The Future of the Republican Party

Remove all ads!

Chandos, it is articles like this:

Obama budget could bring $9.3 trillion in deficits

That make me convinced the Republican party will not be forced to change anything. I personally believe we need some change in the republican party, but I don't think it will be necessary for the party to change in order to survive or even become the majority party again. Once the reality of 'tax and spend' hits home the Democratic party will find its ranks thinning again.

 

Yep, that and the fact that obama wants to increase the government by a Million employees. Talk about big government.

 

...And where was all this "concern" for the budget before the last election? Do you really believe that the American people don't understand the Republicans started with a surplus in 2000 and turned it into a huge deficit? T2, I have to say that they know more than you do if you believe, even for a moment, that Republicans are not going to run large dificits and big government. Those who ran that deceitful lie 2000, and turned it into one of the worst adminstrations in American history, will not be able to now claim that "we are the party of small government." The Republicans have run that lie once too many times. Try something else. Really, take another shot at coming up with a better talking point.

 

There's no need to bait Chandos. You have a different opinion of the public than I do. I'm not talking about what I do or do not believe either party will do -- as I said in an earlier post -- this is all about perception. The democrats have always been known as the 'tax and spend' group. Obama is verifying that right now -- it really won't matter to the voters the entire process was started by Bush. The pendulum will swing because of perception, not fact. Voters in general have short memories -- I think the quote from Men is Black is the perfect description of the American voting public:

A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. ​

The republicans will still run on the 'less government' platform because it will win elections. The "lie" works. The entire 9/11, Katrina, War on Terror, War in Iraq excess spending will be forgotton by the public. They will only see huge deficits run up by Obama and a poor economy.

Perhaps Obama will turn all this around, I hope he can. It just doesn't look good for the democrats in 2010 right now.

 

Not anymore. That's where we have a disagreement. And I'm not "baiting." Notice that I was careful to use the pronoun "they," instead of "you." Yet, you feel that the same lie will work over and over again, which I feel is not going to happen. The people are on to the whole "small government" thing. The party out of power always wants less government, while the party in power always wants more. When the government was split there really was less government (Clinton/Rep Congress). The thing I can't figure out is why someone would complain about it, and then vote for one party believing that there really will be less government (which is what I at least I thought you were suggesting).

Actually I used "those" instead of "you".

 

IMO, that's exactly what's going to happen. You have more confidence in the average voter thinking about their vote than I do.

That's not an admission that either party is right or wrong -- they just have different priorities. My priorities happen to lie on the conservative side so a knee jerk reaction in the next election will benefit those with my viewpoint. Having the government split may actually be better for the country (once again, IMO).

 

I don't think people are concerned with the size of govenment atm. They are too worried about the economy. If Obama is able to help get the economy back on track he will be a hero; if not then they will give someone else a shot at it. They will not forget that this started in 2007. But they will expect results from their politicians, regardless of party. The economy is my talking point. And I'm sticking to it.

 

The Republican saga continues:



I'm curious about what Republicans are thinking. Is it really "back to the future?" I actually heard a talking head comment that "Cheney was a contender for 2012." But that's just "crazy" talk, IMO.
s

 

I was wondering when someone was going to dig up this old fossil of a thread. Things have certainly changed a bit since the election...

 

There was a poll out yesterday from USA Today/Gallup that polled exclusively registered Republicans - note this was not all registered voters, just all registered Republicans - asked who the voice of the Republican Party was.

The winner - with a whopping 52% of the vote - was the option "No one".

The second highest vote getter - at 13% - was Rush Limbaugh, who isn't even a politician. The highest vote getting politician - or at least former politician - was Dick Cheney and Newt Gingrich at 10% who finished third. The fifth most given response was "Other" which included Sarah Palin, who got 4. Not 4%, but 4 votes out of over 1000 cast, so she nearly reached half of one percent.

Countdown spoofed it.

EDIT: Oh, and one more thing - 33% of these Republicans had an unfavorable view of their own party!

EDIT2: I do not believe that the next Republican president was mentioned by anyone in that poll.

 

Well, Sanford certainly didn't help his party any. What an idiot. I hope that his Argentinian lover was worth it. This will further damage the Republicans -- especially since

What a joke -- where's his moral legitimacy now? I'm not really a pessimist, but the more I read I wonder if the Republicans will be able to re-invigorate themselves by 2020, let alone 2012 or even 2016.

 

What are you talking about?!?!? He was with a WOMAN! That's much better than the usual news that come from republican scandals.

Sanford had a fling with an Argentinian woman ... HE DA MAN!

 

Daily Show put it well with 'just another politician with a conservative mind and a liberal penis'.

And say what you want about the R's and their usual troubles, compared to Georgia governor candidate Neil Horsely, running on the 'nullification platform', they're all choir boys. As far as we know.

 

Sanford only came clean once he found out that a local newspaper had his email exchange with his "dear friend," you know, the Argentinean home, (and political career) wreaker. What a putz.

 

Indeed. Then again, if it weren't for all the moral posturing he had done I wouldn't care at all, and even now I think it's not something we should concern ourselves that much with. Someone's marital fidelity - or lack thereof - is not something an entire country should worry about when there are issues such as healthcare reform, 2 ongoing wars (even if they are a bit wars lite atm - but maybe we don't hear that much about them exactly because Argentinian mistresses are much more important), an economic crisis and a few other major international issues.

Besides, there are more than enough "reality" shows if gossip tickles your fancy. I thought that is why we still had them, actually.

 

I think I agree with T2 here. The single most important thing in most elections is the public perception of the party currently in power. The spot light at the moment is on Obama and his Democratic Congress, and so far it hasn't shown much good. Happily (for them), it hasn't shown too much bad, either, but that won't last given that we're still in a very bad spot economically.

If Obama can bring back the economy by 2010, then he's Da Man and the Dems will look forward to even more power. If he can't, things will be in contest for 2010, but I doubt anything will be settled by then. 2012, and Obama's re-election campaign, will probably depend on him fixing the economy. Whether it's realistic to expect him to do this in 4 years or not won't matter.*

*All this assumes the Dems don't majorly screw things up some other way, which is always a possibility.

 

I have to nitpick here -- the party in power certainly has to perform if they want to remain in power, but if the opposition party makes itself look like a bunch of complete clowns, then even if the governing party makes mistakes, people won't opt for a group that looks rudderless, hypocritical, and petty.

Welcome to my run-on sentences.

 

That depends on how public that perception is. Those in politics may know the Reps are like that, but does the average voting Joe on the streets?

 

Given the vitriolic nature of the politics of today, I imagine those without an opinion are in the minority. Those are inclined to side with the democrats are in my opinion likely to believe that the current Republican party is rudderless. Then again, most republicans are likely to agree with that assessment, too*.

As to whether the GOP is hypocritical or petty, I don't really think there's any objective way to make such a judgment about the party as a whole. Individual senators, representatives, or governors, sure, but I'm not terribly interested in judging the motives of the GOP leadership. I do think that the party has foolishly missed many opportunities to be part of the solution by taking principled stances where seeking compromise would have likely lead to a better result (by their reckoning, not mine), but I'm not willing to paint the entire GOP with such a broad brush. The public, however, may see things differently.

* in much the same way, democrats agreed to the same assessment about their party in 1980.

 

In reality, the only people who care about the adultery are the far right -- and their going to vote republican anyway. These type of things only result in power struggles in the party, but the final elections are not affected as much.