My Post-Election Post-Mortem Analysis

[FaninAma]

Absolutely right. The Republican Party has absolutely no legitimate claim to being the party of fiscal responsibility. The W. Bush deficits were outrageous, the wasting of the Clinton-era budget surplus was almost criminal, and the Bush administration created a plethora of new government agencies, bureaucracies, and some of the largest new entitlement programs since the Great Society.

Current spending levels are simply not sustainable and the reckoning is coming soon. If Boehner has to agree to an uptick in the top bracket tax rate in order to get the Democrats to agree to deep and meaningful cuts then for the love of God I hope he does it

However, the Democrats must raise the line where the tax increases take effect. I believe they are proposing $200k which would negatively affect many small businesses. It seems like Biden proposed a $1,000,000 line at the Veep debate, but I may be misremembering. I think $1.5 million would be a much better line.

That's because the GOP has cynically decided the best way to hold political power is to give the electorate what they want......more government spending. I think we all do a poor job of assigning the blame where it belongs.......at the feet of the voters.

[Turd_Ferguson]

That's because the GOP has cynically decided the best way to hold political power is to give the electorate what they want......more government spending. I think we all do a poor job of assigning the blame where it belongs.......at the feet of the voters.

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.

[TUSooner]

Watch him do the things that lost this election like you did the last four years I guess. You fellas are funny. More blame and more insults will fix things.

Pathetic but if the right folks push your buttons...maybe this thread will be the biggest meltdown in Internet History. With you at the helm...I have faith that it will.

I'm going to go watch some Football now and peek in to see if you have fixed the Country over night. I really thought the Bubble you lived in was really going to turn into that landslide you were hoping for.

He'd have it fixed by now if it were not for all those "people" ewwwwww! <---- That's a winky, folks!

[TUSooner]

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.

Just don't limit "people" to poor people....

[StoopTroup]

ROTFLMMFAO!!!!!

I knew you'd like that.

BTW...I forgot to mention I work with a bunch of Veterans as well as guys who did their duty and when back to the private sector. Some Coast Guard and lots of National Guard. I have nothing but respect for them all...even the ones that didn't come Home but have worked out there for 20-30 years.

I don't blame them for becoming Union Workers. Maybe I have just had an exceptional experience in that my workplace had lots of Military and Legacy Workers who followed a Father or a Uncle or Cousin or Brother there for a Career. I do know that while I was there, we have an incredible safety record and I am very proud of what we all accomplished as Co-Workers. You can blast us all you want. I know just how tough many of them are and if there's anyone who can take BS like yours....it's us.

You should probably get down on your knees and kiss everyone of our a$$es for getting you Home safely if you've ever had the privilege of riding in one of our flying tubes of Union Death.

Come on Curly...there's only one Dude.

[StoopTroup]

He'd have it fixed by now if it were not for all those "people" ewwwwww! <---- That's a winky, folks!

I love that winky. Why can't that be fixed? There's no Union workforce here?

[Turd_Ferguson]

I knew you'd like that.

BTW...I forgot to mention I work with a bunch of Veterans as well as guys who did their duty and when back to the private sector. Some Coast Guard and lots of National Guard. I have nothing but respect for them all...even the ones that didn't come Home but have worked out there for 20-30 years.

I don't blame them for becoming Union Workers. Maybe I have just had an exceptional experience in that my workplace had lots of Military and Legacy Workers who followed a Father or a Uncle or Cousin or Brother there for a Career. I do know that while I was there, we have an incredible safety record and I am very proud of what we all accomplished as Co-Workers. You can blast us all you want. I know just how tough many of them are and if there's anyone who can take BS like yours....it's us.

You should probably get down on your knees and kiss everyone of our a$$es for getting you Home safely if you've ever had the privilege of riding in one of our flying tubes of Union Death.

Hey trust me, I know there is nobody that can follow SOP's and guidelines like the Union can...

Example of a Union Member Job;

Step 1- Open the manual, but make sure it's 8:15 a.m. before you do
Step 2- Take a 15 minute break
Step 3- Consult with Union Steward to make sure you shouldn't need more union members to help
Step 4- There is no job so important that we cant take time for safety
Step 5 -Make sure all seven Union members have been properly trained to use the 12" crescent wrench required for this labor intensive task.
Step 6- Consult with Union Steward to confirm 12" crescent wrench training has been completed
Step 7- Take a 15 minute break

yada yada yada...Trust me, there's a lot of peeps that know what a hard days work is. Most Union members have no ****ing idea what that is.

[Turd_Ferguson]

You should probably get down on your knees and kiss everyone of our a$$es for getting you Home safely if you've ever had the privilege of riding in one of our flying tubes of Union Death.

And I'm sure, the only ones that could provide a safe A/C is Union members...GMAFB.

[StoopTroup]

And I'm sure, the only ones that could provide a safe A/C is Union members...GMAFB.

I'll let you decide. You seem quite knowledgeable.

[Turd_Ferguson]

I'll let you decide. You seem quite knowledgeable.

I'm quite sure that every A/C is not maintained by Union employees. How in the world do those aircraft ever get from A to B, much less C to D to E, without augering in?

[SicEmBaylor]

Forty-eight hours after the 2012 General Election, I wrote that rather lengthy post-mortem analysis of what steps I believed the Republican Party desperately needed to make in order to ensure its long term national viability. The short version is that the Republican Party loses the battle to court those outside its traditional tent by failing to commit to constitutional conservatism, limited-government, and the reduction of the size and scope of the Federal government. There are a small handful of issues that limit the Republican Party’s ability to appeal to those for whom the party would otherwise be home. The fundamental purpose of conservatism, in the generic sense, is to preserve a nation/society’s founding political and social institutions. Our political institutions originate from our founding documents -- the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. Our Founding Fathers understood that the expansion of freedom and liberty would neither come all at once nor easily. The expectation, however, was that freedom would expand. The unfortunate truth is that the Republican Party has been, at times, hostile to expanding liberty for those who seek it. In turn, those individuals reject the Republican Party entirely even when they might otherwise embrace its values. There is nothing that says a homosexual/minority should naturally reject the Republican Party’s economic policies; there is nothing that says a homosexual/minority should reject principles of limited-government. In fact they, more so than almost anyone else, should see the value in and embrace the principles the Republican Party purports to stand for.

Here we now stand on the precipice of yet another Presidential election. We have nearly two dozen potential Republican Presidential candidates representing all wings of the Republican Party and the conservative movement. Several of those potential candidates represent a wing of the Republican Party and ‘conservative’ movement soundly rejected by voters. They have proven over the course of several election cycles that their brand of domestic and foreign Republicanism is neither the future of the party nor the future of the country. It has been soundly rejected at the ballot box everywhere except in Republican primaries. We can do better. We can do better at reaching out to those for whom the Republican Party has never been a reasonable option. We can do better by reaching out to those whose pre-conceived notions of the Republican Party may not intersect with reality. We can do a better job at selling real conservative principles. Political parties are nothing if not a conduit for ideas and principles. They are the reason for existing. There is no reason to vote Republican or Democrat unless they offer voters a clear choice based upon principle. Both parties are in the business of selling themselves, candidates, and ideas (whether based on policy or principle). They are like a business in that they put forth a product and voters will either buy or pass. I’ve been asking for some time, “What product is the Republican Party selling? What is the GOP offering that’s worth buying?” I’ve had a lot of answers to that question but no good answers. There is one candidate, in my opinion, capable of offering a better product to the consumer (i.e. voter). Rand Paul.

This comes as no shock to anyone who knows me, but it bears repeating. No other candidate has made the effort to reach out to those normally not inclined to give the Republican Party a first much less second glance. No other candidate has demonstrated they are as serious as Rand Paul about reducing the size and scope of government while expanding individual liberty. There are policy issues within the Republican Party that may never be palatable to those voters, but he makes the effort to show that the Republican Party still offers an enticing package despite differences on a few key issues. He has demonstrated that the Republican Party is so much more than a few single issues, and he has done so while offering tangible solutions to problems facing those communities the Republican Party traditionally has little outreach with. Paul may not change everyone’s opinion overnight, but show me another candidate making the same effort. From prison reform to drug law reform, Paul is talking about issues that Republicans normally shy away from. They are issues that are extremely important to a segment of the population that feels as if the Republican Party does not speak to their interests.

There are diverging schools of thought within the Republican Party on how to expand the electorate and remain viable. One group postulates that supporting the legalization of illegal immigrants will endear the Hispanic community to the Republican Party. The theory goes that Hispanics, being a traditional Catholic community, shares many of the Republican Party’s social values. This is a false assumption. Let’s set aside that it’s horrendous social and economic policy to legalize that many individuals over night. The Republican Party will never be seen as anything but obstructionist and anti-immigrant even if the GOP were to acquiesce to the proposal. The same logic can be applied to the Civil Rights Act which was largely obstructed by Democrats and supported by Republicans, and one can view that historical precedent as a guide on this issue. Legalization will result in millions of new Democratic voters in key swing states that will likely tip the scale in favor of big bad blue.

The alternative is to go after fiscal conservatives and social libertarians. The Republican Party is losing more voters over issues like gay marriage and the drug war than it would ever gain with Hispanics by legalizing current illegals. The Republican Party has a chance to offer a message that is gender/race neutral and ought to resonate with voters across the spectrum to at least some degree. The sooner the GOP can put these issues behind it, the sooner it can start properly branding itself for the upcoming election. What I’m talking about here is not an abandonment of conservatism -- it’s putting political conservatism into practice. We ought to seek to give people more freedom and more personal choice even when we don’t agree with those decisions. We ought to believe that individuals know how to best run their own lives, and we ought to stop attempting to legislate morality. Big government is big government whether it be in your bedroom or your pocketbook.

Paul offers a vision for the Republican Party that can fundamentally re-shape the electorate. Paul will be a transformative President and the most limited-government pro-liberty President since Calvin Coolidge.

[Serenity Now]

Well written. The issue is that the Mullens and langfords of the world won't compromise on key wedge issues like gay rights, the tyranny of romneycare, etc. State legislators are falling all over themselves to write the strangest laws imagineable. Oklahoma is just one of the kooky states with people like kern and that idiot trying to get rid of ap history. We spend millions defending our unconstitutional laws.

[okie52]

Actually if the legislation that recently passed the Oklahoma House becomes law the gay marriage issue becomes a moot issue as far as the state of Oklahoma is concerned. Langford and Mullens wouldn't even be part of the equation.

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com...arriage-67-24/

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf...125%20HFLR.PDF

Yeah Sally Kern and some others try some wacky stuff but I'm sure you know that this wackiness isn't just limited to red states.

New York’s Ban on Big Sodas Is Rejected by Final Court

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/ny...odas.html?_r=0

BOSTON — Young grade-school girls in Massachusetts may feel uncomfortable if a boy wants to use their locker room and restrooms in school.

But if that boy identifies as a girl — regardless of his actual biological gender — then girls will just have to deal with it, according to guidelines published earlier this year by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.

“This discomfort is not a reason to deny access to the transgender student,” the guidelines say, adding that school administrators and counseling staff should address the students’ discomfort and “foster understanding of gender identity.”

If a boy or girl — no matter his or her age — says he or she identifies with the opposite sex and insists on being called a different name to reflect that gender, then teachers and students have to go along with it, or face disciplinary action.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news...#ixzz3VDrd6OSa

.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo: Pro-life people not welcome in New York

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/go...rticle/2542475

[TAFBSooner]

Forty-eight hours after the 2012 General Election, I wrote that rather lengthy post-mortem analysis of what steps I believed the Republican Party desperately needed to make in order to ensure its long term national viability. The short version is that the Republican Party loses the battle to court those outside its traditional tent by failing to commit to constitutional conservatism, limited-government, and the reduction of the size and scope of the Federal government. There are a small handful of issues that limit the Republican Party’s ability to appeal to those for whom the party would otherwise be home. The fundamental purpose of conservatism, in the generic sense, is to preserve a nation/society’s founding political and social institutions. Our political institutions originate from our founding documents -- the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. Our Founding Fathers understood that the expansion of freedom and liberty would neither come all at once nor easily. The expectation, however, was that freedom would expand. The unfortunate truth is that the Republican Party has been, at times, hostile to expanding liberty for those who seek it. In turn, those individuals reject the Republican Party entirely even when they might otherwise embrace its values. There is nothing that says a homosexual/minority should naturally reject the Republican Party’s economic policies; there is nothing that says a homosexual/minority should reject principles of limited-government. In fact they, more so than almost anyone else, should see the value in and embrace the principles the Republican Party purports to stand for.

Here we now stand on the precipice of yet another Presidential election. We have nearly two dozen potential Republican Presidential candidates representing all wings of the Republican Party and the conservative movement. Several of those potential candidates represent a wing of the Republican Party and ‘conservative’ movement soundly rejected by voters. They have proven over the course of several election cycles that their brand of domestic and foreign Republicanism is neither the future of the party nor the future of the country. It has been soundly rejected at the ballot box everywhere except in Republican primaries. We can do better. We can do better at reaching out to those for whom the Republican Party has never been a reasonable option. We can do better by reaching out to those whose pre-conceived notions of the Republican Party may not intersect with reality. We can do a better job at selling real conservative principles. Political parties are nothing if not a conduit for ideas and principles. They are the reason for existing. There is no reason to vote Republican or Democrat unless they offer voters a clear choice based upon principle. Both parties are in the business of selling themselves, candidates, and ideas (whether based on policy or principle). They are like a business in that they put forth a product and voters will either buy or pass. I’ve been asking for some time, “What product is the Republican Party selling? What is the GOP offering that’s worth buying?” I’ve had a lot of answers to that question but no good answers. There is one candidate, in my opinion, capable of offering a better product to the consumer (i.e. voter). Rand Paul.

This comes as no shock to anyone who knows me, but it bears repeating. No other candidate has made the effort to reach out to those normally not inclined to give the Republican Party a first much less second glance. No other candidate has demonstrated they are as serious as Rand Paul about reducing the size and scope of government while expanding individual liberty. There are policy issues within the Republican Party that may never be palatable to those voters, but he makes the effort to show that the Republican Party still offers an enticing package despite differences on a few key issues. He has demonstrated that the Republican Party is so much more than a few single issues, and he has done so while offering tangible solutions to problems facing those communities the Republican Party traditionally has little outreach with. Paul may not change everyone’s opinion overnight, but show me another candidate making the same effort. From prison reform to drug law reform, Paul is talking about issues that Republicans normally shy away from. They are issues that are extremely important to a segment of the population that feels as if the Republican Party does not speak to their interests.

There are diverging schools of thought within the Republican Party on how to expand the electorate and remain viable. One group postulates that supporting the legalization of illegal immigrants will endear the Hispanic community to the Republican Party. The theory goes that Hispanics, being a traditional Catholic community, shares many of the Republican Party’s social values. This is a false assumption. Let’s set aside that it’s horrendous social and economic policy to legalize that many individuals over night. The Republican Party will never be seen as anything but obstructionist and anti-immigrant even if the GOP were to acquiesce to the proposal. The same logic can be applied to the Civil Rights Act which was largely obstructed by Democrats and supported by Republicans, and one can view that historical precedent as a guide on this issue. Legalization will result in millions of new Democratic voters in key swing states that will likely tip the scale in favor of big bad blue.

The alternative is to go after fiscal conservatives and social libertarians. The Republican Party is losing more voters over issues like gay marriage and the drug war than it would ever gain with Hispanics by legalizing current illegals. The Republican Party has a chance to offer a message that is gender/race neutral and ought to resonate with voters across the spectrum to at least some degree. The sooner the GOP can put these issues behind it, the sooner it can start properly branding itself for the upcoming election. What I’m talking about here is not an abandonment of conservatism -- it’s putting political conservatism into practice. We ought to seek to give people more freedom and more personal choice even when we don’t agree with those decisions. We ought to believe that individuals know how to best run their own lives, and we ought to stop attempting to legislate morality. Big government is big government whether it be in your bedroom or your pocketbook.

Paul offers a vision for the Republican Party that can fundamentally re-shape the electorate. Paul will be a transformative President and the most limited-government pro-liberty President since Calvin Coolidge.

Fortunately for the Democrats, there are very few social conservatives that will even grok your argument, much less agree to it. They would have to accept the idea that people not like them are still *people*.