FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


The Collapsing Republican Party





handfleisch
This is just the latest crazy talk from leading Republicans: First there was a major Republican publicly apologizing to BP because Obama is making them pay for the oil disaster. Then Congressional Republican leader Boehner compared the economic crisis to an ant. Then party head Michael Steele tried to blame the war in Afghanistan on Obama. Really, that party has gone insane. Now they seemed to be tearing themselves apart. Some major Repubs support Steele, some want him to resign.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dcnow/2010/07/rnc-chairman-michael-steeles-afghanistan-comments-put-the-gop-in-an-politically-awkward-position.html
Quote:
Steele was critical of President Obama and the war started by his predecessor, Republican George W. Bush after 9/11.

"If he's such a student of history, has he not understood that, you know, that's the one thing you don't do is engage in a land war in Afghanistan? All right? Because everyone who's tried, over a thousand years of history, has failed," Steele said in the widely posted video. "And there are reasons for that. There are other ways to engage in Afghanistan."

Steele's comments drew sharp criticism from conservatives in his own party who called for his ouster because the comments are so much at variance with the GOP's war stand. Hardliners such as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) have been critical of Obama -- but for the opposite reasons that Steele cited. McCain, and others fear that Obama will withdraw from Afghanistan on a fixed timetable before final victory -- however that is defined.
deanhills
I guess November elections will be the real test of how much the Republican Party has "collapsed"? If the Dems have just the "gaffes" to focus on in Republican speeches, that is very poor show four months before the elections are to start. The example of Steele not being supported by some Republicans as being an indication of the Republicans collapsing does not make sense at all. Obama does not have a united Democratic party behind him. Does that then mean the Dems are collapsing?
Alaskacameradude
Uh, yeah, the Republicans are collapsing. If so, the Dems should clean up in November right?
Get back to me on how that works for you......
handfleisch
Alaskacameradude wrote:
Uh, yeah, the Republicans are collapsing. If so, the Dems should clean up in November right?
Get back to me on how that works for you......

You keep repeating this like a chronic stutterer, despite the fact that I already answered you on another thread:

Quote:
your post, if right about people's choices in November, would be a reminder of how many Americans have the memory, patience and understanding levels of a fruit fly.

A year and a half ago Obama took office in what everyone agreed was a thankless and dire situation amid fears of a depression after years of fiscal mismanagement. Compared to that, the recovery is already going quite well and the skyrocketing unemployment rate has leveled off. Yes, workers are suffering and it definitely looks like getting the rate down is going to take a lot of work. However do you really propose that Americans should start blaming that on Obama and the Democrats after less than two years? Do you think we should actually turn back to the collapsing Republican party? The Repubs not only have no alternative ideas at all, they have only become more extreme proponents of the free market lunacy that brought us to this point.


Which gets us back to this topic.
Alaskacameradude
Well, blaming the Republican Party when the Dems have had FAR more power than the Reps did
under George Bush, is just stupid. And then claiming it is because of 'Republican Policies' when
in fact, much of the blame can be placed on Barney Frank and other Dems shows that your
'blame game' is just false. It is NOT just the Republican's 'failed policies' that have us in
the current mess. Much of it is due to the Democrats 'crisis of leadership'. And since they ARE
the ones with the Presidency, and both houses of Congress, you can mark my words,.....when
something like the current situation happens, voters do NOT listen to all this blather and blame
assigned by Obama and the Democrats to others....., they place the blame squarely where it
should lie....on the party in power. Unlike you leftists who keep chanting 'Bush's Fault.' And
you wonder why the conservatives would dare blame Obama? How hilarious.
gandalfthegrey
Unfortunately the Republican Party will not suffer a collapse, as the party in opposition to that of the President usually does well in Mid-Term elections. Though they seem to be going more extreme and away from the opinions of the majority of Americans.

Those joke amendments to the school curriculums that Texas Republicans pulled off is religious-based imposition, and some of the amendments are borderline racist.

Rand Paul has become a huge joke with his support for British Petroleum.

There only hope I think for 2012 is taking a risk on running Ron Paul for President, as Palin doesn't have a chance in hell of winning.
Voodoocat
I doubt that the Republican party is in danger of collapsing. If anything, Obama and the Democrats have served to unifty the party more than anything else.

To claim that a political party is collapsing because of internal power struggles is inane; what more do you expect from politicians? Solutions? Keep dreaming!

I agree with Deanhills; the story will be told in November.
handfleisch
Alaskacameradude wrote:
Well, blaming the Republican Party when the Dems have had FAR more power than the Reps did
under George Bush, is just stupid. And then claiming it is because of 'Republican Policies' when
in fact, much of the blame can be placed on Barney Frank and other Dems shows that your
'blame game' is just false. It is NOT just the Republican's 'failed policies' that have us in
the current mess. Much of it is due to the Democrats 'crisis of leadership'. And since they ARE
the ones with the Presidency, and both houses of Congress, you can mark my words,.....when
something like the current situation happens, voters do NOT listen to all this blather and blame
assigned by Obama and the Democrats to others....., they place the blame squarely where it
should lie....on the party in power. Unlike you leftists who keep chanting 'Bush's Fault.' And
you wonder why the conservatives would dare blame Obama? How hilarious.


I take it you are actually answering yes to the question that Americans should start blaming the mess that Obama and the Democrats inherited back on them, after less than two years? And you think that is not stupid?

Alaskacameradude wrote:
And then claiming it is because of 'Republican Policies' when
in fact, much of the blame can be placed on Barney Frank and other Dems shows that your
'blame game' is just false. It is NOT just the Republican's 'failed policies' that have us in
the current mess. Much of it is due to the Democrats 'crisis of leadership'. And since they ARE
the ones with the Presidency, and both houses of Congress,


Crisis in leadership? Could you be more specific in how the economic crisis is Barney Frank's fault, and if so, how the Repubs are blameless?

While you are at it, can you name one solution that the Repubs have offered? Can you name one alternative proposal? I don't think so because they don't have any.
Alaskacameradude wrote:
you can mark my words,.....when
something like the current situation happens, voters do NOT listen to all this blather and blame
assigned by Obama and the Democrats to others....., they place the blame squarely where it
should lie....on the party in power. Unlike you leftists who keep chanting 'Bush's Fault.' And
you wonder why the conservatives would dare blame Obama? How hilarious.


In other words, you really are signing yourself up as one of those who have so little memory that 2007 and 2008 are just a blank for you. You actually think we should turn back to the Repubs, who not only have no alternative ideas at all, they have only become more extreme in their backing of tax breaks for the mega-rich, Wall Street money games and free market deregulation craziness that brought us to this point.
handfleisch
First Repub Party head Michael Steele called the conflict in Afghanistan "a war of Obama's choosing," a new level of idiocy for him that is causing other Repubs to call for his resignation. (He's refusing: )
Quote:
'I Ain't Going Nowhere,' RNC Chairman Michael Steele Says
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/07/09/128405320/-i-ain-t-goin-anywhere-gop-chairman-michael-steele-says

Now the Repubs' only viable candidate for Prez, Mitt Romney, has shown himself to be utterly clueless on national defense. In an article trying to criticize Obama, he actually penned the incredibly ignorant statement that ICBMs can be used by mounting them on bombers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/05/AR2010070502657.html
Quote:
Obama's worst foreign-policy mistake
By Mitt Romney
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
...
Unlike past treaty restrictions, ICBMs are not prohibited from bombers. This means that Russia is free to mount a nearly unlimited number of ICBMs on bombers -- including MIRVs (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles) or multiple warheads -- without tripping the treaty's limits.


This means not only does Romney not have a basic grasp on the issues of nuclear deterrance, but his handlers and advisors who let him publish this piece in the Washington Post don't either.

The Republican Party is in meltdown.
deanhills
@Handfleisch. With respect, this almost sounds like an early Democratic Party campaign for the November elections? Don't you think the word "collapse" in the title of this thread is a bit too strong bordering on the rediculous? And now "melt down"? To me that does not sound like fact, more like campaign noise.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
@Handfleisch. With respect, this almost sounds like an early Democratic Party campaign for the November elections? Don't you think the word "collapse" in the title of this thread is a bit too strong bordering on the rediculous? And now "melt down"? To me that does not sound like fact, more like campaign noise.

No, you're wrong. What's going on in the Republican party is not politics as usual, it's extreme and bizarre. You have to go to third world countries and struggling democracies to get examples as regularly nutty and reckless as what's been going on in the GOP for the last several years.

Briefly, the conditions for the collapse were set during the Bush-Cheney fiasco, when they took a balanced budget, a budget surplus and historic levels of post-9/11 support and then just screwed the country by occupying Iraq based on their fantasy of WMDs, cutting taxes for the rich which along with the Iraq war skyrocketed the deficit for no good reason, then let Wall Street games and bank deregulation run wild leading to the financial crisis while completely failing in basic management post-Katrina.

Then the actual collapse started with the Repub's elevation of Sarah Palin, a national embarrassment, to the national level by choosing her as the VP candidate.

Since then it's been all downhill as we witness a party in denial, refusing to admit or understand the mistakes it made, and instead acting the way a person with psychological problems would -- still insisting it was successful after failure, turning to extremism, attacking itself and saying things that are the opposite of reality and doing things that make no sense. GOP head Michael Steele saying the Afghan war is "a war of Obama's choosing" is just insane, and having totally ignorant people as your national candidates is also. I could make a long list just on the crazy things that House minority leader John Boehner has said. Major Repubs are calling for the resignation of their own party director; nothing remotely comparable is going on in the Democratic party.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Since then it's been all downhill as we witness a party in denial, refusing to admit or understand the mistakes it made, and instead acting the way a person with psychological problems would -- still insisting it was successful after failure, turning to extremism, attacking itself and saying things that are the opposite of reality and doing things that make no sense. GOP head Michael Steele saying the Afghan war is "a war of Obama's choosing" is just insane, and having totally ignorant people as your national candidates is also. I could make a long list just on the crazy things that House minority leader John Boehner has said. Major Repubs are calling for the resignation of their own party director; nothing remotely comparable is going on in the Democratic party.
I seem to recall that the Democratic Party was also in this position when the Republican Party was in serious power, it is almost as though the opposition Party always feeds off the disappointments of the American people in the Party in power. I have to agree with you that some of what comes from the Republicans is idiocy, however, this is a flip side of the Democrats when they were the opposition Party. Fact of the matter is that people have had almost 18 months of Obama to be able to judge whether they think he is doing a good job. It is one thing for an opposition party to come up with idiots saying strange things now and then, but for the leader of the party in power to not lead is actually going to strengthen those "idiots" that you have so abundantly referred to.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
I seem to recall that the Democratic Party was also in this position when the Republican Party was in serious power, it is almost as though the opposition Party always feeds off the disappointments of the American people in the Party in power. I have to agree with you that some of what comes from the Republicans is idiocy, however, this is a flip side of the Democrats when they were the opposition Party. Fact of the matter is that people have had almost 18 months of Obama to be able to judge whether they think he is doing a good job. It is one thing for an opposition party to come up with idiots saying strange things now and then, but for the leader of the party in power to not lead is actually going to strengthen those "idiots" that you have so abundantly referred to.


No there was no comparable situation when the Dems were in opposition. You say you "seem to recall", so what do you recall?

Also, what are you referring to when you keep saying Obama is not leading? He has had one of the most active presidencies in living memory, instituted hundreds of changes, and had two major policy victories of historic proportions just this year (health reform + financial reform). In fact usually the right wingers are complaining that he is doing too much. So now what are you talking about with all this about him not leading?
Voodoocat
All political parties are full of strife. Here is an example of Democrat internal dissent:

Quote:
"I might have chosen both a different tack and a different time," Ritter told the Times. "This is an issue that divides us politically, and I'm hopeful that their strategy doesn't do that in a way that makes it more difficult for candidates to get elected, particularly in the West."


does that meand that the Democratic party is in collapse? Of course not! A perusal of the daily news will provide anyone with enough "evidence" of party collapse if they are willing to spin it.

November will be the proof!
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Also, what are you referring to when you keep saying Obama is not leading? He has had one of the most active presidencies in living memory, instituted hundreds of changes, and had two major policy victories of historic proportions just this year (health reform + financial reform).
Isn't that exaggerating it a little Handfleisch. For the first year of his Presidency, he seems to have been focussing most of his energies on health reform. Victory is only victory when the health reform has been shown to be successfull.
handfleisch wrote:
In fact usually the right wingers are complaining that he is doing too much.
I have not heard anyone complaining about "he is doing too much". More like he is doing too much damage, but I'm open to correction. He is definitely expensive. He must be the first President dealing in several trillions not mostly billions. Again, the debt that has been accumulated will have to be repaid one day, and then obviously the real test will come in how it will be repaid. If one has trillions at disposal, it is probably also much easier to be an actively spending President.

handfleisch wrote:
So now what are you talking about with all this about him not leading?
This is where I got it from, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews commenting on Obama's Gulf Oil Spill Speech:
handfleisch
Voodoocat wrote:
All political parties are full of strife. Here is an example of Democrat internal dissent:

Quote:
"I might have chosen both a different tack and a different time," Ritter told the Times. "This is an issue that divides us politically, and I'm hopeful that their strategy doesn't do that in a way that makes it more difficult for candidates to get elected, particularly in the West."

Are you joking? This one little quote is supposed to be the equivalent of major Republicans calling for the resignation of their party leader? I don't think so. There's no comparison at all.
Voodoocat wrote:

does that meand that the Democratic party is in collapse? Of course not! A perusal of the daily news will provide anyone with enough "evidence" of party collapse if they are willing to spin it.

November will be the proof!


No, the opposition party always picks up a few votes in midterm elections. Given the total rejection the Repubs received from the American people last time, this phenomenon could be more pronounced this time. But it won't prove a thing.

The point still holds. The Repubs haven't reformed at all since the American people rejected them last time. They have become more extreme in holding on to their failed policies of tax cuts for the rich, more burdens for the poor (look how they rejected unemployment benefits during this crisis), their cuts to government and to regulation that led to disasters and crises. They never apologized for leading the nation into the Iraq war based on their fantasies/lies of WMDs. They have picked ignorant, right wing celebrities like Sarah Palin, buffoons like Michael Steele and know-nothings like Romney to be their leaders. Why would anyone but a fool choose to go back to the Republicans?
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
The Repubs haven't reformed at all since the American people rejected them last time.
I do agree that the Repubs have not been reformed and they still have a far way to go. However did the American people reject the Repubs, or did they reject Bush? I'm almost certain that all the hate propaganda about Bush helped Democrats with their reforms. Perhaps the same could be happening in reverse.

Gallup seems to think that the Republicans may stand a good chance during the November elections:
Quote:
Gallup's generic congressional ballot provides a summary measure of current voting intentions for Congress. This currently suggests the 2010 midterm elections could be highly competitive, and possibly a strong Republican year if usual turnout patterns prevail.

Gallup regularly tracks several measures that give an indication of the political climate and can provide insight into the reasons for Americans' current congressional voting intentions. Although Democrats retain a significant advantage in party affiliation, that advantage has dwindled over the course of this year. Also, there are ominous signs for the majority party in terms of near-record-low congressional job approval and continuing low national satisfaction ratings.


Quote:
Bottom Line
Since 2006, not much has changed for the better in terms of Americans' satisfaction with the way things are going in the country, perceptions of the economy, or approval of the job Congress is doing. What has changed is that Democrats are now in control of both houses of Congress and the presidency after voter dissatisfaction led to steep Republican losses in 2006 and 2008. If national conditions do not improve considerably between now and next November, Democrats appear vulnerable to suffering heavy seat losses of their own. Two factors that are likely to be crucial in determining voter preferences for Congress in 2010 will be President Obama's job approval rating, and whether Democrats' advantage in party support continues to shrink.
Voodoocat
Perhaps the Democrats are the ones in trouble:

Quote:
WASHINGTON — Four months before midterm elections, the Obama administration and congressional Democrats show signs of collective battle fatigue, ducking political fights they might once have welcomed and quarreling among themselves as they confront the likelihood of majority-threatening losses this fall.



http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i1amtDX_u8Ia3Tjtumwf4PkAOGiwD9GUBV4G0

You have to admit, when Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews turn their backs on the Dems, things are looking bad.
handfleisch
Voodoocat wrote:
Perhaps the Democrats are the ones in trouble:

Quote:
WASHINGTON — Four months before midterm elections, the Obama administration and congressional Democrats show signs of collective battle fatigue, ducking political fights they might once have welcomed and quarreling among themselves as they confront the likelihood of majority-threatening losses this fall.



http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i1amtDX_u8Ia3Tjtumwf4PkAOGiwD9GUBV4G0

You have to admit, when Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews turn their backs on the Dems, things are looking bad.

LOL. I think you've been watching too much FOX propaganda. The Dems have made history twice this year already with health reform and financial reform (not to mention student loan reform), and they're looking for a hat trick with energy policy reform.

Do you really want Americans to turn to the GOP (Greed Over People), the party that just publicly apologized to BP and stopped unemployment benefits for working people during a crisis? The party that presided over the occupation of Iraq, the abandonment of New Orleans after the hurricane?
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

Do you really want Americans to turn to the GOP (Greed Over People), the party that just publicly apologized to BP and stopped unemployment benefits for working people during a crisis? The party that presided over the occupation of Iraq, the abandonment of New Orleans after the hurricane?

No, I want them to turn to the Libertarians (People over government).

With hatred of both the Democrats and the Republicans so strong, the chances of that happening are better than ever...
(Still not that great, unfortunately.)
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
(Still not that great, unfortunately.)
I would tend to lean more in the direction of your latter statement. People seem to be too lazy to want to make that radical change in thinking. They rather get the Republicans or the Democrats to do the thinking for them, and then once the one or the other is voted in, they take to their armchairs in front of TVs and become armchair critics. It would have to take a radical shift in paradigms for a move to the Libertarians, unless they can ally themselves with the Republicans or the Democrats.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
It would have to take a radical shift in paradigms for a move to the Libertarians, unless they can ally themselves with the Republicans or the Democrats.

Noooo! Speak not such blasphemy!
*hiss*

Really though, if Libertarians ally themselves with one of the two existing parties, they will just be absorbed into that party, without changing the party much and without most 'armchair critics' even noticing.

Allying with either party -- to an extent more than just advocating specific party policies that are agreeable, while condemning disagreeable ones -- would be the death of the Libertarians.

The best strategy would be to just make small, slow gains in state governments and congress... Then perhaps the armchair critics will notice that there are more than two parties. The upcoming elections have the voters mad at both parties, as well as the government in general... It looks like a perfect time for the Libertarians to make a few more small gains. The tea party complicates things, of course... It threatens to drag some Libertarians over to the Republicans along with the rest of the group originally founded to advocate small government, but which now acts as the right-most side of the Republican party.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
It would have to take a radical shift in paradigms for a move to the Libertarians, unless they can ally themselves with the Republicans or the Democrats.

Noooo! Speak not such blasphemy!
*hiss*

Really though, if Libertarians ally themselves with one of the two existing parties, they will just be absorbed into that party, without changing the party much and without most 'armchair critics' even noticing.

Allying with either party -- to an extent more than just advocating specific party policies that are agreeable, while condemning disagreeable ones -- would be the death of the Libertarians.

The best strategy would be to just make small, slow gains in state governments and congress... Then perhaps the armchair critics will notice that there are more than two parties. The upcoming elections have the voters mad at both parties, as well as the government in general... It looks like a perfect time for the Libertarians to make a few more small gains. The tea party complicates things, of course... It threatens to drag some Libertarians over to the Republicans along with the rest of the group originally founded to advocate small government, but which now acts as the right-most side of the Republican party.
What got me thinking about this idea was what happened in the UK with the Liberal Democrats who did a deal with the Conservative Party. I'm almost certain that there must have been Liberal Democrats in the UK who must have been as horrified with this happening as you are at the idea of Libertarians allying with the Republicans or Democrats.
handfleisch
The latest in the GOP meltdown: The Repubs misled their own treasurer about their finances; turns out the party of fiscal responsibility is millions in debt but pretended to be breaking even. Sort of like how they ran the economy for eight years, or like their logic on tax breaks for the rich.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/21/AR2010072103377.html
Quote:

WASHINGTON -- The Republican National Committee's treasurer says the GOP has millions in debt that wasn't disclosed and he is telling budget committee members that he was misled.

RNC Treasurer Randy Pullen amended the committee's Federal Election Commission reports to show some $3.3 million in debt for May and $3.8 million for June. The RNC, which had crowed about having zero debt, now has more than $2 million in debt, according to FEC reports filed Tuesday.

The financial reports highlight the split between RNC Chairman Michael Steele and Pullen. The latest revelations come as the party has been under fire for lavish spending.
handfleisch
The newest sign of collapse: After the infamous liar Andrew Breitbart had his latest scam blow up in his face (cutting up a video to make it seem that an African American woman speaking to the NAACP was promoting racism against white people, when in fact the exact opposite was true) you would think that the Republicans would stay miles away from Breitbart. What have they done instead? They've invited him to speak at a fundraiser with Michael Steele.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/steele-to-hold-rnc-event----co-starring-andrew-breitbart.php?ref=fpblg
Quote:
TPM Exclusive: Steele To Hold RNC Event -- Co-Starring Andrew Breitbart

It's certainly some odd timing for the RNC to be working closely with Breitbart, who, of course, has made headlines recently for circulating a video clip of then-Department of Agriculture official Shirley Sherrod, an African-American, seeming to tell a story about how she would not help a white farmer who was down on his luck 24 year ago. Sherrod was quickly forced to resign last week. And as it turned out, the full video showed that Sherrod was telling a story about how she ultimately did not discriminate against the farmer -- that this was a great turning point in her own personal story of race relations in the South -- and she did help him. Indeed, the farmer himself has come forward to defend her and discuss their lasting friendship.

deanhills
Perhaps Michael Krieger's comments are more representative of what people are thinking? Maybe there is a good case to be made for a collapsing Presidency? I thought Michael Krieger's following words were right on the number for a number of disillusioned "independents" who voted for Obama:
Quote:
I have been calling Barrack Obama’s Presidency a failure for at least six months now and it seems that I now have considerable company in this assessment as it becomes obvious to most. It is not a failure because of the Republicans. It is not a failure because of events beyond his control. It is a failure because this was a man that filled a depressed and downtrodden nation with the audacity of hope. When I voted for the man I knew it was against my personal financial interests. It was clear what he would do with taxes. Nevertheless, I got to the polls and voted for this fifth avenue creation thinking maybe, just maybe he might do some of the things he said. Most important to me were two issues related to the military-industrial complex (see Eisenhower’s warning on this during his Farewell Address http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY) and civil liberties. George W Bush was turning America into a depressed police state with perpetual war and consolidation of power between a corporate oligarchy and entrenched political class. A nation where the masses voluntarily gave up many of the liberties the founding fathers fought for merely to ease the fear that consumed them and which was propagated by the administration and the media. I and many others that voted for him even though they disagreed strongly with his economic policies thought he would at least reverse this trend. Why did we think this? Cause he said so. How foolish we were.

Source: Dangers of a Failed Presidency
Also view the interview below of Max Keiser with Michael Krieger about the dangers of a failed presidency (from the 16 minutes mark onwards)
Voodoocat
Once again: are you sure that the Republican party is in trouble?
Quote:

At one point earlier this year, all eight lawmakers under formal investigation by the House ethics committee, including Rangel and Waters, were black Democrats

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40533.html#ixzz0vTEXC3IY


The Democrats have Charles Rangel and Maxine Waters taking the forefront just months before the next elections.

November will be interesting!
handfleisch
Voodoocat wrote:
Once again: are you sure that the Republican party is in trouble?
Quote:

At one point earlier this year, all eight lawmakers under formal investigation by the House ethics committee, including Rangel and Waters, were black Democrats

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40533.html#ixzz0vTEXC3IY


The Democrats have Charles Rangel and Maxine Waters taking the forefront just months before the next elections.

November will be interesting!


What are you trying to prove by citing this article? How good the Democrats are being on ethics, even investigating their own members of Congress?

The opposition party always picks up a few seats in the elections. And since the Republicans lost so incredibly last time when America rejected them, they have a lot of ground to make back.

Probably you are just aping what Hannity and Limbaugh have told you this week, right?
Alaskacameradude
Quote:
What are you trying to prove by citing this article?


Hmmmm.....just a wild guess here, but maybe, just maybe, that there is a corruption problem
in the Democratic party?
ocalhoun
Alaskacameradude wrote:
Quote:
What are you trying to prove by citing this article?


Hmmmm.....just a wild guess here, but maybe, just maybe, that there is a corruption problem
in the Democratic party?

As entertaining as it is to see handfleisch's own tactics used against him, I must point out the inappropriateness of this.

Just because you can argue that the Democrats are the same or worse does NOT mean that the Republicans are not collapsing.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Just because you can argue that the Democrats are the same or worse does NOT mean that the Republicans are not collapsing.
But the question is, are the Republicans in fact collapsing? What evidence is there for that? What I see is Obama losing support and no doubt, being the marketing whizz he is, looking for opportunities to strengthen his support. I would not be surprised if the Democratic Party is using this as a tactic in anticipation of the October elections. The term "Republicans collapsing" seems to be repeated all over if one googles it, almost like a virus. Typical political mudraking. And that does not mean the Republicans are innocent either. They seem to be quite good at exploiting opportunities when they do arise. Both are equally bad/good at this political game.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
I would not be surprised if the Democratic Party is using this as a tactic in anticipation of the October elections. The term "Republicans collapsing" seems to be repeated all over if one googles it, almost like a virus. Typical political mudraking.

True or false, they'll capitalize on it as much as possible either way.
That's partisan politics for you.

I'm more inclined to guess it's true though. They need a strong leader who will stand up for core, traditional conservative values*, even when it might alienate radical elements or the listeners of certain radio talk shows.
I have seen no such leader in the party, and until one emerges, reason will continue to loose out to the radicalization of their base.

*By traditional values, I mean the values the country was founded upon, not the values of the "They took our jobs!", "Show us the birth certificate!", and "Stop terrorism at all costs!" crowds.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
I'm more inclined to guess it's true though. They need a strong leader who will stand up for core, traditional conservative values*, even when it might alienate radical elements or the listeners of certain radio talk shows.
I have seen no such leader in the party, and until one emerges, reason will continue to loose out to the radicalization of their base.
Agreed. But were the Democrats not in the same boat before Obama emerged as a leader with an agenda and a solid campaign plan? Almost like an identical see-saw, the one up, then the other down. But yes, the Republicans do need a solid leader, however that still does not mean they are collapsing to me. Collapse for me means down and out, no more juice left. There is plenty Conservative activity, of course bolstered by people who have previously supported Obama and want to cast an anti-Obama vote more than really voting Conservative.
Related topics
Conservative Christian Dictionary.
Fork replaces donkey as "democratic" party symbol
Republican Name Hypocritical?
If we made the ultimate political party, what would it be?
Should Palin create a new right wing party in 2012?
Big News: A Republican governor talking sense & cooperat
Republican strategy, via Limbaugh: Wanting Obama to fail
Tea Party Protests
Our One-Party Democracy?
Which Party in the United States would you vote for?
Tea Party more popular than Republican Party
Tea Party: 4 in 10 are Dems, Independents
What happens when Obama raises taxes?
Who is Christine O’Donnell?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.