GOP rolling downhill like snowball headed for

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/14/gop-senator-mccain-betrayed-republican-principles/

Well sad to say but it appears republicans just cannot accept the fact people have rejected their message of hate and exclusion.

But rather than learn from their setback, they are apparently in denial.

People like this guy think that instead of moderating their position they should stick with the current drivel. Just shout it louder and attack those in their own party who see the handwriting on the wall.

I can even see some of that attitude right here on the forum.

They seem offended somehow that Democrats try to reach out to them and offer them a place at the table.

This is so sad, because until they wake up and change their ways they will be more and more irrelevant, and we will be heading toward one party government.

And that will not benefit anyone.

This is the same recrimination process that every party goes through after a big loss. Political fortunes are a pendulum. Remember how neurotic the Democrats became after 2002 and 2004? The base looked to crazy-man Howard Dean to save them, for goodness sake. Thankfully for the Dems (and America), cooler heads, such as Obama, emerged to lead the party back to success. The GOP needs to use this time in the wilderness to renew itself. I don't expect the cleansing to be complete just two weeks after the election.

In 2006, the Dems won through a 50 state strategy in which they ran more conservative candidates.

In 2008, we put up a moderate Republican loved by the media and "feared" (haha) by Democrats and he got his arse whooped, just like the moderate Dole did in 1996 and the tax raiser in 1992.

The left and the media need to stop giving Republicans advice, and the Republicans need to stop being willing to take their advice.

"The left and the media need to stop giving Republicans advice..."

Geez, talk about unappreciative....

Seriously Mike, if the Party continues its headlong stampede to the right, they will wind up with a very enthusiastic membership, with glazed over eyes who jump up and down at their rallies.

But they will only have 30% of the vote.

I really dont want that to happen, because it would not be good for the country.

Politics is the art of compromise.

sodbuster wrote:Politics is the art of compromise.

Not according to our founding fathers.

Aaron wrote:

sodbuster wrote:Politics is the art of compromise.

Not according to our founding fathers.

You must not have read the COTUS.

The GOP needs to get back to its roots. To hell with the MSM and the liberals. We don't want to want to haggle with people who want to support the abortion industry or create a socialist state. McCain got his ass whooped because the party base wasn't enthusiastic about the liberal "Republican".

Maybe we could qualify for part of that $700 billion bailout package. We'll make concessions...

"If Republicans and conservatives don’t come to grips with what’s happened, and can’t develop an economic agenda moving forward that seems to incorporate lessons learned from what’s happened — then they could be back, politically, in 1933...."

Well guys these are not my words.

If they were I am sure I would be ridiculed and called bad names, etc.

I am glad I came across these quotes, because they convey just what I have been trying to tell you guys, to no avail.

"I don’t pretend to know just what has to be done. But I suspect that free-marketers need to be less doctrinaire and less simple-mindedly utility-maximizing, and that they should depend less on abstract econometric models. I think they’ll have to take much more seriously the task of thinking through what are the right rules of the road for both the private and public sectors. They’ll have to figure out what institutional barriers and what monetary, fiscal and legal guardrails are needed for the accountability, transparency and responsibility that allow free markets to work...."

Perhaps, when you figure out who said them, you will take heed.

And recognize (if not admit) that old Sodbuster might be onto something here.

So I leave you with just a few more words of wisdom from a well-known and respected republican/conservative activist/playa...


"From 1933 to 1980, Republicans repeatedly failed to convince the country they were no longer the party of Herbert Hoover — the party, as it was perceived, of economic incompetence, austerity and recession (if not depression)...."

Hopefully you can put aside your partisan blinders long enough to at least consider that your party will either have to change or wind up on the ash heap of history.

Bitter, defeated, irrelevant. But bigod ideologically pure and without compromise.

Sherm,

What you fail to acknowledge, at least when it comes to me and OC, is that we have been saying for a very long time the GOP needs to change. To your knowledge I have been saying it for almost two years. To my knowledge Jimmy has been saying this for almost two years. I have actually been saying this much longer and I'm sure Jim has too.

You are such an ideologue that the only change you can see is for the GOP to become more like the Democrats. That is the last thing I want to see the GOP do. That would be the worst move they could make. They need to return to their roots of small government and big individual liberty and humble foreign policy. You don't like those ideas, that's a large part of what makes you a liberal.

In any event, you need to stop telling those of us who have been with the party for years and have been trying to bring about meaningful change that the GOP needs change. We know that. You just may not like the changes we are trying to make. Eventually I believe we will be successful, btw. I think you're going to see some big changes in the next election cycle because people are sick and tired of the Rockefeller wing of the party ruling the roost.

When Goldwater was buried under Johnson's 1964 sweep the outlook was even more dour. William F. Buckley may not be the one supplying the ideas this time. I have no doubt some form of opposition party will. I don't much care if you call it the republican party or not.

Stephanie wrote:They need to return to their roots of small government and big individual liberty and humble foreign policy.

I would agree Stephanie. But I would say Republicans not only need to get back to those roots, at the same time then need to find a way to reach out to the African American, Latino, young and women voters and show them that their issues can indeed be addressed by the Republican Party and stop conceding those voters to democrats.

By 2040, the white race will be the minority in this country and Republicans can no longer grow without reaching out to those they've ignored in the past.

They need to find a way to show the poor community that they are better off with a hand up attitude of the Republican Party instead of a handout attitude of the democratic party that has kept such a large segment of society down for so long.

They need to address issues such as real education reform, poverty, immigration, the environment and other issues where the democrats, year after year, automatically get a free pass on those issues and as a result, lock up 90+% of that voting block.

The good news is, as far as the Republican message goes and the mindset of the American people, it's what they want hear. There are those on this forum who think this past election was won on liberal policies but they couldn't be further from the truth as I’ve been saying that America has been and is a conservative country.

The #1 issue Barrack Obama hammered away on and won a lot of voters and as a result, the election was a bedrock issue of the Republican Party and that was tax cuts. He took a Republican talking point and made it his and that, as much as anything else is why he is now the President elect.

I don't think this change needs to be made to save the Republican Party to keep democrats from becoming a one party system because we all know there is NO danger that.

The simple fact is, democrats can’t govern. Clinton’s first two years and the last two years prove that as we all know what a clusterfluck both of those two year periods have been in American history.

The opportunity is here. Now it's time to see if a new breed of small government Republicans can go out and grab it.

Well I will give you one more quote and a hint as to who is saying this stuff above ok...

"If conservatives do some difficult re-thinking in the field of political economy, they can come back. If they don’t — well, there were a lot of admirable conservative thinkers and writers, professors and novelists, from 1933 to 1980. But conservatives didn’t govern."

I have to say of all the conservatives on here the only one who has shown a hint oof compromise on economic issues or is the least bit interested in gvt. intervention is Aaron. He seems to be thinking about the ramifications of a collapse of GM.

And the costs of a GM failure compared to the cost of a "rescue".

Incidentally I almost forgot my hint who is saying this stuff.

He is credited by many pundits as "discovering" Sarah Palin.

Well, a lot will depend on who is elected the new Chair of the RNC.

So far I know of only two candidates, Saul Anuzis (who should be ejected from the party imho) and Michael Steele. I think Steele has a lot of potential and at this point would like to see him get the job.

I heard him speak at the WV GOP summer "convention". I found him to be genuine and motivational. In any event, I was impressed with him.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/11/michael_steele_to_run_for_rnc.html?nav=rss_blog

I have to say of all the conservatives on here the only one who has shown a hint oof compromise on economic issues or is the least bit interested in gvt. intervention is Aaron. He seems to be thinking about the ramifications of a collapse of GM.

Yeah Sodbuster, but if you read between the lines, Aaron wants that so that the government can help GM do what it cannot do on its own- bust its employee unions.

I like Michael Steele, too.

Through the miracle of Google, I can tell you that William Kristol didn't discover Sarah Palin.

GM could easily bust the UAW. All they have to do is file chapter 11.

So far I know of only two candidates, Saul Anuzis (who should be ejected from the party imho) and Michael Steele.

Looking at the "'political party" laws of the 50 states, which state's laws allow the party to "eject" one of its members?

I think I recall that last week you were insisting that Lieberman is a Democrat and entitled to the privileges thereof. If Lieberman, then why not Anuzis?

And you would be wrong that I'm interested in government intervention Sherm. Government intervention is acceptable to me for the same reason castor oil was acceptable as a medicine years ago. It was done as a last resort and even knowing it had to be done, was still a tough and bitter swallow.

And I would say that even knowing that it HAS to be done, the only way I would still support it is if GM is forced to make many of the same concessions a bankruptcy judge would require including renegotiating union contracts among other things. And then any money would have to be in the form of a loan that had to be repaid back, with interest, not aid of any other type.

Because honestly, I don't think GM can or will survive. I think the UAW and poor management has killed that company, along with Chrysler and possibly Ford, but I also know to pull the plug right now would not be a good thing given current economic conditions. I think we've got to put them on life support and let them die a slow agonizing death so they don’t take too many others down with them.

ohio county wrote:GM could easily bust the UAW. All they have to do is file chapter 11.

OK. And chapter 11 is already the law. So why do we need a special law for GM?

ziggy wrote:

I have to say of all the conservatives on here the only one who has shown a hint oof compromise on economic issues or is the least bit interested in gvt. intervention is Aaron. He seems to be thinking about the ramifications of a collapse of GM.

Yeah Sodbuster, but if you read between the lines, Aaron wants that so that the government can help GM do what it cannot do on its own- bust its employee unions.

And you would be, as usual, wrong Frank. If that was all I was interested in, I wouldn't in any way, shape or form support government intervention because in the end, I know this bunch coming in is not going to require any type of concessions from the UAW. If anything, they'll throw good money after bad, more then needs to be thrown just to prop the union up, not bust it.

ziggy wrote:

So far I know of only two candidates, Saul Anuzis (who should be ejected from the party imho) and Michael Steele.

Looking at the "'political party" laws of the 50 states, which state's laws allow the party to "eject" one of its members?

I think I recall that last week you were insisting that Lieberman is a Democrat and entitled to the privileges thereof. If Lieberman, then why not Anuzis?

I am not a Democrat. I don't care what they do with Lieberman. Actually, I think I would like to see them boot Lieberman. It would likely help conservatives.

I am a Republican. I do care what occurs in my party. Anuzis is a cancer.

Come to think of it, I guess I might be all alone here on the forum on this.

I cant even remember any other progressives who want to see the gvt. intervene to avert a financial disaster.

I guess after 8 years of republican rule, even Democrats have become cynical about any kind of gvt. action.

But I still believe gvt. has the power (and not just the power but an obligation) to intervene in times of economic crisis to avoid another Hoover - type depression.

sodbuster wrote:
But I still believe gvt. has the power (and not just the power but an obligation) to intervene in times of economic crisis to avoid another Hoover - type depression.

What they don't have is the constitutional authority.

Perhaps you should give a read someday Sherman. It's a fascinating document.

And we can withstand the Hoover recession. What we can't withstand is the FDR depression.

But I still believe gvt. has the power (and not just the power but an obligation) to intervene in times of economic crisis to avoid another Hoover - type depression.

Sodbuster, would you feel the same way if it were a Republican presidency and Congress we are looking at in coming years?

In October the Congress turned 3 quarters of a trillion dollars over to Treasury Secretary Paulson. Who would you have it turned over to?