Go back
This sums up the GOP's woes

This sums up the GOP's woes

Debates

b
Enigma

Seattle

Joined
03 Sep 06
Moves
3298
Clock
29 Jan 13

This fine article sums up the GOP's woe's. Today's republican party has become too rigid, and too exclusive. It's doubtful that Reagan, Nixon, Goldwater, or Eisenhower would be welcomed under today's GOP tent.

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-turned-back-reagan-lincoln-073400872.html

E

Joined
12 Jul 08
Moves
13814
Clock
29 Jan 13
Vote Up
Vote Down

Today's Republican party is too heavily influenced by super rich people for the Northeast. Social liberalism combined with unrestrained spending and lowering taxes is not a good combination.

w

Joined
02 Jan 06
Moves
12857
Clock
30 Jan 13
Vote Up
Vote Down

Na, they just want to skip town before it all hits the fan. 😛

stevemcc

Joined
15 Oct 10
Moves
98630
Clock
30 Jan 13
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Eladar
Today's Republican party is too heavily influenced by super rich people for the Northeast. Social liberalism combined with unrestrained spending and lowering taxes is not a good combination.
Who's the leading republican in the northeast? The republicans have moved away from the northeast, to their disadvantage

w

Joined
02 Jan 06
Moves
12857
Clock
30 Jan 13
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by stevemcc
Who's the leading republican in the northeast? The republicans have moved away from the northeast, to their disadvantage
Can they save themselves and find another Romney?

sh76
Civis Americanus Sum

New York

Joined
26 Dec 07
Moves
17585
Clock
30 Jan 13
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by stevemcc
Who's the leading republican in the northeast? The republicans have moved away from the northeast, to their disadvantage
Chris Christie, probably.

JS357

Joined
29 Dec 08
Moves
6788
Clock
30 Jan 13
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Eladar
Today's Republican party is too heavily influenced by super rich people for the Northeast. Social liberalism combined with unrestrained spending and lowering taxes is not a good combination.
Anybody who believes that should read the stated Republican Party positions on the issues.

http://www.ontheissues.org/republican_party.htm

E

Joined
12 Jul 08
Moves
13814
Clock
30 Jan 13
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by stevemcc
Who's the leading republican in the northeast? The republicans have moved away from the northeast, to their disadvantage
I'd say that Romney fits the north east model. I'd say George Bush fits the model. Compassionate conservative, let the rich keep their money but increase spending. Appoint judges that will support leftist social positions while supporting the rich's right to keep their money.

stevemcc

Joined
15 Oct 10
Moves
98630
Clock
30 Jan 13
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Eladar
I'd say that Romney fits the north east model. I'd say George Bush fits the model. Compassionate conservative, let the rich keep their money but increase spending. Appoint judges that will support leftist social positions while supporting the rich's right to keep their money.
I don't understand this 'model.' I'm older than you I guess and remember Javitts and Rockefeller. Principled republican politicians. Romney does not qualify to my mind. Neither does Bush. Christie is at least interesting. Lugar was one of the best and they threw him out.
The republican party needs a brain transplant.

s
Don't Like It Leave

Walking the earth.

Joined
13 Oct 04
Moves
50664
Clock
30 Jan 13
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by bill718
This fine article sums up the GOP's woe's. Today's republican party has become too rigid, and too exclusive. It's doubtful that Reagan, Nixon, Goldwater, or Eisenhower would be welcomed under today's GOP tent.

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-turned-back-reagan-lincoln-073400872.html
It's very rich indeed to scold Republicans for being radical when we have a President who unapologetically and unabashedly espoused the most liberal, collectivist policy agenda in America's history in his inauguration address. It's true that Todd Akin, Sandy, and Chris Christie probably Romney the election, and also true that the Republican Party has to reinvent itself. But to propose abandoning the principles in our founding documents, the same principles that allowed us to grow into the world's largest economy and a leader in women's rights, technologies, human rights, scholarship, and every other human endeavor in favor of policies that have been proven to destroy societies - just look at Old Europe - is absurd.

P

Joined
23 Nov 11
Moves
45296
Clock
31 Jan 13
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Eladar
Today's Republican party is too heavily influenced by super rich people for the Northeast. Social liberalism combined with unrestrained spending and lowering taxes is not a good combination.
Launching the US into questionable and unfunded wars along with a woefully underregulated fiancial sector are to blame for our fiscal woes. Bush managed to squander a national surplus and throw us into national debt. Social programs, especially Social Security and Medicare, are red herrings and have zero to do with the situation.

s
Don't Like It Leave

Walking the earth.

Joined
13 Oct 04
Moves
50664
Clock
31 Jan 13
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Phranny
Launching the US into questionable and unfunded wars along with a woefully underregulated fiancial sector is to blame for our fiscal woes. Bush managed to squander a national surplus and throw us into national debt. Social programs, especially Social Security and Medicare, are red herrings and have zero to do with the situation.
Wow man. So you disagree with EVERY economist in the world except for Jack Krugman? You don't really think this do you? Sometimes people joke, and it's hard to tell.

n

The Catbird's Seat

Joined
21 Oct 06
Moves
2598
Clock
31 Jan 13
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by bill718
This fine article sums up the GOP's woe's. Today's republican party has become too rigid, and too exclusive. It's doubtful that Reagan, Nixon, Goldwater, or Eisenhower would be welcomed under today's GOP tent.

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-turned-back-reagan-lincoln-073400872.html
I always giggle a bit when any self identified leftist Democrat like you proudly announces they know what's wrong with the GOP. If you did, you would undoubtedly bottle and sell it to as many Republicans as possible.

Want to find out what's wrong in the GOP, try listening to the TEA party. Listen to those who didn't vote but stayed home.

You would be better served to ask why the GOP cleaned the Democrats clock in 2010. Or why Obama only won by a few points, in a few critical swing States.

n

The Catbird's Seat

Joined
21 Oct 06
Moves
2598
Clock
31 Jan 13
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Phranny
Launching the US into questionable and unfunded wars along with a woefully underregulated fiancial sector are to blame for our fiscal woes. Bush managed to squander a national surplus and throw us into national debt. Social programs, especially Social Security and Medicare, are red herrings and have zero to do with the situation.
There was never a surplus. Never. A budget surplus is a projection over a period of 10 years, that is if everything stays the same, which it never does. There was never any extra cash in the till. There wasn't even a budget surplus left when Bush 43 was inaugurated.

The national debt, that is real borrowing of real money, has gone up every year including the Clinton years. Deficits/surpluses are plans, whereas debt or excess revenue is actual money.

stevemcc

Joined
15 Oct 10
Moves
98630
Clock
31 Jan 13
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Wow man. So you disagree with EVERY economist in the world except for Jack Krugman? You don't really think this do you? Sometimes people joke, and it's hard to tell.
Sometimes people cite 'every' economist in the world and its hard to tell that they're joking. What - the wars were paid for! Who knew!. What - the bankers didn't gamble (and lose) us all the way to the brink. Who knew!
I don't dismiss the baby boomer challenge to the medicare program as nothing, but compared to the fiscal crisis of 2008, most economists that I read think it quite manageable.
And his first name is Paul.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.