EPTFuture of the Republican Party... - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On November 07 2008 05:53 Savio wrote: The Republican party is the natural party that Americans want to be associated with. Its basic principles are more in line with what this country was founded on: individualism, responsibilty, equal opportunity (rather than Equal Outcome), limited government, competition, economic freedom, and faith. They don't need to realign themselves or come up with something "new". They already speak to the heart of Americanism more than Democrats do. All they have to do is be true to their real principles. I think this is completely wrong. Legitimate polling has found that greater % of people identify themselves with the Democratic party and most of those things you mentioned are things that all people embrace. Aside from that, this country was not founding purely on any of those things. I don't want to start a Madisonian discussion, but there are very few issues on which you can claim a consensus principle of what this country was formed upon, especially the role of the federal government. Just because Jefferson (who hated faith) wanted a yeoman society doesn't mean the country was founded on that principle. They need to readjust towards legitimate policies and stop instigating the evangelical right with social policies. So far when they've preached classical capitalism, all they've done is used it to shoot down leftist approaches rather than put forth a hopeful alternative. This has been the failure of the party. Reagan was the first to start winning in the new era that Goldwater created, but there is extremely strong evidence that we've seen the end of it, dispute what you think about the election being "close." GOP whip is stepping down, minority leaders are stepping down and all the young <45 Republicans are admitting these problems. Jindal is probably going to be the next big hope. | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12240 Posts
| ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On November 07 2008 06:16 Excalibur_Z wrote: I'm fearful that as the Democrat party veers further to the left, we'll see the Republican party move left-of-center in order to become the "reasonable" and "more centrist" party. Will that birth a new, more conservative party? It's difficult to say, but with the split attention between Romney and Huckabee in the primaries and the Republicans ending up with McCain (an option nobody was happy about), it's clear that something drastic will have to be done to avoid more McCain-type candidates in the future. I think that's the one thing all Republicans can agree on. Not that I can speak as being a Republican. Pelosi is certainly trying to steer the party to the left, but I expect Obama will keep a fairly centrist staff. No doubt that the entire country will be further to the left in 10 years than it is right now. A younger, 2000 McCain is exactly what they need to run with. I think the only legitimate candidates left in the Senate is Snow, but there's a handful of great young governors and congress people. I can see her being a very strong candidate in 2012, and she'd trounce Palin. I thought Snow was in the House. >< | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32130 Posts
Who says that quote about real intelligence is being able to hold two opposing ideas in your mind at the same time? I'm definitely more left, but having that as the only party is non bueno meng. | ||
|
KOFgokuon
United States14910 Posts
| ||
|
LonelyMargarita
1845 Posts
If Obama takes a more centrist approach, and manages to make congress look like the one not getting anything done, he could win again in 2012, but it'll be with a 50/50 mixed senate and house. I don't think the republicans need to do anything really, just distance themselves from Bush (heavy spender) and let the Democrats decide their own fate. With a 16% approval rating, I really don't think they're gonna miraculously become a great congress. The natural 4-8 year party swings tend to sort everything out by themselves. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On November 07 2008 06:24 KOFgokuon wrote: Though obama had a very liberal voting record in the senate, I'm really hopeful that he doens't try to jam an absurdly liberal agenda through congress and have a massive backfire like what occurred in 1993-1994. Yes. Obama ran as a moderate, but his past is anything but moderate. If the country does lurch to the Left too fast, I am expecting a backlash. Also, I think the GOP is better at being the underdog party than the ruling party. I think we are going to see a much better GOP over the next 4 years and who knows what will happen. | ||
|
Clutch3
United States1344 Posts
On November 07 2008 06:16 Excalibur_Z wrote: I'm fearful that as the Democrat party veers further to the left, we'll see the Republican party move left-of-center in order to become the "reasonable" and "more centrist" party. Will that birth a new, more conservative party? It's difficult to say, but with the split attention between Romney and Huckabee in the primaries and the Republicans ending up with McCain (an option nobody was happy about), it's clear that something drastic will have to be done to avoid more McCain-type candidates in the future. I think that's the one thing all Republicans can agree on. Not that I can speak as being a Republican. I don't think I really accept your premise. On social issues, like gay rights and civil rights, the whole country has moved slowly to the left over decades, but I see that as a natural (and positive) evolution of people's beliefs. For example, the country has moved gradually "to the left" on civil and women's rights, but I don't think anyone believes that there was anything wrong with that shift. In the 1910's, liberals were the first people to fight for women's rights, and the country slowly came along. Ditto for civil rights in the 1960's. And now gay rights are the current big civil rights fight, with liberals leading the way. I guess my point is: I don't think that the Democratic party is swinging left on any issue where the whole American populace isn't also swinging left. Sure, universal health care is a position which is considered "left" but it's also something that the country is much more ready for now, than it was 15 years ago. Whether you consider this a result of the whole country moving "left" or not, it's hard to say that it's not quickly becoming a de facto centrist position. Additionally, on economic matters, I believe the Republican party and the country have shifted notably to the right over the past 50 years. More free trade, much less regulation, much less power for unions, a less progressive tax system, more corporate power in DC, all these things are clearly a shift to the right. | ||
|
d_so
Korea (South)3262 Posts
On November 07 2008 06:36 Savio wrote: Yes. Obama ran as a moderate, but his past is anything but moderate. If the country does lurch to the Left too fast, I am expecting a backlash. Also, I think the GOP is better at being the underdog party than the ruling party. I think we are going to see a much better GOP over the next 4 years and who knows what will happen. what exactly could obama have voted on in 2 years that show this extreme leftism? can someone show me the actual data | ||
|
Clutch3
United States1344 Posts
On November 07 2008 06:43 d_so wrote: what exactly could obama have voted on in 2 years that show this extreme leftism? can someone show me the actual data I actually brought this up in another thread. Compared to the rest of the Demoratic party, Obama is just a bit left of the center, based on his voting record. His voting record puts him something like in the teens of "most liberal Senators" for the past 4 years. There's a fascinating analysis of this here: http://voteview.ucsd.edu/Clinton_and_Obama.htm Take a look at that page and some of the linked pages. They really display the data in some cool ways, and their methodology is much more sound than those right-wing groups who produced "studies" showing that Obama/Kerry are so far left. | ||
|
LonelyMargarita
1845 Posts
On November 07 2008 06:48 Clutch3 wrote: I actually brought this up in another thread. Compared to the rest of the Demoratic party, Obama is just a bit left of the center, based on his voting record. His voting record puts him something like in the teens of "most liberal Senators" for the past 4 years. There's a fascinating analysis of this here: http://voteview.ucsd.edu/Clinton_and_Obama.htm Take a look at that page and some of the linked pages. They really display the data in some cool ways, and their methodology is much more sound than those right-wing groups who produced "studies" showing that Obama/Kerry are so far left. Um, hate to bring out your bias, but that study was done by a non-partisan group. | ||
|
Flaccid
8893 Posts
It's just hilarious that every four years the National Journal goes ahead and ranks the Democratic candidate as the most liberal senator. And then we get to hear that false talking point repeated over and over again for the better part of a year. edit: Here is a much more comprehensive analysis of voting record than that incomplete NJ study. /tangent. | ||
|
Clutch3
United States1344 Posts
On November 07 2008 06:54 LonelyMargarita wrote: Um, hate to bring out your bias, but that study was done by a non-partisan group. Care to name the group? Because the study I keep seeing quoted is the National Journal one. I'd be interested to see your opinions of the two methodologies (National Journal, or whatever study you're talking about, and UCSD) and to tell me which you feel is less "biased" and why. (Or you can keep posting one-liners devoid of facts.) | ||
|
Fzero
United States1503 Posts
Republicans should NOT focus on 3 ideas: 1) Fiscal responsibility - I'm talking about cutting spending. If you focus on cutting spending, you're focusing on KILLING your voter base. There is no way you can continue a campaign of stagnation. Fiscal responsibility should be a non-partisan issue as a whole, everyone should be responsible with how they spend tax payer money. 2) Bigotry - White supremacy is over. Get on with it. I've seen emails lately of "blacks and gays... wow!! We're gonna push that wedge issue so hard hahha." If you try this, your party will become synonymous with regional south racism. Good luck EVER getting any independent/democratic support ever again. 3) Religion - If you continue to attempt to define yourself as a Christian, white, man that preaches to people about what they should believe and how God guides their decisions. Guess what? There are hundreds of millions of people that believe what you believe in, but most of them don't believe you should be forcing those beliefs on anyone else. They also don't believe you should govern through religion. Separation of church and state. Do it. | ||
|
d_so
Korea (South)3262 Posts
On November 07 2008 06:48 Clutch3 wrote: I actually brought this up in another thread. Compared to the rest of the Demoratic party, Obama is just a bit left of the center, based on his voting record. His voting record puts him something like in the teens of "most liberal Senators" for the past 4 years. There's a fascinating analysis of this here: http://voteview.ucsd.edu/Clinton_and_Obama.htm Take a look at that page and some of the linked pages. They really display the data in some cool ways, and their methodology is much more sound than those right-wing groups who produced "studies" showing that Obama/Kerry are so far left. dud thx this is fukin awesome yeah i remember against clinton everyone said they voted nealry the same but suddenly he became most liberal senator i was like wtf????? | ||
|
gg_hertzz
2152 Posts
| ||
|
LonelyMargarita
1845 Posts
On November 07 2008 07:00 Clutch3 wrote: Care to name the group? Because the study I keep seeing quoted is the National Journal one. I'd be interested to see your opinions of the two methodologies (National Journal, or whatever study you're talking about, and UCSD) and to tell me which you feel is less "biased" and why. (Or you can keep posting one-liners devoid of facts.) NJ is a non-partisan group. If you care to provide evidence to the contrary, I'd love to hear it. You don't see me saying "OMFG THE UCSD STUDY IS LIBTARD-MADE STUDY" then not posting anything backing that up. In fact, I didn't refute your study at all, I merely corrected your mis-statement that NJ is a Republican group. Just because you're biased doesn't mean everyone else is. EDIT: Just pm me the link to evidence NJ is a Republican entity. I'm getting out of these silly political threads (where the moderates are written off as republicans during the usual internet discussion board liberal circle jerk). | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On November 07 2008 06:43 d_so wrote: what exactly could obama have voted on in 2 years that show this extreme leftism? can someone show me the actual data Here's the data you can view: http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/ The Methodology employed: http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/methodology.htm Questions and Answers about the process: http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/qanda.htm For his 3 complete years in the Senate, he has been ranked as one of the most liberal senators all 3 years coming in #1 in 2007. See the methodology to understand how that was decided. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On November 07 2008 06:56 Flaccid wrote: Hmmm. Even the National Journal, the dudes who rated Obama as the most liberal senator in 2007, admitted to fudging their ranking methods. The accepted rankings have him ~10, as clutch said. The NJ study simply cherry-picked a small number of votes in order to reach a desired conclusion. I have never heard that. In fact they are very clear and transparent about the entire process which is automated by the way. Read the methodology. | ||
| ||
