26. They suck.
|
|
|
Posted on 01/30/2006 5:26:09 AM PST by jmaroneps37
You beat me to it. This'll never happen. In fact, keep an eye on those dwindling baby boomer votes.
Anyway, just curious why this was one of the list.
The GOP should combat these biased and inaccurate polls that MSM uses in an attempt to brainwash the Aamerican public.
26. They suck.
|
|
|
The incumbents have feathered their own nests. The new Computer-Aided redistricting is so precise, so powerful, that the vast majority of incumbents have completely removed any threat to their power.
This is not a good thing. This will lead to a immovable ruling class that will not be responsive to the voter's interests.
But it works for us in the short term, so I guess we shouldn't complain. If I were a Democrat, I would be really PO'ed.
"The rat party needs to be banned and outlawed. The choice on ballots should be republicans vs libertarians, i.e. a legitimate left/centrist/religious party vs a legitimate laissez faire conservative/capitalist party."
The krazy Kos Kidz believe that Bush, and future "fascist" Republican leaders will in fact ban their dissent. But I wouldn't expect a lover of liberty to deny them the right to participate in politics.
Their views are anti-American and they have no use for this constitution. But they should be given the chance to democratically change or eliminate it. That is, if the will of the majority of the people is against the libertarian founding, there is no need to trap them. But I don't believe we've "moved on." Elections are a great way to repudiate their statism.
Besides, if these krazies didn't have a political outlet, what do they do? Become terrorists?
The choice on ballots should be republicans vs libertarians, i.e. a legitimate left/centrist/religious party vs a legitimate laissez faire conservative/capitalist party.
___________________________
The Libertarian party has a strong inclination to become extremely left wing. There are influences from radical environmentalist groups who like the elitist tendencies of the Libertarians. With relatively minor modifications the Lib party could become a neo communist party.
Far fetched? Check out the platform. It reeks of demogogery.
First, you have one point that is flawed in a major way:
22) The Economy is now in the best shape it has been in our lifetime.
By the time the fall elections roll around, it will be clear to most Americans that there are significant flaws in the economy and when people begin to think about the economy that will be "supporting" the boomers when they retire, it will gradually dawn on an ever increasing number of Americans that the existing socialistic model of our economy which is cast in concrete by current law is actually terminally flawed.
The disconcerting part of your case relates to labeling and how products can change. They still call them FORDS, but there is a vast difference between a 1930's Ford and 2006 Ford, or a 1930's airplane and a 747 or F18. The problem with current labeling is that a 2006 Republican is much more like a 1950's Democrat than a Reagan or Goldwater Republican. The Democrats have become radical socialists, but Republicans have been following the Democrats to the left. What are the "big" things Republicans have done under Bush? Campaign Finance Reform, Transportation and Farm Bills designed to gorge a hog, and Medicare Prescription Drugs, not to mention appointing a lunatic to head the Federal Reserve. Where have Republicans balked? Complete voluntary privatization of Social Security, ending the Department of the Education, ending the IRS, and except for genuine conservatives threatening to boycott the party, the Meirs appointment to the Court.
While the labels might lead one to think that Republicans have been winning and show genuine promise of continuing to win and therefore the country is becoming more conservative and returning to its Constitutional roots, the reality is very different. The problem with this scenario is that the Democrats are becomming communists and the Republicans are adopting the positions being vacated by the Democrats. While the labels are the same, the politics haven't changed, only now it's the Republicans in office who are becoming the closet big government socialists. It is very important not to be fooled by this.
I agree, but is Ohio turning blue? With the layoffs and employment situation...I just see that state turning more Rat. But as Ohio turns more RAT, Florida turns more republican.
In the end the Republicans are in the better situation because the Rats get the votes of the depressed states where the population will be shrkinking (or growing slower than the boom states). Republicans get the votes from the boom states which means every 10 years they get an edge in house seats.
Add to that a portion of the Black population that we never hear about because they are hard working, family oriented citizens. They reared their heads big time when the gay marriage issue came up.
Unfortunately, most left leaning societies tend to go more left when confronted with losing their socialist perks. They just steal more from those that work and give to those that don't. And that pushes them futher into decline...until they eventually collapse. The US is not near collapse economically, so until that happens we won't see any real reform.
Excellent post. What is not said is how the Democrats lose by constantly trying to push the envelope on causes that are clearly losing causes. They do so on principle...and by thinking that, with the media on their side, they can play a "running game"...keep going for the first down while getting tackled every play.
Also: the Dems have stupidly thrown away their once most important demographic: the single white male. In the 60s, it sure wasn't resistance to the draft that got young males into being Democrats. The Dems could have used this formula for 100 years to keep single males on their side vs married males. But, instead, they abandoned white males lock stock and barrel.
Their second most important traditional demographic, health nuts, are being ignored. The Dems haven't even been smart enough to invent a new "asbestos" for Heaven's sake. In the 70s, Dem victories were often all about "ecology". In 1996, Clinton took Dole to the cleaners on the smoking issue. Since then, the Dems have clearly forgotten and abandoned their focus on "ecology." Now their platform is:
1) Treason overseas (no fighting enemies)
2) Homosexuality is better than Heterosexuality
3) Treason at home (no listening to foreign enemies)
I can't think of anything else they seem to stand for these days.
"The problem with that is that libertarianism generally doesn't play well with evangelicals."
Really? Aren't evangelical Christians most predominant in America, which is based in part in protecting individual freedom of religion? They don't do too well, as a movement, in more statist countries.
The two are tied together. It's traditionalist communitarianism that doesn't play well with libertarian ideas.
"With relatively minor modifications the Lib party could become a neo communist party. "
Really? I thought they were the party of "leave me alone". That doesn't sound like communism.
The 2010 Census will make America's red states overwhelmingly predominant. But the 2008 election will be fought using the current formula...which has Ohio front and center with a powerful 20 points.
Sure, Florida is more and more Republican...but Ohio may figure prominantly in the 2008 election.
Yet this depth doesn't seem to show in upcoming Senate races. The GOP is having a hard time going after vulnerable 'rats because no serious candidate seems to want to run, e.g. Washington state vs. Cantwell.
"The problem with this scenario is that the Democrats are becomming communists and the Republicans are adopting the positions being vacated by the Democrats."
...which would be an explantion as to why the more unhinged part of the Dems base act the way they do, in spite of the fact that their behavior hurts their party. In the long term, their agenda gets implemented. If the elitist progressives decided to move their party back to the "center," how would things like universal health care and reducing the military be put on the table?
It's actually disturbing to read about a state rep here, and congressman there, flipping parties and becoming republican. How is NYC mayor Bloomberg a conservative? He switched parties not long before the election he won, and it was opportunism. The Dems become *too* left for some lite-socialists, and they think they can just move with their world view intact into the other viable party.
I'd be happy to see the day that the GOP activist base gives McCain a fat lip when he tries to win the next primaries, and he leaves to join the Democrats. Why not *they* go rightward, not us?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
