(07-19-2014 10:03 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-19-2014 07:43 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(07-19-2014 02:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-18-2014 08:31 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(07-18-2014 05:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I actually agree with you here for once...


... but this is where you lost me. What the right wing of the Republican Party is doing is driving away the low tax and free enterprise-minded segment of the party that either doesn't care about the party's socially conservative agenda or downright can't stand it. I know it because I'm one of those people (although I still haven't crossed over to vote for the Democrats yet because they manage to construct even more populist economic policies that are horrific). I'm not some random liberal that has "infiltrated" the party - I've been in the party for years yet the GOP is pushing people like me away. The thing is that people like me (upper income educated professionals in the suburbs that are fiscally conservative and socially moderate or to the left) are the ones deciding elections now in the swing states. The GOP had a hold on those people for a long time and won elections. Now they've lost those people and, not surprisingly, are now losing elections. Rooting out "liberals" is the least of the concerns of the Republicans. The GOP isn't winning Presidential elections unless it *expands* beyond its conservative base (which inherently means drawing in voters that are to the left of the base of the party on various issues).

I call bs. Tell me, what is driving you away? What social position has suddenly changed in the party that you can't stand it?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

I don't think it's the social position that has changed as much as the fiscal position. I think he was probably willing to put up with the social positions as long as he got something on the fiscal pro-business side. But he's not willing to put up with the social issues in order to get GWB.

I agree about GWB, but this thread is about Ted Cruz. Cruz is literally the only one in Washington standing up for fiscal sanity right now. Now if you are talking Wall Street welfare when you say "pro-business", then maybe he ought to vote democrat because that isnt something Cruz conservatism puts up with.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Yes but the referenced comment was about why he became disenchanted with the GOP.

Here's the problem. You've got maybe 25 percent who support the republican religious right theocracy and maybe 25 percent who support the democrat socialist/communist workers paradise. The other 50 percent of us don't want either one. You can't win any election with the base. You have to win a majority if those in the middle. And if democrats worry more about winning elections and republicans worry more about ideological purity, guess who gets more votes from the middle? Every time. And that bothers me to no end, because the only people I hate worse than republicans are democrats. I don't want to live in a theocracy or a socialist/communist workers' paradise. But if those are my only two choices, I pick theocracy over socialism/communism any day of the week.

Case in point right now. Republicans are trying to take the senate this fall. They have a very winnable seat with a weak democrat incumbent in NC. Hagan voted for Obamacare and is vulnerable on other issues. Her strategy seems to be to expand the lies about Hobby Lobby into some war against contraception. So what is her opponent doing? According to the Hagan thread, he's trying to push a pro-life license plate through the legislature. Now is not the time for that. In fact it would be hard to imagine a worse time. That's the kind of electoral stupidity that republicans need to get away from. And I hope they do because right now stupid republicans are the only thing standing between us and evil democrats.

We arent that far off. I am socially conservative, but those issue carry less weight for me than fiscal issues. Id rather have Romney, for example, than Huck because he is so competent fiscally; however, the 2012 proved the election cannot be won without social conservatives. Sitting out cost Mitt Virginia, Ohio, and Florida and his social moderatism didn't win him any states McCain lost. I couldnt care less about party politics, however. The DC establishment being replaced is my #1 concern.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

We agree on the Washington establishment and on the importance of changing it. But I don't just want to change the people in it, I want to change the institution so that not so much power is concentrated there.

The other thing 2012 proved was that you can't win with the base either. Give those three states to Romney and he still doesn't win. Republicans need to find a way to appeal to the center without losing the base. Here's where the left is smarter. The pro-choice democrat base will turn out to vote for a pro-life democrat because 1) they are in a district where a pro-choice candidate has no chance and 2) that pro-life democrat will vote for Nancy Pelosi over John Boehner for speaker. Until the republican base drops their "my way or the highway" attitude and starts doing the same, the GOP cannot win national elections.

Republicans run to their base in the election, the move away when elected. Democrats move toward the center to get elected, then govern toward their base . One strategy works better than the other.

(07-18-2014 10:37 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  If he's in charge. I'm good. He's incompetent. He can't sell his ideas to anyone not already on board with his plans, he can't legislate his way out of a paper bag, and he repels millions of independents and moderates.

Every syllable of that also applies to Hillary Clinton, but for the use of the masculine pronoun.

(07-19-2014 01:01 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(07-18-2014 10:37 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  If he's in charge. I'm good. He's incompetent. He can't sell his ideas to anyone not already on board with his plans, he can't legislate his way out of a paper bag, and he repels millions of independents and moderates.

Every syllable of that also applies to Hillary Clinton, but for the use of the masculine pronoun.

I'm good with a Hillary - Cruz general election matchup

I figure she'll probably win if she runs.

I'm just waiting for a convincing argument that she'll be a good president.

She's been comically bad at pretty much everything she's done. The epitome of failing upward.

(07-19-2014 02:27 PM)Smaug Wrote:  I figure she'll probably win if she runs.

I'm just waiting for a convincing argument that she'll be a good president.

She's been comically bad at pretty much everything she's done. The epitome of failing upward.

So long as the alternatives are Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, etc., I don't have the luxury of supporting what "I want". I have to strongly support a candidate that has the greatest probability of stopping what "I don't want".

The GOP has provided a very large percentage of the electorate with ample motivation to support any Democrat against them. The GOP refuses to work on that. To them, we're the perverts, not 'real' Americans, welfare queens, freeloaders, the sluts, etc. And once in power, they do come after us. Our fear of the GOP is not irrational. The GOP should work on that. But they can't even bother to even pretend to lie about it, much less campaign on themes and with policies that would entice us to consider us to vote for them.

So, electing the incompetent is cool with you as long as you get what you want and don't get what you don't want. Got it.

That kind of thinking is what gave us W AND Obama.

It's an interesting situation. Would he be better served running for president and risking a total dismantling (not saying that it's going to happen) and a possibly hurting his cause OR working behind the scenes on shaping the party?

The GOP needs to get the House AND Senate.....minimizing damage done by our current King and those who act/look/think and support him

(07-19-2014 04:47 PM)tigerjaws Wrote:  The GOP needs to get the House AND Senate.....minimizing damage done by our current King and those who act/look/think and support him

What about hose who "act him", "look him", or "think him"? I'm not quite sure what any of those things mean. How do you act a person?

The GOP isn't served by pushing honest and moral people away. There isn't much to say outside that.

Besides, nothing the incompetent GOP is going to do is going to change anything. The Dems will melt themselves down, as parties always do.

(07-19-2014 05:16 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(07-19-2014 04:47 PM)tigerjaws Wrote:  The GOP needs to get the House AND Senate.....minimizing damage done by our current King and those who act/look/think and support him

What about hose who "act him", "look him", or "think him"? I'm not quite sure what any of those things mean. How do you act a person?

Just figure out our current Potus and vote opposite from his ideas....We need a President who is a leader.....someone who can act presidential while in office