When there are only 20 Republicans left in Congress...

@rabel22,

That's right. Because what comes around goes around, and the losing Republican strategy is a sure winner if the Democrats would just adopt it!

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

That's right. Because what comes around goes around, and the losing Republican strategy is a sure winner if the Democrats would just adopt it!

I still contend that it was not the decisions of the Bush admin which did them in as much as their incompetence. If the Iraq war had gone well and the economy was doing better, you'd probably see a lot more Republicans in office today.

Cyclolptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

To be sure.

Of course, the chances of the Iraq war going well were somewhere between "slim" and "none".

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

I still contend that it was not the decisions of the Bush admin which did them in as much as their incompetence. If the Iraq war had gone well and the economy was doing better, you'd probably see a lot more Republicans in office today.

I don't agree. There is something deeper happening... a demographic/ cultural change that the Republicans are as yet unwilling or unable to adjust to.

Let's see, in issue after issue; abortion, gay marriage, global warming, immigration... the Republicans are appealing to an increasingly narrow part of Americans (evangelical Christians and conservative whites) at the cost of pissing off countless groups (ethnic minorities and same-sex couples and unions and environmentalists and civil rights supporters and non-Christian religious groups and now even unemployed workers).

The Republicans face a problem that they are attracting a small (if not committed) group of people while alienating a far greater number of people. Since everyone gets one vote... a political party can't survive like this (nor should it).

Is the Republican party adjusting to the new reality is faces? No! It is doing the opposite, digging in its heals and calling for a return to the past.

The Hispanic vote was particularly interesting this year. Two key swing states, Colorado and New Mexico went from red to blue. A large part of this was due to increased voting, and changed parties among Hispanic voters.

When Hispanic voters talk about why they wouldn't consider voting for today's Republican party; it's not the war, and it's much more than the economy. I believe this is the same for African-Americans and other groups as well.

1 Reply

The Hispanic vote can be fickle, though. A very patriarchal (in my view) society, with a large number of Catholics.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Come on DrewDad, your latest post was not well thought out.

First... Hispanic voters are Americans (i.e. they are part of the American society). Cultural stereotypes aside, Hispanic-Americans are deeply involved in progressive causes; particularly unions, education and civil rights.

Second... I don't know what you mean that Hispanic-Americans are "patriarchal" in your view. There are many quite impressive prominent Hispanic American women from Hilda Solis to Cecilia Munoz.

Third... Catholics have been split pretty close to 50-50 Democrat and Republican for a long time. This implies that Catholicism doesn't matter much.

Perhaps the Hispanic vote could be fickle... but with issues like immigration and economic/labor issues... the Republicans don't have a chance. Add to this the fact that the Republicans aren't even trying to attract the Hispanic vote.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Quote:

I still contend that it was not the decisions of the Bush admin which did them in as much as their incompetence. If the Iraq war had gone well and the economy was doing better, you'd probably see a lot more Republicans in office today.

I don't agree. There is something deeper happening... a demographic/ cultural change that the Republicans are as yet unwilling or unable to adjust to.

Let's see, in issue after issue; abortion, gay marriage, global warming, immigration... the Republicans are appealing to an increasingly narrow part of Americans (evangelical Christians and conservative whites) at the cost of pissing off countless groups (ethnic minorities and same-sex couples and unions and environmentalists and civil rights supporters and non-Christian religious groups and now even unemployed workers).

The Republicans face a problem that they are attracting a small (if not committed) group of people while alienating a far greater number of people. Since everyone gets one vote... a political party can't survive like this (nor should it).

Is the Republican party adjusting to the new reality is faces? No! It is doing the opposite, digging in its heals and calling for a return to the past.

The Hispanic vote was particularly interesting this year. Two key swing states, Colorado and New Mexico went from red to blue. A large part of this was due to increased voting, and changed parties among Hispanic voters.

When Hispanic voters talk about why they wouldn't consider voting for today's Republican party; it's not the war, and it's much more than the economy. I believe this is the same for African-Americans and other groups as well.

Well, it's not that I disagree with the overall liberal direction of American society. We will continue down this path for some time I believe.

But I think that this was all accelerated by the incompetence and corruption. When you don't trust someone on one issue, you tend to find them unconvincing on others as well.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Third... Catholics have been split pretty close to 50-50 Democrat and Republican for a long time. This implies that Catholicism doesn't matter much.

I did not know that. You learn something every day.

ebrown p wrote:

Perhaps the Hispanic vote could be fickle... but with issues like immigration and economic/labor issues... the Republicans don't have a chance. Add to this the fact that the Republicans aren't even trying to attract the Hispanic vote.

I'll definitely agree with you there.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

I'll have to say---I'm watching Obama's progress with interest. Worried as all hell about what nationalized healthcare will mean...but the status quo is horrid... The move to finally do something about energy is exciting.

I want to see a fight to abolish PACs....

anyway, watching with an open mind...and hope.

btw, even though the "fight against terrorism" became a joke (and unwieldy....and lending to racism (ugh))....it was necessary, and done successfully. I thought that should be said.

2 Replies

@Lash,

May I ask what you mean when you say 'abolishing PACs?'

Just a general part of lobbying reform? I think it's hard to do if you believe that money = speech, like so many Conservatives have put forth.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

just a small bone, ebrown...

Gay marriage is grossly unpopular.... don't forget Obama and Biden's opinions on it.

Sad, but true.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo--

PACs are a BIPARTISAN scourge. And, I don't think anyone should be able to lobby for a special interest group, entertain...or pay for special consideration.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

Cyclo--

PACs are a BIPARTISAN scourge. And, I don't think anyone should be able to lobby for a special interest group, entertain...or pay for special consideration.

Haha, I'm on the same wavelength as you on this one. But it seems to run counter to the Conservative ethos and argument against limiting campaign financing.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

btw, even though the "fight against terrorism" became a joke (and unwieldy....and lending to racism (ugh))....it was necessary, and done successfully. I thought that should be said.

What measure are you using to determine success?

0 Replies

God . . . threads like this are an embarrassment. This is as stupid as "impeach Bush" threads--it wasn't ever gonna happen. And it ain't gonna happen that there will ever be as few as 20 Republicans in Congress. Where do you guys come up with **** like this?

In the 1970s, the Democratic Party was so lame that people were writing obituaries . . . they were so moribund, they began holding telethons, fer Chrissake, to keep the party on financial life support. Every time one party or the other leaps ahead to take the Congress and the White House in the same election, the punditocracy starts sounding the death knell of the other party. Don't kid yourselves, the Repubicans ain't dead--hell, they ain't even sick. Don't forget the 1994 midterms, 'K?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

This is as stupid as "impeach Bush" threads--it wasn't ever gonna happen.

Nothing stupid about standing up for what's right, Set. Things do happen if there are enough right minded people willing to step forward. The part that doesn't happen is the reluctance of Americans to speak up about major instances of lawbreaking on the part of their elected leaders.

Silence is no different than apologizing. No difference between a good German and a good American.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

A better discription would be political ethos because they all take contributions/free speach funds but I agree with both of you that a way should be found to stop the purchasing of our politicians.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

What we need is to get rid of parties as a whole. If a candidate for any public office holds views similar to our own,then we should vote for him. Who cares what the little letter next to a person's name is when they run? Are people really that simple minded that they need a party platform to actually have a set of beliefs? (I probably don't want to know the answer to that question, lol).

Parties are not a feature of the constitution, or the government at all. They are no different than a business like Walmart, and I doubt anyone wants walmarts running their government.

1 Reply

@Scaramouche2,

It seems to me that a no party system is no different from a one party system.

0 Replies

It is naive to think that political parties are intended to serve the ends of the electorate. Political parties are organized to serve the ends of politicians, despite the propaganda they spread. Whether or not you agree with a particular politician is very likely something you will never know to a certainty, as he or she will be telling the electorate what they believe will get them elected, which will not necessarily be what they personally actually believe. Only within very broad ideological categories, and with an intentionally vague rhetoric will politicians attempt to convince the electorate that they represent the interests of the electorate. To the end of promoting an ideological agenda, without reference to whether or not the public understands or even knows what the actual ideological agenda is--political parties are formed.

1 Reply

When there are only 20 Republicans left in Congress...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know