1 edit
I was watching headline news today and the question was, who is the spokesperson for the Republican party.? They had Cheney, Bush, Newt Gingrich, and Rush LImbaugh all up on the screen with approval ratings all under 15%. LOL.
First of all, I didn't know that both political parties required a spokesman. Secondly, if one of these clowns happens to be one, should any and all Republicans proceed immediatly to the nearest bridge and jump off?
1 edit
I agree - I don't think you can have one person being The Spokesperson of the Democratic or Republican parties - as if the members of a party should all be marching in lockstep behind some cult hero. But parties do need to have leaders that people respect - leaders that are respected even by those outside the party.
So - what people do you think should be leading the way for the Republicans?
1 edit
Originally posted by MelanerpesWho do I think should be leading the Republican party? To be honest, I suppose that depends upon what the powers that be in the Republican party are looking for rather than the populace vote. You could say the same for those in the Democratic party. As for who that is, who knows and who cares? I just think it hilarious that the only choices thus far are the ones I mentioned.
I agree - I don't think you can have one person being The Spokesperson of the Democratic or Republican parties - as if the members of a party should all be marching in lockstep behind some cult hero. But parties do need to have leaders that people respect - leaders that are respected even by those outside the party.
So - what people do you think should be leading the way for the Republicans?
As for myself, I am a conservative and, as such, I realize that I am without a party and have been for a very long time.
3 edits
Originally posted by whodeyI like Newt. But he's run his course. He's too unpopular and he has to stay behind the scenes... for the good of the party. We can use his ideas, but not his face.
What? No Newt Gingrich?
The sad fact is that he wasted his political capital going after Clinton during the whole impeachment mess. Also, though he was mostly right in his fights with Clinton over the economy in the mid 90s, Slick Willy was the more adept politician and beat the stuffing out of him in the court of public opinion.
Originally posted by sh76It is my contention that the best presidents of the past have been governers and not senators. I think it has to do with being somewhat of an outsider and not having the twisted insider thinking of those in Washington. What say you?
I like Newt. But he's run his course. He's too unpopular and he has to stay behind the scenes... for the good of the party. We can use his ideas, but not his face.
Originally posted by whodeyI don't know. Governors can be pretty twisted too (Rod Blagojevich and Elliot Spitzer anyone?) Also, not too many Senators have become President anyway recently. Before Obama, the last one was JFK. And both of them were relatively inexperienced Senators.
It is my contention that the best presidents of the past have been governers and not senators. I think it has to do with being somewhat of an outsider and not having the twisted insider thinking of those in Washington. What say you?
I guess when you're a senator, you build up a record that can be attacked. As Governor, you can be more folksy and local oriented, which people seem to like for some reason.
Originally posted by sh76I like Newt too -- he's constantly coming up with ideas
I like Newt. But he's run his course. He's too unpopular and he has to stay behind the scenes... for the good of the party. We can use his ideas, but not his face.
The sad fact is that he wasted his political capital going after Clinton during the whole impeachment mess. Also, though he was mostly right in his fights with Clinton over the economy in the mid ...[text shortened]... was the more adept politician and beat the stuffing out of him in the court of public opinion.
The problem with Newt is that 9 times out of 10 ten, the ideas are wacko or useless -- but every once in awhile, he comes up with something good. But the same is true for most people with lots of ideas.
In general, the "ideas" people shouldn't be the leaders - they should be churning out lots of ideas. A good leader is someone who will listen to all these ideas, can choose the ones that are really good and workable, and then convince the people that these ideas are worth trying.
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyFor me, the main problem with the GOP is that they seem to be opposed to the whole concept of a government that works effectively. You get the feeling that they hope that all programs will fail because it would make it easier for them to be cut. Limbaugh voiced this overtly when he stated that he "wanted Obama to fail".
Who do I think should be leading the Republican party? To be honest, I suppose that depends upon what the powers that be in the Republican party are looking for rather than the populace vote. You could say the same for those in the Democratic party. As for who that is, who knows and who cares? I just think it hilarious that the only choices thus far are t ...[text shortened]... nservative and, as such, I realize that I am without a party and have been for a very long time.
But do we really want the entire education system to fail? -- Do we want Social Security and Medicare to fail? -- Do we want the infrastructure system to fail? -- Do we want the FEMA to fail during the next Katrina? Do we want the war in Iraq to fail? (okay, on the last one, its been the Democrats with the grouchy attitude).
A party that's based on the idea of the government failing is a party that is doomed. The GOP needs to lay out a vision of how they can actually improve the various things that government does. This approach can still involve a commitment to "smaller government". If they believe that a given program should be ended, they need to come right out and say it - but if they believe the program is worth doing, it should be worth doing well.
Originally posted by MelanerpesIt's ironic that all the same accusations and counter-accusations were being bandied about in the opposite directions between 2002 and 2006.
For me, the main problem with the GOP is that they seem to be opposed to the whole concept of a government that works effectively. You get the feeling that they hope that all programs will fail because it would make it easier for them to be cut. Limbaugh voiced this overtly when he stated that he "wanted Obama to fail".
But do we really want the entir ...[text shortened]... and say it - but if they believe the program is worth doing, it should be worth doing well.
To some extent, the party out of power has to be the "party of no." Otherwise, they're simply a fifth wheel.
Originally posted by uzlessIf the Republicans' problem is that they're perceived as the "party of no," how would it help to choose as a leader, the ultimate "candidate of no"?
Ron Paul until they find a man with more presence. But for the love of god, pick a smart guy this time.
All of Ron Paul's positions are some variation of "You're wrong to do XYZ."
Originally posted by sh76You live in a dyed in the wool 2 party system. and yet talk like you've never encountered a 2 party system in your entire life.
It's ironic that all the same accusations and counter-accusations were being bandied about in the opposite directions between 2002 and 2006.
To some extent, the party out of power has to be the "party of no." Otherwise, they're simply a fifth wheel.
What are we supposed to think of you here?
You reckon you invented the fifth wheel?
Originally posted by FMFHuh?
You live in a dyed in the wool 2 party system. and yet talk like you've never encountered a 2 party system in your entire life.
What are we supposed to think of you here?
You reckon you invented the fifth wheel?
Huh?
and, for good measure...
Huh?
Honestly, dude/dudette, I can't figure out what you're talking about.
Why am I talking as though I never encountered a 2 party system?
Why would I know/care what you think of me? Where's "here"?
What does inventing the fifth wheel have to do with anything?
I suppose it's possible that I'm just being thick, but your entire post just went right over my head.