The Direction of the Republican party

[Coburn In 2012]

LOL at people believing that "Coburn In 2012" is a real poster.  C'mon man, give it up, who are you really?

And LOL at people believing 95% of the red avatars here are real posters.  How come I am a sock because I am extremely conservative...but people who are extremely liberal are not socks?  What gives?

Moderators?

[Matt Damon™]

CSA_President, is it you?

[Hash]

1 It's not murder and until the fetus is out of the woman and has it's umbilical cord severed it's not a baby period. End of story.
2 Wanting equal rights is now an agenda? Also, equating gays with pedophilia? Man, that went out of fashion like 20 years ago.

1.  They ARE babies.  Many of them survive after a few months of gestation.  

2.  No, homosexuality is not pedophilia and I think when conservatives say they are the same they are being very unfair.  Many straight people molest children of the opposite sex.  Pedophilia is an entirely different but equally unnatural behavior.  My point was that 50 years ago, sex between two adult men was considered unnatural and unhealthy. Now it's not only acceptable, it's very trendy.  Today, sex between an adult man and a boy is considered unnatural and unhealthy.  But 20 or 30 years from now?  It's called a slippery slope for a reason.

Did you study the link I offered?  Here it is again http://leaderu.com/critical/gay90.html

Go away, stupid troll. Go spread your hate elsewhere, kook.

[Coburn In 2012]

1 It's not murder and until the fetus is out of the woman and has it's umbilical cord severed it's not a baby period. End of story.
2 Wanting equal rights is now an agenda? Also, equating gays with pedophilia? Man, that went out of fashion like 20 years ago.

1.  They ARE babies.  Many of them survive after a few months of gestation.  

2.  No, homosexuality is not pedophilia and I think when conservatives say they are the same they are being very unfair.  Many straight people molest children of the opposite sex.  Pedophilia is an entirely different but equally unnatural behavior.  My point was that 50 years ago, sex between two adult men was considered unnatural and unhealthy. Now it's not only acceptable, it's very trendy.  Today, sex between an adult man and a boy is considered unnatural and unhealthy.  But 20 or 30 years from now?  It's called a slippery slope for a reason.

Did you study the link I offered?  Here it is again http://leaderu.com/critical/gay90.html

Go away, stupid troll. Go spread your hate elsewhere, kook.

I defy you to point out any thing hateful that I have said.  I said murdering babies in the womb is wrong and should be against the law.  How is that hateful?  I said that I am concerned that accepting behaviors that were culturally forbidden 40 years ago worries me in terms of a slippery slope.  How is that hateful?

How do my positions differ from those of millions of other conservatives?  Are they all hateful trolls?  Are Roman Catholics and conservative Christians kooks?  Please do not get me wrong -- I do know there are evil conservatives out there.  The Phelps guy who pickets gay funerals is just sick.  I'd like to sock him in the jaw for his cruelty.  I am not like him. 

[Matt Damon™]

Yes they all are hateful.

[Coburn In 2012]

Yes they all are hateful.

Thank you.  I applaud you for going on record and saying that all conservatives are hateful.

[Matt Damon™]

No not all conservatives, just the ones who bash gays, nonwhites, women, non-protestants.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

No not all conservatives, just the ones who bash gays, nonwhites, women, non-protestants.

Name one.

[Mint]

Yeah, his last post is pretty strong proof that he's a joke poster.

No, I'm pretty sure he's for real.

[Matt Damon™]

No not all conservatives, just the ones who bash gays, nonwhites, women, non-protestants.

Name one.

There's far too many to name. The pro-life cons, anti-gay conservatives are the most obvious examples but there's many more.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

No not all conservatives, just the ones who bash gays, nonwhites, women, non-protestants.

Name one.

There's far too many to name. The pro-life cons, anti-gay conservatives are the most obvious examples but there's many more.

No no, you must give a specific example of such a conservative.

[Matt Damon™]

90% of the GOP and 1/3 to 1/2 of the democratic party. Coburn, Inhofe, Palin, Hatch, Paul. Huckabee, the list goes on and on.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

90% of the GOP and 1/3 to 1/2 of the democratic party. Coburn, Inhofe, Palin, Hatch, Paul. Huckabee, the list goes on and on.

Name an instance of Coburn (or any of the others you mentioned) bashing any of those four groups.

[Matt Damon™]

Anti-gay legislation such as DOMA and state gay marriage bans. Stop nitpicking.

[Smash255]

90% of the GOP and 1/3 to 1/2 of the democratic party. Coburn, Inhofe, Palin, Hatch, Paul. Huckabee, the list goes on and on.

Name an instance of Coburn (or any of the others you mentioned) bashing any of those four groups.

"The gay community has infiltrated the very centers of power in every area across this country, and they wield extreme power... That agenda is the greatest threat to our freedom that we face today. Why do you think we see the rationalization for abortion and multiple sexual partners? That's a gay agenda."

[pbrower2a]

I think we should sit back and wait. If you are a TRUE conservative Republican, you probably have doubts on the success of the Obama administration. Hopefully, now that Democrats finally have their full control, they will do what we did in the mid-2000's, and self-destruct their party. Then, we can talk strategy.

This is no longer the middle of the first decade of the new millennium. Much has changed. It took slightly more than ten years for the GOP to self-destruct after getting control of Congress in 1994. Any economic success for the Obama Administration  -- even if it is a stabilized economy -- will make the effort of any Republican to win election very difficult in 2010 or 2012 except in the safest of districts or against an outright crook like William "Cold Cash" Jefferson. 

If we get graceful exits from Iraq and Afghanistan, then the Democrats will take the credit and win -- big. Erosion of the core support of the GOP may not be at an end.

[Barack Hussian YO MAMA!!!!]

But can they do so having alienated Hispanics with their immigration BS,

I don't know where I stand, regarding immigration.  But how have they alienated Hispanics?  Don't legalized Hispanic immigrants want other immigrants to go through the proper channels, the way they did?  I'm not doubting that it's had the effect of alienation, but I don't understand why. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What do you mean by this?

regardless of what the republican party's policy's are when it comes to immigration here is why republicans do so poorly among minority's it's because these people are looked at as the spokes people for the GOP.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnJsYu1gzmQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfvS8vZB-K0&featu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-Bao4VUQmI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I47QGzQxUp0

[Rob]

And LOL at people believing 95% of the red avatars here are real posters.  How come I am a sock because I am extremely conservative...but people who are extremely liberal are not socks?  What gives?

Moderators?

Hi, States!

[pbrower2a]

Hopefully, now that Democrats finally have their full control, they will do what we did in the mid-2000's, and self-destruct their party.

Too bad for you Obama isn't going to invade a country that poses no threat to us and then completely botch it resulting in a giant disaster and embarassment.

No, he is going to do it to this country.

BTW, Iraq just had provincial elections. They were better handled than our elections.

very true.  I am hoping we can hold our ground for a couple of years until we get Congress back.  I think Obama will remind Americans of Jimmy Carter and big spending liberals and they will remember how good things were under President Reagan.  We need to get back to serious conservatism and I am really optimistic that we will.  It will just take time.

I congratulate the Iraqi people on their parliamentary elections, elections that may make Iraq the only democracy in the Arab world.

You aren't getting Congress "back" soon any more than Saddam Hussein's fascist Baath Party has a chance to regain Iraq. The Hard Right took over the GOP and offended a huge swath of America with its promotion of elitism, militarism, and unreason. In Presidential elections, the GOP took such strident anti-secular stands that it could only lose in states comprising nearly 250 electoral votes -- states more cosmopolitan and liberal in their attitudes. That's a bad position in that the GOP candidate has to win almost everything else to win the Presidency. That will be the basis for 2012... an election that the GOP will have many ways to lose.

The 2008 election in the United States  was such a blowout for the Democrats that one has no question of its fairness. There remain arguments that Dubya "got by with a little help from his friends" in Florida in 2000 and in Ohio in 2004. Republicans had to win both Florida and Ohio honestly in 2008  to win. Have you seen any complaints about elections in those states? Or about Nevada, Colorado, Indiana, Virginia, or North Carolina?

Look at the 2008 Presidential race. One or both of these statements is/are true:

1. Obama is a politician of formidable talent.

2. Demographic shifts favor Democrats for the next twelve or so years.

Both are true, and they interacted. Everybody knew that Obama would fare extremely well among African-Americans... but the gains that the GOP made among Latinos and Asians over the last few decades,  with whom Obama has no ethnic ties, vanished. Obama has at the least the political skills of Ronald Reagan even if he uses those skills for the other side of the political spectrum. Those talents can convince people or at least assuage their doubts.

I look at the vote pattern, and I notice that the core state support of Obama was extremely strong. Obama won all of the states that either Gore won in 2000 or Kerry won in 2004 by a margin of at least nine. States such as Michigan and Pennsylvania that are close in all but landslides gave Obama double-digit leads. In September 2008 one could say that even as the Presidential race approached a tie in popular votes, McCain/Palin had lots of ways to lose.  Those ways are best described in a large number of states that McCain absolutely had to win. I don't think that I need to remind you.

States that Dubya had won by double-digit margins typically got closer, demonstrating a nationwide trend away from the Hard Right. Indeed, one of those double-digit wins not only evaporated but even became an Obama win. Democratic victories over incumbent GOP members of the Senate and House also showed slipping support for the GOP.  Also note well -- the young voters are voting heavily Democratic because they have rejected the "culture war" values with which the Republicans won between 1994 and 2004. It won't be possible to win them over with shrill calls for abortion bans, school prayer, or tax cuts for the super-rich.

In short -- it's going to take an incredible catastrophe for the Republicans to recover the majorities that they recently had, let alone defeat Obama in 2012.  The Presidency again in 2016? Maybe -- if Obama's successor faces an unusually-strong Republican opponent and has serious weaknesses as a candidate. Note well that recovering power begins at the grass roots -- city council seats, the lower houses of State legislatures, and elected District Attorneys. 2020? The last two VPs who become President after being elected at the end  of their predecessors' two terms were George Herbert Walker Bush and Martin Van Buren. That should give you some hope. That is the best hope that history has for the GOP. The GOP has no chance of a comeback until it has leadership that can effectively distance itself from the GWB era. Of course it must not further discredit itself by gambling that it can spur ruinous failure by Obama, but one never knows what short-sighted ideologues can do. 

Opposition to big-spending liberals? People seem more concerned with economic security now than they do with taxes.  George W. Bush is the most despised ex-President since Herbert Hoover -- and he deserves that contempt. At least Hoover had a moral compass and acted rationally, which is more than I can say for GWB.

As for those who would ram the Culture Wars down the throats of Californians, New Yorkers, and New Englanders -- they ride dead horses. Tax cuts? We need jobs here in Michigan. If we need tax-and-spend politics to get what we need, then we are all for it.