Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)
-   -   Is the Republican party done for? (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/135101-republican-party-done.html)

robot_parade 05-13-2008 08:01 PM

Is the Republican party done for?
 
Another Democratic special election win

This makes it 3-for-3 for special elections this year. Prospects are not looking for for the Republicans in the fall. Is this just the pendulum swinging back towards the party that's been out of power for awhile, or does it signal a sea-change in the U.S. political system?

Could the Republican party split? Maybe we could end up with a three party system, with the old Democratic party going further left, a centrist party, and a far-right party? So much of our political infrastructure is designed for the two-party system that this seems hard to imagine, but stranger things have happened.

Willravel 05-13-2008 08:11 PM

The neocons will lose most of their power for the time being once Obama wins. The GOP will become more libertarian again and things will go back to normal. Right now the Dems are the centrist party.

djtestudo 05-13-2008 08:19 PM

I can see a day where the more moderate from both parties split off and come together in the middle as a new party.

That isn't going to happen yet, though. And not likely from the Republicans.

I can still see something weird happening at the Democratic convention involving Hillary, her getting the nomination, the hardcore Obama supporters jumping to McCain to spite her, McCain winning, and the Democrats splitting.

Of course, that is still about as likely as one of those "Hillary runs with Bill, wins, resigns, then is appointed VP" theories, so we're stuck with what we've got.

dc_dux 05-13-2008 08:28 PM

The MS win was a shocker....in the reddest of red districts. Bush won this district by 25 points in 04. The Repub candidate ran ads attempting to tie Childers to Obama, along with ads with the Rev Wright videos...didnt work.

The extent to which the Repubs are in denial can be found in the words of the House Minority Leader:
House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) tonight responded to the MS-01 special election results with this cautionary statement:

“The results in MS-01 should serve as a wake-up call to Republican candidates nationwide. As I’ve said before, this is a change election, and if we want Americans to vote for us we have to convince them that we can fix Washington. Our presidential nominee, Senator McCain, is an agent of change; candidates who hope to succeed must show that they’re willing and able to join McCain in a leading movement for reform. We need to stop wasteful Washington spending, fight and win the war on terror, and stop the largest tax increase in history. That is truly the change the American people deserve -- and that is a message on which we can succeed.”
So what is McCain running on....permanent tax cuts for the top 2% of wage earners, no definable end to the occupation in Iraq, no health care reform plan and a stated lack of interest/expertise in an economic plan....that's change?

I've been seeing counts that the Dems could pick up 12-15 seats in the House this year (after 30+ in 06) and up to 6 seats in the Senate....giving them much more workable majorities.

Will has it right...the Dems have been running centrist candidates to attract Independents and its working, while the Repubs cling to their social conservative base.

I think its the start of another relatively long term trend (10+ year) trend.

More threatening to McCain (and the Repub party) was the announcement yesterday by former Repub Congressmen Bob Barr that he is running for the libertarian nomination for president....and he is running on the Ron Paul platform....cut the size of government, stop the infringement of personal liberties and bring the troops home.

He has to win the Libertarian nomination at their convention later this month..but he is now the front runner and the first big name tht the Libertarian party has ever had as a potential candidate. One republican pollster fears that Barr could get up to 5-7% (no Libertarian has ever won more than 1%) of the vote in Nov if disaffected Repubs (including Ron Paul supporters) turn out for him. That could be the difference in several close states, even more so that Nader in 2000 (he won less than 3%).

Ron Paul supporters are also planning to try to upstage McCain at the Republican convention...another bad sign for McCain and Repub candidates on his coattails.

Willravel 05-13-2008 08:37 PM

DJ, there's no way Obamists (myself included in that group, now) will vote for McCain. Even with maximum spite. If McCain wins, it will be because Hillary gave up running like a Democrat months ago and Obama was cheated.

Barr gives me pause. If Paul switched to Libertarian (WHERE HE SHOULD HAVE ALWAYS BEEN), he'd die off, but Paul maintaining he's a Republican means that Barr stands a chance of doing what Badnarik couldn't: attracting pissed off Republicans.

djtestudo 05-13-2008 08:39 PM

Could this be 1992, where a Clinton wins with a bare plurality because of a third-party candidate stealing Republican votes?

dc_dux 05-13-2008 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
Barr gives me pause. If Paul switched to Libertarian (WHERE HE SHOULD HAVE ALWAYS BEEN), he'd die off, but Paul maintaining he's a Republican means that Barr stands a chance of doing what Badnarik couldn't: attracting pissed off Republicans.

Paul has indicated he wont endorse McCain...particularly because of McCain's never-ending occupation of Iraq (and his belligerence towards Iran).

If Paul comes out and endorses Barr, then many of his troops are likely to follow....and that spells trouble for Republicans.

And many old core Repubs still praise Barr for his leadership role in the House on the Clinton impeachment.

djtestudo 05-13-2008 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
DJ, there's no way Obamists (myself included in that group, now) will vote for McCain. Even with maximum spite. If McCain wins, it will be because Hillary gave up running like a Democrat months ago and Obama was cheated.

Even if that is the case, what if they don't vote, or vote Green, or otherwise don't vote for Hillary?

If the Libertarians can get something rolling and goofy things start happening at the Dems' convention, this could be a very interesting election.

Might end up with McCain keeping enough of his base together to eek out a plurality, but with a lot of pissed-off people on both sides, and a potentially strong Democratic Congress with a weak Republican president.

dc_dux 05-13-2008 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo
Could this be 1992, where a Clinton wins with a bare plurality because of a third-party candidate stealing Republican votes?

Put a fork in Clinton....she's done, even with her big win in WV today. She has one more win in her - KY, next week, while Obama wins OR, SD and PR.

At this point, she is hoping to recoup some of her $20 million in outstanding debts....and it sounds more and more like she is pushing quietly for the VP slot, putting Obama in a tough position.

Willravel 05-13-2008 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux
Paul has indicated he wont endorse McCain...particularly because of McCain's never-ending occupation of Iraq (and his belligerence towards Iran).

Of course.
Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux
If Paul comes out and endorses Barr, then many of his troops are likely to follow....and that spells trouble for Republicans.

Paul won't do that. He's too stuborn. He'll run until the very end. And you're right in thinking it doesn't make sense. But that's his game.
Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux
And many old core Repubs still praise Barr for his leadership role in the House on the Clinton impeachment.

All I care about is splitting the GOP vote. The less people vote for McCain, the better.
Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo
Even if that is the case, what if they don't vote, or vote Green, or otherwise don't vote for Hillary?

What I was saying is that at this point, considering the delegates, Obama would have to be cheated to lose the Dem nomination. And yes, I suspect that if he were cheated, a lot of his supporters would not vote Dem, which could result in a GOP white house (as I said).

I might vote Green again.
Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo
If the Libertarians can get something rolling and goofy things start happening at the Dems' convention, this could be a very interesting election.

Might end up with McCain keeping enough of his base together to eek out a plurality, but with a lot of pissed-off people on both sides, and a potentially strong Democratic Congress with a weak Republican president.

A strong Dem congress is WAY more important than the presidency. I don't know why people can't grasp that. This is why I was so disappointed in 2006 and why I was especially disappointed that the Dem majority has crumbled on several key issues. The power is in the House and Senate. As soon as someone gets those car crashes under control, we can start undoing the damage Bush has done.

dc_dux 05-13-2008 09:04 PM

It will be interesting to follow the Ron Paul blogsophere to see if they will move towards Barr without Paul's endorsement or stick with their guy who wont be on the ballot in Nov.

That is, after they disrupt the Repub Convention.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
A strong Dem congress is WAY more important than the presidency. I don't know why people can't grasp that. This is why I was so disappointed in 2006 and why I was especially disappointed that the Dem majority has crumbled on several key issues. The power is in the House and Senate. As soon as someone gets those car crashes under control, we can start undoing the damage Bush has done.

Absolutely...particularly a fillibuster proof Senate (they are likely to fall a few short of the magic number of 60...they might hit 57-58)

host 05-13-2008 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo
I can see a day where the more moderate from both parties split off and come together in the middle as a new party.

That isn't going to happen yet, though. And not likely from the Republicans.

I can still see something weird happening at the Democratic convention involving Hillary, her getting the nomination, the hardcore Obama supporters jumping to McCain to spite her, McCain winning, and the Democrats splitting.

Of course, that is still about as likely as one of those "Hillary runs with Bill, wins, resigns, then is appointed VP" theories, so we're stuck with what we've got.

Who are "the moderates" from both parties? What are their common interests, besides personal concerns about fuel prices and "the economy"? Do you think that people who want new laws passed that put doctors who perform abortions and/or women who choose to have abortions, in jail, to prevent the procedure from being available, and people who believe the abortion issue is "settled law", are going to come together under one political tent?

I don't see many republican "moderates", and neither does the senate voting record show many..... There will be no "jumping" to McCain. What would be the attraction of McCain's candidacy, for an Obama supporter, compared to sitting out the general election? Nobody who supports Obama wants to endure what American life will be like during four more years of McBush!

OUR EMERGING CONCERN IS THE "WINGERIZATION" RAMPANT IN THE OFFICER RANKS IN OUR MILITARY.

Tully Mars 05-14-2008 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host
Who are "the moderates" from both parties? What are their common interests, besides personal concerns about fuel prices and "the economy"? Do you think that people who want new laws passed that put doctors who perform abortions and/or women who choose to have abortions, in jail, to prevent the procedure from being available, and people who believe the abortion issue is "settled law", are going to come together under one political tent?

I don't see many republican "moderates", and neither does the senate voting record show many..... There will be no "jumping" to McCain. What would be the attraction of McCain's candidacy, for an Obama supporter, compared to sitting out the general election? Nobody who supports Obama wants to endure what American life will be like during four more years of McBush!

OUR EMERGING CONCERN IS THE "WINGERIZATION" RAMPANT IN THE OFFICER RANKS IN OUR MILITARY.

I don't know it seems to me that more and more of the officer ranks are seeing the GOP for what they are. Of course given the Bush and Co. stance on those that disagree or say what they don't want to hear many of these men and women are "lurking." But I almost feel that once his term is over you're going to see many higher rank people write "I tried to tell them" books.

Other then that I agree with most of what you wrote.

samcol 05-14-2008 05:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
DJ, there's no way Obamists (myself included in that group, now) will vote for McCain. Even with maximum spite. If McCain wins, it will be because Hillary gave up running like a Democrat months ago and Obama was cheated.

Barr gives me pause. If Paul switched to Libertarian (WHERE HE SHOULD HAVE ALWAYS BEEN), he'd die off, but Paul maintaining he's a Republican means that Barr stands a chance of doing what Badnarik couldn't: attracting pissed off Republicans.

Why should Ron have always been Libertarian?

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
Of course.

Paul won't do that. He's too stuborn. He'll run until the very end. And you're right in thinking it doesn't make sense. But that's his game.

I don't get what you're saying. Paul is running for the Republican nomination. Barr will be running for President in the general election. This means they aren't even competing against each other. Unless you're implying Ron is going to run third party or independent, which doesn't seem like the case at this point.

I don't think a Barr endorsement would be totally out of the question from Paul.

ratbastid 05-14-2008 05:51 AM

This is a FUN thread!

Mind-boggling things said on this thread so far:

1) Hillary stands even the slightest chance to be the nominee, and Obama supporters will vote McCain because of it.

2) Ron Paul fits better in the Republican party than the Libertarian Party.

samcol 05-14-2008 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid
This is a FUN thread!

Mind-boggling things said on this thread so far:

1) Hillary stands even the slightest chance to be the nominee, and Obama supporters will vote McCain because of it.

2) Ron Paul fits better in the Republican party than the Libertarian Party.

I don't know if you're referring to what I said, but Ron clearly said why he went Republican instead of Libertarian. Remember he already tried to run for the Libertarians as president.

It's not about fit, it's about ballot access and being marginalized out of debates and for simplying being 'libertarian' you're already a marked loser candidate out of the gates. He said when he ran as a libertarian for president he spent all his time just trying to get on ballots and didn't want to deal with that again.

Barr is a pretty big hitter from the GOP though and could really leave a mark this election considering how disgusting McCain is from a Republican perspective.

Derwood 05-14-2008 06:26 AM

Neo-Cons are dead, but the Neo-Cons aren't real Republicans, so no, the GOP isn't dead. rattled, but not dead

dc_dux 05-14-2008 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol
Barr is a pretty big hitter from the GOP though and could really leave a mark this election considering how disgusting McCain is from a Republican perspective.

Barr doesnt need Paul's endorsement as much as he needs Paul's money machine.

Sam...as a Paul guy, do you think the troops will pony up for Barr?

If they do, I can see Barr getting 5+% of the vote...if they dont, he will suffer the same fate as earlier Libertarians...less than 1%

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood
Neo-Cons are dead, but the Neo-Cons aren't real Republicans, so no, the GOP isn't dead. rattled, but not dead

The Repubs need to figure out who they are and if they are willing to be more flexible to attract moderates who are leaving the party in droves.

aceventura3 05-14-2008 06:57 AM

The Republican Party is not done for, however, the Bush arm of the party is under appreciated and the Party has lost focus. I believe we will have a Democratic Party controlled Congress and White House (I still think it will be Clinton) after the elections in November. I think she will continue our occupation in Iraq beyond what her base wants. I think she will raise taxes on all Americans, not just the "wealthy". I think she will fail to fix Medicare and social security. I think deficit spending and the debt will continue to increase. I think she will pass a compromised version of her national health care plan, projected costs will be about 10x more than planned. She will be one term and a Republican will win the next election and Republicans will reverse the trend of losing seats in Congress and eventually regain control. History will look back on the Bush administration more favorably over time.

You've heard it here first.

dc_dux 05-14-2008 07:03 AM

Most polls show that the Republican party is facing serious defections...with the lowest number of self-identified Repubs in years.

From a recent Pew poll:
Quote:

The share of voters who call themselves Republicans has declined by six points since 2004, and represents, on an annualized basis, the lowest percentage of self-identified Republican voters in 16 years of polling by the Center.

http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/773-2.gif..........http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/773-3.gif

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/773/fewe...as-republicans
While the Dems percentage hasnt increased, they are pulling away with the self-identified Independents.

Other polls show an even wider disparity in voter party preference.

Favorable/Unfavorable opinions of:
Democrats (56/35 or 52/41 or 56/38)

Republicans (38/53 or 33/58 or 41/52)

Ustwo 05-14-2008 07:27 AM

Short answer: No

Long answer: Election swings in the US seem to be based not on policy but perception of culpability. It was only a short time ago that democrats were switching parties like rats leaving a sinking ship, now I will expect to see some Republicans doing the same thing. After years of Democrats stinking up the house, and some wackiness of Bill Clintons early years, the swing voters thought the Republicans could fix it. The problem for the republicans seems to be they took tha as a true change in the countries thought processes to the right and instead of fixing what the people wanted them to fix, they just added their own shenanigans. So now you get voters, many who never saw democrat shenanigans in full force, who swing to the democrats to ‘fix’ it. Only they won’t fix it either, many will assume, wrongly, that the country is more left, and suddenly the republicans will look good again to those voters.

Its like the circle of life only with more graft and less dung beetles.

dc_dux 05-14-2008 07:29 AM

Even with the low rating of Congress, an ABC poll this week shows the Dems with the highest "trust" or "do a better job" rating of either party in 16 years:

Quote:

"Overall, which party -- the Democrats or the Republicans -- do you trust to do a better job in coping with the main problems the nation faces over the next few years?

http://pollingreport.com/institut2.htm
Dems - 53%
Repubs - 32%

The highest percentage the Repub party ever reached was 51% (after 9/11)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo
many will assume, wrongly, that the country is more left, and suddenly the republicans will look good again to those voters.

The country is centrist but leaning left...or, put another way, leaning away from the social conservative dominated message of the right. As long as the religious right are the face of the Repub party, centrists will continue to turn away.

The_Jazz 05-14-2008 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux
The country is centrist but leaning left...or, put another way, leaning away from the social conservative dominated message of the right. As long as the religious right are the face of the Repub party, centrists will continue to turn away.

Don't you listen to host? There is no center any more. We're all rightists.

Seriously, in the not-too-distant past there was a phenomenon involving the "Reagan Democrats" that was supposed to kill the Democratic party. Obviously, that didn't happy. It's possible (not necessarily probably) that there will be "Obama Republicans" in this cycle. That said, I see no signs of either party imploding in the future.

samcol 05-14-2008 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux
Barr doesnt need Paul's endorsement as much as he needs Paul's money machine.

Sam...as a Paul guy, do you think the troops will pony up for Barr?

If they do, I can see Barr getting 5+% of the vote...if they dont, he will suffer the same fate as earlier Libertarians...less than 1%


The Repubs need to figure out who they are and if they are willing to be more flexible to attract moderates who are leaving the party in droves.

I dunno he kinda treads on thin ice just like all libertarian party candidates. He's very pro drug war which is hard for libertarians to swallow, but at the same time has been a very vocal opponent of the Bush administration (patriot act and wiretaps).

If it was him vs. mccain and obama I'd be voting Barr most likely. I hate his stance on drug war though.

He's had the balls to abandon the radical Neo-con policies, that's very comendable in an age where Republicans have been Bush minions for 8 years.

ratbastid 05-14-2008 08:17 AM

http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/773-3.gif

That's gotta hurt. Especially that last one. There are going to be states in play this year that have NEVER been in play before.

The_Jazz 05-14-2008 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid
That's gotta hurt. Especially that last one. There are going to be states in play this year that have NEVER been in play before.

Never's a long time. Kansas used to be a blue state. So did Mississippi.

And Illinois used to be a red state.

How about "there are going to be states in play this year that haven't been in play in recent memory"? Or "in our lifetimes"?

dc_dux 05-14-2008 08:31 AM

The Republicans have come up with a new campaign theme for Congressional candidates...details to be released later today:
"Change You Deserve"
Just one problem....its a trademark of Wyeth Pharmaceuticals for its anti-depressant, Effexor.

Maybe its fitting...there has been nothing more depressing than eight years of Bush.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz
That said, I see no signs of either party imploding in the future.

I dont think the Republican party will inplode, but I do think it is in for a long stretch as the minority party unless they retool to attract the growing number of Independents. There are now more self-identified Independents than Republicans...a bad trend for the Rs.

Independents...
....dont want personal religious beliefs inserted into politics

...dont want a belligerent foreign policy that might put their kids (in the military) at risk in unending incursions in countries that poses no direct threat to the US

...dont want more their personal liberties infringed upon in the name of some undefined threat

...dont want tax breaks for the top 2% of wage earners

...do want a social safety net - particularly affordable health care and job (or income) security

...do want a more open and transparent government

...do want a government that holds the excesses and questionable practices of the private sector in check

...do want a strong and enforceable environmental policy (including global warming)
And these are why more and more Independents are leaning left.

Willravel 05-14-2008 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol
Why should Ron have always been Libertarian?

Because he's a libertarian? All things being equal, Al Gore should have run Green, too. They're just reinforcing the idea that a third party is not viable, which is ultimately damaging to the country.
Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol
I don't get what you're saying. Paul is running for the Republican nomination. Barr will be running for President in the general election. This means they aren't even competing against each other. Unless you're implying Ron is going to run third party or independent, which doesn't seem like the case at this point.

I don't think a Barr endorsement would be totally out of the question from Paul.

Paul should have stopped running months ago, but he's still going. Even though it's impossible to win (short of McCain being assassinated), he's still campaigning. If he's campaigning when it's impossible now, why would he stop when the convention names McCain as their candidate? He may not be making reasonable decisions, but he's consistent.

ratbastid 05-14-2008 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz
Never's a long time. Kansas used to be a blue state. So did Mississippi.

And Illinois used to be a red state.

How about "there are going to be states in play this year that haven't been in play in recent memory"? Or "in our lifetimes"?

Pedant! ;)

loquitur 05-14-2008 08:59 AM

The Repubs aren't done for but they will be a minority party for at least the next decade, and deservedly so. They had their chance to run the country and made a royal hash of it.

It took only 12 years for the GOP to become toxic due to its own misbehavior. That's after a 40 year period at the end of which the Dem behavior amounted to much the same thing. If you credit the Feiler Faster Thesis, it will take the Dems much less time as a majority party this time to become corrupt, extreme and out of touch. And then the next cycle after that will be even shorter.

Willravel 05-14-2008 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur
They had their chance to run the country and made a royal hash of it.

How so? :confused:

dc_dux 05-14-2008 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur
The Repubs aren't done for but they will be a minority party for at least the next decade, and deservedly so. They had their chance to run the country and made a royal hash of it.

It took only 12 years for the GOP to become toxic due to its own misbehavior. That's after a 40 year period at the end of which the Dem behavior amounted to much the same thing. If you credit the Feiler Faster Thesis, it will take the Dems much less time as a majority party this time to become corrupt, extreme and out of touch. And then the next cycle after that will be even shorter.

Toxic behavior and corruption are mitigating factors, but IMO, the decline of the Repub party and its likelihood as a minority party for a relatively long time to come is due more to its ideological agenda and subsequent policy decisions and actions.

samcol 05-14-2008 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
How so? :confused:

The Republicans had the executive, the house, the senate, the judciary, most of the governors and state legislations and couldn't bring conservative fiscal or foreign policy to head.

A TOTAL failure. If you can't the job done dominating all branches, you'll never get it done.

Willravel 05-14-2008 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol
The Republicans had the executive, the house, the senate, the judciary, most of the governors and state legislations and couldn't bring conservative fiscal or foreign policy to head.

A TOTAL failure. If you can't the job done dominating all branches, you'll never get it done.

Hehehehe... I was kidding, of course. :thumbsup:

samcol 05-14-2008 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
Because he's a libertarian? All things being equal, Al Gore should have run Green, too. They're just reinforcing the idea that a third party is not viable, which is ultimately damaging to the country.

Paul should have stopped running months ago, but he's still going. Even though it's impossible to win (short of McCain being assassinated), he's still campaigning. If he's campaigning when it's impossible now, why would he stop when the convention names McCain as their candidate? He may not be making reasonable decisions, but he's consistent.

A third pary is not viable option and you know it. They stacked the deck against third parties by making it more difficult for them to get balloted.

Why should he of stopped? He still had money rolling in and a chance to shift the Republican party back to the right by humiliating mccain.

Plus he is continually informing more and more people about the fraudulent federal reserve system and failed foreign policy. His book hit #1 on amazon and now the NYTimes #1 best seller. It's about spreading the ideas Will, not about the nomination anymore.

Willravel 05-14-2008 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol
A third pary is not viable option and you know it. They stacked the deck against third parties by making it more difficult for them to get balloted.

So in order to battle this injustice, the brave candidates muster up all their courage and... well, cave in completely.
Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol
Why should he of stopped? He still had money rolling in and a chance to shift the Republican party back to the right by humiliating mccain.

Outside of Digg, he's not getting any press anymore. Even press for his book is staggeringly small.
Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol
Plus he is continually informing more and more people about the fraudulent federal reserve system and failed foreign policy. His book hit #1 on amazon and now the NYTimes #1 best seller. It's about spreading the ideas Will, not about the nomination anymore.

If it's not about the nomination, why not run Libertarian?

Bill O'Rights 05-14-2008 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
Because he's a libertarian? All things being equal, Al Gore should have run Green, too. They're just reinforcing the idea that a third party is not viable, which is ultimately damaging to the country.

At this time a third party is not viable. I was a card carrying Libertarian for 9 years before I had to accept the fact that the only elections that Libertarians were going to carry were municipal and county. And even that usually came from the eeny meeny miny moe vote. The party now resembles a coffee klatch more than a political party. The leadership just is not there. They are simply to disorganized at just about everything except for fundraising.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
He may not be making reasonable decisions, but he's consistent.

The same could be said of Bush.

host 05-14-2008 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz
Don't you listen to host? There is no center any more. We're all rightists.

Seriously, in the not-too-distant past there was a phenomenon involving the "Reagan Democrats" that was supposed to kill the Democratic party. Obviously, that didn't happy. It's possible (not necessarily probably) that there will be "Obama Republicans" in this cycle. That said, I see no signs of either party imploding in the future.

Thanks for that, _Jazz.... I always appreciate a good mocking....but why not save it until you're responding to someone who doesn't know WTF they are talking about.

I live, today in a country where the headlines blare, "OBAMA IS MOST LIBERAL SENATOR".....but _Jazz..... this is what I see:

<h3>Washington 1796</h3>
Quote:

http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documen...ranscript.html
[Page 23]

In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent inveterate antipathies against particular Nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded; and that in place of them just & amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest....

....The Government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the Nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition and other sinister & pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the Liberty, of Nations has been the victim. [return to top]

[Page 24]

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favourite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels & Wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification: It leads also to concessions to the favourite Nation of priviledges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the Nation making the concessions--by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained--& by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom eql priviledges are withheld: And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favourite Nation) facility to betray, or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition corruption or infatuation....

<h3>Eisenhower 1956</h3>
Quote:

http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/pr...ments/2063.cfm

...The real point is that Britain, France and Israel had come to believe--probably correctly--that Nasser was their worst enemy in the Mid East and that until he was removed or deflated, they would have no peace. I do not quarrel with the idea that there is justification for such fears, but <h3>I have insisted long and earnestly that you cannot resort to force in international relationships because of your fear of what might happen in the future.....</h3>

....Of course, nothing in the region would be so difficult to solve except for the underlying cause of the unrest and dissension that exists there -- that is, the Arab-Israel quarrel. This quarrel seems to have no limit in either intensity or in scope. Everybody in the Moslem and Jewish worlds is affected by it. It is so intense that the second any action is taken against one Arab state, by an outsider, all the other Arab and Moslem states seem to regard it as a Jewish plot and react violently. All this complicates the situation enormously.

As we began to uncover evidence that something was building up in Israel, we demanded pledges from Ben-Gurion that he would keep the peace. <h3>We realized that he might think he could take advantage of this country because of the approaching election and because of the importance that so many politicians in the past have attached to our Jewish vote. I gave strict orders to the State Department that they should inform Israel that we would handle our affairs exactly as though we didn't have a Jew in America. The welfare and best interests of our own country were to be the sole criteria on which we operated...</h3>
<h3>Obama 2007</h3>
Quote:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200707...eadership.html
Renewing American Leadership

Barack Obama

From Foreign Affairs, July/August 2007

....For more than three decades, Israelis, Palestinians, Arab leaders, and the rest of the world have looked to America to lead the effort to build the road to a lasting peace. In recent years, they have all too often looked in vain. Our starting point must always be a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel, our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy.....

....REVITALIZING THE MILITARY......

....We should expand our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the army and 27,000 marines. Bolstering these forces is about more than meeting quotas. ......

....I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked <h3>or imminently threatened.......</h3>

<h3>Obama 2008</h3>
Quote:

http://www.barackobama.com/2008/05/0...to_celeb_1.php
At 60, Israel Has Much to Celebrate
Yediot Ahronot | May 09, 2008

By Barack Obama

....The 60th anniversary is also an ideal time to celebrate this special relationship between our two countries. Washington and Jerusalem not only share ideals and values, but we share common interests. The bond between Americans and Israelis remains unshakable. It is a tie that every American president (whether Democrat or Republican) has and will continue to uphold.

Our unique relationship rests on a deep reservoir of friendship and support that crosses political divides. It permits us to work together in many ways, from bilateral cooperation on counter-terrorism, to joint military exercises with other regional allies, to science and technology collaboration. As president, I would further deepen our already strong bilateral ties, particularly in the areas of defense, science and energy.

Still, there is no greater gift America can give to Israel--no better way we can salute our Israeli friends on this important anniversary -- than to redouble our commitment to help Israel achieve its goal of true security through lasting peace with its neighbors. The United States does Israel no favors when it neglects opportunities for progress in Arab-Israeli peacemaking.

Israelis can always count on the United States to stand with them against any threat, from as close as Gaza or as far as Tehran, and to ensure that Israel has the means to defend itself. Israel has real enemies, and we will face them together.......
Can you FEEL, the LOVE?

The "most liberal" US senator, _Jazz, in the US in 2008, had been making noises for the past year, that position him on the right of the republican president of 1956..... could it possibly be that you don't have an accurate frame of reference to position your own political views?

You've been subjected to all of the government/media blather that I have, in our life experiences in the good ole USA. How do you think Obama got to be so far positioned to the right of Eisenhower.... Israel worship, commitment to use of force in the face of perceived imminent threat, and a pledge to increase US ground troop strenght by 92,000 ? Could the answer be that Obama is simply a mirror held up to reflect the increasingly rightist perspective of you and of many others who don't notice that they haven't questioned enough of the BS flung at them.... ala pentagon PSY-OPS 2008.... and "are we going to wait until there is a mushroom cloud on our horizon?"...circa 2002?

Is Obama, correct, _Jazz? Are ALL of Israel's perceived "enemies", out enemies? Would Wahington or Eisenhower have put this in writing:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Obama
...Israelis can always count on the United States to stand with them against any threat....

...you think so???? Really ???

Is it wise foreign policy for Obama and other politicians to describe Israel as "the only democracy" in the ME, considering that the Iranians have attempted....they aren't they are'nt there yet, but they are miles ahead of any Arab country in that region, to hold democratic elections? What do you suppose the reaction "the average Iranian" is, to statements excluding their progress towards democracy?

Could we "right wing" US majority be our own worst enemy....how do you think Eisenhower would answer that question, today?
Quote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-co...u_b_99345.html

.....Although politicians, including Obama, routinely refer to Israel as 'the only democracy in the Middle East', the existence of free and fair elections in Palestine is simply ignored. The overwhelming election of Hamas in 2006 was certified by the U.N, then rejected out of hand by the U.S and Europe. Obama supports democracy, but only when the vote goes the way he wants it to.....
It is the democratic party that is "done for". The party that uses that as it's DBA, has drifted to the right of IKE.... in my lifetime! Look what the "move" has accomplished for the average US income earner, compared to his counterpart in France, in Denmark, in Germany, or in Canada or Britain. The results of exercising the power of the vote, if quality of life is a yardstick, comes down to one sentence. If you are the average income earner and holder of average asset levels in the US....better not get sick, or think about retirement. Sad.....that it is what it is....and that your don't see it.

The average household in the US, _Jazz, has income of about <a href="http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ThematicMapFramesetServlet?_dBy=040&geo_id=01000US&ds_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_&tm_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_M00700&_MapEvent=displayBy">$48450</a>, little in the way of retirement assets, and slightly negative net worth. Add that household's share of the national debt obligation to the mix.....

Look it up if you doubt where the AVERAGE household is. What is the exercise of the vote for, if not to make a better result than that?

Willravel 05-14-2008 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights
At this time a third party is not viable. I was a card carrying Libertarian for 9 years before I had to accept the fact that the only elections that Libertarians were going to carry were municipal and county. And even that usually came from the eeny meeny miny moe vote. The party now resembles a coffee klatch more than a political party. The leadership just is not there. They are simply to disorganized at just about everything except for fundraising.

What if Ron Paul, who has garnered maddeningly religious support, had run Libertarian? He's gotten over 1m votes in the primary already. That doesn't include Democrats who would likely vote for him if Hillary ran. I may not agree with Dr. Paul, but I'm well aware that he's quite charismatic and is the very model of libertarian leadership.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights
The same could be said of Bush.

Hallelujah and amen.

The_Jazz 05-14-2008 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host
Thanks for that, _Jazz.... I always appreciate a good mocking....but why not save it until you're responding to someone who doesn't know WTF they are talking about.

Who's to say that I didn't?

Quote:

Originally Posted by host
could it possibly be that you don't have an accurate frame of reference to position your own political views?

Nope. My political views are the product of years of study and consideration. Could it possibly be that you're so obsessed with the sins of the Bush administration and the vast right wing conspiracy that you can no longer read the data presented in this thread?

Quote:

Originally Posted by host
You've been subjected to all of the government/media blather that I have, in our life experiences in the good ole USA. How do you think Obama got to be so far positioned to the right of Eisenhower.... Israel worship, commitment to use of force in the face of perceived imminent threat, and a pledge to increase US ground troop strenght by 92,000 ? Could the answer be that Obama is simply a mirror held up to reflect the increasingly rightist perspective of you and of many others who don't notice that they haven't questioned enough of the BS flung at them.... ala pentagon PSY-OPS 2008.... and "are we going to wait until there is a mushroom cloud on our horizon?"...circa 2002?

Believe it or not, host, but policies change over time. That's why we're no longer at war with the British, despite fighting 2 declared wars with them and being desperately afraid they would intervene during the Civil War.

Other than that, the two quotes have nothing to do with one another. Obama repeated a doctrine present during at Reagan years that we would attack where our interests were threatened. The Foreign Affairs piece is not about Israel, despite the way that you edited it to appear that way. There is one paragraph about Israel. The next one concerns Iran and Syria. Then he discusses the AMERICAN military. He does not say that he will attack those who attack Israel, which is what your editing implies. And, in the subsequent paragraphs, ISRAEL IS NOT MENTIONED!

Quote:

Originally Posted by host
Is Obama, correct, _Jazz? Are ALL of Israel's perceived "enemies", out enemies? Would Wahington or Eisenhower have put this in writing:

...you think so???? Really ???

Do you really want me to play cute editing games? If you do, I'd be happy to go find a random thread and edit a quote of yours to turn you into a Limbaugh Ditto-head. I won't because it would amount to a mildly interesting exercise in futility and something that's just mean-spirited, but I hope you see my point - you've tried to turn the statement into something it isn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host
Is it wise foreign policy for Obama and other politicians to describe Israel as "the only democracy" in the ME, considering that the Iranians have attempted....they aren't they are'nt there yet, but they are miles ahead of any Arab country in that region, to hold democratic elections? What do you suppose the reaction "the average Iranian" is, to statements excluding their progress towards democracy?

The average Iranian would probably agree that Council of Guardians and the Assembly of Experts, neither of which is democratically elected hold much more power than the president or legislature. Oh, and the Supreme Leader is the commander in chief and responsible for all the general policies of the country. And he appoints the CoG and the AoE. As well as the judiciary. And the heads of the radio and TV networks. And the heads of the military. And the CoG approves all presidential candidates. Question, host: who's more powerful, Khamenei or Ahmedinejad? Think carefully....

So, on one hand, we have the parlimentary democracy that is Israel and on the other we have a theocracy with a few democratic elements.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:22 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360