Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Gop 2012
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BigRed82" data-source="post: 733215" data-attributes="member: 3048"><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>Is my prediction of the GOP's future rash? Overly skeptical? </p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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? </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BigRed82, post: 733215, member: 3048"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Gop 2012
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom