CSNbbs

Full Version: Conservative Republicans look to rebuild the Party.
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
WASHINGTON – So much for a lasting Republican majority.

The Republican Party is essentially in tatters, and not that long after President Bush's 2000 election spurred talk of enduring GOP dominance.

John McCain's shellacking, along with recent congressional losses, leaves the party searching for a new leader and identity.

"It's time for the losing to stop. And my commitment to you is that it will," House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio told his rank and file after the party lost at least 19 congressional seats Tuesday — on his watch.

Saying the party's image has been tainted by "scandals and broken promises," Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina declared: "We have got to clean up, reform and rebuild the Republican Party before we can ask Americans to trust us again." He called for party leaders to "embrace a bold new direction" or hit the road.

Indeed, a leadership shuffle brewed in the House.

Boehner announced he will seek two more years as Republican leader. But Rep. Adam Putnam of Florida, the No. 3 Republican, was "reluctantly" stepping down from his post. And a GOP official said Virginia Rep. Eric Cantor intends to run for the second-ranking spot now held by Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri. Whether Blunt intends to seek a new term was not immediately known.

Plenty of Republicans from the conservative to the liberal wings of the party agree the GOP is in shambles as the Bush presidency comes to a close, leaving the party without a titular leader when the president's term ends in January.

"Nationally, the Republican Party is going to go through a Dr. Phil, self-analysis moment," Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty said.

Nearly two dozen prominent conservatives planned to meet in Virginia on Thursday to try to chart a path going forward.

And, plenty of prospective White House hopefuls seem to be lining up for 2012.

McCain running mate Sarah Palin has signaled that she will remain on the national political scene. She says: "I'm not doing this for naught." Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who lost the nomination this year, has restarted his political action committee. And, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is heading to the leadoff caucus state of Iowa on Nov. 22 to deliver the keynote address to a conservative group. Any number of other Republicans may test the waters as well.

Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan said it would be wrong to view the election results as "the death rattle of American conservatism," pointing to a roster of GOP rising stars that includes Palin, Jindal, Cantor and Sen. John Thune of South Dakota.

Republicans, Duncan said, "are going to take a deep breath and listen to the American people." The party is creating a new online forum that will allow people to explain "how we let them down" and "what we can do to restore confidence in our party," he said.

Tuesday's electoral losses for the GOP culminate a campaign that took place in an extraordinarily challenging political environment for the party in power amid two lingering wars and a spreading economic crisis. Bush's job approval ratings are at record lows and much of the country is demanding change.

Republicans were severely punished — for the second straight election.

McCain's loss to Democrat Barack Obama in an Electoral College landslide dramatically reorders the divided political map that's been the norm during the last two elections. Obama won in traditionally Republican states like Indiana and gained ground in just about every demographic group, including the fast-growing Hispanic bloc that Republicans have courted.

In Congress, House Republicans lost at least 19 seats, just two years after losing 30 seats and House control. Democrats now have locked up every seat in the Northeast.

Senate Republicans, for their part, will lose at least five seats, although the GOP blocked a complete Senate rout and thwarted Democratic hopes for a 60-vote majority needed to overcome Republican filibusters.

It's all quite a reversal from just eight years ago, when it was the Democrats in disarray.

In 2001, Bush set up shop in the White House with Republicans firmly in control of both the House and Senate.

His chief strategist, Karl Rove, envisioned building a long-term Republican majority by broadening the party's base in part by building support among women, labor groups and Hispanics.

Two years later, Rove said: "Political parties kill themselves, or are killed, not by the other political party but by their failure to adapt to new circumstances."

That turned out to be true — for the GOP.

"The party just simply lost its way," said Republican Dick Armey, the former House majority leader from Texas. "It was no longer about small government and individual liberties ... and the party became enormously unattractive to the American people."

Many point to the Iraq war — and anger over how it was handled — as just the start of the troubles.

"Try as it might, the party has been unable to get it off its back," said Frank Fahrenkopf, a former Republican National Committee chairman. He also pointed to Hurricane Katrina and a spate of scandals, including the leak of a CIA operative's identity, as kindling that fueled distrust of government and disgust with the GOP.

By 2006, the country issued a double repudiation of Bush and the party, giving Democrats control of both the House and the Senate.

Two year later, the GOP lost the White House in Obama's barrier-breaking election as the first black president.
After reading that pitiful article, I have EVEN LESS faith that the party will right it's course.

What a complete lack of vision, leadership, and philosophical grounding.

So long, chumps!
The solution to curing a disease is correctly diagnosing it.

Republicans can only right their ship if they own up to why they lost the publics support in the first place:

1. God Awful Expensive wars that don't need to be fought.
2. An arrogant and overbearing foreign policy.
3. Massive deficit spending.
4. Supporting Big Government.
5. Not focussing on the business of America-business.
Quote:He called for party leaders to "embrace a bold new direction" or hit the road.

The 'Bold New Direction' is getting back to the values that got Republicans elected to a Majority in the first place:

1. Humble and restrained foreign policy
2. Fighting wars as a last resort and only when it's clearly in our intersts.
3. Cutting SPENDING and not just taxes!!!
4. Strong Dollar policy.
5. Promoting policy to make American firms more competitive, not jut throwing the doors open to low wage immigrants.
Quote:The 'Bold New Direction' is getting back to the values that got Republicans elected to a Majority in the first place:

Exactly.

What is wrong with these knuckleheads?

"Setting up forums so the American people can tell them how they were let down"

It's self evident!
How about ditching the religious groups? To many of them want the party to codify their views into new laws and regulation. Sort of kills the small government/little-to-no regulation bit.
Tommyboy Wrote:How about ditching the religious groups? To many of them want the party to codify their views into new laws and regulation. Sort of kills the small government/little-to-no regulation bit.

I say, "AMEN" to that idea. Politics have their place, religion has its place. They don't belong together. As the old saying goes, you can't legislate morality. We need to quit trying.
Quote:As the old saying goes, you can't legislate morality. We need to quit trying.

The majority of laws legislate someone's version of what is "moral".

Which one's don't?

Quote:How about ditching the religious groups?

What does this mean?

No Muslims allowed in the party?

Or Christians?

Or Hindus?

Any I'm missing?
ESSSS Wrote:
Quote:As the old saying goes, you can't legislate morality. We need to quit trying.

The majority of laws legislate someone's version of what is "moral".

Which one's don't?

Quote:How about ditching the religious groups?

What does this mean?

No Muslims allowed in the party?

Or Christians?

Or Hindus?

Any I'm missing?

Ditching just the ones that supported dumbya.

----------------------------
In 2001, the incoming administration accused the outgoing Clinton administration of taking the W keys off computer keyboards, etc.

The current outgoing administration can take all the W keys with them they want to take.

-----------------------------
And now the recriminations begin: Sarah Palin accused of trying to buy all Neiman-Marcus inventory. Sarah Palin thinks Africa is a country and not a continent. Sarah Palin unable to name the countries in North America. Sarah Palin doesn't know government.

And that is how the McCain staffers view her....

MSNBC, Hardball
Quote:And now the recriminations begin: Sarah Palin accused of trying to buy all Neiman-Marcus inventory. Sarah Palin thinks Africa is a country and not a continent. Sarah Palin unable to name the countries in North America. Sarah Palin doesn't know government.

And that is how the McCain staffers view her....

Man, if it's not the Dems going ape chit over Palin it's the McCain insiders. First off, the Dems are scared of this women, and the McCain staffers are jealous. Without her he loses by 10. McCain had as much appeal to conservatives as an infected bunion. Palin was the only one on the ticket who could spout conservative values and actually mean what she said.

I'd be more than happy if the next time "The Maverick" blew off his own party to join forces with Uncle Teddy, that he just stay on that side of the aisle.
Quote:the McCain staffers are jealous.

It isn't jealousy it's deflection. These are professional polticians who could just as easy be Democrats as Republicans. They're horse lost and lost badly and now they're trying to lay the blame on Palin instead of their own imcompetency.

It's true that McCain lacked warmth and conservative credentials, but their handling of him was atrocious and sure didn't do anything to advance their futures as professional campaign staffers. So they're throwing Palin under the bus to cover their own phuckups.

I understand why they're doing what they're doing. What I can't understand is why McCain is standing off to the side letting them get away with it. His lack of class surprises even me, but according to those who knew him best back in his formative years it's typical behavior for him. He wasn't really liked even as a young naval officer.
I didn't mean that religious folks can't be a member of the party just that the party should stop letting them dictate policy. Here read this:
http://77pw.blogspot.com/2007/06/2040-sa...rgers.html

And yes most, if not all, laws have some some morals behind them, but pushing your morals into a law that will effect millions of people who don't share them is not going to change theirs. So allow me rephrase what Chipfan said; laws don't change behavior. This is a lesson that the people of this country of ours need to learn. We have had so many opportunities to do so, and have failed. If you want to change someone's behavior you need to change their attitudes, not make a law to make the behavior illegal.
Religion is way overemphasized in US politics.
Tommyboy Wrote:I didn't mean that religious folks can't be a member of the party just that the party should stop letting them dictate policy.

TB, I respect the fact you have an opinion and I don't want to be guilty of putting words in your mouth, so I will try to avoid that. Nor will I attempt to be condenscending.

Are you refering to "planks" in a party's platform? Legislation that is put up to be voted on? Laws passed?
BroncoPhilly Wrote:Religion is way overemphasized in US politics.

Specifics?
Carter with his focus on "Born again" Christianity. Dumbo with his same focus. Those sort of things would have been unheard of 200 or even 100 years ago in this nation. Presidents did not wear their religion on their sleeve in those days, it was a personal matter. As it should be.
BroncoPhilly Wrote:Carter with his focus on "Born again" Christianity. Dumbo with his same focus. Those sort of things would have been unheard of 200 or even 100 years ago in this nation. Presidents did not wear their religion on their sleeve in those days, it was a personal matter. As it should be.

The Declaration of Independence, Geo. Washington's many speeches, not to leave out Abraham Lincoln make direct reference to the Judeo/Christian God. Aside from being incorrect from a historical perspective - what's your point?
Is the point, the voters are not interested in following some washed up religious leader schtick any more?

Maybe they want the real thing, not some politico/religious/mishmash of corny morality and half baked "you're a sinner" edicts? One man one woman and then it turns out the guy saying it has several women and some of them seeing a guy in the stall at the airport on the side? Enough of that on both sides. People want real, not a tarted up plank in a political platform.

Just a thought. Seems that way.
gobaseline Wrote:
BroncoPhilly Wrote:Carter with his focus on "Born again" Christianity. Dumbo with his same focus. Those sort of things would have been unheard of 200 or even 100 years ago in this nation. Presidents did not wear their religion on their sleeve in those days, it was a personal matter. As it should be.

The Declaration of Independence, Geo. Washington's many speeches, not to leave out Abraham Lincoln make direct reference to the Judeo/Christian God. Aside from being incorrect from a historical perspective - what's your point?

That came to my mind, as well.

As for TB's point its somewhat ridiculous to try to outcast ones faith in voting for legislation that directly effects it. I know the loud minoririty of same sex marriages, abortion rights folks etc, directly note that religous leaders are effecting their rights that they want to inflict on a society that disagrees w/their agenda.

There are people who believe in their churchs teachings and live through those values as they are inherited through the legislative laws. TB may think that same sex marriage or abortion is right but many think its horrible and should not be legislated into our society. That being said we are a people of laws. Abortion has been legalized and thats that. I personaly see abortion as nothing differant, as in my mind life starts at conception and after that its murder, but the law says otherwise and my life will be lead as instructed and taught by a higher faith but I will respect the law until its changed.

To suggest ones faith should be outed from the legislative process is impossible as it should be.
Dirty Ernie Wrote:Is the point, the voters are not interested in following some washed up religious leader schtick any more?

Maybe they want the real thing, not some politico/religious/mishmash of corny morality and half baked "you're a sinner" edicts? One man one woman and then it turns out the guy saying it has several women and some of them seeing a guy in the stall at the airport on the side? Enough of that on both sides. People want real, not a tarted up plank in a political platform.

Just a thought. Seems that way.

I agree, it is that way. Know one likes to be lied too, misrepresented, misguided, fleeced, pimped or otherwise disrespected.

That includes dictators, murderers, bigots, pedafiles, embezzalers, financial crooks and myself. (I assume that all agree that this list represents known "sinners" and if eradicated would benefit society)

So what distinguishes between the list above's indignant self righteousness and those we enslave, murder, distain, moleste, cheat and rob? Right and wrong? By what standard(s)?

Other than the specifc action taken to dictate, murder, be bigotted, etc. the motive is the same, selfishness. In varying degrees? In consequence, yes. Motive? No.

So, if a child being held on it's parents lap, sitting on their front porch is "accidently" killed by a stray bullet during a drive by, how morally and consequentially is that different from aborting a healthy child held in it's mother's womb during the last tri-mester? Or codifying into law that it is illegal to save that viable baby if it survived an attempted (legal = moral) abortion?

Difference?

Am I wrong to take a stand? Wrong in my stand?

I am certainly open to read and learn a better way.
Pages: 1 2 3
Reference URL's