The GOP Comeback

[Scott Uberman]

Bush and the Neocons wrecked the Republican party and largley the view of real conservatism to a significant portion of the nation.

My take.
Will this "comeback" come through? I think so certainly with in the next decade because the liberal Democrats will inevitably fail miserably with their time in power. However the comeback will certainly not include Lindsey Graham, Mark Sanford, or Sarah Palin.

[Son of Repoman]

Add Bobby Jindal to that growing list, as Louisianians are about ready to narc him out.

He made great strides for this state in turning it to a more fair state, instead of drowning in a sea of blue. However, the fact that he has been MIA in the state more than Amelia Earhardt is not sitting well with his contigency, especially as he continues to hack at the budget. If he keeps this up, he will hand a lot of mayorial races back to Team Blue.

[Tito]

It's 1993 all over again... Clinton came into office with optimism and then when he blew up the budget and tried to socialize healthcare, what happened?

Republicans took the house in 1994.

Now, do you see any parallels?

Republicans fucked up, squandered their majorities after 2004... When those are in charge fuck-up, they get voted out. 21% approval rating is what the DEMOCRAT MAJORITY houses of congress have right now...

So you tell me, will they make a comeback? Yes, in time, they will... Everyone points to Democrats getting the Hispanic vote as a sign of future danger for the GOP. We'll see...

I think that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are doing the Democrat Party NO favors as the leaders...

Mitt Romney is coming in 2012... I hope Obama is ready for a fight against a true Fiscal Conservative.

[Man from Nowhere]

Wow, what is this the 3rd or 4th thread about the GOP in this forum alone? At this rate we could make our own politics forum with all of the threads we have floating around.

Anyway to the topic at hand. Will the GOP make a comeback? Most likely but they have to show that they learned from the follys of the W admin and start practicing fiscal conservatism. If they fail to do that then they had better be worried about a growing movement to make a 3rd party, a conservative party if you will, comprised of fiscal conservatives and libertarians. I do predict that the Repubs will make huge strides in the house in 2010 and bring the senate back to more or less 50/50. If they can do something with the seats they gain in 2010 then 2012 will be a cinch provided they can get a competent candidate nominated and right now that looks like Romney. Palin took herself out of the running already and Jindal doesn't seem to be ready for a run. That leaves Romney, Pawlenty, Huckabee, and Gingrich and of those I like Romney the best.

[Irishsara]

I think Pawlenty is the most electable of the group.

Huckabee will have problems with moderates.

Gingrich is still gross as he was when he failed to win the last time he ran.

Romney is a Mormon and he will have a problem with the southern baptist base of the republican Party.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...675308,00.html

[FearlessVampireKiller]

Well yeah, duh. Just a few years ago some people were predicting the end of the Democratic party, and now we see where that got them. Similarly, it's only a matter of time before the pendulum swings back to the right as well. That's the way these things work.

The predictions of 1994 redux are naive wishful thinking though. Other than the binary composition of the branches, not much about present-day Washington resembles the early 90s. Back then the Republican party was at the zenith of a decades-long campaign to build support and the Democratic majority had grown lazy and decadent and was beset by scandal. Not so today, in which the GOP is still recently-toppled and lacks effective central leadership and the Democrats still practically have the new car smell on them

[Man from Nowhere]

Originally Posted by Irishsara

I think Pawlenty is the most electable of the group.

Huckabee will have problems with moderates.

Gingrich is still gross as he was when he failed to win the last time he ran.

Romney is a Mormon and he will have a problem with the southern baptist base of the republican Party.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...675308,00.html

Yet another hit piece by the MSM against Mormonism. I think pieces like this illustrate just how afraid of Romney the left is. Whenever his name starts up in conversation they start in with the smears and lies about Mormonism because they know if they actually talk about Romney and politics then they will lose. The same thing happened with Palin, she was relentlessly attacked because she had a huge, rabid following. A recent gallup poll of the potential GOP contenders showed Romney leading with 26% followed by Huckabee then Palin, and that poll was taken on 7/29 the day after Palin resigned. All you have to do is look at who the left attacks the hardest, that is who they are afraid of the most. 2012 will come down to Romney and Huckabee unless Palin fixes her experience problem fast. If she does she may walk away with it.

Originally Posted by FearlessVampireKiller

Well yeah, duh. Just a few years ago some people were predicting the end of the Democratic party, and now we see where that got them. Similarly, it's only a matter of time before the pendulum swings back to the right as well. That's the way these things work.

The predictions of 1994 redux are naive wishful thinking though. Other than the binary composition of the branches, not much about present-day Washington resembles the early 90s. Back then the Republican party was at the zenith of a decades-long campaign to build support and the Democratic majority had grown lazy and decadent and was beset by scandal. Not so today, in which the GOP is still recently-toppled and lacks effective central leadership and the Democrats still practically have the new car smell on them

The current Democrat lead congress is one of the most corrupt in recent history. Rangle - Tax evasion, Dodd - ties with the mortgage crisis, Reid - crooked land deal, Frank - ties with the housing crisis, Waters - bank fraud, Murtha - shady financial dealings, and on, and on. Congress has an approval rating of 24% according to a recent NBC poll. The Repubs have spent the last couple of months since the election purging itself of negative and destructive ideological influences like Specter. McCain is now a lame duck so he's on the outs. If the GOP can rebuild their brand (and that's a sizable if) then they can make huge wins in 2010.

[Tito]

I find it utterly HILARIOUS how the Leftwing media constantly writes stories about how rightwing Christians question having Mitt Romney as their candidate...

It's a drumbeat purposely made for self-questioning...

But Romney, he has family values and live by morals written all over him. Christians like him because he's a good, honest man who deeply loves God and his family. That's all they want.

There's a current thirst for Fiscal Conservatism... Romney is PROVEN in that realm during his time as governor of Massachusetts (amazing, considering how liberal that state is) and from his success business ventures.

I think Obama's popularity could remain, but there is an absolute dislike with liberal Democrats in the house. IF ANYTHING, I'm predicting that the Democrat Party will begin moving to the RIGHT. That's right, the Blue Dog Democrats, which were the ones replacing many of the lost GOP, could usurp the party from its liberal grip. Just look at the sentiment against Cap & Trade and Obamacare by DEMOCRATS... Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are poor leaders and are doing Barack much harm.

So to answer your question... We might be dominated by Democrats, but their party will see more and more of a "blue dog" trend, especially in light of seizing upon the opportunity of Bush's spending for the past 8 years and the early problems of continuing Bush's spending issues under Obama.

[Scott Uberman]

My mom is a moderate Democrat (liberal on social issues) and she really really liked Romney.

Romney's excellent fiscal record is abe to get him elected in any state even one as liberal as Mass.

[Son of Repoman]

Question to the conservative contingency on the board:

The GOP is noted that they want change in their party: How off base would a choice like Ron Paul make to the party for the 2012 election, as he is the most about change of the system I have seen?

[Scott Uberman]

Ron Paul is too honest to ever be elected.

[Man from Nowhere]

Originally Posted by Son of Repoman

Question to the conservative contingency on the board:

The GOP is noted that they want change in their party: How off base would a choice like Ron Paul make to the party for the 2012 election, as he is the most about change of the system I have seen?

Ron Paul is a very good man on fiscal issues but his views on foreign policy pretty much DQs him from being a nominee on the Repub. ticket. The only party he will ever be a nominee for is the Libertarian party.

[Søren]

Originally Posted by Scott Uberman

My mom is a moderate Democrat (liberal on social issues) and she really really liked Romney.

Romney's excellent fiscal record is abe to get him elected in any state even one as liberal as Mass.

Well, forgive me if I'm mistaken, but despite the fact that Massachusetts has a tendency to vote Democrat when it comes time to choose the president, I believe we also have a tendency to vote Republican, Romney or not, in the election for governor. So I don't know if you can attribute all of Romney's votes to, well, Romney.

[Scott Uberman]

^ Actually you are right, Mass has had several Republican governors recently, Bill Weld and Paul Cellucci to name a few.

Ron Paul- If the Republican party abandoned Neocon ways they he could easily get on it.

[FearlessVampireKiller]

Paul comes off like a fringe nut. Which is because he IS a fringe nut. All the makings of another Ross Perot in that guy, although he seems to lack the requisite lunacy for that kind of big-budget vanity run. Then again, if people keep getting in his ear...

Romney can go ahead and run, but all his millions won't make people like him anymore than they did last time. Does the GOP really want to run an east coast elitist with a record for flip-flopping? Yeah, cuz that's worked so well in the past. Don't get me wrong, he'll probably get the nom. That's what's so funny.

But trying to predict the field now is stupid anyway, we're still nearly three and a half years away. I would suggest that right-wingers in America trying hatching those chickens before starting the headcount. Oh, and to the Birthers: Keep it up guys. You're doing a great job making your party look like loons. Seriously, my compliments. I'll send champagne. American, of course, but you should double check.

[Man from Nowhere]

Originally Posted by Scott Uberman

Ron Paul- If the Republican party abandoned Neocon ways they he could easily get on it.

If you are going to use the term neocon then please use it in the correct context. The reason I hate that term is because people continually misuse it and try to apply it towards all Repubs and conservatives that back the military. Neocon means something specific: a fiscally liberal, big government Republican, who wants to use the military to change world governments to democracy or democracy like governments dut to the belief that this ploy will make the world safe. Synonym: Progressive Republican.

Ron Paul won't get nominated as the Repub party nominee because he is a true libertarian on foreign policy. He believes that we should have no military interaction with the rest of the world. That idea would be great except we have countries who can fire missiles a third of the world away and hit their target. We cannot sit in our country and ignore the rest of the world.

Now, like I said before, I think he is very prescient on fiscal matters. I would love for him to be Secretary of the Treasury. I would love to see him rip the Federal Reserve from one side to the other.

Originally Posted by FearlessVampireKiller

But trying to predict the field now is stupid anyway, we're still nearly three and a half years away. I would suggest that right-wingers in America trying hatching those chickens before starting the headcount. Oh, and to the Birthers: Keep it up guys. You're doing a great job making your party look like loons. Seriously, my compliments. I'll send champagne. American, of course, but you should double check.

Don't get me started on the stupid birthers. They are this admins conspiracy theorists just like the 9/11 conspiracy nuts during W's admin and the "Friends of Bill" people during the Clinton admin. The MSM are trying to highlight the birthers in an attempt to paint all Repubs and conservatives with that brush. Nice try libs, it's not gonna work. The only person running with this story is Dobbs and he is a Dem.

[Scott Uberman]

Originally Posted by Man from Nowhere

If you are going to use the term neocon then please use it in the correct context. The reason I hate that term is because people continually misuse it and try to apply it towards all Repubs and conservatives that back the military

I am strongly pro-military, appreciate our troops, and recognize the necessity of maintaining a powerful standing military.

I just vehemently oppose Neo-Imperialism and unnecessary pre-emptive warfare that costs trillions of dollars and thousands of lives.

[Man from Nowhere]

Originally Posted by Scott Uberman

I am strongly pro-military, appreciate our troops, and recognize the necessity of maintaining a powerful standing military.

I just vehemently oppose Neo-Imperialism and unnecessary pre-emptive warfare that costs trillions of dollars and thousands of lives.

If you are pro-military then why are you using the language of the far left to describe its actions? Neo-Imperialism is a leftist code word. Afghanistan and Iraq were fought poorly by Bush until the surge but they were necessary. We saved thousands of lives by intervening in those countries. Too bad we didn't finish the job in Afghanistan and screwed up the prosecution of the wars in both countries and that is fair to blame the Repubs for as they were totally at fault there. We didn't annex Iraq or Afghanistan thus neither war was imperialism of any kind.

im⋅pe⋅ri⋅al⋅ism
  /ɪmˈpɪəriəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [im-peer-ee-uh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.
2. advocacy of imperial interests.
3. an imperial system of government.
4. imperial government.
5. British. the policy of so uniting the separate parts of an empire with separate governments as to secure for certain purposes a single state.

[FearlessVampireKiller]

Was a time this king of war was (disparagingly) called "nation-building", but that's gone out of fashion since the people who dreamed up the term it started doing it.

As an insidious leftist infiltrator, I can serve as interpreter here: "Neo-Imperialist" = "Stupid", he's against stupid wars. Which is consistent with a
"pro-military" mindset, assuming you're of a stripe that actually cares about the troops as much as all the bumper stickers would have us believe.

[Scott Uberman]

Originally Posted by Man from Nowhere

If you are pro-military then why are you using the language of the far left to describe its actions?

Because that's what it is, and I don't blame the Military or the Troops one bit for the actions, it's the fault of the government. Also I disagree with the far left to some degree on this. I think President Bush was trying to do a sincerely good thing in liberating Iraq and eliminating Hussein and his fascist regime, but he was overly naive in believing it would be done so simply.

Originally Posted by Man from Nowhere

Neo-Imperialism is a leftist code word.

Originally Posted by Man from Nowhere

We didn't annex Iraq or Afghanistan thus neither war was imperialism of any kind.

Hence the "Neo", the Iraqi invasion was not of traditional pre-WWII imperialism were a nation invades another nation and annexes it. In Iraq the US conquered Iraq, established its own government, but a government that relied heavily on the US to do most of the work and large corporations gained from it economically.

Originally Posted by Man from Nowhere

Afghanistan and Iraq were fought poorly by Bush until the surge but they were necessary.

I agree, and despite my opposition to going to Iraq in the first place if we were going to we should have sent enough troops in the first place.

Originally Posted by Man from Nowhere

Too bad we didn't finish the job in Afghanistan

Just for the record I never said I was against invading Afghanistan. The Taliban harbored Al-Qaeda who attacked us on 9/11 and half a dozen times before for terribly unjust reasons. The war in principle is a just one and I support it, but the execution as you said was poor.

[Xavier]

Originally Posted by Man from Nowhere

Ron Paul is a very good man on fiscal issues but his views on foreign policy pretty much DQs him from being a nominee on the Repub. ticket.

ie. They make sense.

[Tito]

Plus, as someone hinted at above... He has the appearance of a nutjob. He's always looking mad and shooting from the hip... Doesn't translate well on television.

[FearlessVampireKiller]

Ironically, I actually like Paul's bluntness. I don't particularly like what he says when he's blunt, but still. And yes, it makes him terribly suited for a modern campaign. It's amazing he's even managed to climb as high in government as he has.This is socialist subliminal mind control code embedded in message. All hail glorious five year plan!

[Scott Uberman]

I'm not counting on Paul ever getting into the White House, but between his work in Congress and his books etc he's really got a good movement going that hopefully in the long run can produce a genuine Libertarian candidate.

[Zuma]

This thread needs a big bump after today...

Michelle Bachman... wow.

But... the BEST quote of the day goes to John Boehner, who stands up there holding a PROP copy of the Constitution, then says "this is my copy of the Constitution... I stand with our forefathers who wrote in the preamble...."

AND THEN QUOTED THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE~!!!


Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Seriously?

Then they unveil a bill which - according to independent watchdogs - would cost the country about $36B more than the Democratic bill, which costs too fucking much as is.

[Tito]

Tea Baggers have become crazy. They used to be legitimate, as they were mostly showing concern over runaway spending and were criticizing BOTH parties for corruption.

But now, they've let the extreme right wing take over.

[Man from Nowhere]

Originally Posted by Zuma

Then they unveil a bill which - according to independent watchdogs - would cost the country about $36B more than the Democratic bill, which costs too fucking much as is.

Actually that was according to a liberal journalist named Ezra Klein. According to the CBO the Republican version would be cheaper. According to the CBO the Republican plan would cost 61 billion and the House plan 1.05 trillion.

Story here: http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/0...it-68-billion/

Originally Posted by Tito

Tea Baggers have become crazy. They used to be legitimate, as they were mostly showing concern over runaway spending and were criticizing BOTH parties for corruption.

But now, they've let the extreme right wing take over.

That's because certain politicians have co-opted the tea party movement for their own personal gain. I still think 90% of the movement is legit but some of it is just an excuse for right wing crazies to leave their bomb shelters and some Republicans to use the movement to get votes.

edit: I finally tracked down the news coverage on the Bachmann rally yesterday (it didn't get much press due to the tragedy at Fort Hood) and I have yet to see where she said anything controversial. So I'm not sure what your first point was supposed to mean Zuma. News story here: http://www.startribune.com/local/692...3aPc:_Yyc:aUUX

People are tired of being ignored by their supposed representatives so they held a rally. Like I said before there was maybe 10% of people or less there who crossed the line but no more than the anti-war rallies during the Bush years. Heck, Conservative rallies on average are more civil and have fewer arrests. People are just exercising their right to assemble. Also I still see most of the protesters as legit and the left wing fringe media are just trying to smear them and paint the peaceful majority with the colors of the fringe minority that also showed up. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the fringe protesters there were lib plants trying to discredit the protesters, wouldn't be the first time.

[FearlessVampireKiller]

Was a time when protesting against your government got you called a traitor in this country. That time was round about 2003, as I recall.

[Slap]

Originally Posted by Scott Uberman

Bush and the Neocons wrecked the Republican party and largley the view of real conservatism to a significant portion of the nation.

Bush and the "neo-cons" didn't ruin shit, the banks giving loans to everyone and anyone did. Bush was the scapegoat for the liberals.

Obama has to fail for the GOP to make a comeback anytime soon. So far it he's doing it (failing), but he's still got plenty of time to turn shit around and make himself look like a super hero.

I'd like for Obama to turn shit around and be that super hero, but so far he's doing the exact opposite.

[Zuma]

^lol... and Obama isn't the scapegoat for the Party of No? You can't sit here and say Bush gets the blame and doesn't deserve it, and turn around and blame Obama for the same shit in the next sentence...

wow.

[Slap]

Here's what I said, take notes...

- Bush got blamed for shit that wasn't his fault

- Obama, so far, has not made things better. In fact, he's made them worse.

- I hope Obama turns things around, but if he doesn't, you and your "people" are really going to look bad.

[FearlessVampireKiller]

Blame for stuff that wasn't his fault? That reminds me, anyone else still trying to figure out why the tea baggers keep protesting Obama even though the bailouts they hate so much happened under Bush? Some sort of crazy political three card monte happened there and I was never quite sure how. All of these "deficit hawks" sure were quiet until this year. Damndest thing.

But hey, that tea bagger crowd can keep up their hijinks all they like. The more crazy, fringe, divisive, Hoffman-like candidates crop up to fuck with the GOP, the more hilarious I'll find it.

[Roadkill25]

Originally Posted by FearlessVampireKiller

Blame for stuff that wasn't his fault? That reminds me, anyone else still trying to figure out why the tea baggers keep protesting Obama even though the bailouts they hate so much happened under Bush? Some sort of crazy political three card monte happened there and I was never quite sure how. All of these "deficit hawks" sure were quiet until this year. Damndest thing.

But hey, that tea bagger crowd can keep up their hijinks all they like. The more crazy, fringe, divisive, Hoffman-like candidates crop up to fuck with the GOP, the more hilarious I'll find it.

This guy couldn't be more correct. Screw the Tea-Baggers. They made the term tea bagging disgusting and obscene.

[Brooklyn]

Originally Posted by Roadkill25

This guy couldn't be more correct. Screw the Tea-Baggers. They made the term tea bagging disgusting and obscene.

And thats saying something considering "tea bagging" 's most common connotation lol.

[Slap]

Originally Posted by FearlessVampireKiller

Blame for stuff that wasn't his fault? That reminds me, anyone else still trying to figure out why the tea baggers keep protesting Obama even though the bailouts they hate so much happened under Bush? Some sort of crazy political three card monte happened there and I was never quite sure how. All of these "deficit hawks" sure were quiet until this year. Damndest thing.

But hey, that tea bagger crowd can keep up their hijinks all they like. The more crazy, fringe, divisive, Hoffman-like candidates crop up to fuck with the GOP, the more hilarious I'll find it.

^ If I make that post, I get an infraction in my PM box.

but it's ok for FVK to make that post, because zuma agrees with his political views.

Sanctuary = MSNBC

[Irishsara]

Slap, im confused. Was it the "more crazy, fringe, divisive, Hoffman-like candidates " or the 3 card monte comment? Or was it the Fuck with the GOP comment that would have been against the nature of the sancuary?

Ive heard (and said) way worst in the sanctuary and havent had a problem. I'm just curious.

[Slap]

the overall tea-bagging theme is what I was more/less getting at.

I too have said worse in the sanctuary, but the mods thought it was funny so they let me go, even though I was blatantly flaming someone. The mods who run this place are huge liberals, so they don't like me denouncing the democrats and the liberal mindset, so in turn I get infractions for petty shit.

Like I said, Sanctuary = MSNBC

[Tito]

Sadly, Slap, it's the media who has made this double standard and actually allowed "tea baggers" to be part of the language called for the protesters DESPITE its connotation.

As for Sanctuary = MSNBC, I'd argue the entire forums, sans FFA, is significantly endowed with Politically Correct stuff. While I have no problems hammering upon racial or gay slurs for non-FFA stuff, it's difficult to say anything honest around here any longer. Anytime I dare challenge that Islam CAN be a dangerous religion, the mods are up in my shit.

That's why I don't post here as much, whereas in the past, this was my haven.

[The Korean]

^Any religion CAN be a dangerous religion. Whats your point? Why must you insists that Islam is the only religion that is so?

[Slap]

Korean, that's not sashaband, it's Tito.