Is It Over For The Republicans?

[hblask 1]

Nimue wins. Except for #8, which sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.

[Nimue1995 1]

Nimue wins. Except for #8, which sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.

Lol so you don't think the GI bill was an example of a federal program that worked? Millions of GI's who get their college education via the GI bill wouldn't get it any other way. But the that leaves out plenty of young people willing to serve their country that for whatever reason be it physical or part of their religious tenets can't do so through joining the military. But I too am wary of just how involved the Feds would be in the formation of such a service organization. I'd like to see it state or non-profit run myself. I can however see your point H. It would be hard to put such a force in action without having it competing with private enterprise.

[ahosang 0]

...

[brvheart 1,752]

in 8 years.

[Sheiky 0]

Definitely a lot of over-reaction going on over the future of the Republican party imo. Yeah it sucks that you guys lost the election, but that's not surprising given the unpopularity of the last four years, the personal qualities of Obama (whether you like him or not, you have to admit he is pretty awesome at appealing to voters) and the economic crisis.It's just variance. The Republican party isn't dead, the American population hasn't suddenly registered with the democratic party and Obama hasn't even been inaugurated yet. 11 years ago people were saying the same things about the new-left takeover in England and 4 years later they were still wondering wtf was going on with the Conservative party. Today, they have a remodelled image and an 11% opinion poll lead. Not much in this world last forever, the dominance of political parties is no exception.

[RealMagnetic 0]

Stick a fork in em. They're done!

[Balloon guy 158]

52/48 isn't exactly a Landslide.I remember When Bush 41 was running at record high Approval Ratings - there was talk of the death of the Democrat Party and it might take a DECADE for it to recover.Then less than 6 Months later Clinton was President Elect and the Republicans were being declared Dead.Then came Newt and the "Contract with America" and the Democrats were Dead again.Then Clinton proved to be made of Teflon and Republicans were on life support.Then Bush 43 "Stole" the election from Gore and Democrats were in tatters.Then Bush's Speech 911 and State of the Union Address were EACH called among the best speeches EVER given by a President and his Approval ratings soared.Then Approval Ratings started dropping, but Bush still beat that guy that people can't even remember anymore.Then more dropping approval ratings and Newsweek asked How do the Republicans Recover?Then the Republicans unite behind a SINGLE candidate months before the Democrats can stop the in-fighting to select a nominee.And even when Republoicans are most vulnerable and should be behind by 10% or more, McCain somehow goes ahead in the Polls!!!Then the stock market tanks and McCain "suspends" his campaign to fix the Credit Crisis - and he drops like a rock......and "plummets" to the points where 52% of voters choose his opponent.52%The gap between winning and losing is narrower than ever in history.

/thread

[phlegm 6]

As the traditional minority populations continue to increase in numbers, and thus continue to trend Democrat, what does the future hold?Is it possible we may never see another Republican president, or at least a Republican in the Reagan sense?Has the time finally come, or is it finally the right time to begin a groundswell towards a new, viable third party that could actually win? I have no clue...topic for debate, but my gut tells me the Republicans (or support for traditional Republican values) might be in serious troubleGod bless the USA...drinks are on me this weekend.

Minorities are only dems as long as they need handouts. As soon as they start pulling their own weight and the dems come after their money, they will switch. Alot of immigrant minorities come here to escape oppressive govts. When they realize just how oppressive the dems can be Im guessing the will switch.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

We are (unfairly) seen as old, selfish, whites only, and mean (amongst other things).

Are you saying there's something inaccurate about that perception??? 'Cause I'm not seeing it.

52/48 isn't exactly a Landslide.I remember When Bush 41 was running at record high Approval Ratings - there was talk of the death of the Democrat Party and it might take a DECADE for it to recover.Then less than 6 Months later Clinton was President Elect and the Republicans were being declared Dead.Then came Newt and the "Contract with America" and the Democrats were Dead again.Then Clinton proved to be made of Teflon and Republicans were on life support.Then Bush 43 "Stole" the election from Gore and Democrats were in tatters.Then Bush's Speech 911 and State of the Union Address were EACH called among the best speeches EVER given by a President and his Approval ratings soared.Then Approval Ratings started dropping, but Bush still beat that guy that people can't even remember anymore.Then more dropping approval ratings and Newsweek asked How do the Republicans Recover?Then the Republicans unite behind a SINGLE candidate months before the Democrats can stop the in-fighting to select a nominee.And even when Republoicans are most vulnerable and should be behind by 10% or more, McCain somehow goes ahead in the Polls!!!Then the stock market tanks and McCain "suspends" his campaign to fix the Credit Crisis - and he drops like a rock......and "plummets" to the points where 52% of voters choose his opponent.52%The gap between winning and losing is narrower than ever in history.

Although I took campaign manager training from the DNC about ten years ago, your post is EXACTLY why, as a Buddhist, I decided not to go into it as a career. Everybody gives themselves fits over the last nanosecond's headline, with absolutely no sense of perspective or history. [speaking of history, though, your last line is technically untrue. It took 36 ballots in the House of Representatives before Jefferson was finally elected president after he and Aaron Burr tied in the Electoral College. THAT'S the closest it's ever been.]My main point, though is this. I'm lazy, so I'm just reposting this from a different forum:

For the whole chart, complete with source information (much of which is from Forbes magazine, the Wall Street Journal, and the government itself), go to: http://www.eriposte.com/economy/other/eRiposte_demovsrep.pdfReal Disposable Personal Income Growth per Year, 1953-2001under Democrats: 3.65%under Republicans: 3.08%Employment Gains per Year, 1953-2001under Democrats: 1.684 million/yearunder Republicans: 1.279 million/yearUnemployment, 1962-2001under Democrats: 5.1%under Republicans: 6.75%Unemployment, 1948-2001, assuming that President's policies affect economic performance for 3-5 years after they leave office:under Democrats:3-year lag: 5.06%4-year lag: 5.04%5-year lag: 5.01%under Republicans:3-year lag: 6.16%4-year lag: 6.18%5-year lag: 6.21%GDP growth 1962-2001:under Democrats: 3.9%under Republicans: 2.9%GDP growth 1948-2001, assuming Presidents affect economics for 3-5 years:under Democrats:3-year lag: 3.56%4-year lag: 3.78%5-year lag: 3.71%under Republicans:3-year lag: 3.35%4-year lag: 3.16%5-year lag: 3.21%Inflation, 1962-2001:under Democrats: 4.26%under Republicans: 4.96%Percentage Growth in Total Federal Spending, 1962-2001under Democrats: 6.96%under Republicans: 7.57% (and this doesn't count the cost of Bush's creation of two new cabinet-level agencies)Percentage Growth in Non-Defense Federal Spending, 1962-2001under Democrats: 8.34%under Republicans: 10.08%Non-Defense Federal Government Employees, 1962-2001 ("growing government")under Democrats: rose by 59,000under Republicans: rose by 310,000Yearly Budget Deficit, 1962-2001under Democrats: $36 billionunder Republicans: $190 billionIncrease in National Debt, 1962-2001under Democrats: $0.72 Trillionunder Republicans: $3.8 TrillionAnnual Stock Market Return, 1927-1998 (total market)under Democrats: 11%under Republicans: 2%Annual Stock Market Return, 1927-2000 (Dow Jones)under Democrats: 13.4%under Republicans: 8.1%District Spending by Congress, 1995-2001Democratic Districts: from $3.9 billion in 1995 to $5.2 billion in 2001Republican Districts: from $3.9 billion in 1995 to $5.8 billion in 2001By the way, these numbers are old because they were originally compiled before the 2004 election. But that's a good thing for Republicans, because under George Bush's presidency all of the Republican numbers would have worsened while the Democratic numbers would have stayed the same. Since he was elected, growth has stagnated, unemployment has risen, real disposable incomes have fallen, government has expanded, the deficit has skyrocketed, and the national debt has grown.At the end of the Clinton term, the Wall Street Journal asked which was the better President, Reagan or Clinton. They used moral measures as well as economic ones and found out to their chagrin that during Clinton's term, abortions were down, teen pregnancies were down, divorce rates were down, and crime was down compared with Reagan's term. [They also came to the conclusion that Clinton was better for the economy -- and there's no need to start with the "but Reagan had a Democratic Congress screwing up and Clinton had a Republican one fixing stuff" myth-making. For the first two years of their terms, both men enjoyed a Congress of the same party as they. During those first two years under Reagan, the deficit climbed in both years; during Clinton's first two years, the deficit fell in both years. It's not a large sample, but it's telling.]

I don't know why it isn't plain to everyone. The simple fact is, REPUBLICANS GOVERN BADLY. And they always will, because they hate government. If they can decisively break the government, through starving it of tax revenue or through bankrupting it with spending, then they will do so. Destroying government is their guiding philosophy, and what better way to destroy something than through gross negligence and incompetence? [Kind of like the way I treat my plants.]Democrats, on the other hand, have the guiding philosophy that government is good. Therefore, when they govern, they try to do so well, and to make the government work. This was EXPLICITLY Al Gore's philosophy in the Reinventing Government initiative, which in eight years shrank the government to its smallest level in four decades. Ditto with Clinton's balancing the budget and creating a surplus. If you love something you want it to thrive, and if you hate it you want it to perform badly.It's not over for Republicans, but someday they should maybe try to reconcile their lust for power with their desire to be the worst power-wielders possible.

[DinkDonk 1]

I'm developing quite the crush on Southern Buddhist.

[nutzbuster 7]

We are (unfairly) seen as old, selfish, whites only, and mean (amongst other things).

Are you saying there's something inaccurate about that perception??? 'Cause I'm not seeing it.

If you were to ever meet me in person you would not think any of those things were accurate.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

I don't know why it isn't plain to everyone. The simple fact is, REPUBLICANS GOVERN BADLY. And they always will, because they hate government. If they can decisively break the government, through starving it of tax revenue or through bankrupting it with spending, then they will do so. Destroying government is their guiding philosophy, and what better way to destroy something than through gross negligence and incompetence? [Kind of like the way I treat my plants.]

So, are you saying that Republicans are just pussy Anarchists in denial? While I think that has a poetic sound it it, in theory, I don't think it's particularly true ( W/R/T republican motivation). It's true, they don't like a powerful federal government ( In theory, at least). Yet, I don't think because they want to limit the role of federal government that they hate government itself. I think you are right, however, in the sense that sometimes their desire to shrink and change to role of government is at odds with the roles they posses in government we have a the moment. This is particularly seen in some of the lower branches of the Executive branch, in the cabinet departments. it's an interesting paradox.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

If you were to ever meet me in person you would not think any of those things were accurate.

You're not white?

[nutzbuster 7]

I don't know why it isn't plain to everyone. The simple fact is, REPUBLICANS GOVERN BADLY. And they always will, because they hate government. If they can decisively break the government, through starving it of tax revenue or through bankrupting it with spending, then they will do so. Destroying government is their guiding philosophy, and what better way to destroy something than through gross negligence and incompetence? [Kind of like the way I treat my plants.]Democrats, on the other hand, have the guiding philosophy that government is good. Therefore, when they govern, they try to do so well, and to make the government work. This was EXPLICITLY Al Gore's philosophy in the Reinventing Government initiative, which in eight years shrank the government to its smallest level in four decades. Ditto with Clinton's balancing the budget and creating a surplus. If you love something you want it to thrive, and if you hate it you want it to perform badly.It's not over for Republicans, but someday they should maybe try to reconcile their lust for power with their desire to be the worst power-wielders possible.

wow.So having a big daddy controlling your every move is the answer? This is an affront to the very idea of freedom.Philosophically the two parties will never convince the other that they are right. Republicans do indeed hate big government. Thank God.

[DinkDonk 1]

If you were to ever meet me in person you would not think any of those things were accurate.

#1- I'm pretty sure you're kind of old.#2- I'm pretty damn certain that you're white.#3- Goddammit Mac. You are quick.I don't know if you reread that description, but 1/2 of it seems to be accurate in your case. You do not, however, come across as mean. Selfish can not be determined at this time.

[nutzbuster 7]

You're not white?

Im tan.I live in Arizona, so more...umm....brownish beige?

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

#1- I'm pretty sure you're kind of old.#2- I'm pretty damn certain that you're white.#3- Goddammit Mac. You are quick.I don't know if you reread that description, but 1/2 of it seems to be accurate in your case. You do not, however, come across as mean. Selfish can not be determined at this time.

No, not mean. A little unfunny and completely prone to panic and hyperbole w/r/t politics, but not mean. In fact, I think he's pretty much the opposite of mean, he extremely good intentioned, from what I've seen. Mean's more of an adjective to apply to me. Call me a democrat, if you must, but you can't really ever accuse me of having a bleeding heart.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Im tan.I live in Arizona, so more...umm....brownish beige?

You can toast wonder bread, but it's still wonder bread.

[DinkDonk 1]

No, not mean. A little unfunny and completely prone to panic and hyperbole w/r/t politics, but not mean. In fact, I think he's pretty much the opposite of mean, he extremely good intentioned, from what I've seen. Mean's more of an adjective to apply to me. Call me a democrat, if you must, but you can't really ever accuse me of having a bleeding heart.

Yeah this is pretty much my read as well. I would, however, label you more as cruel than mean. But meh, potatoes/pot-ahhhh-toes.

[nutzbuster 7]

You can toast wonder bread, but it's still wonder bread.

Well, you can put lipstick on a pitbull.....ummm....hang on, let me think of something else

[Balloon guy 158]

Are you saying there's something inaccurate about that perception??? 'Cause I'm not seeing it.Although I took campaign manager training from the DNC about ten years ago, your post is EXACTLY why, as a Buddhist, I decided not to go into it as a career. Everybody gives themselves fits over the last nanosecond's headline, with absolutely no sense of perspective or history. [speaking of history, though, your last line is technically untrue. It took 36 ballots in the House of Representatives before Jefferson was finally elected president after he and Aaron Burr tied in the Electoral College. THAT'S the closest it's ever been.]My main point, though is this. I'm lazy, so I'm just reposting this from a different forum:I don't know why it isn't plain to everyone. The simple fact is, REPUBLICANS GOVERN BADLY. And they always will, because they hate government. If they can decisively break the government, through starving it of tax revenue or through bankrupting it with spending, then they will do so. Destroying government is their guiding philosophy, and what better way to destroy something than through gross negligence and incompetence? [Kind of like the way I treat my plants.]Democrats, on the other hand, have the guiding philosophy that government is good. Therefore, when they govern, they try to do so well, and to make the government work. This was EXPLICITLY Al Gore's philosophy in the Reinventing Government initiative, which in eight years shrank the government to its smallest level in four decades. Ditto with Clinton's balancing the budget and creating a surplus. If you love something you want it to thrive, and if you hate it you want it to perform badly.It's not over for Republicans, but someday they should maybe try to reconcile their lust for power with their desire to be the worst power-wielders possible.

1953-2009Republicans in office 34 yearsDemocrats in office 20 yearsRepublicans inherited Vietnam and CarterDemocrats controlled both houses from 1954 - 1995 and from 2006-2008 for a total of 43 of the 56 years in the comparisons.Hardly think those comparisons are indicative of how two political parties track records are.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

1953-2009Republicans in office 34 yearsDemocrats in office 20 yearsRepublicans inherited Vietnam and CarterDemocrats controlled both houses from 1954 - 1995 and from 2006-2008 for a total of 43 of the 56 years in the comparisons.Hardly think those comparisons are indicative of how two political parties track records are.

Well, depends what you mean by " in office" Congress makes the laws..1953-2008Democrats control Senate 36 years Republicans 18 years ( 2 years of tie)Dems control house house 40 years, Republicans 16 yearsJust saying, if we're gonna throw out some track records, lets throw them all out.Hmm I didn't see your houses thing, but I think your stats are wrong there, BG... here's the website I used to look it up... maybe it's wrong...http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid/politics/congress.htmIt is, admittedly, some random site.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

1953-2009Republicans in office 34 yearsDemocrats in office 20 yearsRepublicans inherited Vietnam and CarterDemocrats controlled both houses from 1954 - 1995 and from 2006-2008 for a total of 43 of the 56 years in the comparisons.Hardly think those comparisons are indicative of how two political parties track records are.

"Inheriting Carter" is far better than what Obama will be inheriting. And Republicans were the Vietnam _hawks_ , although you're right that the biggest run-up in troop numbers ("the surge"???) happened under LBJ. Republicans wanted Vietnam then as much as they want Iraq now. As for your third point, if you're suggesting that the Congress holds all responsibility for how the country goes, then why run for president at all? Besides, that means that a Dem-Dem White House/Congress still produces a better outcome for the country than divided government, which was McCain's last gasp of an argument.Those comparisons are a lot more solid than a few lines about Carter and the awesome power of a Democratic Congress to control the world.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

I'm developing quite the crush on Southern Buddhist.

Get in line, baby, get in line.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Get in line, baby, get in line.

Oh, a switch even. Curiouser and curiouser.