Fall Of The Republican Party?

[Bye bye now have fun]

After seening them getting cleaned up does anyone forsee the republican party going under in maybe 20 years?

[Hippo_Master]

Well, unless they stop being such butt-hurt losers, then yes. They were booing every time McCain, who had a wonderful Concession speech by the way, said "Obama". That is ridiculous, especially when the Democrats applauded McCain's mention.

It just makes them seems ignorant, and I don't think ignorance is bliss in their position.

They view Obama being elected as the bitter end to the United States. The bitter end to Republican government for 4 years maybe... but I think that's about it.

At least Palin didn't get to open her mouth though, that's a relief. Watching the Concession, I saw 8 women who looked exactly like Sarah Palin- same rectangular framed glasses, same parted straight pony-tail thing, same make-up overload- now that is sick.

I have a friend who made a direct correlation with the number of Live-stock and guns in a state compared to which color they ended up being. Sad thing is.. it makes complete and perfect sense.

[stevedavejesus]

no matter who is elected the outcome is still always going to be the same, it doesnt matter who the president is the new world order has been set into play, evident by the super highway being built as we all sit..and chief...

[Hippo_Master]

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/11...ly-2-years-ago/

I wonder if this means anything.
Now, it was only 600 voters per state, but damn, take a look at it!

[Hojo]

Hopefully people will start to take third parties seriously. I think that only having two choices for candidates is drastically lowering the quality of who we elect. Most of the time, it is a "lesser of two evils" scenario, but I actually want to vote FOR someone, rather than against someone else. I agree partly with both parties, which makes voting that much harder because I don't know which issues are more important to me.

[stevedavejesus]

next election vote ron paul if he runs......

[gaia.plateau]

As long as the majority of the wealth and power in the US is controlled by elements which are best supported by right-wing governance... nawp.

Unless they're replaced by the National Socialist American Worker's Party in 2012. Edited November 5, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[dw914er]

George Bush def changed the shape of the republican part, and broke it. They will have to try and distance themselves from his ideals in order to have another shot. That was the problem with McCain (just wasn't far enough of a "change" and Sarah Palin also didn't help)


if Obama fucks this up, then 3rd party will probably take over. I, though, am hopeful for what the future brings. It's a new era in American history, and hopefully it goes alright.

[r1v3th3ad]

next election vote ron paul if he runs......

indeed...saw him speak here at my school


I dont see the Republican party falling apart.
If McCain would have won, maybe...the next 4 yrs I think may be one of the toughest for any presidency and unless Obama can pull a rabbit out of his ass, I think he will end up gettin bashed, republicans staying republicans....no change in mind set by parties. Democrats will blame his what he didn't do on what Bush did do and Republicans will see all the promises he didn't keep(I think every candidate makes 'em and doesnt keep 'em)...in other words, Same Shit Different Day.
But I feel that if McCain had won, it could have been the end for them...there would have been too many people with the mindset, "Bush fucked us, republican, McCain didn't completely resolve Bush's mess and fucked us more..."

Mind you that my mindset is playing on the factor of "this country is really fucked up right now and whoever is president, at the end of their term, will probably get a bad rapsheet in the end." I dont think that the problems at hand can be fixed in 4-8yrs, its gonna take a lot of time and co-existance/co-operation between both parties, if this can even be fixed.
Just had a class last week comparing U.S. now, to the fall of the Roman Empire...


hope I didn't drift off course too much, in a comp lab having a hard time staying focused in one place...campus A.D.D


edit: dammit we need more than two parties as well...I vote we bring back the good ol' Jeffersonians and Whigs

[liquidglass]

edit: dammit we need more than two parties as well...I vote we bring back the good ol' Jeffersonians and Whigs

I think you're joking but just to make sure you know those are where the modern parties developed out of so you can't exactly "bring them back" and have more than 2 parties.


* BACK TO THE FUTURE!*

[r1v3th3ad]

good catch

[Ralleac]

After seening them getting cleaned up does anyone forsee the republican party going under in maybe 20 years?

It's not like this is the first time one of the two parties has been pwnt. I don't think they'll just up and disappear unless our political system is completely reworked. It might take them a while to regain public support, but it'll probably happen eventually. I'm not particularly impressed with either group, but I hope things turn out for the best. My vote will surely never count for anything while we live in a world where you can predict the winner based on which state you live in. I'm just lucky I moved to Oregon. Edited November 6, 2008 by Ralleac

[TheScotsman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhbH9IYirD0
Gotta hand it to Obama supporters, they aren't too good at opening the windows when they are spray painting. (something has to account for total lack of a brain.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ovcdb6csHBE&NR=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cv1EKBsPedo Man, I thought the rush limbaugh crowd fell in the koolaid head first, these guys have them beat.

The repubs are done unless they get over the centrist cock-wash. Some day they may learn that acting like a dem isn't going to get you elected (look at the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill, amnesty, guest-worker, and path to citizenship McCain sponsored, and the fact the Hispanics voted 2:1 against him.) You can't buy votes with wishy-washy policy, just chase off what support you have.

Since they don't let you vote pissed, I couldn't vote for either of them... I just left that whole president thing blank. The only way I could vote for McCain would have been after a pint of Laphroaig! the more I saw the older that POW line got. He needed some new material. I HAD to go vote against Al Franken though.

[Bulldog_916]

Ok, I want to ask a totally different question all together. 1. We know that this is a center-right country. It took massive bad luck and a terrible president, as well as strong fund raising and absolutely disciplined campaigning to make Obama the president. 2. We know that under different circumstances, perhaps a better economy, the election would have been much closer, if not in McCain's favor. Now, in this United States, not the one of Clinton, not the one of Carter, it takes a LOT to make a Democrat the president. Republicans are normally so message-disciplined that it takes an earthquake to throw them off. This wont change in 4 years.

My question is this: What would it take for you to admit that Barack Obama was a good choice as president, and perhaps in principal, you support him? (Directed at everyone, but more specifically, at Scotsman and those who doubt Obama as an able president.)

[gaia.plateau]

Some of you might find this interesting, it's a collection of interviews from leaders all around the world, with their responses to Obama's victory. I found the response of the Sudanese government to be the most intriguing. Unfortunately the vast majority of responses seemed to be canned, but still, interesting.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas...5293464248.html

Ok, I want to ask a totally different question all together. 1. We know that this is a center-right country. It took massive bad luck and a terrible president, as well as strong fund raising and absolutely disciplined campaigning to make Obama the president.

Oh come now. Center-right? Perhaps in comparison to Mussolini's Italy

When I tried to think of countries that are farther to the extreme-right of you, the first two that popped into my head were ironically North Korea and China, countries with communist regimes. Others that are close to you might be Israel, formerly Nicaragua and Guatemala, Singapore, Columbia, and well, the majority of the Middle East, especially Pakistan and Iran.

Even Obama, who was called during the campaigns a "socialist" and "the most liberal democrat in the senate", would be considered a right-wing conservative in any other democracy in the world; that's just the reality. Edited November 6, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[crashrebootrepeat]

After seening them getting cleaned up does anyone forsee the republican party going under in maybe 20 years?

I don't know about 20 years. The American people want to have change and this time around Obama was the one who promised us the most. When (not if.. when) he doesn't follow through with all of this promises the American people will want change again. Its a never ending loop bound to continue for a long long time.

[TheScotsman]

Ok, I want to ask a totally different question all together. 1. We know that this is a center-right country. It took massive bad luck and a terrible president, as well as strong fund raising and absolutely disciplined campaigning to make Obama the president. 2. We know that under different circumstances, perhaps a better economy, the election would have been much closer, if not in McCain's favor. Now, in this United States, not the one of Clinton, not the one of Carter, it takes a LOT to make a Democrat the president. Republicans are normally so message-disciplined that it takes an earthquake to throw them off. This wont change in 4 years.

My question is this: What would it take for you to admit that Barack Obama was a good choice as president, and perhaps in principal, you support him? (Directed at everyone, but more specifically, at Scotsman and those who doubt Obama as an able president.)

I think they screwed the pooch when they picked McCain. Who knows what they were thinking, likely thought the choice would appeal to slightly left undecideds, but it had the effect of sending the base into a tail spin. Unlike the average lib, the average conservative will either stay home, or vote 3rd party, It's happened before, and will again. They are relying too much on "handlers" to make the candidates appear to be what they are not, and the plastic-like falseness is not exactly a person you would count on. Maybe they will come to their senses, and next time around pick a candidate who isn't some ancient fosil with no real conservative view. There was no message to stay on for them this time around... In all honesty, the message of "give us 4 more years to cock-it up some more" just didn't inspire anyone. To his credit, President Obama is what appears to be. And to that end I would rather have a president knowing where he will stand than a fellow like McCain that spends his time trying to appeal to the other side. I would bet President Obama will be a bit more centrist than he was during the campaign. Most of all, he is the president, and as such deserves the respect and honor he earned with that position. To not support him is a bit like cutting off your foot because your socks are miss-matched. I am looking forward to seeing how he does. Hopefully I won't be pulling out what few hairs I still have left before it's all over.

[Bulldog_916]

Ok, I want to ask a totally different question all together. 1. We know that this is a center-right country. It took massive bad luck and a terrible president, as well as strong fund raising and absolutely disciplined campaigning to make Obama the president. 2. We know that under different circumstances, perhaps a better economy, the election would have been much closer, if not in McCain's favor. Now, in this United States, not the one of Clinton, not the one of Carter, it takes a LOT to make a Democrat the president. Republicans are normally so message-disciplined that it takes an earthquake to throw them off. This wont change in 4 years.

My question is this: What would it take for you to admit that Barack Obama was a good choice as president, and perhaps in principal, you support him? (Directed at everyone, but more specifically, at Scotsman and those who doubt Obama as an able president.)

I think they screwed the pooch when they picked McCain. Who knows what they were thinking, likely thought the choice would appeal to slightly left undecideds, but it had the effect of sending the base into a tail spin. Unlike the average lib, the average conservative will either stay home, or vote 3rd party, It's happened before, and will again. They are relying too much on "handlers" to make the candidates appear to be what they are not, and the plastic-like falseness is not exactly a person you would count on. Maybe they will come to their senses, and next time around pick a candidate who isn't some ancient fosil with no real conservative view. There was no message to stay on for them this time around... In all honesty, the message of "give us 4 more years to cock-it up some more" just didn't inspire anyone. To his credit, President Obama is what appears to be. And to that end I would rather have a president knowing where he will stand than a fellow like McCain that spends his time trying to appeal to the other side. I would bet President Obama will be a bit more centrist than he was during the campaign. Most of all, he is the president, and as such deserves the respect and honor he earned with that position. To not support him is a bit like cutting off your foot because your socks are miss-matched. I am looking forward to seeing how he does. Hopefully I won't be pulling out what few hairs I still have left before it's all over.

This is true, your points are well made. I think McCain was too busy trying to look conservative and not busy enough trying to appeal to the very people he needed to be talking to. Palin didnt help either with a media scandal every five minutes after the RNC convention. I think Obama will be looking for Republicans and Independents to serve in his cabinet. It's too hostile of a time to bend over backwards for the far-left. Pelosi and Reid will be put in line by Rahm Immanuel. The man plays hardball like nobody I've ever seen. You know how sometimes politicians say they will reach across the isle and you can see through the BS like it's a glass window pane? I dont feel that with Obama. And I can see through BS on the left as well as I can with the right. He looks sincere to me. He cant afford to equivocate on his word because he needs all the help he can get. He still talks about tax cuts and extending unemployment benefits. I think universal healthcare is gonna have to wait until the second or third year of his presidency to get started. The financial crisis is going to take a year or more to get sorted out and have the beginnings of stabilization start to see some effects. The energy policy and the bailouts of Detroit are gonna have to go hand in hand. In order to be bailed out, GM, Chrysler, and Ford are going to be forced to push very fuel efficient and biofueled cars research to the forefront of their agenda. Bonuses are going to take a back-seat. Infrastructure and jobs look like they are connected as well. Looks like in order to jumpstart the economy again, money we dont have is going to need to be spent. I dont like it a whole lot. But that's why I dont envy Obama's position at all. Let's hope the best and the brightest in this man's government can pull a fat rabbit out of the completely empty hat.

[judgeposer]

I would first acknowledge that I believe in a difference between Conservatives and Republicans, especially after the last eight years. I believe Conservatives (and the larger Republican party) must at this time remain humble, recognize the referendum on the last eight years that President-elect Obama's recent election indicates, and recede for the near future to reorganize, refashion, and re-present again in due time our agenda for America. In my assessment, Conservatives, and definitely Republicans have in the past eight years have spent more time on the defensive to the extent that it has robbed Conservative intellectuals the political capital to demonstrate adequately our worldview, its reasonableness and promise that it offers to all Americans. In the past few days I've read countless pieces that speak of the death of the Republican party or the larger Conservative movement. Some of those comments strike me as overblown, but realistic only in the sense that Conservatives should not be surpised at where we've now come.

Conservatives though will most likely pursue this agenda (again) at the grassroots level, through reforendums, as we saw in Prop 8 in CA, the blogosphere, and hopefully in the academy - through prominent and well-positioned Conservative intellectuals - and in the Courts, fighting the tide of jurisprudentially liberal decisions that decide social, and otherwise legislative matters in the courts.
So, again, Conservatives, like myself, must sit the next few out (per Anchorman, a great cimematic triumph - lol). That is until, of course, we can offer something better, more convincing, more resonant with greater American society. Perhaps that will come in the form of a brilliant minorty candidate for national office, perscriptions for reform of the tax system that advocate simplicity, and reflect the true burdens placed on low-income earners, or grassroots reforendums that limit courts from legislating on issues squarely within voters' rights to decide.

I do want President-elect Obama to succeed. In the least, to straignten out our economic situation, our strained diplomatic relations, and to keep the reorginization of the Dept. of Defense began by present Secretary Gates going. His pick of Emmanuel as his chief of staff, though probably excessively capable, doesn't offer me much hope at bi-partisanship, I will wait and see.


We can't also loose sight that once dominant parties do experience nearly wholesale exclusions like we've just witnessed happening to the Republican party. But, as in 1994, 1996, and 2004, the party can easily resurge in popularity and power by offering credible couterbalance and more convincing measures of "change." So, no, I don't think the Republican party's death waits on any near horizon. It has simply fallen out of good graces with the American voter, which, if recent history tells us anything, will probably prove more temporary than permanent.

[Bulldog_916]

We are a center right nation, as I've said before. I think conservatives need to understand though, that the Constitution was meant to be interpreted by the JUDICIAL branch of the government. NOT by voters necessarily. While the majority may know what they want, they cant all interpret the Constitution and what it is SUPPOSED to protect. Prop 8 is a limit on Constitutional rights of gays and lesbians. They are Americans, too and deserve the same rights as straight couples.

As far as the death of the Republican party, not by a long shot. They'll come back, they always come back. This is the party of Karl "Fucking Pig" Rove. You cant count that out.

[judgeposer]

We are a center right nation, as I've said before. I think conservatives need to understand though, that the Constitution was meant to be interpreted by the JUDICIAL branch of the government. NOT by voters necessarily. While the majority may know what they want, they cant all interpret the Constitution and what it is SUPPOSED to protect. Prop 8 is a limit on Constitutional rights of gays and lesbians. They are Americans, too and deserve the same rights as straight couples.

As far as the death of the Republican party, not by a long shot. They'll come back, they always come back. This is the party of Karl "Fucking Pig" Rove. You cant count that out.

I do believe Conservatives understand the Separation of Powers, specifically that the Judiciary must keep to interpreting the Constitution (at both the federal and state levels), and that the Legislative branch proposes and enacts legislation, among other awesome responsibilities. If anything, amending the CA Constitution through the voters' say reflects this principle since the proper course to amend legislation, especially a Constitution belongs properly with the voters. Conservative forces accomplished this through a ballot initiative, not through the courts. Proposition 8 sought to amend the Constitution, which, as it succeeded, now offers new language that the California courts (and probably the federal Circuit court) will have to consider in its Constitutional interpretation--that is, of course, until it is overturned for some reason. Proposition 8, among other things, reflects the popular, democratic sentiment of Californians. These sorts of populist attempts don't infringe any on the respective responsibilities of the branches of government. If at all, these attempts reflect a proper understanding of the doctrine of Separation of Powers because the CA voters themselves sought to amend their own Constitution. A scenario of overreach would have been for the CA courts to have decided on the definition of marriage.


While we can debate whether homosexual couples should be allowed to have the same rights as married hetersexual couples, or whether we will term those rights "marriage," the offering of Proposition 8, as nearly any ballot initiative, respects the doctrine of the Separation of Powers because it leaves the course of change up to the voter. So, while we can disagree on the merits of any proposition, we cannot say, especially here in the case of Proposition 8, that the voters overstepped their Constitutional bounds to want to amend their own Constitution. Interpreting any Constitution remains the chief responsibility of the courts, but what that Constitutions says, what it offers as protected rights, comes from the governed.

[SuburbanSmoker]

Its a party realignment, look into history and look at how long each party ruled for...as weird as it is, its true. Obviously there are exceptions, but for the most part the rule sticks.

[Evildave]

From my angle (canadian), I don't think the republican party necessarely means any kinds of bad or evil things... i think the problem is that the republican party seems to be have been co-opted by the religious right, and that's why they seem like a bunch of crazy nutcases to me right now. Even the term "conservative" has been co-opted by these wackpots.

And until the republicans keeps allowing itself to be tainted by those religious values, it will be difficult to consider them anything but a party of sellouts. And I'm sorry if that offends you, but it's the way i feel about it right now. Republicans didn't NEED to kiss ass to religious elements in the past.

[mustang_steve]

I'll admit I'm a Republican myself....but I lean towards the fiscal conservatism more than the religious conservatism.

I really think the party needs to split...having a religious conservative party, and a fiscal conservative party.

I also feel the two-party electorial system must go, as it pretty much assures third party candidates lack any real chance of getting elected short of having both democrat and republican parties pissed off at everyone.

Really, I'm sick of religion getting tied up in government....I understand why those of strong beliefs and faith would like laws to be in their image of the ideal world, but often their ideal tramples the freedomes of those that don't share that same world view...and that is exactly what the founding fathers did not want to happen...they wanted us to live and let live, as free people, not as people subject to the rules of a diety they may not particularly believe in.

[Sonthert]

Republicans have been handed a mandate, their policies that benefit the rich, the religious-meddlers and the corporations are failing. The republican party of 50 years ago was quite a different creature. There was a new strain of republicans (and democrats) that emerged in the mid 20th century. Eisenhower and Gerry Ford's type of republican party, which was honest and just and represented a different view of American politics was replaced by Nixon and Bush type republicans. 12 of the 14 recessions have occurred under republican presidencies. The only republican to have a balanced/surplus budget was Eisenhower (1 year), stretching back 75 years. Every democrat in that same time period except Jimmy Carter has had at least one, usually more balanced/surplus budgets. Under Ronald "There's a communist under every bed" Reagan, the national debt topped 1 Trillion dollars for the first time in US history. George H. Bush ballooned a little more (but not a lot), but Clinton in 8 years was able to lower the national debt back down to 1.01 Trillion dollars. Under George W. Bush, the national debt has sky-rocketed to 10.1 Trillion dollars! In 2005 it was only around 2.1 trillion dollars, so, in three years, we've more than multiplied it by a factor of 5. Please note, the national debt started rising alarmingly in 2005, before the republican controlled congress was removed. I have watched 5 republican presidents in my lifetime, although I can't really remember that much about Nixon, and in my opinion, the problem isn't W. Bush, its the attitude and direction of the republican party. They are corrupt, selfish and self-interested. Their tactics are nasty, vicious and under-handed. I know there's a republican reading this going "So are the democrats!" because thats become the mantra on the republican party: "We're crooked because everybody else is". Which is absolutely false. Sure, you can find dishonest democrats, but the tone and tactics of the republicans is selfish and negative. There is a difference, I assure you. I hope the republican party does change their ways. Voting for only democrats is tiring and has me voting for morons like Al Gore. Retool the republican party, return to the politicians like Eisenhower.

I don't think the republicans are going anywhere. Third party candidates aren't either. Only the democrats and the republicans can receive electoral college votes to elect a president. The democrats have stuck by their guns, stayed true on their core issues, while the republicans represented anybody with a large campaign contribution. Watch for that to change, see the republicans make a few failed attempts at returning to "core" values with little public enthusiasm, watch for lots of outspoken republicans to make their appearance, some qualified, some just loud and idiotic (Sarah Palin...back in Alaska...film at 11...). The republicans have to find solid, core values they can talk about, that Americans are concerned about; repeating the the words god and terror endlessly isn't holding a lot of water right now. The democrats have enjoyed a populist upswing with Obama, they need to capitalize on that and squelch this appearance of elitism (that isn't undeserved, truthfully). What the American people have had to choose from for 30 years is a public access television discussion (The democrats) and a looping infomercial (the republicans). Americans, this election anyways, are out of work, losing their houses in record numbers, can't afford to put gas in their cars and the piece of crap they bought from the infomercials hasn't done a thing for them. So republicans, more populist material, less dirty sales pitches, democrats keep the information level good, but tone it down a little, get some fresh air in the stale lecture hall.