2k8 election kumite

gamby wrote:

MrJoshua wrote: BTW-The little bit Obama has revealed is that his "Change" is all in a liberal democrat direction. Sadly not the direction im looking to change.

The pendulum hasn't swung far enough to the right for you yet?!?! :omg:

I am a republican by belief. The fact that the current republicans are not what I consider good republicans does not change my desire to have a smaller, less financially intrusive government. Obama is a fairly liberal democrat. That goes with more social programs, more taxes, more of everything that involves the government deciding how I earn a living and what I do with that living. I cannot vote for someone who aims to implement MORE of the things about government that drive me nuts. If you believe in having fewer taxpayer funded social programs are you going to vote for a politician who is about to implement one of the most expensive social programs in the history of our country?

gamby wrote:

MrJoshua wrote: BTW-The little bit Obama has revealed is that his "Change" is all in a liberal democrat direction. Sadly not the direction im looking to change.

The pendulum hasn't swung far enough to the right for you yet?!?! :omg:

Keep in mind that the current administration is far from right. Micromanagement (and poor at that), bloated spending, etc. are not republican values. That the current administration happens to have an R next to it doesn't make it so.

Saying "Bush sucks, therefore Republicans have bad ideas" is somewhat akin to saying "I saw a black guy rob a store, so black guys are all crooks."

DILYSI Dave wrote:

gamby wrote:

MrJoshua wrote: BTW-The little bit Obama has revealed is that his "Change" is all in a liberal democrat direction. Sadly not the direction im looking to change.

The pendulum hasn't swung far enough to the right for you yet?!?! :omg:

Keep in mind that the current administration is far from right. Micromanagement (and poor at that), bloated spending, etc. are not republican values. That the current administration happens to have an R next to it doesn't make it so. Saying "Bush sucks, therefore Republicans have bad ideas" is somewhat akin to saying "I saw a black guy rob a store, so black guys are all crooks."

That's the thing though. Everyone here keeps talking about "real" republicans, but I've yet to see one of these fabled republicans. I'm 30, and all I've ever seen is the freedom robbing, big spending, greedy, big business loving republican.

At 30 all you have seen since voting age in office is Bush/Cheney.

While saying that W does not represent true Rs can be said as a historical fact it is not at all true.

Republicans have rallied behind W for the last 7 1/2 years. A few true Rs are left but most are sell outs.

The polarity of the two major parties has changed. North is south and Democrats are getting better at being Republicans than a lot of Republicans have been.

MrJoshua wrote: At 30 all you have seen since voting age in office is Bush/Cheney.

Not only is your math wrong (I was 18 for the '96 election) but even if it wasn't, I don't see your point. I remember every president since Reagan very vividly. I grew up in a household where politics were often talked about, so I have always been somewhat interested and informed on the subject.

John Brown wrote: While saying that W does not represent true Rs can be said as a historical fact it is not at all true. Republicans have rallied behind W for the last 7 1/2 years. A few true Rs are left but most are sell outs. The polarity of the two major parties has changed. North is south and Democrats are getting better at being Republicans than a lot of Republicans have been.

Please elaborate on the "reverse polarity" concept.

You have evidence of Democrats reducing governmental taxation, intrusion, expansion and control?

oldsaw wrote: You have evidence of Democrats reducing governmental taxation, intrusion, expansion and control?

How about all the B.S. and Hooplah with the current Farm Bill?

Republicans want to hand out money like mad to anyone with farmland. Dem's are going, "Umm... why are so many of the addresses on this list in New York city?"

You have evidence of Democrats reducing governmental taxation, intrusion, expansion and control?

I do know only one president in the past century (give or take a few years) actually reduced government spending, balanced the budget and shoved through other republican pet projects like welfare reform, and he wasn't a republican.

You show me a classic Republican (fiscally conservative, believes government should stay out of people's personal business, and should avoid unnecessary foreign entanglements) and I'll show you a candidate a lot of people would line up behind -- and the Republican talking heads would say he's "not conservative enough" because he doesn't parrot the current party line.

It's more important that we keep the hoe-moe-sexshuls away frum the sanctity of our unborn feetusses.

oldsaw wrote: Please elaborate on the "reverse polarity" concept.

oldsaw wrote: Please elaborate on the "reverse polarity" concept.

Simply that the "New Republican Party" is a shell of it's previous core beliefs. Ironically the Democrats are working hard to exploit the gaps left in the partys new direction by trying to connect with the true conservative voter. I was trying to overstate the polarity issue (north is south et al) to make the point that in order for the Rs to be relevant before November they MUST get back to familiar territory or lose the real voting center.

16vCorey wrote:

MrJoshua wrote: At 30 all you have seen since voting age in office is Bush/Cheney.

Not only is your math wrong (I was 18 for the '96 election) but even if it wasn't, I don't see your point. I remember every president since Reagan very vividly. I grew up in a household where politics were often talked about, so I have always been somewhat interested and informed on the subject.

The math is correct if we are talking about republicans, which you were. That said, I was making kind of a worthless point. My apologies.

John, I fully agree that Republicans have to re-invent themselves to appeal to the majority of voters that are (arguably) right-of-center in their political and social beliefs. If they can't offer a coherent, honest alternative to the Democrat mantra that "we'll take care of your problems", the Republican party is doomed.

However, aside from election-year rhetorical pandering (re: lies), where/how are Democrats trying to "connect" with true conservatives?

Oh I agree it is all pandering, and those of us outside of the Beltway see right through it.

The issue is that the pandering is convincing the stronghold republican states to dump (good) lower level politicians because the have toed the party line and not supported their constituencies demands.

The Dems KNOW that te republicans are going to either can anything they present or GW will VETO it. so they will throw up all kinds of ludacris bills and requests to make the Rs look bad.

And between LQ and BO I would prefer neither. If they BOTH ran on one ticket (imagine the egos involved there) then McCain would really have a problem.

John Brown wrote: And between LQ and BO I would prefer neither. If they BOTH ran on one ticket (imagine the egos involved there) then McCain would really have a problem.

I dunno about that. The flipside is that Hillary would still then be on the bill--and would thus stop any R's who might have corssed over. WAY too much knee-jerk, blind hatred of her to be viable on a presidential ticket.

John Brown wrote: Oh I agree it is all pandering, and those of us outside of the Beltway see right through it. The issue is that the pandering is convincing the stronghold republican states to dump (good) lower level politicians because the have toed the party line and not supported their constituencies demands. The Dems KNOW that te republicans are going to either can anything they present or GW will VETO it. so they will throw up all kinds of ludacris bills and requests to make the Rs look bad.

I'm really wanting the Republicans to have their cathartic-moment and then fess up to America that they srewed-up. They can apologize for their betrayal and recognize that without "changing" their profligate ways, the party and even the country (as a thriving republic) are in great jeopardy.

Taking responsibility for the country's political/econmic mess falls to the Republicans, because Democrats (half of the problem) certainly won't.

I'm really wanting the Republicans to have their cathartic-moment and then fess up to America that they srewed-up. They can apologize for their betrayal and recognize that without "changing" their profligate ways, the party and even the country (as a thriving republic) are in great jeopardy.

So, you want the RNC to run adds like GM did a few years ago where they apologized for making crap cars for a decade or two?

No i want the RNC to actually get something done instead of bickering 228 days per year.

billy3esq wrote:

I'm really wanting the Republicans to have their cathartic-moment and then fess up to America that they srewed-up. They can apologize for their betrayal and recognize that without "changing" their profligate ways, the party and even the country (as a thriving republic) are in great jeopardy.

So, you want the RNC to run adds like GM did a few years ago where they apologized for making crap cars for a decade or two?

Like I said, the Republicans must have their "cathartic moment" first. GM admitted its' failures but they're still losing market share because the product hasn't changed enough. Same thing applies to Republicans.

It requires much more than just running ads. Get it?

So, oldsaw, if your assessment is correct and Little Mac wins, as today I give it 75% given that BHO is the likely candidate he's up against, which will virtually guarantee Little Mac a win, then how exactly are the R's going to be motivated to refuse the money from Soros, Exxon, et. al. and listen to the people instead? A massive defeat in Congress? I dunno. If congress goes mostly D and Little Mac get the White House, I don't see any motive for the R's to fix the GOP. Now, if Little Mac is up against the LQ, then today I'd say it's probably too close to call and likely a LQ win. Then they'd be motivated to fix things.

Saw today that the LQ was hinting around that BHO could have an "accident" in June, something she's good at. That'd be just a tad too obvious though.

I really think hess underestimates the anything but the elephant mentality that is growing..

Ignorant-Gainesville is a Very Very Very liberal community. Despite that all of my liberal clients dont have much bad to say about McCain. Its like his POW time and tendency to buck the republican trends has given him a pass. My republican clients on the other hand have already started the bulk email nonsense bashing Obama and Hillary. I think most republicans are either too pig headed to vote on anything but the old white religious guy ticket, or actually against the basic more tax, more social program card that the democrats are running on.

Forgive me but, it seems like just last week the Republicans really wanted Clinton to take the Dem ticket, because they had ammunition against her and didn't have anything to fight Obama with.

What is with the sudden turn-around? Why does everyone figure that Obama can't beat McCain?

Hmm... actually, I hope he takes the ticket and is then the underdog for the Pres. election. He's proven he's really good at fighting and scraping up votes when he's the underdog. Not such a good fighter when he's favored.