Republican Party on the Decline?

[Savior2006]

You're kidding, right? The GOP is the most lax, lame and progressive it's ever been. If you want rigid, you're in the right place. The DNC won't work with the GOP. Can you say Obamacare? Not a single R vote.

Yeah I remember that, and I remember what the TYT said would happen.

"Republicans will water it down........and then vote against it."

Which was exactly what happened.

And I love how the GOP get votes for being partisan and obstructionist, when the Democrats lose points for being partisan, and not-obstructionist.

 

[GarfieldJL]

Yeah I remember that, and I remember what the TYT said would happen.

"Republicans will water it down........and then vote against it."

Which was exactly what happened.

And I love how the GOP get votes for being partisan and obstructionist, when the Democrats lose points for being partisan, and not-obstructionist.

It was watered down because Obama, Reid, Pelosi couldn't get enough DEMOCRATS to vote for it, they didn't need a single Republican vote, and they didn't want any Republican input to begin with.

 

[scraparcs]

I remember after the 2012 election a lot of old school GOP members said the Republican Party needed to do some "soul searching" and become less radical over their social issues. Don't see that happening.



Those are the only two things tea party voters care about

I wouldn't say there has been so much soul searching as a realization that the only way the GOP will win is getting rid of the far right Tea Party types in high level elections.

 

[USincognito]

Why is it when the democratic party is on the outs, you don't hear the call for them to be more like the republican's to make people vote for them? It's always the republicans that are suppose to change, give up their principles and throw in the towel. This is getting to be funny....sort of.

Neither funny nor historically accurate.
New Democrats - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the infamous government tax agency has taken it to whole new levels by harrassing conservative individuals and organizations to silence them.

That never happened. If they'd applied to be 527s instead of "social welfare" c4's they would have sailed right through the application process. Trying to determine if a political group is gaming "social welfare" status is not an attempt to silence them.

 

[USincognito]

The Tea party.. why do so many non rich people support a political sect who is against rich people and only rich people from being taxed? Their only stance for anything is bible, guns, and lower taxes[for rich people]. For some reason the combination of these things do not make any sense to me.

That's cause you were sold a false narrative by the people you trust to give you the news and you really should stop believing the propaganda from leftwing media outlets and the DNC.

The fact of the matter is that, income tax...

I don't see the word "income" anywhere in CS's post.

 

[A2SG]

I do not favor the Republican party making some special effort to "appeal to moderates," or to blacks, women, Hispanics, men, whites, "the poor," "the rich," or any other faction. I want them to hold to some basic core principles, which for me include being Pro-Life and Constitutionalists. If they are such spineless pansies that they're going to abandon such things in order to garner a few more votes, then for me and many of "the base," there is no meaningful difference between them and Democrats, and we won't bother supporting or voting.

If that means the party is doomed, then good riddance. Let the libs run the country into Gehenna. Destruction is a good teacher for those who survive.

Two points.

First, shouldn't political parties, and by extension the representatives within them, represent the people who voted for them? The fact is, many issues being touted as "core principles," including abortion which you allude to, do not reflect the majority of voters. Further, moderates, as well as blacks, hispanics, women, etc. are making up more and more of the electorate, so shouldn't their issues also be considered?

And second, we "libs" believe in the Constitution too. Just because we disagree with you on certain interpretations of aspects of it doesn't mean we are trying to run the country into the ground, or into Gehenna or whatever. Part of the strength of our system of government is that it requires opposing points of view to come together, find common ground, and work toward solutions that reflect both points of view. Not one exclusively and without compromise.

If there is one core principle that reflects our system of government, it's compromise. Any party that does not embrace the idea of working together, rather than opposing and obstructing any and all other points of views or ideas, well, I don't see much hope for a future for them.

No single ideology has all the answers. We all need to listen to others, and find the most workable solution to the problems we face.

And part of how we do that is to try and not demonize those who simply disagree on certain issues. We're neighbors, not enemies. No one's trying to drive is into Gehenna, wherever that is.

-- A2SG, out by Springfield, just past Chicopee?

 

[A2SG]

That both parties have been so successful vilifying the Tea Party is genuinely disturbing inasmuch as the Tea Party is a grass roots efforts by a lot of average people of disparate backgrounds in disparate locations in America who want their government returned to them and functioning iaw the Constitution. And that's all the "Tea Party" is.

If it was ever like that, and I have my doubts, it certainly didn't stay that way for long. The fact is, moneyed interests like the Koch brothers and Dick Armey have taken over the Tea Party, and its goals reflect theirs: make sure the rich stay rich, and government becomes as ineffective as possible.

Period.

That there are people who have swallowed hook-line-and-sinker the propaganda of the DC careerist elites and view the Tea Party precisely the way they intend is alarming - and ought to be alarming to everyone who values this nation or their freedom.

Every American values freedom. Some just interpret it differently: freedom from taxes, but not the freedom for women to choose their own contraceptive choices, for example.

The Tea Party isn't perfect, and by comparison to the DC careerist elites, who are portraying it as little more than a bunch of unsophisticated hicks, it's a rag-tag collection of disparate groups that don't enjoy the faux legitimacy the DC careerist elites have built for themselves.

To be fair, many of the public faces of the tea party, the Sharron Angles and Christine McConnells, the Sarah Palins out there, well, they don't do much good for the image of the tea party all on their own. You can't blame the "DC careeris elites" for them.

By definition they are going to make mistakes. By definition they are going to be disorganized and struggle to present an appearance of unity. They need leadership. They need everything the DC careerist elites are striving so hard to deny them - but if this country is going to dig itself out of the mire it's created for itself by allowing a handful of elites to take it over, it will need the Tea Party and other groups like it to make that happen.

How will a basic message of obstructionism and "government is the problem" help solve the problems we face as a nation?

The only thing in decline in this sense is our freedom and our Constitution that guarantees our freedom - both of which are under active assault by the powers that be, regardless the letter that appends their high and lofty names.

Who's assaulting the Constitution? And how are they assaulting it, exactly?

-- A2SG, after all, simply disagreeing with the way you interpret it isn't an "assault" on the Constitution itself, is it?

 

[A2SG]

It was watered down because Obama, Reid, Pelosi couldn't get enough DEMOCRATS to vote for it, they didn't need a single Republican vote, and they didn't want any Republican input to begin with.

Odd thing to say, considering the very idea came from the conservative Heritage Foundation and was championed by the GOP in the 90s. Especially considering the ideas the Democratic party put forth over the last several years were quite different from what the ACA finally became, including ideas like single payer, public option, etc.

Sorry, but the ACA is a compromise, not a plan that came wholly from the Democrats. It was a move away from democratic ideas (single payer) toward a conservative, market based private insurance method, formerly championed by the GOP, and then abandoned the instant Obama agreed to it.

So yeah, there was Republican input. It's almost entirely their plan, in fact.

-- A2SG, just ask Mitt Romney, who instituted it here in Massachusetts first....

 

[cow451]

You're kidding, right? The GOP is the most lax, lame and progressive it's ever been. If you want rigid, you're in the right place.

I'm agreeing with you that the GOP needs to push farther right. Maybe they should rename the party the GOTP (Grand Old Tea Party). Really let the voters know where they stand. Kick out the moderates like Lamar Alexander, Jon Huntsman, et al.

Go Right or Go Home!

 

[Joykins]

Why is it when the democratic party is on the outs, you don't hear the call for them to be more like the republican's to make people vote for them? It's always the republicans that are suppose to change, give up their principles and throw in the towel. This is getting to be funny....sort of.

What's funny is that today's deficit-reducing, business-friendly Democrats could probably run on a Republican ticket perfectly fine in the 1950s or 1960s. So that's been done, I can't say it's been a success for them.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Comment, I don't understand why any political party would try to appeal to an extreme minority with anything. It isn't as if they will vote for the opposing party, at worst they will try to run as a third party candidate, and we all know that doesn't work out for the extreme sides.

 

[Aldebaran]

Who's assaulting the Constitution? And how are they assaulting it, exactly?

-- A2SG, after all, simply disagreeing with the way you interpret it isn't an "assault" on the Constitution itself, is it?

Anyone, such as the President, or Dianne Feinstein, who claims that the Constitution is "negative" and needs to be changed, and that the second amendment is something they'd like to see repealed (and have introduced bills to accomplish this), is someone who is assaulting the constitution.

 

[cow451]

Anyone, such as the President, or Dianne Feinstein, who claims that the Constitution is "negative" and needs to be changed, and that the second amendment is something they'd like to see repealed (and have introduced bills to accomplish this), is someone who is assaulting the constitution.

Ted Cruz is assaulting the Constitution, by your definition, with his proposed amendment.

 

[Aldebaran]

Ted Cruz is assaulting the Constitution, by your definition, with his proposed amendment.

What amendment was that? I'm not familiar with it.

 

[cow451]

What amendment was that? I'm not familiar with it.

This thread

 

[Aldebaran]

This thread

Well, at least it would have preserved marriage in its traditional form, you know, like it has been since the beginning. It would define something in a legal way that has been understood for thousands of years. Right now, it's just being perverted.

 

[GarfieldJL]

Ted Cruz is assaulting the Constitution, by your definition, with his proposed amendment.

How is augmenting the 10th Amendment of the Constitution an assault on the Constitution?

 

[Belk]

Anyone, such as the President, or Dianne Feinstein, who claims that the Constitution is "negative" and needs to be changed, and that the second amendment is something they'd like to see repealed (and have introduced bills to accomplish this), is someone who is assaulting the constitution.

So using the process the creators of the constitution lined out to amend the constitution is an attack on the constitution?

 

[GarfieldJL]

So using the process the creators of the constitution lined out to amend the constitution is an attack on the constitution?

It depends, there are several amendments to the Constitution whose repeal would arguably be an attack on the Constitution itself.

Those are the Bill of Rights, because they protect the freedom of every American from a tyrannical government.

 

[cow451]

How is augmenting the 10th Amendment of the Constitution an assault on the Constitution?

By Aldebaran's definition it is. Not my definition.