first, sarah palin was an absolute joke. how she got the VP bid remains a mystery to me.
second, the constant bickering within the party is exactly why i refuse to identify myself as a republican. it's a huge problem lately.
Check out my build thread!
RuggedZ wrote:how she got the VP bid remains a mystery to me.
I'm pretty much 100% sure it was a ploy to get the women voters that went away when Hillary dropped out. Obama was the sure candidate, so the hope was that if they had a female VP that they'd gain all the HIllary voters.
-Chris
Swinging "too far right"? Maybe getting back to what the party used to be all about. Which is comical that now they're some how leaning "too far right" when the party is as left of center as it ever has been.
Which is apparently still "too far right" for liberals.
J03Y wrote:Which is comical that now they're somehow leaning "too far right" when I feel the party is closer to center than it's ever been.
There, I fixed it for you.
This guy sounds a like like that old fart Billhahn....
Bickering? Aside from a few examples like district 23 in NY, and the waffler Olympia Snowe, I don't see it. Of course without cable, I'm missing out on the bickering if it's there. Where are these recent bickerfets within the GOP anyway? Not saying it ain't there, but where if it is.
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Calling you an old fart....sheesh... It was poking at you for changing your name and sig... Like you are are in disguise and someone bashing you when you ain't looking. Just messing with you.
And public flaying? C'mon bill. Your oped piece on me personally doest bother me at all. The digression of the thread had rea he'd it's lowpoint though.
Political bickering? Suppose these smoking guns are true.. Who cares? It's not going to swing more than 2-3 voters at best, and certainly not a self-described moderate voice of the people.
Never has the refrain of Koombyah echoed through the halls of congess, and as long as man is in posession of ambition and self preservation, it never will be.
Moderates are out there. If they are "the people" then when they organize and electtheir boy, he/she will relace the so-called extremists, be they republican or democrat. The most politically active and fervent supporters will always be at the polar opposites. Those with more moderate que sera sera views are, from my experience, mode inclined to just "oh well" and sit around and complain.
( not an indictment of proprietors of turbo kits)
finally, moderates tend to be, but not exslusively so, fiscally conservative, but morally/ socially liberal....except during an election year: ie John McCain and his choice of Palin
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
So let me make sure I have this correct.....you think the republican party should move further left to accomodate self proclaimed "moderates"?
That kind of defeats the purpose of a two party system. If anything I see this as a good thing that they are starting to go back to their roots(or at least trying to make it appear as such to their hard right supporters). This, IMO, opens the door further to allow a third party growth.
I just don't understand people's thought process in thinking the GOP should lean further left to accomodate people. The party should be sticking to its conservative roots, not selling themselves out so people can incorporate themselves into the partisan BS we have today. Stick to your guns on the issues you believe in. Not because you want to broaden your voter base in an attempt to win an election.
$0.02
I perceive a digital "sigh" and a forthcoming diatribe
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
if the right moves towards the center and the left moved towards the center don't you think allot more could be accomplished, right now when you have the far right and the far left you dont really gain any ground. anything the left does while in office is undone by the right when theytake office and anything that doesnt get signed in gets buried because nither party will agree. nor will they ever agree that someone of the opposite side may have a good idea. its gotten so far out of hand that even when something good comes up the opposite side will try and beat it down just because of who brought the idea up. people need to stop believing in all or nothing and learn to compromise.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Scotta, I don't actually mind if you're disrespectful, or lower yourself to irrelevant name-calling...my point is, it's not unusual to go there when one has little else to use. Happens a lot. But it's kinda weak to cry about me calling you on it. You went there, not me!
You can speak of how politics remains contentious and business as usual, and it get's todays "no sh!t, Sherlock!" award. But that is yet another runaround to my point, which is that until you can see past the extreme partisan divisiveness you seem to thrive on, your position continues to shoot itself in the foot. Most intelligent people don't go for it. If all you want to attract is the NASCAR set, well then, get down with your bad self. But as I recall, you already have those folks. Would you not like to get some reflective, intelligent, educated, perhaps even influential people (like me!) as well?
One point the extreme right has to keep in mind is this: Obama's declining approval rating is NOT direct displacement of people to their side. Just because people move from the Approval to the Disapproval column, does not mean they are flocking to the right. The Moderate Voice is where the great majority of them end up. As long as Republicanism relies more on right-steria than in coalition with the moderate sector, they will continue to lose adherents, and also eventually relevance. The party you so love is on the ropes. You can help it, or you can keep screaming "FIRE!" until your voice is obliterated by the water as the ship slips beneath the waves.
Moderate Voice of the People wrote:You can speak of how politics remains contentious and business as usual, and it get's todays "no sh!t, Sherlock!" award. But that is yet another runaround to my point, which is that until you can see past the extreme partisan divisiveness you seem to thrive on, your position continues to shoot itself in the foot. Most intelligent people don't go for it. If all you want to attract is the NASCAR set, well then, get down with your bad self. But as I recall, you already have those folks. Would you not like to get some reflective, intelligent, educated, perhaps even influential people (like me!) as well?
One point the extreme right has to keep in mind is this: Obama's declining approval rating is NOT direct displacement of people to their side. Just because people move from the Approval to the Disapproval column, does not mean they are flocking to the right. The Moderate Voice is where the great majority of them end up. As long as Republicanism relies more on right-steria than in coalition with the moderate sector, they will continue to lose adherents, and also eventually relevance. The party you so love is on the ropes. You can help it, or you can keep screaming "FIRE!" until your voice is obliterated by the water as the ship slips beneath the waves.
So you're insinuating that these middle "moderates" are intelligent, educated, influential? I'm pretty sure stupidity knows no political boundaries.
And again, why should the GOP have to skew it's views to gain moderate voters? How does that solve anything? It sounds to me like you're saying they should become more bland and try to follow democrat views. Again defeating the purpose of the 2 party system.
The beauty of the parties(as it were) is the difference in opinion. If you believe in republican views, you vote as a republican. If you believe in democratic views, you vote democrat. But you seem to think(or so it sounds to me) they should fore-go there views to appease people who wouldn't even consider themselves republicans just to gain votes.
IMO the parties need to define themselves by principals, not where they can gain votes if they word a speech a certain way to influence a "moderate".
If you're a moderate, more power to you. Vote who you feel best shares your principals and values. But don't assume one party or another should change to suit your views.
J03Y...certainly stupidity knows no political boundaries. You get today's SECOND "no sh!t!" award! I'm disappointed that you and Scotta are so depleted of intelligent ammunition that you are reduced to these Captain Obvious text-wasters. But set that silliness aside for a moment, and consider...who is more likely to respond to divisive knee-jerk partisan tactics: educated, influential people you'd like to get on your side, or the easily swayed rank and file you likely already have? That's where Rightsteria is so missing the target.
The GOP should move to Moderates for one simple reason...it is the ONLY place they will gain enough votes to remain viable. You really need to step back and think about it for a bit. They lost the last elections BIG. Simple math now...they did not have enough voters. Right? So, OK...they want to win next, where will they get more voters? Will they turn avowed liberals to their side? Of course not! So where will the next victory come from, if not from bringing moderates into their camp? If you can suggest a different outcome that makes any sense at all, I'd love to hear it. Seriously...please address this.
It is the travesty of modern American politics, and your comments illustrate this best...that you feel moving closer to moderate views is to just abandon principle, and in doing so, move directly to liberal views. Of course we need two parties...AT LEAST. We actually need many more! You've been conditioned to believe that there can only be two sets of views, that if one is not on your side, they are on your opponent's side. How sad you feel this way. You too will slip beneath the waves unless you start to see the middle for what it is...the only hope for the Republican party.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edited Tuesday, November 03, 2009 10:19 AM
Where to start.
Moderate Voice of the People wrote:J03Y...certainly stupidity knows no political boundaries. You get today's SECOND "no sh!t!" award! I'm disappointed that you and Scotta are so depleted of intelligent ammunition that you are reduced to these Captain Obvious text-wasters. But set that silliness aside for a moment, and consider...who is more likely to respond to divisive knee-jerk partisan tactics: educated, influential people you'd like to get on your side, or the easily swayed rank and file you likely already have? That's where Rightsteria is so missing the target.
Aside from the insinuation that I lack intelligence, It's interesting to see you point out others for "name calling" as you sit here in condescending fashion and do the same.
Anywho, you're already jumping to the conclusion that I'm part of the "right" or republican party. I most certainly am not. So as far as grabbing these "educated" moderates to my side....the shoe doesn't fit.
Quote:
The GOP should move to Moderates for one simple reason...it is the ONLY place they will gain enough votes to remain viable. You really need to step back and think about it for a bit. They lost the last elections BIG. Simple math now...they did not have enough voters. Right? So, OK...they want to win next, where will they get more voters? Will they turn avowed liberals to their side? Of course not! So where will the next victory come from, if not from bringing moderates into their camp? If you can suggest a different outcome that makes any sense at all, I'd love to hear it. Seriously...please address this.
Once again, it is not my responsibility, nor my concern how the GOP gains voters to win an election. If you read my previous post you would have read that I think this is the way to open a much larger third party into the system with actual influence and objectives. Not just to gain votes so "we can win an election and pound our chests because we're better".
Quote:
It is the travesty of modern American politics, and your comments illustrate this best...that you feel moving closer to moderate views is to just abandon principle, and in doing so, move directly to liberal views. Of course we need two parties...AT LEAST. We actually need many more! You've been conditioned to believe that there can only be two sets of views, that if one is not on your side, they are on your opponent's side. How sad you feel this way. You too will slip beneath the waves unless you start to see the middle for what it is...the only hope for the Republican party.
Like my previous point....read my earlier post. But thanks again for assuming you know what my political stance/affiliation is. Here, I'll even quote it for you.
J03Y wrote:If anything I see this as a good thing that they are starting to go back to their roots(or at least trying to make it appear as such to their hard right supporters). This, IMO, opens the door further to allow a third party growth.
I just don't understand people's thought process in thinking the GOP should lean further left to accomodate people. The party should be sticking to its conservative roots, not selling themselves out so people can incorporate themselves into the partisan BS we have today. Stick to your guns on the issues you believe in. Not because you want to broaden your voter base in an attempt to win an election.
$0.02
Moral of the story.....vote for who represents your values and beliefs. If it's a dem, great. If it's a republican, great. If it's a third party candidate, great. YOU vote for who represents YOU. Not ask a party to change it's views to suit you. I personally am pretty conservative when it comes to fiscal/monetary issues. I am however pretty liberal when it comes to social issues. Hence I don't quite fit into the general categories of Dem or Republican......especially as they're being portrayed today. Also why I have no quams about voting for either party when it's for someone that I feel shares my values. Not because of a red or blue voting card(of which I'm a member of neither).
Here's a question, why are you so concerned that the Republican party move closer to your views as a "moderate"? Serious question. In your words "You've been conditioned to believe that there can only be two sets of views". So if we've(and by we I mean all of us unenlightened folks, not you) been conditioned to see only two sets of views, why do you want so much to have one side or another join your views? Isn't that just furthering the two party divide and closing the door for the third or more parties that you claim we need?
Like my other posts, I'll eschew quotey boxes. I just prefer conversation instead.
Fact is, sir, I really could not care less about your personal political stance, except the the degree that you state it here in the context of this discussion (please re-read thread title). If you feel I've insulted your intelligence, I have not. You may be a bit too sensitive if you think I need to devolve to personal attack; I've much bigger fish to fry, and no offense to you, but you ain't it. While I may bring up most the relevant subject of who's easy to sway and who isn't in the general electorate, it's entirely up to you where you place yourself. I'll only address what you type, and it's all I've addressed.
The only "names" I've called have been directly relevant to the discussion. I cannot say the same for the name I was called
. That's not hypocrisy on my part. Very different motivations, as well as much more effectiveness for actually relevant naming.
Why am I concerned about the GOP? I'm a bit terrified that without a more unified vision for the future, the Republican party may lose even more ground. As this would essentially force us to a
one-party system, this is to be avoided at all costs. You may bristle all you want at what I'm saying to support this position, but I speak the truth...if they do not embrace and attempt to attract moderates, they are
done. No amount of indignance or rehashing of obviations on your part can alter that simple math.
As I anticipated, you did not address my direct request to tell me how the Repubs will survive and stay viable without attracting moderates. No, it did not get lost in your quotey box replies, and I again ask you to address it.
Now, if you're done attesting to your natural-born rights as a citizen and reviewing Civics 101, we'll get back on track with the title of
my thread.
Oh good god, I just noticed...you actually even quoted YOURSELF. *cough* hubris! *cough cough*
Billhahn, I don't know how else to explain it (especially since I already have) but here goes. I was poking fun at you with the old fart comment. I knew full well this was your new screen name, but obviously played it off as I didn't.
Why is it that when Dems and "moderates" talk of reaching across the aisle and compromising, what they really mean, almost always, most of the time, usually etc is this: republicans and conservatives need to compromise and reach across the aisle.
If my senator shares my views: lowering taxes, pro-life, anti homosexual marriage, pro capitalism...etc, then he hoes and compromises on abortion to get votes for his fiscal project, Ill vote against him. Big problem I had with McCain was his social issue bleeding heart crap.
Why should I compromise my beliefs just to make a few friends o. The other side of the aisle?
Does anyone think that if the republicans rolled over on abortion, gay marriage, gun control, and entitlements like affirmative action..... That the dems would return the favor and give us a nice conservative healthcare law? You know they wouldn't.
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Scotta: Sorry, I must have missed the Smilies in your post! Damn this limited medium where sarcasm is concerned. Oh, and you said "obviously". I counter with I "obviously did not" get you.
I can see that, like J03Y, you also suffer from "with us or against us" disease. Pity that. It's really a problem today, this combative "two-party, zero choice" system. Must just appeal to people's need to fight or something, for it surely isn't working off pure logic.
Everyone: I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how the Republicans may win again without targeting moderates. Anyone?
I'll tell you exactly how Bill: 1). Hearken back to the 'contract with america'--- and then keep their word. As I proposed, and someone else here identified themselves as such, moderates/ independents tend to to be, for the most part, fiscal conservatives and moral liberals. By this, I mean they are typically pro-business, anti taxes, small govt WHILE ALSO being apathetic/or in favor of abortion, gay marriage, etc.
These moderates ar far more concerned with the financial aspect of society than with it's moral issues.... That's the carrot for them.
You've got a better shot at winning them with this approach: "ok Floyd...we can't agree on abortion/ gay rights. And we ain't capitulating on those issue, but stick with us, and well keep your taxes lower and bring back the jobs"......and then keep your word and do what you promised Floyd you'd do.
I have no hard #'s to back this up, just what I self-proclaimed "moderates" say all the the time about what they stand for.
Btw, the reason I use quotation marks around "moderate", is because I believe anyone that is for the deliberate daily murder of unborn babies is the worst kind of liberal, regardless of anything else they believe. If that issue is an equally big hangup for them, they can vote democrat for all I care
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Contract with America. Cool. If dated. Now, where will the needed voters come from?
Oh, and by the way. Where did your "dead babies" reference emanate from? Seems you are still suffering form "us or them" syndrome, as you insist some moderates are liberals if they are Pro Choice.
Let's flip that around...If a moderate is Pro Life, does that mean liberals automatically characterize them as conservative? Why are all of you so convinced there are only two kinds of people in this nation?
See, the more you say, the more apparent it becomes that you're not part of the solution. Republicans will not gain new voters if they have to rely on folks like you. Just sayin.
Iike I said, if abortion is a big hangup, they'll vote democrat.
You don't win by abandoning your base. You abandon the base, and you get the indies like the conservative tea party punishing you. You lay out a plan of fiscal sensibilities and convince them that they make more money with repubs. How exactly does all play out? Idk. I'm not a paid strategist.
But for all your questions, I've yet to hear your opinion bill. I'm assuming you have one on how...and not just stirring the pot
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
