# Is This the Beginning of the End for the Republican Party?



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Hey Guys

Figured since some of you wanted me to post some stuff to occasionally provide some talking points, I'd offer the following article.

I thought this was a very interesting informative thought provoking look at political parties in general, and what seems to be a very fractured group within the Republican Party.

I've always wondered about how all this might affect one party or the other long term....

The article provides some insightful historical context, and does a good job of looking at what is happening now, versus how simiar issues have played out in history.

Enjoy

Ryan



> Is This the Beginning of the End for the Republican Party?
> 
> Political parties are not immortal, even in this country.
> 
> ...


I also thought this quote by a commenter was pretty good:



> Actually, the "right" have been calling for neoconservatism and social conservatism for years. That is not the party of Teddy and Abe. We need to go back to at Eisenhower to find a true conservative in charge of the republican party.
> 
> It is time we returned to our roots and not simply genuflect to the ultra-right cabal that has taken over our party. True conservatism is returning to the republican party for the first time in decades.


followed by this:



> The U.S. has an institutional push to have exactly two political parties. Basically, the same things that make it hard to build a third party make it hard to get rid of either of the two you have now.
> 
> I think the biggest problem is the fact that your government has two chambers: the House of Representatives and the Senate. When one party controls one, its opponents will push to control the other, and if they are split, they will both fight over the White House to break the tie. This is repeated in every state throughout the country.
> 
> ...


Good stuff that got me thinking today...


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

well, good points and obviously the Republican party has been fractured, really due to dubya in large part, as he was the most fiscally unsound republican President in many years.......i think fiscal responsibility is or at least was the corner stone of the parties values.......that being said, if the democrats and No-bama go on a wild spending spree, even in the name of economic revival or fairness, or whatever the reason may be, you could well see a strong resurgence in conservative policy again, assuming it would rise again in the grand old party........but you never know, as this does seem to be the ripe time for lots of changes.......but nothing ever remains the same, not even in politics.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I disagree they are not that fractured they are all pretty much on the same page unfortunately its the wrong page. They are totally out of touch with their base its going to hurt them.

The dems are just as bad, I seriously doubt the joe six pack Dems support these loonies, unfortunately most of them dont really understand the facts and vote on sound bites off the abcnbc ect. and they are leftist fools.


----------



## Bgunit68 (Dec 26, 2006)

I think it's the beginning of the end of our country.


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

There should be a republican party (the true ones), a right wing wacko party, and kick the big spenders over to the darn dems.

Course the dems are pretty much communists anymore, so you can't really say there is a democrat party anymore.

So what we have is the wacko fringes of both parties have taken over, and sooner or later, the "normal americans" will have had enough of it, along with their concubines the media.


----------



## ShineRunner (Sep 11, 2002)

This is a scary article in the NY Post that I just received in a email from a good friend. With this kind of thinking we may not have a party to vote for!!! :******:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10142008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_o_jesse_knows_133450.htm


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

The Republicans will be fine... They're just going to lose a lot of the lock-step control they've enjoyed since '94. There have been a lot of different flavors of "Democrat" for a long time. Getting Democrats to all vote one way is like herding cats. That's where the Republican party is headed. They'll hold together as an opposition party, but don't be surprised if they act more like a coalition of multiple parties than they do one monolithic block of votes.

Some day a third party will gain some traction, but I think it's going to hurt both parties equally, both in the sense that it will probably seek to steal the center, and that all of a sudden you won't have to vote for one or the other to vote against the one with whose platform you disagree.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

omegax said:


> The Republicans will be fine... They're just going to lose a lot of the lock-step control they've enjoyed since '94. There have been a lot of different flavors of "Democrat" for a long time. Getting Democrats to all vote one way is like herding cats. That's where the Republican party is headed. They'll hold together as an opposition party, but don't be surprised if they act more like a coalition of multiple parties than they do one monolithic block of votes.
> 
> Some day a third party will gain some traction, but I think it's going to hurt both parties equally, both in the sense that it will probably seek to steal the center, and that all of a sudden you won't have to vote for one or the other to vote against the one with whose platform you disagree.


I strongly disagree I see that just the opposite with the exception of Liberman.

The Dems vote precisely the same unless they are up for 
re-election. The republicans have a large number of Rhinos that routinely vote agaisnt the party Chick hagel, olivia snow ect


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

Well, what about Zell Miller? What about all the moderates that the Democrates elected in '06, like Tester, Casey, and Webb (and that's just the Senate seats)? What about the Blue Dogs? There's a lot bigger difference between a Kucinich and a Collin Peterson, than there is between Chuck Hagel and Tom Coburn (who's as fiscally conservative as they come). There's a marked difference between urban and rural Democrats. I just don't see anything that definitive in the Republican party.

NOBODY defied Tom Delay... they didn't call that guy "The Hammer" for no reason. Do you think really think Hoyer wields anywhere NEAR that much power?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Today, a Democrat is a Liberal and a Republican is a Democrat. Here is the proof. There are about 52 Democrats in the Senate today. They are all Liberals. They hardly ever vote with the Republicans on a Republican issue. There are about 48 Republicans in the Senate today and only 33 are Republicans. The other 15 are Republican Rhinos. Liberals in disguise. Even if there were 55 Republicans in the Senate today and 45 Democrats, 15 Republicans Rhinos would vote with the Democrats for a total of 45+15= 60 to keep a clean conservative bill from obtaining cloture to bring the bill to the floor. The Republicans had a majority in the late 90's and you saw what happened!? They could not pass a bill without all kinds of Liberal spending amendments attached.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Bobm said:


> ...They could not pass a bill without all kinds of Liberal spending amendments attached.


Bob, I am curious...what % do these liberal spending amendments contribute to the overall budget?


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Bobm said:


> Today, a Democrat is a Liberal and a Republican is a Democrat. Here is the proof. There are about 52 Democrats in the Senate today. They are all Liberals. They hardly ever vote with the Republicans on a Republican issue. There are about 48 Republicans in the Senate today and only 33 are Republicans. The other 15 are Republican Rhinos. Liberals in disguise. Even if there were 55 Republicans in the Senate today and 45 Democrats, 15 Republicans Rhinos would vote with the Democrats for a total of 45+15= 60 to keep a clean conservative bill from obtaining cloture to bring the bill to the floor. The Republicans had a majority in the late 90's and you saw what happened!? They could not pass a bill without all kinds of Liberal spending amendments attached.


Yes but what are RINO's really? I think that is sorta what the article is driving at. There is really an underswelling of support for a 3rd party that refuses to go so hard to the right.

I think given that definition, I'm a RINO. At least I would be if I were elected to office.

I will not support the agenda of the ultra conservatives. I have strong feelings about certain issues that I won't budge on, that definitely don't sit well with the ultra conservative agenda. It seems to me that those folks called rinos are just like me?

So the question becomes, can the Republicans organize and bring the party more moderate and stay that way, or will several fringe radically conservative groups (many religous) insist on imposing their dogma on the Republican Party and continue dividing the party loyalty?

I'm not so sure that Rhinos aren't more mainstream to the minds of many who cal themselves Republicans (the general public), and the ultra conservatives needed to come up with a way to minimalize them, and gave them a name like RINO when they didn't fall in line and vote the party line.

Seems to me like the radical right needs to fall in line and tone down their rhetoric for party unity?

Maybe it is just me..

It doesn't really matter (the whole RINO thing), as the Senate is likely to have 59 or 60 Dems in a few weeks, and there will be enough fence sitting RINO's too that want to see progress in certain areas, that they will easily have a filibuster proof majority anytime they need it.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

We obviously disagree about who's got the bigger tent, but I see that as part of why the Republicans will continue to be just as important. You see Democrats as a big, monolithic voting block, and I bet that's a fairly common opinion. I think the Republicans will always be able to unite as an opposition party, because enough people are worried about being steamrolled by a giant, unified Democratic party.

I don't like partisanship, but I don't know if there's a way around it, when just about the only the thing that unifies members of both parties is a distrust of the opposing party. The partisanship makes solving big problems nearly impossible, so they just keep kicking the can farther down the road.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I do like partisanship and think its necessary and a good thing thats what parties are for and thats the rub the republicans cannot control votes like the Dems.

If you are a member of a party you should support its platform and work to bring it to play, Rinos do not, yet the republicans in a desire to have a majority just once in my lifetime were willing to let the enemy in.

The problem with this conversation is people identify republicans in congress with conservatives ...They are not at this point in history.

The other problem is Democrats in congress are so far left they are running an actaul marxist for President and have two of the most left wing kooks Pelosi and Reid running both houses. The democrats used to have many conservatives in it in fact their adjenda was similar to what the republicans now claim to support but never quite seem to really stand up for when challenged today.

This country craves leadership and we all no matter what side of things we are on politically can see its not available in either current candidate.

The vast majority of the people that vote for Democrats have little in common with the current Dems in power, they just dont understand the real facts about their adjenda because the Dems cannot really be truthful about their adjenda and get elected.

The country leans center right in every legitimate poll. Most Dems are consevative in their lives. Religion, gun, border enforcement ect are all things they would support. the list is long.

The problem is our media is corrupt and very dishonestly biased, and will continue to drive the adjenda, most are socialists, and I believve they don't even know it .

Socialism has failed every time its been tried, yet the socialist communists always like the true zealots they are will continue to claim if they could just tweak it a little more they could make it work.

Nothing that defies human nature ever is successful.
Caitalism has provided a higher standard of living for everyone in any nation it exists, our poor are socialist countries upper middle class. Yet we currently are about to have three unquestionably marxist politicians running this country.

I dont know that the answer is but its going to be a very bad thing for the country if Obama gets elected at least in the short term, probably two years of him Pelosi and Reid will have things so screwed up that it once again swing the other way.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

You can't both expect everybody under the party umbrella to agree 100% of the time and expect to have a viable number of members. The Republican party isn't the same one that nominated Goldwater. They're both farther right socially, and farther left fiscally. Both parties have watered themselves down in order to be able to oppose the other party.

Partisanship is a CANCER. That's what prevents reasoned, middle-of-the-road solutions to complex problems. It's the partisan ideologues that keep it from happening. That results in bad solutions because the problem has gotten to crisis level, and the solution is rash and expensive.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

bi-partisanship as defined by Democrats in congress today is a cancer, a one way compromise to rationalize something usaully uncontitutional that we non socialists oppose


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

omegax said:


> The Republican party isn't the same one that nominated Goldwater. They're both farther right socially, and farther left fiscally. Both parties have watered themselves down in order to be able to oppose the other party.
> 
> Partisanship is a CANCER. That's what prevents reasoned, middle-of-the-road solutions to complex problems. It's the partisan ideologues that keep it from happening. That results in bad solutions because the problem has gotten to crisis level, and the solution is rash and expensive.


EXCELLENT point omegamax!


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

Small number of tidbits from NBRA, (link source at the end).



> The Democratic Party Today
> ● Democrats are liberals who have been running black communities for the past 40 years with socialist policies that have turned black communities into economic and social wastelands. Black Democrat Juan Williams exposed the deplorable conditions in black communities in his book "Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-end Movements and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America."





> ● Democrats oppose programs that will help blacks get out of poverty, such as the Faith-based Initiative that would put church-based social programs on an equal footing with secular groups when competing for federal grants. Democrats oppose school choice scholarships that would help black children get out of failing schools. Democrats oppose Social Security reform even though blacks lose $10,000 in the current system because blacks have a five-year shorter life expectancy. Democrats favor same-sex marriage and partial-birth abortion.





> The Republican Party Today
> ● Since the War on Poverty of the 1960's, over $7 trillion has been spent on poverty programs. Under President George W. Bush, record money has been spent on education, job training and health care. Over $1.4 billion has been spent for overall education - a record 137% increase, and $13.1 billion was spent for the No Child Left Behind Act. Bush has also spent $18.8 million for Historically Black Colleges, $24 billion for small business loans and grants, and $10 billion for Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance for the poor. Since 2001,
> access to free community health centers has been extended to 2.2 million poor people. In May 2003, Bush provided $15 billion, three times more money than President Bill Clinton, to fight AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean.
> 
> ...


Amazing ain't it? :wink: 
See what the major networks don't want you to know.

This is just a start for more info see:
http://www.nbra.info/
(National Black Republicans Association)

While you are at the site look at the link titled "Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Was a Republican "


----------

