote for the Democrats. and now the government cannot step in and support those groups as they lose jobs because the country is broke.

Quite a quandry for the progressives.....don't you think?

That's going on right now and the dems will step all over their labor base to get new voters. Of course the Pub business owners that use illegals don't mind stepping all over fellow pubs to support illegal immigration (see US chamber of commerce).

[FaninAma]

That's going on right now and the dems will step all over their labor base to get new voters. Of course the Pub business owners that use illegals don't mind stepping all over fellow pubs to support illegal immigration (see US chamber of commerce).
But that kind of cutthroat political policy works only as long as the economy can support the influx and as long as the government sponsored social safety net remains solvent. Neither of those conditions currently exist. Our government is in technical default and is only meeting obligations because the Federal Reserve is monetizing the debt.

[kevpks]

Maybe this is my biggest issue with the GOP. Every political spectrum survey I've ever taken has me right of center. This writer makes the point that the Right has become as insular as the left was in the 70s. There aren't enough prominent voices focused on ideas. I'd rather it not take total economic collapse that some of you are predicting (without a lot of evidence I might add) to make the GOP a more viable national party again.


For nearly six years, since President Bush’s second term went south, Republicans have been effectively without a leader. And into that vacuum has stepped a series of conservative figures whose incentives in most cases are not to win votes but to make money and score ratings by being provocative and even outlandish.
“Their bottom line is their main goal, but that doesn’t mean they’re serving the population that buys their books,” said Domenech.
And this, say next-generation Republicans, is where cocoonism has been detrimental to the cause.
The tension between the profit- and ratings-driven right — call them entertainment-based conservatives — and conservatives focused on ideas (the thinkers) and winning (the operatives) has never been more evident.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83704_Page2.html#ixzz2C1FmhYxV

[TUSooner]

From a retired colleague, retired naval officer, friend of the United States Constituion, and a practicing Catholic who wrote a funny and informative book about New Orleans as a Cat'lic town. But I won't say his name because I did not ask his permission to post this (even though I doubt he would mind at all). It's at least anecdotal evidence to counter those who say the GOP should maintain its current affair with the extreme wing of the party. All emphasis is mine:


It's over. Finally. I have paid little attention the last few months because I was annoyed an offended by much of the political advertising and commentary I received. A lot of it insulted my intelligence. I was looking forward to Romney as the Republican candidate because only he had a chance -- and a good one -- of winning. Instead, he was destroyed by his own party. Obama was a relatively weak president in a weak economy. Unfortunately, Romney, a decent and fine man, was also a weak candidate. He became too defensive when he was attacked by the crazies and weirdos on the right. Did anyone seriously think that Newt Gingrich or Michelle Bachman or Rick Perry or Herman Cain or, Judas Priest! Donald Trump could be elected president? Newt kept calling down Romney for being a "moderate," which he is. Romney should have embraced that designation because moderates are who get elected. But he became defensive, trying unconvincingly to show that he was more conservative than he is. After he eventually won the nomination, battered and bruised, he again pandered to the right by choosing Paul Ryan as vice-pres. candidate. That's where I gave up on him.

Paul Ryan has stated many times that he got into politics because he embraced the 'Objectivism" philosophy of Ayn Rand. After he was picked, he tried to get some distance from that personal history, but it was too late. Ayn Rand's philosophy of studied, deliberate, atheistic selfishness is contrary to the spirit of the United States and the tenets of Christianity. It is "I got mine; you get yours, and I'm not going to help you or ask you for help." Doesn't Ryan know that the Founding Fathers "pledge[d] to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor"? Has he read the Constitution where it says that the purpose of the country is "to provide for the general welfare"? If he is as serious a Christian as he wants us to believe, has he read St. Matthew and learned that Jesus said "Whatsoever you do to the least of my chuildren, that you do unto me"? I was afraid that once in office Ryan and his fellow-Randers would influence the malleable Romney as Paul Wolfowitz, Dick, Cheney, and the other neo-con's did to George No. 2 Bush,II, Jr., and led the country into a war that Pentagon reporter Thomas Ricks has correctly called a "fiasco" and wrote a book about it with that title. Romney's choice of Ryan affected me the same way McCain's choice of Sarah Palin did. I looked around for somebody else to vote for. At least Ryan is smart; Palin was and is a cartoon figure. She was spouting off the other night on Fox News about how the electorate who voted Obama back into office were rejecting the Constitution. What the hell is she talking about? As long as the Republican Party kow-tows to such nonsense, it will forever remain a minority party.

And then there were all the shrill, bizarre, paranoid emails and Internet blogs, many barely concealing the racism, that warned that Obama was a Kenyan-born Muslim affiliated with terrorists who would force gay marriage and abortions on an unwilling public while he was taking their guns away. Many of these crazies claimed to be Republicans, and the leaders of the party did nothing to distance them from the core values of the Republican Party. I was amazed and appalled that so many educated, otherwise intelligent people were still believing that Obama was a Muslim who was born in Kenya.

Romney didn't help himself. He kept saying how he was going to "create jobs," but gave no details other than to say that he created jobs while at Bain Capital. That. too, insulted my intelligence; Bain Capital was in the business of creating wealth for its investors, not creating jobs. Besides, other Republicans were running around saying that the government shouldn't be in the business of creating jobs.

Another turn-off of the Republican Party was the no-tax pledge, candidates pledging to abdicate their responsibility to fashion rational fiscal policy. It reminded me how George Bush led the country into war in 2003 without any plan to pay for it, leaving the country trillions in debt as a result.

That's enough. I'm disgusted. The Republicans brought it on themselves and deserved to lose. They were lucky to hold on to the House.

[TitoMorelli]

Confucius say: Just because fellow kool-aid drinker agree with poster on here, still no make said poster less a kool-aid drinker than before.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

I had spaghetti for lunch. No kool-aid though. Just water.

[TitoMorelli]

I had spaghetti for lunch. No kool-aid though. Just water.

No bourbon with water?

[FaninAma]

So TU, your retired former colleague basically agrees that the GOP should be the Democrat-lite party. And if he criticizes the GOP for being too far right yet has no criticism for the progressive movement he is certainly no "friend of the United States Consitution".

It is the height of stupidity to keep pointing fingers at the political parties for our problems. If there is a problem it is with the electorate. Let's watch this mess play out. I am betting we end up like Europe proving my point that most of the electorate have no clue what the consequences of thier political choices are.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Bain Capital was in the business of creating wealth for its investors, not creating jobs. Besides, other Republicans were running around saying that the government shouldn't be in the business of creating jobs.

This is some liberal tripe right here. This is from an educated person? We really need some better business and econ education in schools or else people need to quit watching msnbc for their business school lessons.

Fact #1: Businesses that do not have creating value for their shareholders as their #1 goal do not create jobs, because they go out of existence.

[okie52]

Hmmmm......
"Has he read the Constitution where it says that the purpose of the country is to provide for the general welfare? Well I'm familiar with promote the General Welfare...

Probably not a really important distinction to some.

[KantoSooner]

As I read it, the article merely pointed out that Romney was damaged goods by the time the primary season was over due to having to pander to the lunatic fringe of the Republican party.

I think there are myriad ways you can serve society well through fiscal conservatism and a limitation of government to the proper, very confined, sphere it should occupy. In my opinion, the author got a bit over the top conflating Biblical injunctions with the Constitution, but if that's the worst of his sins, he's far from the first.

Americans have the glorious freedom to mostly ignore politics. That makes our parties more important, however, and makes fixing the Republican Party an important priority...or replacing it with a counterweight to the tendencies of the Dems to centralization and collectivism.

[TUSooner]

Confucius say: Just because fellow kool-aid drinker agree with poster on here, still no make said poster less a kool-aid drinker than before.

How rich that someone from the RW media echo chamber should talk about drinking the koolaid. Understand this: rejecting the propaganda of one side does not mean embracing the propaganda of the other.

[TUSooner]

This is some liberal tripe right here. This is from an educated person? We really need some better business and econ education in schools or else people need to quit watching msnbc for their business school lessons.

Fact #1: Businesses that do not have creating value for their shareholders as their #1 goal do not create jobs, because they go out of existence.

Be careful what you say about tripe and education. This guy's no dummy and no liberal sheep.
I'm sure my friend knows as well as you and I do that successful capitalism tends to create jobs. And failed ventures never do. But the capitalist's FIRST concern is NOT to spend money hiring people. Surely you can accept that, especially with regards to Bain. That's his point. If a good capitalist could make higher profits without hiring any labor, you know he would (perhaps by automation or perhaps even by creating and selling dodgy securities or something.) Hiring cheaper overseas labor also doesn't create jobs here, though it's perfectly logical to do.

[TitoMorelli]

How rich that someone from the RW media echo chamber should talk about drinking the koolaid. Understand this: rejecting the propaganda of one side does not mean embracing the propaganda of the other.

Almost as rich as believing that just because someone who wrote a book, served in the navy, is a practicing Catholic and is in your opinion a "friend of the U.S. Constitution," sent you regurgitated talking points that you happen to agree with, then it should trump anyone else's opinions.

[TUSooner]

So TU, your retired former colleague basically agrees that the GOP should be the Democrat-lite party. And if he criticizes the GOP for being too far right yet has no criticism for the progressive movement he is certainly no "friend of the United States Consitution".

It is the height of stupidity to keep pointing fingers at the political parties for our problems. If there is a problem it is with the electorate. Let's watch this mess play out. I am betting we end up like Europe proving my point that most of the electorate have no clue what the consequences of thier political choices are.

Depends on what you mean by "Democrat-lite" Given your vilification of the Dems as a herd of ravening parasites stealing the hard-earned wealth of "real" Americans, "lite" should be a welcome improvement, especially if differs significantly in regard to fiscal and personal responsibility like the GOP used to do, before it started paying more attention to the social ideologues at the expense of controlling spending. You yourself have said you don't care much for the social agenda of the far right. I think a fair reading of Friend's note, unsullied by personal disdain for me, would a result in some agreement with Friend about the GOP. I think you are too quick to savage anything that doesn't meet your test of ideological purity. IOW, you're willing to sacrifice the attainable good in pursuit of the unattainable "perfect."

Also. given that our 2=party system limits the electorate to expressing its political choices between the Rs and the Ds, I think it is perfectly good and desireable for the Rs to win back the voters like Freind, me and lots more, who are only staying away because the GOP has such disagreeable baggage AND because the R's are no longer much different from the Ds when it comes to fiscal policy and seriously addressing the debt by all reasonable means. Give me the Rs that get back to reasonable fiscal conservatism, and not the facade of it, and who stop pandering to cartoon figures and religious nuts, and I think you'll see some real good, whether or not it's perfect.

Make the social fringe dwellers decide between fiscal soundness and irresponsibility. I bet they stick with Rs even if they have to hold their noses on social issues, at least I doubt they'll go D

[SoonerorLater]

From a retired colleague, retired naval officer, friend of the United States Constituion, and a practicing Catholic who wrote a funny and informative book about New Orleans as a Cat'lic town. But I won't say his name because I did not ask his permission to post this (even though I doubt he would mind at all). It's at least anecdotal evidence to counter those who say the GOP should maintain its current affair with the extreme wing of the party. All emphasis is mine:

That's a little vague. Who specifically is this "extreme wing of the party" of which you speak?

[FaninAma]

Almost as rich as believing that just because someone who wrote a book, served in the navy, is a practicing Catholic and is in your opinion a "friend of the U.S. Constitution," sent you regurgitated talking points that you happen to agree with, then it should trump anyone else's opinions.

One of TU's favorite debate tactics is to define the terms of the debate in a way that agrees with his opinion and then declare anybody who doesn't adhere to those terms as the loser of the debate.

His current strawman is that if you don't believe the Republican party is completely out of touch with the electorate then your opinion is invalid. It doesn't matter if you support your argument with information and
statistics.....the simple fact you disagree with his original premise means your opinion is wrong.

[TUSooner]

Almost as rich as believing that just because someone who wrote a book, served in the navy, is a practicing Catholic and is in your opinion a "friend of the U.S. Constitution," sent you regurgitated talking points that you happen to agree with, then it should trump anyone else's opinions.

I do think his expressions are worth considering. Curb your indignation before you bust a blood vessel. Holy ****.

[LiveLaughLove]

Excellent read. The Idiocracy vote on here will disagree or minimize it of course, as being coincidence or just wrong. History is something sorely missing in this country, so we are in fact, doomed to repeat it.

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/bruce-thornton/the-democrats-success-and-the-dysfunctions-of-democracy/


The differences between the political mechanisms of ancient Athens and those of America today do not erase the similarities of mentality and sensibility popular rule creates in its citizens. Most important is the way democracy leads to radical egalitarianism: the belief, as Aristotle put it, “that those who are equal in any respect are equal in all respects; because men are equally free, they claim to be absolutely equal.”


Traditionally democracies have been faulted precisely for this tendency to use the power of the state to redistribute wealth and so erase the most glaring difference among citizens, that between the rich and the poor. Such policies are also attractive because they serve the shortsighted, personal material interests of the citizens, often at the expense of the state as a whole.


During the 4th century B.C., Athenian citizens could expect even more state pay almost every day of the year. They were paid to serve on juries, attend Assembly meetings, go to the theater, and participate in religious festivals. Even when the threat of Philip II’s aggression against Athens became clear, it was dangerous for any politician to propose transferring money from the fund for paying theater and festival attendance to the military fund. By the time Athenians had realized the danger of Philip’s power, it was too late.


They typically preyed on the class envy and resentment of the latter, as the 4th century B.C. orator Isocrates wrote: “Wherefore these men [demagogues] would be most happy to see all of our citizens reduced to the condition of helplessness in which they themselves are powerful. And the greatest proof of this is that they do not consider by what means they may provide a livelihood for those who are in need, but rather how they may reduce those who are thought to possess some wealth to the level of those who are in poverty.”

There's much more and I could quote it all, because it's an excellent read as I said above.

Fire away progressives (what a laughable misnomer for a form of politics that is as ancient as man).

We have already seen the destruction of total Democrat rule in Detroit. Let's watch California now to see where we are heading as a country. They have a super majority there and the Republicans are mere spectators.

They are in debt as badly as the US as a whole is. BTW, they "borrowed" $10 billion from we the tax payers (so much for all that tripe about how the blue states pay for us red states, not so much it turns out).

Think they are going to be responsible and cut spending dramatically? Yeah me neither. In fact, here's a few things they plan on doing.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324894104578106941506837334.html


Democrats have proposed replenishing the state's barren unemployment insurance trust fund by raising payroll taxes on employers.


They'll probably start by repealing Proposition 13's tax cap for commercial property. Democrats in the Assembly held hearings on the idea this spring. Then they'll try to make it easier for cities to raise taxes.


The greens want an oil severance tax. Other Democrats want to extend the sales tax to services, supposedly in return for a lower rate, but don't expect any "reform" to be revenue neutral. Look for huge union pay raises and higher pension benefits.


As a political experiment it all should be instructive, and at least Californians can still escape to Nevada or Idaho.

Nevada won't be a haven for much longer itself though.

[TitoMorelli]

I do think his expressions are worth considering. Curb your indignation before you bust a blood vessel. Holy ****.

Doesn't seem like I'm the one who's overheating on this thread, now does it? :)

[TUSooner]

One of TU's favorite debate tactics is to define the terms of the debate in a way that agrees with his opinion and then declare anybody who doesn't adhere to those terms as the loser of the debate.

His current strawman is that if you don't believe the Republican party is completely out of touch with the electorate then your opinion is invalid. It doesn't matter if you support your argument with information and
statistics.....the simple fact you disagree with his original premise means your opinion is wrong.


Making an argument is not building a "strawman." You don't use that word correctly. I am not deliberately misrepresenting your position to be something that I can easily attack without addressing your real position, I'm openly disagreeing with your actual position. More accurately, I'm not even doing that; I'm just stating MY position, which happens to be inconsistent with yours in some way (not even all ways). That's even farther from your strawman theory; it's just plain old legitimate arguing.
I understand your personal animosity toward me, and I'm not bothered by it. I know I come off more snarky and pedantic on SF than I am in real life. But your unrelenting and bitter hostility toward all who disagree with you is tiresome, and it takes the fun out of arguing. I'll give you credit at least for often expressing your own views rationally while some of your cohort just bark and snarl and make vulgar ad hominem attacks on my fellow infidels.

[TUSooner]

Doesn't seem like I'm the one who's overheating on this thread, now does it? :)

Do you have anything to say that's not about me? I bet other lurkers are getting bored.

[TUSooner]

***In my opinion, the author got a bit over the top conflating Biblical injunctions with the Constitution, but if that's the worst of his sins, he's far from the first....

Yes. But he was addressing an evangelical Christian at the time, so it was relevant to the other guy's views.

[TitoMorelli]

Do you have anything to say that's not about me? I bet other lurkers are getting bored.

Well since they're not the ones currently spewing BS on here, no I don't.

I'm pretty amused, actually. You toss out the fact that your buddy is a Catholic as if you expect that little nugget to add weight to whatever he's saying, yet in the same thread you rant about those who "pander to religious nuts."

You claim to be all for fiscal responsibility. Yet Paul Ryan, who is one of very few on either side of the aisle to make any half-serious suggestions about ways of addressing our budget woes, must be a brainwashed devotee of Rand. Oh, that's right. Your Catholic friend who isn't a religious nut said so, so It's gotta be true.

You jump on the bandwagon belief that the GOP is killing itself because it won't let go of the social issues. But which party chose to make abortion rights the centerpiece of its convention? Which one spoke night after night about the economy and which one decided to headline Sandra Fluke? Of course when two out of the 480 Republican candidates running for national office stick their feet in their mouths when asked potential gotcha questions (from reporters who never ever seem to ask lefty pols why they work so hard to keep partial-birth abortion), then that's just more proof of the sadistic war on women being waged by all conservatives.

[KantoSooner]

Yes. But he was addressing an evangelical Christian at the time, so it was relevant to the other guy's views.

Yes, I suppose so. I didn't see it as fatal to his argument, in any case.

The next year or so will be fascinating to watch. Will we or won't we put our financial house in order (or start to), will the Republicans rejuvenate themselves, and if so, how? Will Europe manage to lossen up their sclerotic economies? Will China pull out of what may be the early stages of a major economic correction? Whence Iran?

We desperately need a vital opposition party in this country. I hope it's something resembling the Republicans of Goldwater, Rockerfeller and Henry Cabot Lodge. But if they can't do that, let's hope that they atomize and the parts and pieces can be allowed to coalesce around something that's more viable in elections.

[TUSooner]

Well since they're not the ones currently spewing BS on here, no I don't.

I'm pretty amused, actually. You toss out the fact that your buddy is a Catholic as if you expect that little nugget to add weight to whatever he's saying, yet in the same thread you rant about those who "pander to religious nuts."

You claim to be all for fiscal responsibility. Yet Paul Ryan, who is one of very few on either side of the aisle to make any half-serious suggestions about ways of addressing our budget woes, must be a brainwashed devotee of Rand. Oh, that's right. Your Catholic friend who isn't a religious nut said so, so It's gotta be true.

You jump on the bandwagon belief that the GOP is killing itself because it won't let go of the social issues. But which party chose to make abortion rights the centerpiece of its convention? Which one spoke night after night about the economy and which one decided to headline Sandra Fluke? Of course when two out of the 480 Republican candidates running for national office stick their feet in their mouths when asked potential gotcha questions (from reporters who never ever seem to ask lefty pols why they work so hard to keep partial-birth abortion), then that's just more proof of the sadistic war on women being waged by all conservatives.

hmmm

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Be careful what you say about tripe and education. This guy's no dummy and no liberal sheep.
I'm sure my friend knows as well as you and I do that successful capitalism tends to create jobs. And failed ventures never do. But the capitalist's FIRST concern is NOT to spend money hiring people. Surely you can accept that, especially with regards to Bain. That's his point. If a good capitalist could make higher profits without hiring any labor, you know he would (perhaps by automation or perhaps even by creating and selling dodgy securities or something.) Hiring cheaper overseas labor also doesn't create jobs here, though it's perfectly logical to do.

Yes, everything you said there is true. What's your point? Bain, by having ongoing operations employed people. Was it their goal to employ people? No. Their goal is to sell widgets. You employ people in the name of selling widgets. So he's upset over the semantics?

Are you arguing against automation or against foreign competition in the labor market?

[TUSooner]

Yes, everything you said there is true. What's your point? Bain, by having ongoing operations employed people. Was it their goal to employ people? No. Their goal is to sell widgets. You employ people in the name of selling widgets. So he's upset over the semantics?

Are you arguing against automation or against foreign competition in the labor market?

Just defending my friend's good anonymous name.

[TUSooner]

Well since they're not the ones currently spewing BS on here, no I don't.

I'm pretty amused, actually. You toss out the fact that your buddy is a Catholic as if you expect that little nugget to add weight to whatever he's saying, yet in the same thread you rant about those who "pander to religious nuts."

You claim to be all for fiscal responsibility. Yet Paul Ryan, who is one of very few on either side of the aisle to make any half-serious suggestions about ways of addressing our budget woes, must be a brainwashed devotee of Rand. Oh, that's right. Your Catholic friend who isn't a religious nut said so, so It's gotta be true.

You jump on the bandwagon belief that the GOP is killing itself because it won't let go of the social issues. But which party chose to make abortion rights the centerpiece of its convention? Which one spoke night after night about the economy and which one decided to headline Sandra Fluke? Of course when two out of the 480 Republican candidates running for national office stick their feet in their mouths when asked potential gotcha questions (from reporters who never ever seem to ask lefty pols why they work so hard to keep partial-birth abortion), then that's just more proof of the sadistic war on women being waged by all conservatives.

Let me ignore your needless invective and answer that for real, albeit without the scathing arrogance, biting sarcasm, and pedantic condescension to which you have become accustomed. Certainly those facts about my friend do not establish that his opinion trumps all others. It is equally certain that many Catholics, authors, attorneys, and retired naval officers say silly things. I mention those facts only to establish that he is not a welfare queen who wants Obama to confiscate your earnings so he can get a free phone and free groceries. I also mention it to show that this is man who would have voted for Romney but for the unsavory alliance between the Republican Party and the anti-science, anti-intellectual, social puritans - and supporting media -- who provide a significant part its so-called base. Even many Republicans party hacks (I use the term in its non-pejorative sense) have trouble with that part of the party. See: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83704.html You may take that or leave it.

[FaninAma]

Let me ignore your needless invective and answer that for real, albeit without the scathing arrogance, biting sarcasm, and pedantic condescension to which you have become accustomed. Certainly those facts about my friend do not establish that his opinion trumps all others. It is equally certain that many Catholics, authors, attorneys, and retired naval officers say silly things. I mention those facts only to establish that he is not a welfare queen who wants Obama to confiscate your earnings so he can get a free phone and free groceries. I also mention it to show that this is man who would have voted for Romney but for the unsavory alliance between the Republican Party and the anti-science, anti-intellectual, social puritans - and supporting media -- who provide a significant part its so-called base. Even many Republicans party hacks (I use the term in its non-pejorative sense) have trouble with that part of the party. See:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83704.html You may take that or leave it.

Suspicions confirmed.

[TUSooner]

Suspicions confirmed.

Is that a "take it" or a "leave it"?

[okie52]

Let me ignore your needless invective and answer that for real, albeit without the scathing arrogance, biting sarcasm, and pedantic condescension to which you have become accustomed. Certainly those facts about my friend do not establish that his opinion trumps all others. It is equally certain that many Catholics, authors, attorneys, and retired naval officers say silly things. I mention those facts only to establish that he is not a welfare queen who wants Obama to confiscate your earnings so he can get a free phone and free groceries. I also mention it to show that this is man who would have voted for Romney but for the unsavory alliance between the Republican Party and the anti-science, anti-intellectual, social puritans - and supporting media -- who provide a significant part its so-called base. Even many Republicans party hacks (I use the term in its non-pejorative sense) have trouble with that part of the party. See: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83704.html You may take that or leave it.

So did your friend vote for Obama?

[TUSooner]

So did your friend vote for Obama?

I assume he did; but if he didn't say so in his note, it's just my assumption.

[okie52]

I assume he did; but if he didn't say so in his note, it's just my assumption.

If your friend was critical of the pubs for social and scientific issues I wonder how he overlooked the dems positions on those categories?

[LiveLaughLove]

Let me ignore your needless invective and answer that for real, albeit without the scathing arrogance, biting sarcasm, and pedantic condescension to which you have become accustomed. Certainly those facts about my friend do not establish that his opinion trumps all others. It is equally certain that many Catholics, authors, attorneys, and retired naval officers say silly things. I mention those facts only to establish that he is not a welfare queen who wants Obama to confiscate your earnings so he can get a free phone and free groceries. I also mention it to show that this is man who would have voted for Romney but for the unsavory alliance between the Republican Party and the anti-science, anti-intellectual, social puritans - and supporting media -- who provide a significant part its so-called base. Even many Republicans party hacks (I use the term in its non-pejorative sense) have trouble with that part of the party. See: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83704.html You may take that or leave it.

So your friend voted social issues over economic issues. That makes him about as common as common can be. I've posted on here before a study that concluded that contrary to popular thought, most people vote social issues over economy in most elections.

Not saying he is bad. I vote social issues also, abortion being the paramount one for me. I'm one of those Christian kooks that thinks he should have an equal say on political matters just like everyone else. I know that's an extremely unpopular idea with the left, but I do get to exercise it. So far.

[kevpks]

"Republicans need to "stop being the stupid party." Tell us how you really feel Bobby. I think I could vote for this guy. I hope he runs in 2016.

http://www.newser.com/story/157501/jindal-gop-needs-to-stop-being-the-stupid-party.html

[okie52]

Seems like Jindal has his own baggage...but I can't remember what it was.

[TUSooner]

Seems like Jindal has his own baggage...but I can't remember what it was.

Too Indian? :biggrin: His given name is Piyush. Some evangelicals once tried to bash him for some of the reasons he stated in his youth for becoming a Catholic, but that blew up in their faces.
I'm not thrilled by some of his comments that seem to pander to puritanical 'Pubs (I know that's pejorative, but I rather intend it to be). Nonetheless, he's the most competent governor of Louisiana that I can recall in the 35 years I have lived here, and I would vote for him for that office every time forever. President? Well maybe.

[okie52]

Too Indian? :biggrin: His given name is Piyush. Some evangelicals once tried to bash him for some of the reasons he stated in his youth for becoming a Catholic, but that blew up in their faces.
I'm not thrilled by some of his comments that seem to pander to puritanical 'Pubs (I know that's pejorative, but I rather intend it to be). Nonetheless, he's the most competent governor of Louisiana that I can recall in the 35 years I have lived here, and I would vote for him for that office every time forever. President? Well maybe.

Hey, if a guy named Hussein is electable I wouldn't worry about Piyush.

[Midtowner]

Too Indian? :biggrin: His given name is Piyush. Some evangelicals once tried to bash him for some of the reasons he stated in his youth for becoming a Catholic, but that blew up in their faces.
I'm not thrilled by some of his comments that seem to pander to puritanical 'Pubs (I know that's pejorative, but I rather intend it to be). Nonetheless, he's the most competent governor of Louisiana that I can recall in the 35 years I have lived here, and I would vote for him for that office every time forever. President? Well maybe.

Do we have a copy of his birth certificate?

[East Coast Bias]

I had high hopes for Herman Cain in 2016, what a breathe of fresh air that guy was. He has fours years to get his pants back on.

[okie52]

I had high hopes for Herman Cain in 2016, what a breathe of fresh air that guy was. He has fours years to get his pants back on.

Cain/Patraeus 2016?

[rock on sooner]

Seems like Jindal has his own baggage...but I can't remember what it was.

Ummm, might be Lousiana.

As to Cain, East Coaster, really?

[kevpks]

Cain/Patraeus 2016?

99 problems but a...Nevermind. They both have 100 problems.

[okie52]

99 problems but a...Nevermind. They both have 100 problems.

Edwards/Weiner has possibilities.

[rock on sooner]

Edwards/Weiner has possibilities.

Heh, let me count the ways.....

[Scott D]

Seems like Jindal has his own baggage...but I can't remember what it was.

probably for people on this board it's the fact that he was born in Baton Rouge ;)

[Bourbon St Sooner]

My wife hates Jindal because she works for the state and hasn't gotten a raise in 4 years. I tell her no employee of any state has gotten a raise in 4 years because they don't have access to Ben Bernanke's magic printing press. She's not having any of it. It's all Jindal's fault

[Scott D]

I knew I should have use my write in for Jindal this year.