Gop 2012

[BigRed82]

What makes no sense is the fact that there are many more people like you out there. The bottom line is this: The race was between McCain and Obama. Ron Paul had no chance of winning, I am right about this period. Unfortunate as it may be, your vote is a waste. I am sure it made you feel unique and a little bit special because you did something "different". But really that special and "different" feeling it gave you and many others simply just costs the republican (last sane) party votes. You claim "Oh I didn't vote for Obama" well you may as well have. This is the cold hard truth, I am sorry I wish your little Ron Paul vote mattered but it didnt. It was a waste. What you need to do is recognize the leading candidates (usually just 2) and pick the lesser of the two evils. Is this fair, or right? Probably not, but I am not speaking of fair I am speaking of cold hard truth. In closing, when 2012 arrives take a long hard look at where your values lie and pick the lesser of the two evils. Shouldn't be that difficult, can't get much worse than OBAMA.

I hope I do not live to regret that last sentence, LOL....

Those of us who voted for RP did so in the primaries, so what you are saying doesn't really make sense to me. In the General Election here in OK, BHO and McCain were the only two choices.

And technically speaking in "cold, hard truth", none of the votes in OK mattered. The race was already determined without our measely 1,477,395 some odd votes.

 

[ignerntbend]

Damn Red,
Just damn. You restore my faith in what ever the hell I ever had faith in.

 

[berettaman]

Sure, the Bush administration staved off anti-gun threats, but by driving this party into the ground, it was a short term accomplishment only. I am more concerned about where this nation will be 50 years from now, and let me tell you, the Bush Administration has cut the legs out from under the GOP.

If you want to say that Bush is responsible for the lack of attacks in the last 7 years, then you would also have to say he is responsible for the initial attacks during the first year of his presidency. They weren't unaware of the threat that Osama posed. This issue has been thoroughly documented.

You can defend Bush all you want. I am simply saying that it is because of his presidency and his administration and the political gaffs which occured therein that will cost the GOP a decade of political influence, if not more.

Was he full retard? No. Did he make some dumbass moves? Hell yes.
Using the word "Crusade" when talking about reprisals for 9/11 was just one of them. The Black and White world that he lives in of Good and Evil without the necessary shades of grey.

The problem ultimately isn't just with Bush. Bush was merely a symptom of a greater disease within the GOP that has been growing like a cancer within the party. Neo-Conservatism. "Compassionate Conservatism". We got the Big Government and Big Spending of the liberal left with the Social Agenda of the Christian Conservative Right. Reagan was successful because he was able to pull in moderate Democrats with his economic principles. Reagan was the great communicator. No one in their right mind could say the same for the Bushes. Jeb very likely would have been a much better President Bush, but now we'll never know because there is no way that the American people will ever vote another Bush into the Whitehouse.

You see his accomplishments. Well and good. I see them too, but I also see a long list of political gaffs and screwups and blunders that will haunt this party for years to come. And currently, the gaffs and embarrassments just seem to keep on rolling in.

And that's the same old tired logic....Wah,Nixon has screwed the republican party sooooooooooooooooooooo bad we'll never have another republican in the whitehouse for 40 years. Anyone remember Jimmy? The American people have short memories.They're really strong memories but they're short short short.Americans think with their pocketbook.This current administration has 18months for the land of milk and honey to return or it's over for our Dear Leader.Problem is,can America last 18 months.

 

[ignerntbend]

Once again foiled by intelecshism....and I would have done it too,

If it wasnt for you meddling kids!

Is it possible that I've joined YukonJack in your signature line?
Be still my heart!

 

[ignerntbend]

7 years of no planes being flown into buildings,7 years of no planes being flown into government buildings,7 years of no planes being flown into the ground in PA,8 years of not losing more of our gun rights,2 young strong conservative Supreme Court Justices one who is Chief Justice that can serve for a couple of decades or more,but you're right GWB was a dumbass....

If you really think about it Bill Clinton kept us about a thousand times safer than Dubya did. That's including domestic right wing terrorism (A.K.A. the good kind)
Bill Clinton kept us so safe that he didn't have to keep reminding us about how safe he was keeping us.
Memories...

 

[Roadking Larry]

Bill Clinton set the stage for what happened on 9/11. The terrorists came into the US during his admin. It was during his admin that the "wall seperating CIA and FBI was put in place that might have prevented the 9/11 attack. It was during the Clinton admin that China was assisted in obtaining the technology that now allows them to target US cities with nuclear capable balistic missiles.It was during the Clinton admin that we got the AWB, NICS, and the ban on new full autos.

During the Clinton admin we also had:

World Trade Center Bombing, February 26, 1993
Attack on U.S. Diplomats in Pakistan, March 8, 1995
Bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, April 19, 1995
Attack on U.S. Embassy in Moscow, September 13, 1995
Saudi Military Installation Attack, November 13, 1995
Egyptian Embassy Attack, November 19, 1995
Khobar Towers Bombing, June 25, 1996
Empire State Building Sniper Attack, February 23, 1997
U.S. Embassy Bombings in East Africa, August 7, 1998
Attack on U.S.S. Cole, October 12, 2000
We also had the fiasco/massacre at Waco in 1993 perpetrated on US citizens by the Clinton administration.

 

[TerryMiller]

I voted other. There isn't a person on that list that I would care to see in the Oval Office.

Palin doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the election, but she may try to craft herself to become a kingmaker. I personally think she put the final nail in the McCain coffin. She was nothing more than a publicity stunt and a joke. I chuckle inside every time I hear someone talk as though she had a real chance at anything. People have lost grip with reality.

The only guy who had a chance in the last election of defeating Obama was Romney, but heaven forbid a Mormon and a moderate win the GOP nom. (BTW, I didn't vote for Romney. I voted RP.)

Bush spent 8 years crucifying conservativism on a public cross. Rush, O'Reilly, and Hannity are continuing to do so. The Reagan years are over folks. The GOP died in Iraq, Afghanistan, and on Capitol Hill and Wall Street. Epic Fail. The Neo-Cons are finished. Time to flush the refuse out.

Ultimately, it won't matter who the GOP puts up in 2012. They are going to lose. Obama will have a 2nd term. It will take at least 8 years before the nation will be willing to stomach another Republican president after the Bush Administration.

Maybe if the GOP is lucky, we can find someone as "unaccomplished" as Obama. Someone that can put a full sentence together, that can pronounce nuclear correctly, that perhaps has a prestigious education, that might have a damned clue about how things work. Until then, we are going to be feeling the hurt of the rising tide of blue across the nation.

This is going to be a very long valley of darkness that the GOP will be walking through. It isn't going to be over by 2012. I'm even skeptical if we'll be able to be relevant in 2016. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

Political punditry from a "Pauley." That seems to be a contradiction. On one hand your post indicates that you have close to the next 10 years all figured out, but you voted for a guy that won less than 2 percent of the vote (perhaps even less than 1 percent).

As I have seen it, Obama is failing in convincing the voters that he is doing a good job. His poll numbers keep falling (and incidently, Palin's are rising). And the electorate is noticing that for all the rhetoric of "putting the money back to whom it belongs" (paraphrased there), his bailouts and stimulus funds aren't going to the people, but to big business and the unions.

I have to think that it is a little early to prophesy about the future of politics.

 

[GolfWhiskey]

Political punditry from a "Pauley." That seems to be a contradiction. On one hand your post indicates that you have close to the next 10 years all figured out, but you voted for a guy that won less than 2 percent of the vote (perhaps even less than 1 percent).

So in order for ones political opinions to "count" they must pick a winning candidate? I am assuming that you voted for Obama then.

As I have seen it, Obama is failing in convincing the voters that he is doing a good job. His poll numbers keep falling (and incidently, Palin's are rising). And the electorate is noticing that for all the rhetoric of "putting the money back to whom it belongs" (paraphrased there), his bailouts and stimulus funds aren't going to the people, but to big business and the unions.

I have to think that it is a little early to prophesy about the future of politics.

Sarah Palin's "numbers" are rising? That's news to me. I guess it doesn't really matter considering she won't even matter for at least 3 more years.

 

[GolfWhiskey]

Bill Clinton set the stage for what happened on 9/11.

Blaming Bill Clinton for 9/11 is seriously asinine. George W. Bush had 9 months to prevent the attacks, but he was on vacation 40% of the time. Coincidentally, Bush set a Presidential record for vacation taken during 2001.

During that time he held literally zero cabinet meetings on the threat of terrorism. Richard Clarke tried to warn Rice and Bush about the threat of Al Queda and was patently ignored. On August 6, 2001, he was warned via daily briefing that Bin Laden was determined to attack the American homeland in the very near future.

Could the attacks on 9/11 have been prevented? It's possible, but I don't put the responsibility on Bush's shoulders. I don't think placing the blame on any one person is constructive or even really possible. However, if one is looking for someone to blame, he is by far the person who bears the most responsibility. The attacks happened 9 months into his watch and he wasted 40% of the year NOT taking steps to make the country safer.

It's the height of partisan hackery to blame Bill Clinton for something that occured 9 months after he left office. Ask yourself, if terrorists attacked the US right now, would you be consistent and blame Bush? After all, Obama still has 2 months until September.

 

[BigRed82]

Political punditry from a "Pauley." That seems to be a contradiction. On one hand your post indicates that you have close to the next 10 years all figured out, but you voted for a guy that won less than 2 percent of the vote (perhaps even less than 1 percent).

You assume I thought RP had a chance of winning. I knew he wouldn't win the GOP primary. I voted for the person who was closest to my sympathies at the time. Not that it mattered. I knew my vote here in OK would be of no consequence to the overall national pick of the GOP candidate. Therefore I had no problems voting my conscience.

Did you assume that your vote had significance and therefore voted for the lesser of two evils? Maybe? Maybe not? I don't know. So let's not assume that either of us stands on any higher ground than the other.

Trying to attribute a "Pauley" or Paulite title to me is rather petty and unproductive. I appreciate your dependence on labeling. You presume to know something about me that you do not. Presumption will get you nowhere is civil conversation, so let's move past that. Did I or do I agree with all of RP's positions? No. But I liked his overall message more than the other choices I was presented with in the GOP primaries. It was traditional constitutional conservatism. Did he attract some crazies? Yes. Did he ever have a chance of winning? No. Does that mean that his voice and the people who felt he best represented them should have been silent? No.

Is my prediction of the GOP's future rash? Overly skeptical?
I don't think so. For this very reason: This conversation we are having right here. The GOP base is not unified. This thread is an example of that fact. We are fractured. This thread isn't made of up posts from democrats, green party socialists and whatever else. I would bet that almost all of us here are Republicans. Or were at one point. That we do not agree on even the legacy of the former administration is a telling sign. Our disunity is why I can so confidently predict our future. It is not the moderates that are fracturing or turning away, such as what was feared after Nixon. It is the GOP base itself.

The constitutional party and the libertarian party exist and are growing because people who were previously hard core conservative Republicans have become sick of what is going on in the party. You seriously think the Republicans will gain a majority in 2010? You think they will gain a majority in 2012 without a significant part of their former party members backing them? What future looking platform are they going to adopt to bring formerly active Republicans back into the fold?

Quite honestly, IMO, all the Dems have to do to maintain their dominance is to stay silent on two issues - Gay rights and 2A. Obama has 3 years to get unemployment numbers down and keep inflation from rising - if he can do that, he'll be floating through for a 2nd term. All other problems he'll likely be able to continue to blame on the previous administration rightly or wrongly.

Popularity polls do not matter. They can rise and fall over the next 2 years. All that matters is that he is popular in that 2012 election year. Berettaman is right - Americans have very short memories. Obama's popularity rating, rising or falling, right now doesn't mean crap, so there is no need in getting our hopes up that it spells doom for his reelection. It doesn't.

At this point, Romney still remains the most viable GOP candidate regarding economic policy, but I doubt the staunch social rightists would allow him to get the nom. Still, just like the 2008 election. The election is the Dems to lose. As long as they don't screw anything up too much, they will have it.

Sorry to be the dark cloud, but someone has to do it. Our party will have to find a soul before it can once again become relevant. I don't see it in any of those choices. Certainly not Palin. Almost none of my fellow Republicans which I associate with care to see her in the Whitehouse. This is our dark night of the soul - hopefully we'll find someone by 2016 - because that as I see it is the next possible chance we have for the POTUS. Maybe we'll get lucky and kill a filibuster proof senate in 2010. Maybe we'll be able to get the senate back or get close in 2012 or 2014, but the WH in 2012 is a very very very big long shot. Considering all that, I don't think my prediction is rash at all.