Future of the Republican Party

[TW501]

As I'm sure you all know, the United States Republican Party is currently out of power. We have a Democratic president, a Democratic majority in congress, at least three supreme court justices will probably be named by President Obama, a majority of Governors are democrats, and a majority of state legislatures are democratically controlled. The republican party is essentially broken. They currently only account for about 20-25% of the electorate, with people leaving the party at a high rate. Their popularity has fallen within every racial group, social class, religion, area of the country, and every other category except regular church-goers over the past eight years.

Long story short, the republican party is in a total mess. They are split between the social conservative, fiscal conservative, neoconservative, libertarian, and moderate wings of the party, and there is no clear leader present to unite them (the 'official' leader is pretty incompetent). Basically, this thread is to ask people's opinions about what the future holds for the republicans. How long will they stay out of power? Will they ever return to their former prominence? If so, when? Will they fracture and go to third parties (or alternatively, found a new second party)? Share youre opinions on this.

[novae]

They will probably form a new second party because most of the parties we have had in the past have changed or evolved into the parties we have today with the terms they went under at the time not in use anymore.

[arishkegal]

The republican party has no choice but to evolve, it may split between the conservatives and moderates within the party. What brought the party to this state? The right wing religious groups (evangelical christians). Voting based on a persons religious morals is out because it did not help us for the past 8 years. They may break off into their own party. It will be interesting to see what develops within the next 2 years.

[Luna]

I saw this the other day and just thought of it when reading this topic. I know no one here really takes Colbert seriously, but it's an interview with Meghan McCain, and she surprised me with some of her comments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg3q-mmfCjk

[TW501]

Meghan McCain is a pretty smart, reasonable person. If the republican party has a real future, it is with people like her.

[btill9000]

As I'm sure you all know, the United States Republican Party is currently out of power. We have a Democratic president, a Democratic majority in congress, at least three supreme court justices will probably be named by President Obama, a majority of Governors are democrats, and a majority of state legislatures are democratically controlled. The republican party is essentially broken. They currently only account for about 20-25% of the electorate, with people leaving the party at a high rate. Their popularity has fallen within every racial group, social class, religion, area of the country, and every other category except regular church-goers over the past eight years.

Long story short, the republican party is in a total mess. They are split between the social conservative, fiscal conservative, neoconservative, libertarian, and moderate wings of the party, and there is no clear leader present to unite them (the 'official' leader is pretty incompetent). Basically, this thread is to ask people's opinions about what the future holds for the republicans. How long will they stay out of power? Will they ever return to their former prominence? If so, when? Will they fracture and go to third parties (or alternatively, found a new second party)? Share youre opinions on this.

The Republican party will be fine after a few more years of Obama. I actually like Obama, but I am also aware that many of the things he wants to do will send people running back to the Republicans. He'll also be blamed for the insane things that democratic congress passes like the Cyberbullying Prevention Act (HR 1966). Between an unchecked democratic congress and Obama's spending, Republicans will be fine in not time. The only thing Republicans can do to ruin themselves completely is to move further away from fiscally conservative.

[Szarlej]

Wait few years, and Obama would be more hated by George Bush Junior.

[TW501]

Well that depends on how things turn out. If he manages to get Afghanistan under control and the economy in general stabilizes (if not completely recover) people may end up overlooking his flaws. Remember, it's not just Obama, the democrats in general have had massive gains the past several years.

Of course, the Republican party is hurting itself more than anything else. The social conservatives and libertarians are both essentially threatening to leave the party if things don't go their way. The leadders are completely divided, and with Steele in charge that's not likely to change. Not to mention the fact that George W. Bush will likely haunt them for years to come. I read somewhere that people are more likely to form their opinion of political parties based on the party in charge when they come of age. For the people who grew up in the Clinton and Bush years, they would instinctively associate democrats with the prosperity under Clinton and the troubles under Bush. It's not absolute, but there's some deep psychology at work. I'll try to find the article again later.

[Luna]

Bit of a tangent:

I read somewhere that people are more likely to form their opinion of political parties based on the party in charge when they come of age. For the people who grew up in the Clinton and Bush years, they would instinctively associate democrats with the prosperity under Clinton and the troubles under Bush. It's not absolute, but there's some deep psychology at work. I'll try to find the article again later.
I hope you do find it--sounds interesting. Funny you mention that actually because I remember my junior high social studies class and in the 2000 election, at the time, I actually would have voted for Bush, but today I honestly cannot say why. I honestly didn't have any problems with him until probably 2002, but I don't remember that specifically either. My family never really discusses politics for some reason, so I've always found it a bit amusing that my dad is a big-business Republican, mom's a moderate, and I'm about as liberal as they come. I remember growing steadily more set in liberal perspectives over the course of high school, but part of that was the exposure to politics I had in high school and discovering how to verbalize some personal philosophies I've had for years.

I don't think we've seen the last of the Republican Party, but they will need some new tactics. If they actually do try to appeal to the gay community as far as keeping the government out of your personal life, that might put an odd new spin on gay-related issues. It seems that the party will have to rethink some of its positions and make some adjustments. Regrouping under a new title may help, as 'republican' carries quite a few connotations these days, some more negative than others.

[TW501]

Found it! Here's the poll that I was referring to earlier.
Bush May Haunt Republicans for Generations

Gallup has some fascinating data out, based on more than 120,000 interviews they've completed over the past four months, on the way that partisan identification breaks down by age:
http://pcd.dreamhosters.com/538/images/gallup1.jpg
Democrats, somewhat unsurprisingly, have the largest partisan ID advantage among Gen Y'ers, followed by among Baby Boomers. Republicans do relatively well (although are still at a net disadvantage) among Generation X'ers.

What's interesting, though, is what happens when we look at not these abstract generational categories, but rather at the following question: who was President when you turned 18? As annotated in the chart below, the popularity -- or lack thereof -- of the President when the voter turned 18 would seem to have a lot of explanatory power for how their politics turned out later on:

Partisan ID Gap, Based on Identity of President When Voter Turned 18
http://pcd.dreamhosters.com/538/images/gallup2.jpg
It's become common knowledge that the younger generation is highly predisposed toward Democrats. (Actually, that's not quite right -- they're more predisposed against Republicans than they are toward Democrats -- but the net effects on their voting behavior are probably about the same.) What's more remarkable, though, is how sharp the increase in the partisan ID gap becomes at about age 25. People aged 26-34 are pretty Democratic, put people aged 18-25 are really Democratic.

The former group came of age in the Clinton Era. Clinton, in the public's mind, is usually regarded as an average-to-slightly-above-average President, and the voters who came of age during his Presidency are associated with an average-to-slightly-above degree of Democratic affiliation.

The 18-25 year olds, however, came of age in the George W. Bush Era. And Bush, at least the vast majority of us think, was not a good President. In fact, most of us would say, he was a really awful President. And the people who turned 18 during his tenure are associated with extremely low levels of Republican identification.

The reason this is a real worry for the Republicans is because you can still see the echo of past Presidencies on the partisan ID trends today. Popular presidents are associated with above-average levels of party support among the generation that came of age during their time in office, whereas unpopular Presidents are associated with below-average ones. Moving backward in time:

George H.W. Bush, a roughly average President who was generally quite popular until roughly the last 12 months of his tenure, is associated with a slightly above-average amount of Republican support.

Reagan, a highly successful President who was popular throughout most of his term and may be even more popular today, is associated with a considerably above-average amount of Republican support.

Carter, a mediocre-to-average President, is associated with slightly below-average levels of Democratic support.

Ford, a mediocre-to-average President, is associated with average or slightly below-average levels of Republican support.

Nixon, who was reasonably popular before the Watergate Scandal broke but who is generally regarded as a very poor President today, is associated with below-average levels of Republican support.

Johnson, whose complicated time in office is generally regarded today as having been an above-average Presidency, is associated with generally above-average levels of Democratic support.

Kennedy, who was very popular throughout his brief tenure in the White House, is associated with above-average levels of Democratic support. (You can almost see the spike in popularity among 64- and 65- year olds, who would have been about 17 when Kennedy took office.)

Eisenhower, a popular and effective Republican president, is associated with significantly above-average levels of Republican support.

Finally, we get to Truman and Roosevelt, where things seem to break down a bit. Truman is regarded quite favorably by historians today but was unpopular for much of his tenure; he is associated with average-to-slightly-below levels of Democratic support. The numbers then bounce around a bit for FDR, perhaps because there aren't all that many people in their mid-80s and so the sample sizes are small.

In general, however, this points toward the idea that partisan identification -- while not exactly being "hard-wired" -- can be quite persistent as the voter moves through her lifecourse. Voters who came of age during the eight years of the Bush Presidency are roughly eight points more Democratic than the rest of the country; that advantage could be worth an extra point or two to Democrats throughout the next half-century.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/bush-may-haunt-republicans-for.html

[CaptainDean]

The Republicans really need to change in the right way to become more competitive. They shouldn't try to brand themselves by using too much technology like twitter and youtube, what is important is the message since the Democrats have access to the smae technology anyhow. The party also really needs to solidify it's leader in the minds of the people. In addition the party should not be too rigid and allow new ideas to be able to change the principles of the party so the party more accurately represents a more modern insight.

[btill9000]

Well that depends on how things turn out. If he manages to get Afghanistan under control and the economy in general stabilizes (if not completely recover) people may end up overlooking his flaws. Remember, it's not just Obama, the democrats in general have had massive gains the past several years.


Short of catching Bin Laden, I don't think he's ever going to get Afghanistan under control enough to satisfy people.

As far as the economy goes, the things he is doing are unlikely to work. It's not impossible, but with the amount of money the government is creating, they could make it worse. Obama is still blaming this thing on Bush whenever he's asked about it, but that wont work for to much longer. I don't see anything Obama is doing that is sure to help the economy.

Your right that the democrats have been having massive gains lately though. Like I said, I like Obama and supported him, but you always have to be realistic you know.

^ The guy above is right, they need a new leader. The new leader should not be Huckabee, McCain, Palin, Romney, or any of the failed people they've tried in the past.

[TW501]

The economy is actually expected to improve. Virtually all economists agree it will be over by september. This early, it's pretty much just wait and watch to determine how the political winds will shift.

[btill9000]

The economy is actually expected to improve. Virtually all economists agree it will be over by september. This early, it's pretty much just wait and watch to determine how the political winds will shift.

Im not economist but I seriously doubt any real improvement. It might artificially improve though. I think Obama is getting ready to make a move on that health care thing too. I love the idea of national health care but.... thats gonna take a lot of money we don't have.

[TW501]

I misspoke a little, what I meant was that they expect the recession to be over by september, not that the economy would be completely better. Several dozen economists were polled and asked at what point they thought the recession would end. Here is a graph of it, along with corresponding information from a poll of regular people on when they thought the recession would end.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5ieXw28ZUpg/Sa86c6V3DSI/AAAAAAAAA-o/QX_zfyPDU10/s400/blame3.png
This was taken a little over a month ago, so a majority of economists believe that the recession will be over by September.

[nuttychemist]

Im not economist but I seriously doubt any real improvement. It might artificially improve though. I think Obama is getting ready to make a move on that health care thing too. I love the idea of national health care but.... thats gonna take a lot of money we don't have.

off-topic tangent behind the spoiler:

See this is the problem with the country and the world... its full of pessimists. Its annoying to hear people try to pin the down economy on Obama, can I just point out to you that he was only sworn into office FOUR months ago. He's got a bunch of shit to clean up after 8 years of W. Our country is in the crapper because W decided to wage 2 wars, one that is completely unjustified and costing us BILLIONS or 907.3 billion (approx. since 2001) This war isn't making it a better place, its pissing off the rest of the world. Don't believe me, take a trip to another country and see how they treat you (if your American) I'm sure its a bit better now in Europe since Obama's been elected. But public opinion during the Bush era was really bad. I remember going around the Netherland (which is probably the most laid back, liberal, friendly country I've been too) and having people say how little they thought of America and its policies. Bush pissed in the international sandbox , we have little to no help in Iraq and Afghanistan. I personally think we should pull out of the Middle East completely. Let them fight each other and stop depending on their oil, because honestly thats one of the reasons we even bother with that region.

The money this country could save by not being over there could fund a *lot* of the reforms and changes we *NEED* to make this country a better place. I'd like to point out that democrats have been trying to bring health care reform since Clinton first became president (maybe even before then) I don't understand why people are so damn afraid of nationalized health care. By creating a national health program you can cut the middle man (aka the evil insurance companies who screw people over on a daily basis) Everyone should have access to quality care. I pray to god that Obama will be able to make some headway in this arena, there are too many people out there (myself included) without health care coverage. Sure there are ways of getting individual policies but A) they are waaaaay too expensive and B) if you've got a pre-existing condition forget it.


My thoughts on the Republican party are that they really need to figure out who and they believe and stand for. It might be in their best interest to distance themselves from extremists and the uber-right wing. If they stay in the middle ground, they'll regain supporters... the problem is do they have someone who is middle ground & charasmatic? I'm not really sure.

[rhinowls]

I have cut ties with both parties. They are two sides of the same coin.

Unfortunately the only thing left at that point is the Liberatarians. Some of them have great ideas, (I'm especially fond of the smaller government/government has no F'ing place in your personal life angle) but they are struggling to get themselves out in front of the populace and in the attempt to grow, they are attracting a lot of whack jobs.

It's sad. I hoped Obama would be...better. He's become about as centrist as you can get, and thats not going to play well with the hardcore dems, and will likely result in a Palin presidency in four years. And if that happens, I'm thinking about a multi year vacation to Canada/Austrailia/Antarctica because that woman is concentrated evil ignorance.

[Exploits]

I have cut ties with both parties. They are two sides of the same coin.

Unfortunately the only thing left at that point is the Liberatarians. Some of them have great ideas, (I'm especially fond of the smaller government/government has no F'ing place in your personal life angle) but they are struggling to get themselves out in front of the populace and in the attempt to grow, they are attracting a lot of whack jobs.


I'm not American, but in terms of Canadian politics, I've never considered myself fully Liberal or fully Conservative, NDP, Bloc, Green, etc. I personally see political parties as an option during certain times and not a group of people you vehemently follow until your own death, blindly voting for them and agreeing at every turn.

Its of my opinion that a party should be voted into power depending on what a country needs at the time, not on what people want or believe in rediculously. I've always been a supporter of the Liberals, but last election (And the first one I could vote in) I voted Conservative, because as much as I hate robo-Harper for being the massive asshole that he is, our House of Commons has been so far up its own ass in the last ten+ years that we need someone that has the balls to take control, even when people don't want it. Sure, I don't agree with ALL his policies, but I don't agree with all Liberal policies either.

I mean really, too often I hear people say something like (Random, unrealistic example) "Oh, the Liberals have a great, fool-proof, exit strategy for Afghanistan that will work in a year that we really, really need, BUT I'M CONSERVATIVE AND WON'T VOTE FOR THEM.".

Christ, it's like refusing life-saving surgery because of your religion.

[Yadomaru]

I don't believe in political parties. I believe in voting for the candidate based on what he(or she) stands for/believes in, regardless of which animal's on their campaign poster. That's the reason I had candidates I liked in both the Republican and Democratic parties. Plus Ron Paul.

[btill9000]

off-topic tangent behind the spoiler:

See this is the problem with the country and the world... its full of pessimists. Its annoying to hear people try to pin the down economy on Obama, can I just point out to you that he was only sworn into office FOUR months ago. He's got a bunch of shit to clean up after 8 years of W. Our country is in the crapper because W decided to wage 2 wars, one that is completely unjustified and costing us BILLIONS or 907.3 billion (approx. since 2001) This war isn't making it a better place, its pissing off the rest of the world. Don't believe me, take a trip to another country and see how they treat you (if your American) I'm sure its a bit better now in Europe since Obama's been elected. But public opinion during the Bush era was really bad. I remember going around the Netherland (which is probably the most laid back, liberal, friendly country I've been too) and having people say how little they thought of America and its policies. Bush pissed in the international sandbox , we have little to no help in Iraq and Afghanistan. I personally think we should pull out of the Middle East completely. Let them fight each other and stop depending on their oil, because honestly thats one of the reasons we even bother with that region.

The money this country could save by not being over there could fund a *lot* of the reforms and changes we *NEED* to make this country a better place. I'd like to point out that democrats have been trying to bring health care reform since Clinton first became president (maybe even before then) I don't understand why people are so damn afraid of nationalized health care. By creating a national health program you can cut the middle man (aka the evil insurance companies who screw people over on a daily basis) Everyone should have access to quality care. I pray to god that Obama will be able to make some headway in this arena, there are too many people out there (myself included) without health care coverage. Sure there are ways of getting individual policies but A) they are waaaaay too expensive and B) if you've got a pre-existing condition forget it.


That will only work a little longer. Within the next 6 years the economy will be Obama's and he'll have to take credit for it, regardless of whether it's better or not.


As far as Nationalized Health care goes, I am on the fence, there are plenty of pros and cons, but here are mine:

Main pro: Our economy is built on keeping a certain amount of people out of work. If the unemployment rate got down below 3-4%, the fed would actually try to bring it up some. Taking this into consideration, it should be the governments priority to help of those that cannot get a job. Then combine that with the fact that the price of items has increased dramatically over the years, but wages have not.

Main con: Socialism is not a good thing. It almost never works, and it would fail even quicker if we started socializing things while we are already in a bad economy. Between taking over or giving bailouts to banks, businesses, and nationalizing health care, we are moving fast toward socialism.


My thoughts on the Republican party are that they really need to figure out who and they believe and stand for. It might be in their best interest to distance themselves from extremists and the uber-right wing. If they stay in the middle ground, they'll regain supporters... the problem is do they have someone who is middle ground & charasmatic? I'm not really sure.


Of course they have someone. Theirs gotta be some young guy, much like Obama, thats sitting out there waiting for the opportunity. They've just got to find him. They should've never let McCain run in the first place.

[pumpkin13]

Latest pictures in from the construction site of the Republican Parties new headquarters:
http://thebadplus.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/deathstar_2.jpg

[btill9000]

Latest pictures in from the construction site of the Republican Parties new headquarters:
http://thebadplus.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/deathstar_2.jpg

LMAO, Cheney is going to be so mad at you for giving out his secrets.

[Luna]

It's sad. I hoped Obama would be...better. He's become about as centrist as you can get, and thats not going to play well with the hardcore dems, and will likely result in a Palin presidency in four years. And if that happens, I'm thinking about a multi year vacation to Canada/Austrailia/Antarctica because that woman is concentrated evil ignorance.

What?? How the hell do you figure THAT?

[TW501]

He's basically saying that because Obama is more centrist and moderate, a lot of the really hard-core democrats won't be as enthusiastic about their support for him thus giving the republican candidate (who he is presuming to be Palin) the opportunity to win. I personally do not share this sentiment. He has a lot of time to get things working. He should be able to win over most of the party while still being center-left rather than all the way to the left. Plus, the number of independent voters is at an all time high. I personally do not see a Palin presidency in the future (and frankly, I'd prefer a third Bush term to Palin).

While on that topic, I think I'll go on a little tangent about all of the republican likely nominees that are being considered for 2012 and why they won't be able to stand up well against Obama.

Sarah Palin- Most people have already made up their mind about her and have formed strong opinions that won't be changed during elections, specifically that she is functionally retarded. Outside the social conservatives, she doesn't have as much popularity as she did at first. Many of the fiscal conservative and moderate branches of the republican party blame her for causing John McCain's loss. Even among her base of hardcore social conservatives, support is fracturing due to several recent decisions she has made. Her approval rating in Alaska has plummeted since last summer.

Newt Gingrich- Gingrich was so divisive during the Clinton years that he would have a difficult time winning. There were more than a few scandals around him too. Although he's courting them, he doesn't have that much strength with the social conservatives.

Mike Huckabee- He is a religious conservative, and thus attracts a lot of social conservatives, but he has done some things that likely alienate other groups. For example, while a baptist minister he signed a document saying that women 'should submit to their husbands'. Also, he said that the constitution should be changed to line up more with biblical law, which has got to raise some red flags.

Bobby Jindal- Was popular at first, and touted as a republican version of Barack Obama. He once claimed to have witnessed an exorcism. Unfortunately for him, when he gave a the Republican response to Obama's address to congress, he completely screwed up. It was the first glimpse of him that a lot of Americans saw, and probably didn't leave a very good impression. Even Republicans thought the speech was lame. He heavily criticized a provision in the stimulus package allotting money for volcano monitoring...right before a major volcano erupted.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/MtRedoubtedit1.jpg/800px-MtRedoubtedit1.jpg
Pictured: Mount Redoubt, seen here mocking Bobby Jindal.

Mitt Romney- He's a Mormon. The evangelicals who make up the base of the republican party would never elect a non-christian candidate, and evangelicals usually don't consider Mormons to be Christians. Despite this, he has made many attempts to portray himself as a social conservative, when he would be better served by running on a platform of fiscal conservatism. When he was governor of liberal Massachusetts, he was pro-choice and in favor of gay rights, but now that he is running nationally, he is pro-life and against gay marriage, earning him a reputation as a flip-flopper.

Jeb Bush- Do you honestly believe that anyone in their right minds would elect a third Bush to office?

Ron Paul- He may have wild support among the Libertarian wing, but he isn't really that strong with the rest of the party. Plus, at age 73, statistically he'll probably be dead by 2012.

Rudy Giuliani- Let's see, he's pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, opposed the Iraq war, pro-gun control, and has had three divorces. I'm sure the conservative base will rally behind him.

With a divided base, weak leadership, and a rather pathetic set of likely candidates, I honestly see little chance of the Republicans beating Obama in 2012.

[Luna]

He's basically saying that because Obama is more centrist and moderate, a lot of the really hard-core democrats won't be as enthusiastic about their support for him thus giving the republican candidate (who he is presuming to be Palin) the opportunity to win. I personally do not share this sentiment. He has a lot of time to get things working. He should be able to win over most of the party while still being center-left rather than all the way to the left. Plus, the number of independent voters is at an all time high. I personally do not see a Palin presidency in the future (and frankly, I'd prefer a third Bush term to Palin).

I followed the bolded line of thought, but given that my understanding of the public's impression of Palin matched your description to an extent at least, I was baffled by the idea that we would somehow end up with Palin as president in 2012.

I wish I could remember where I read it so I could post a link, but I read somewhere that Mitt Romney was in the lead among Republicans with 20% approval rating or majority vote, or something to that extent. I could be mistaken, since I was trying to find current Palin approval ratings (Wikipedia claims are at 54% for May this year).

Anyway, given the list of prospectives just described, I'd almost be willing to bet this would be prime time for a (potentially) young, hopeful, unheard-of politician to make his/her way through the Republican party. A new figure, fresh perspective, blooming career and reputation--I think someone in that category would stand a better chance than anyone already mentioned in this thread.

Also, I rather enjoyed the volcano picture caption :amused:
Nature pwns.

[btill9000]

Sarah Palin- Most people have already made up their mind about her and have formed strong opinions that won't be changed during elections, specifically that she is functionally retarded. Outside the social conservatives, she doesn't have as much popularity as she did at first. Many of the fiscal conservative and moderate branches of the republican party blame her for causing John McCain's loss. Even among her base of hardcore social conservatives, support is fracturing due to several recent decisions she has made. Her approval rating in Alaska has plummeted since last summer.

Newt Gingrich- Gingrich was so divisive during the Clinton years that he would have a difficult time winning. There were more than a few scandals around him too. Although he's courting them, he doesn't have that much strength with the social conservatives.

Mike Huckabee- He is a religious conservative, and thus attracts a lot of social conservatives, but he has done some things that likely alienate other groups. For example, while a baptist minister he signed a document saying that women 'should submit to their husbands'. Also, he said that the constitution should be changed to line up more with biblical law, which has got to raise some red flags.

Bobby Jindal- Was popular at first, and touted as a republican version of Barack Obama. He once claimed to have witnessed an exorcism. Unfortunately for him, when he gave a the Republican response to Obama's address to congress, he completely screwed up. It was the first glimpse of him that a lot of Americans saw, and probably didn't leave a very good impression. Even Republicans thought the speech was lame. He heavily criticized a provision in the stimulus package allotting money for volcano monitoring...right before a major volcano erupted.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/MtRedoubtedit1.jpg/800px-MtRedoubtedit1.jpg
Pictured: Mount Redoubt, seen here mocking Bobby Jindal.

Mitt Romney- He's a Mormon. The evangelicals who make up the base of the republican party would never elect a non-christian candidate, and evangelicals usually don't consider Mormons to be Christians. Despite this, he has made many attempts to portray himself as a social conservative, when he would be better served by running on a platform of fiscal conservatism. When he was governor of liberal Massachusetts, he was pro-choice and in favor of gay rights, but now that he is running nationally, he is pro-life and against gay marriage, earning him a reputation as a flip-flopper.

Jeb Bush- Do you honestly believe that anyone in their right minds would elect a third Bush to office?

Ron Paul- He may have wild support among the Libertarian wing, but he isn't really that strong with the rest of the party. Plus, at age 73, statistically he'll probably be dead by 2012.

Rudy Giuliani- Let's see, he's pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, opposed the Iraq war, pro-gun control, and has had three divorces. I'm sure the conservative base will rally behind him.

With a divided base, weak leadership, and a rather pathetic set of likely candidates, I honestly see little chance of the Republicans beating Obama in 2012.

This is pretty good. You've done a pretty good job of listing all of the people that the Republican's should avoid.

[novae]

^For your con on the previous page, Great Britain actually has national health care and, last I heard, they are still doing better than America in that regard but they pay high taxes for it. That and the price of gas is much higher than what Americans have had to pay for it.
Other than that, they are still functional and going strong. I'll get more of an idea from the citizen point of view soon.

[Rollingstar]

A bunch of butt hurt conservatives, boo hoo... every time I flip the channel to fox news network, they're crying and criticizing Obama because of what the economy has become...
oh yea, after being in office since January, he's destroyed what we've got here... ahah umm no, that's thanks to the last president in office, I wonder who that could be...

People are expecting him to stick to his promise about change, and are demanding that change to happen now.. by people I mean Republicans in general. I've seen my share of distaste for this guy coming directly from this party.

[TW501]

The only thing that could really cause a big shift to the republicans is a major terrorist attacks. That's why Dick Cheney is constantly going on Fox News to say that Obama's policies releasing memos, stopping torture, and closing the prison at Guantanamo are making America unsafe. He's betting on a terrorist attack, and wants his party to reap as many benefits from it as possible. In reality, the things he's criticizing aren't directly making us either safer or unsafer, but buy criticizing Obama for them, Cheney is ensuring that if there is a terror attack, he will be blamed and criticized for the actions more widely.

Frankly, I agree that there will likely be a terror attack. Not because of anything Obama is doing or not doing, but simply by probability. We may have been relatively safe since 9/11, but as the attacks on our allies in Britain, Spain, Turkey, etc. show, terrorists are still capable of launching attacks. Sooner or later, a terrorist will get lucky. Even if he stops ten attacks but the terrorists end up having one successful attack, Obama will be blamed. Just recently there were those guys who planned to blow up synagogues and were captured due to their incompetence. Obama wasn't really to credit for it, but had they been more competent and succeeded you can bet that he would have been blamed for it.

[rhinowls]

Sorry for the logic jump in my last post. What I was trying to say, is that if Obama keeps up the centrist tack he's taken, rather than the much more liberal leanings of his campaign stumping - the hardcore Dems are going to start to pull away from him, which will lead to a popularity loss because face it, the general populace are mostly sheep and will follow what the media says.

A lot of people have short memories. If the economy isn't fixed in the next 6 months, this is going to start to become "Obama's economy" rather than the failure to regulate out of control megalomaniac investment bankers and Wall Street moguls under the previous administration.

[TW501]

The recession is forcasted to be over by September. As for Obama's more centrist positions, that may actually work out well for him, as the number of independent voters has risen greatly in the past several months.

[ismey]

i personally think that the republicans wont gain foot hold again until 2016 elections.....

[striker-taii]

Obama a centrist? that's a laugh he's about as far left as you can get. whatever Palosi can't get through the senate when the mysteriously vote these "proposal's" on Friday night's Obama puts through executive order. He's used that more times than any other president. The "Stimulus" package is going to only help in the short term, while it then BALLOONS out through inflation and the dollar will essentially become worthless. This isn't expected to happen soon, but within 12-18 months enough time for the whole "Blame it on Bush" to become a bad excuse.

National Healthcare? Well last time I checked most people who worry about health care are very capable of taking care of them selves we do not need the government telling us how to live our lives, it certainly doesn't work very well anywhere else (in Canada it's actually illegal to visit a private doctor). All these Ideas do is take away the rights from the states, and centralize it under the federal government which is nothing more than a massive bureaucracy.

[TW501]

That's an argument against his policies, not an argument against his being a centrist. When he is referred to as centrist, it is usually referring to the fact that his actions are not as extensively liberal as many on the left would like. For all your criticism of it, many democrats and keynesian economists believe his stimulus package was too small. He has put off some of the social issues like gays in the military and the assault weapons ban, and chose not to release abuse photos or pursue major investigations against people from the Bush administration. He is undeniably more pragmatic than a lot are giving him credit for. The debate over his stimulus package or health care plans are largely irrelevent to the assertion you made. Obama is undeniably a liberal/progressive, but he's not nearly as far left as you and others constantly claim.

[striker-taii]

So you believe in order to fix a financial problem you should spend more money? So let's change the pretext of this a bit, say for example you know an alcoholic do you help him to try and get over this problem, by giving him more alcohol?

He's a populist president who goes by the polls that doesn't make him a centrist. Him giving the government a say in the banks certainly isn't going to help them. Have you seen how well the government runs the Licensing Department? How does the government running GM help GM out?

Please don't tell me you believe that the government is going to turn around someday and say to the average citizen "Alright things are better so now we return the banks, and car companies to the private citizen." These things are happening under Obama's administration you are telling me a centrist would do that?

[TW501]

It's more his social and military policies that have been centrist. For example, he has put the assault weapons ban and repealing of Don't Ask Don't Tell off for the time being, as they are controversial practices that would distract from more important issues. He signed a bill that allowed firearms in national parks (granted, republicans attached it to a credit-related bill, but he wasn't opposed enough to veto the entire thing and send the credit part to be done over again). Centrist probably isn't the best term to describe it. Pragmatic would probably be a more apt term. What we're saying is that his actions haven't been as far left as pundits are claiming. On the political spectrum, he'd probably fit the 'center-left' category. To you he probably seems way far left, but to those on the left side of the political spectrum, he definitely seems more centrist, and has occasionally been a target for criticism because of that.


The stimulus package was based on the premise of Keynesian economics. If you don't understand the premise of the philosophy, it's difficult to make sense of it, which is why so many people are critical of it. They don't fully understand the purpose of it, and there are plenty of pundits more than willing to spread misconceptions about it. As for the banks and GM, drastic action was needed to ensure that they didn't collapse, and Obama couldn't put that much money into them without any conditions. Again, there are a lot of misconceptions about the nature of this.

[Yadomaru]

i personally think that the republicans wont gain foot hold again until 2016 elections.....
I personally think that the Republican Party is not going to be able to regain a decent political foothold unless it dials back the extreme-far-right rhetoric of such people as Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney, who recently was viciously slamming Colin Powell for his opinions.
Mark McKinnon, who was sort of an informal advisor to Sen. McCain during the campaign or something like that, said yesterday on the subject: "If we("we" being the GOP) don't have room for Colin Powell, we are on our way to permanent minority party status forever."
So the question is: Do the Republicans want to be the party of, say, Colin Powell or George H.W. Bush, or does it want to be the party of Rush Limbaugh?
If it's the latter, I think McKinnon's right - the "Grand Old Party" is in for a long spell of insignificance.

On the issue of GM, let me ask a purely rhetorical question: Which do you think would be better for the economy in the long run: Putting money into preventing it from failing, or letting it be and then when it collapses, suddenly losing two and a half million or so jobs?

[striker-taii]

okay, I wasn't aware of what it meant so i decided to find out, based on what I read Keynesian economics is probably not the best way to describe Obama's policy either. It's based on the fact that while we are in an economic slump right now putting money into the system to stimulate some form of supply and demand. Do you know how many jobs have been created by Obama's injection into the economy? 12,000 do you know that the states that have received the most in stimulus money have not been the states with the highest unemployment?

If Obama is trying to stimulate something he's doing it strangely. 1,000,000 stimulus dollars spent on a bridge in, I think it was Wisconsin....anyways can't remember where. anyways all that money spent on the bridge was merely to put a guard rail on the bridge to prevent people from jumping off it, and into the river below (the bridge is known locally as "suicide bridge").

What does that encourage the growth of? what does that stimulate? what does forcing GM to make smaller vehicles stimulate? what does having government controls in banks stimulate? since you are apparently more aware of economic terms than I am maybe you can answer those question for me. Porky Pig (Barrack Obama without a teleprompter) up there can never give me a decent answer and it always changes.

[TW501]

What does that encourage the growth of? what does that stimulate? what does forcing GM to make smaller vehicles stimulate? what does having government controls in banks stimulate? since you are apparently more aware of economic terms than I am maybe you can answer those question for me. Porky Pig (Barrack Obama without a teleprompter) up there can never give me a decent answer and it always changes.
There were certainly some unnecessary provisions in the bill, but it would have been impossible to do otherwise. The rail itself would have been bought from a rail-making company and installed by workers. They would be payed money, then they would buy stuff or invest it, thus putting the money into the economy. That is a simplified answer for that question. You can't discredit the entire thing because a few congressmen stuck some unnecessary things in it though. Sure you could choose to focus on the $1 millionthat was spent on a bridge rail, but wouldn't it be wiser to instead focus on the $288 billion that was spent on tax relief that would leave Americans with more money to spend? What about the $53 billion that will be spent on education and training, which in addition to putting money into the economy would help train the next generation of workers. Or how about the $111 billion that was spent on infrastructure and scientific development? Or the $144 billion to help relieve state and local governments, thus sparing them from having to raise taxes and cut programs. What seems like a stupid thing to you would still put money into the economy, and is obviously important to someone. Bobby Jindal, the governor of Louisiana, held similar sentiments, mocking funding for a volcano monitoring program in the stimulus package. Then this happened.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/MtRedoubtedit1.jpg/800px-MtRedoubtedit1.jpg
Volcano monitoring isn't so stupid now, is it Bobby?

As for GM, that wasn't really part of the stimulus package, but it was still a wise move. Had the government not gotten involved, GM likely would have collapsed completely. I know they're doing pretty badly right now, but it would have been worse if it had simply been allowed to completely collapse, and as a Michigan resident I must say that I'm glad that they got involved. When they have GM make smaller cars, it is for the purpose of both using less gasoline, as well as providing American cars that are more competitive with the Japanese and other foreign car makers.

The government involvement in banks is temporary, a measure to prevent them from collapsing and all people involved with the banks suffering because of it. Again, it's not part of the stimulus.

[btill9000]

Looks like Gov. Tim Pawlenty might be getting the tap to lead the party. Seems to have a little charisma problem though.
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE55177J20090603

[Yadomaru]

As long as he's not Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, or someone equally pigheaded, I don't mind.

[btill9000]

As long as he's not Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, or someone equally pigheaded, I don't mind.

LOL @ mentioning Rush Limbaugh. They'd assassinate him before they let him doing anything official. He'd serve no other purpose than to rip the party apart further.

[TW501]

Tim Pawlenty would be a fairly good choice on their part, but I'm doubtful that he'd be able to go against Obama. To be honest, nothing the republicans do right now will make much of a difference, as the only way for major support to swing back to them would be if the democrats really mess up (and I mean REALLY mess up), and even then I'm not so sure given the current state of the party. Tim Pawlenty would be a decent choice on their part, but I'm not sure a lot of the hardcore conservatives would be quick to embrace him. Before he runs for the presidency, he must run a primary campaign, where he would face candidates who already have strong republican support. In a general election he may do better than those individuals, but amongst republicans he may not be able to stand up for long.

[logainofhades]

Lets see we have the government owning huge percentages of banks and like 72.5% or so of GM. Chrysler I am unsure of the amount at the moment. This government is turning more socialist by the day. Maybe one day people will wake up and realize Obama = One Big Ass Mistake America. There has been too much government involvement in this whole mess. Not saying they should have done nothing but just trying to throw money at it was not the answer either. Now we will have government trying to decide what vehicles we should be buying and God knows what else. Obama promised we would not pay more in taxes. Yea income tax maybe but what good does that do if they find other stuff to tax even higher instead? I learned long ago be careful of trusting politicians but never trust a Chicago Democrat. Obama is no better than that idiot Blago or Chicago Mayor Daley. They just do not get much more corrupt. I just hope this country realizes it and does not elect him for a second term.

[AfterExile]

If the republican party tries to get Palin to run for office then they are doomed...

Now days Liberals are more conservative than republicans, I hope that we end up getting three main parties to vote for out of their mess so that we can once and for all put a end to this bipartisan system we have had.

[Peak]

Lets see we have the government owning huge percentages of banks and like 72.5% or so of GM. Chrysler I am unsure of the amount at the moment. This government is turning more socialist by the day. Maybe one day people will wake up and realize Obama = One Big Ass Mistake America. There has been too much government involvement in this whole mess. Not saying they should have done nothing but just trying to throw money at it was not the answer either. Now we will have government trying to decide what vehicles we should be buying and God knows what else. Obama promised we would not pay more in taxes. Yea income tax maybe but what good does that do if they find other stuff to tax even higher instead? I learned long ago be careful of trusting politicians but never trust a Chicago Democrat. Obama is no better than that idiot Blago or Chicago Mayor Daley. They just do not get much more corrupt. I just hope this country realizes it and does not elect him for a second term.
I agree with you, on GM they were a waste of money.

I think the government should just let them fall.

But on the politicians, doesn't almost every politician do that?

Obama isn't the first.

[Yadomaru]

I agree with you, on GM they were a waste of money.

I think the government should just let them fall.
Okay. But how do you think that would look on his resume:
"Allowed through his nonaction for the loss of two and a half million jobs"
I don't think even Dubya's THAT stupid.

[logainofhades]

I am not saying let them fall but somehow I think the whole situation could have been handled better. Not sure how but what has went on just does not seem right at all.

[Peak]

Okay. But how do you think that would look on his resume:
"Allowed through his nonaction for the loss of two and a half million jobs"
I don't think even Dubya's THAT stupid.
Nonaction?

He's given them tons of money already probably about 2-3 times.

But GM hasn't even improved since then.

I think people would understand when you have a business that isn't doing any good and you give them money, still aren't doing good you have to let them go.

He needs to stop giving money to, GM and give it for something useful.

I am not saying let them fall but somehow I think the whole situation could have been handled better. Not sure how but what has went on just does not seem right at all.
Yeah, it should have been handled well.

[Kenpachi Madarame]

For the Republican party to make a quick recovery they're going to need people like Rush, O'Reilly, etc. to stay in the back seat and keep their mouths shut. I think were going to see a huge wave of Meghan McCain like Republicans becoming very popular in the upcoming years.

[AfterExile]

For the Republican party to make a quick recovery they're going to need people like Rush, O'Reilly, etc. to stay in the back seat and keep their mouths shut. I think were going to see a huge wave of Meghan McCain like Republicans becoming very popular in the upcoming years.

I agree Rush, O'Reilly, and almost everyone on the fox news network need to shut the hell up right now. All they are doing is turning away potential new members to their party.

The majority of the youth in this country hates fat old guys who do nothing to solve problems yet still like to sit on their asses and point fingers at those who are trying to solve the problems. :finger: all Republicans who arent helping

[Yadomaru]

Nonaction?
He's given them tons of money already probably about 2-3 times.
No shit.
That was what's commonly known as a hypothetical question

For the Republican party to make a quick recovery they're going to need people like Rush, O'Reilly, etc. to stay in the back seat and keep their mouths shut.
All they are doing is turning away potential new members to their party.

HELL. YES. Especially Rush and Cheney.

[striker-taii]

So, the paid the state 1,000,000 dollars to put a guard rail on a single bridge?

288 million on tax relief? what tax relief? where have our taxes gone down? most of the money went into social programs that make people entirely dependent on the government. social programs which are almost bankrupt! Also GM (government motors) is now defunct it's not even on the stock market anymore! so, the stimulus package didn't really help GM out any. Seems to me that kind of kills your point about the stimulus package.

You all laugh at Rush Limbaugh, but have you even bothered to listen to him at all? or do you just hear what they give you on sound bites?

So if I am to take your point seriously then you are saying that republicans need to kick out conservatives? It's republicans like Palin that can help the republican party. I don't agree with everything Romney does as a governor, but he does seem to know how to run things financially, though his state run health care has essentially bankrupted his state so if he goes up on the ticket with that as his message then he won't get any real support at all.

It's funny why wouldn't a democrate or a liberal support palin considering she's a woman and they are fighting for women's right's wouldn't a woman on the ticket help your chances? Did the dem's somehow become objective overnight when it came to palin or was it the smearing of her by PMSNBC, CNN, and ABC? that seems more likely to me.

seems the only times it matters to dem's is if it's on their parties ticket...

[AfterExile]

Because Palin is a idiot that doesnt even know where africa is on a map..

and I have listened to Rush he never offers alternatives all he does is sit on his fat ass and criticize everyone else.

[striker-taii]

really? huh you must be listening to a different Rush Limbaugh then. He makes the point of letting the private sector handle it themselves, as well as most any other conservative talk radio hosts. Also you don't need to resort to name calling, doesn't rub well with a liberal.

Also have you talked to Palin personally do you really KNOW her? I haven't so I can't say one way or another. I don't her wink in the vice-presidential debate helped her, but also her running with McCain didn't help her. Don't make assumptions about people. I've learned that the hard way.

[AfterExile]

really? huh you must be listening to a different Rush Limbaugh then. He makes the point of letting the private sector handle it themselves, as well as most any other conservative talk radio hosts. Also you don't need to resort to name calling, doesn't rub well with a liberal.

Also have you talked to Palin personally do you really KNOW her? I haven't so I can't say one way or another. I don't her wink in the vice-presidential debate helped her, but also her running with McCain didn't help her. Don't make assumptions about people. I've learned that the hard way.

Rush makes points but he doesnt back any of it up, thus hes not coming up with alternatives he just coming up with excuses to trash others.

As for Palin look it up if you dont beleive me she had no idea Africa was even a continent much less where it was on a map.

[RMerchant]

Meghan McCain is a pretty smart, reasonable person. If the republican party has a real future, it is with people like her.

I dunno, this is the same girl who in an interview said something to the effect of "...poor people are only that way because they lack initiative, that they should go get loans and start a business."

Get poor, unemployed people working? I'm all for it

Take out a loan and put your ass in debt? That's what got us in this mess.

In regards to the party in general, I was hopeful for them when they announced their "pizza party" and their idea of restructuring from the ground up, but when the talking heads like Rush said that they "...shouldn't be asking voters what they want, instead we should be TELLING them what they want...", and then the party AGREES, I think they're doomed.

A lot of people are saying it's gonna take a good 8-10 years for them to climb out of this mess, unless Obama really drives it into the ground, but if he does, there likely won't be an America left to vote it.

[TW501]

So, the paid the state 1,000,000 dollars to put a guard rail on a single bridge?
I don't know the details of the plan, you're the one who brought it up. We don't know how big the bridge is, the importance of the rail, or even if this case exists (I've seen claims before that I know for a fact aren't true, this may or may not be one of them). Perhaps it was such an important safety issue that it couldn't be ignored, but the local government couldn't afford it and would otherwise have had to take out loans or raise taxes (I'm just speculating as I don't know the details).

288 million on tax relief? what tax relief? where have our taxes gone down?
No, $288 billion in tax relief, the largest provision in the bill. It mainly consists of tax credits and tax refunds that will take place throughout 2009-2010.

most of the money went into social programs that make people entirely dependent on the government. social programs which are almost bankrupt!
By my count, about 42% of it goes directly to social programs, including education and healthcare, which account for the largest portion of social programs. Nothing in the stimulus makes people 'entirely dependent on the government'. I don't know what specific programs you say are bankrupt, and I won't deny that some are in trouble, but none of that is specifically due to the stimulus.

Also GM (government motors) is now defunct it's not even on the stock market anymore! so, the stimulus package didn't really help GM out any. Seems to me that kind of kills your point about the stimulus package.
The stimulus package wasn't supposed to help GM. The government's involvement with the company was not part of the stimulus, and it still probably helped in the long run (or at least softened the blow of the collapse). GM would have in all likelihood collapsed anyways, and while it probably could have been dealt with differently, as a Michigan resident I am glad that the government at least did something instead of just collapsing completely.
You all laugh at Rush Limbaugh, but have you even bothered to listen to him at all? or do you just hear what they give you on sound bites?

He's loud, obnoxious, and immature. He is often borderline racist and always intolerant and derisive towards something or other. He has no original ideas of his own, he just restates other people's positions in an arrogant and rude manner. His claim to fame is being rude and immature, yet conservatives act like he's brilliant and insightful, and may god help the republican who dares criticize the egomaniac.

Here's a fun trick. Read a bunch of conservative posts on an online forum. Then go here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jargon_of_The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show
See how many Rush-isms they parrot. I spy one right now.
It's funny why wouldn't a democrate or a liberal support palin considering she's a woman and they are fighting for women's right's wouldn't a woman on the ticket help your chances? Did the dem's somehow become objective overnight when it came to palin or was it the smearing of her by PMSNBC, CNN, and ABC? that seems more likely to me.
They don't support her because she's a hardcore social conservative with a lackluster education, a number of idiotic policies, and lack of understanding of basic concepts. You really think anyone would support her because she's a woman? You thoroughly misunderstand your opposition, and that shallow thought process is partly why republicans are in their current state. They saw Hillary Clinton being successful, so they put forward Palin. They saw Obama meet success, so they tried out Michael Steele and Bobby Jindal. You don't get it. Women's rights does not mean voting for any woman candidate. I don't recall any of the networks smearing her. There was really no need to, as she embarasses herself every time a camera is pointed at her.


It's republicans like Palin that can help the republican party.
If by 'help' you mean drive away all moderate elements of the party to the point that only the hardcore social conservatives remain, then yes, she helps a lot.

[AfterExile]

If by 'help' you mean drive away all moderate elements of the party to the point that only the hardcore social conservatives remain, then yes, she helps a lot.

LMAO thats exactly the same point I was making, Palin=Death of any improvement to the republican party... End Of Story

[striker-taii]

I meant Billion, anyways TW501 your not from america, so I don't expect you to understand where I'm coming from. Like I said you all can make fun and laugh about it all you want, my point is that most of this isn't going to help the people in any way, most of it is going to be skimmed off by politicians who are going to use such programs as political tools, or they will in the end anyways.

[TW501]

I meant Billion, anyways TW501 your not from america, so I don't expect you to understand where I'm coming from. Like I said you all can make fun and laugh about it all you want, my point is that most of this isn't going to help the people in any way, most of it is going to be skimmed off by politicians who are going to use such programs as political tools, or they will in the end anyways.

This statement could normally be brushed off as a simple error...if I had not said in the previous post
...and while it probably could have been dealt with differently, as a Michigan resident I am glad that the government at least did something instead of just collapsing completely.

Not to mention the fact that it specifically says that I'm from Michigan right below my avatar (you know, where it says 'location'). This is Michigan if you're still clueless at this point.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/Map_of_USA_MI.svg/286px-Map_of_USA_MI.svg.png
Understood?

[RMerchant]

This statement could normally be brushed off as a simple error...if I had not said in the previous post

Not to mention the fact that it specifically says that I'm from Michigan right below my avatar (you know, where it says 'location'). This is Michigan if you're still clueless at this point.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/Map_of_USA_MI.svg/286px-Map_of_USA_MI.svg.png
Understood?

I dunno if you read the news last week, TW501, but we gave MI to Canada for some more money.

[striker-taii]

LOL