How do you fix the GOP?

[nuclearfm]

The Democrats cleaned the GOP's clock with minority voters last Fall, as nearly 95% of all Blacks cast their votes for The Beige One. While this sounds amazing, it's more or less in line with the percentage (90 or so) that the typical Democratic Presidential candidate pulls. Simply put, the Dems can more or less roll out any ole' mediocre dude (ie: Dukakis) and automatically count on getting a large majority of Black votes. Many say this is unwise since it leads to an "all eggs in one basket" situation. Still, it's little surprise that the GOP didn't even make a token push for the minority vote last year. And it's little surprise that this cost them.

Not that Black Americans are alone. A new Washington Post/ABC news poll says only 21 percent of people polled identified themselves as Republicans, down from 25 percent in a late March poll and at the lowest ebb in this poll since the fall of 1983. In that same poll, 35 percent self-identified as Democrats and 38 percent called them Independents. In other words, the Black vote is the least of the GOP's problems.

I'm an unaffiliated voter, but I can't personally ever see myself voting for a Republican President. Governors? Done it. State Senators? Done it. County Execs? Not yet, but if they could pave streets better, I'd do it. But President? Sorry, just can't bring myself to make that call. Yet.

It's often said that Black folks, Hispanics (and many others) are perhaps the most Conservative people in America on social issues. From gay marriage, to abortion, to right to free speech. And like most Americans, I doubt these groups like higher taxes or wasteful spending. Strictly on GP, it would seem like the GOP's message should be good enough to pull at least 50% of the minority vote.

So what's the problem? It ain't the message, it's the messengers.

Simply put, it's a lot more palatable to vote for someone who believes in half the stuff you do and treats you with some modicum of respect than it is to vote for someone who believes in half the stuff you do, yet treats you like the scum of the Earth.

Here's how the GOP's messengers screw up its message.

Political Ads - When it all comes down to it, the GOP would rather lapse into "Us vs Them" style of racial politricks than try and engage voters respectfully. Why the hell would you vote for someone who tries to pull a fast one like this? Witness the infamous Willie Horton Ad.

EC9j6Wfdq3o

D-Bag Pundits - The GOP allows talking heads to run roughshod and talk all sorts of greasy about non-whites. Nobody ever puts these fools in check, so it's not unreasonably to assume these folks "speak for the party" to some degree. Do they think Black folks can't find the EIB Radio Network?
tiLVTzljOjA

D-Bag GOP Politicians - How come everything something racist pops up, the politician of note is almost always Republican? Fellas, get beyond Tamron Hall and watch this.
vEm_R4TjMjQ

D-Bag Republican Voters - Who could forget this guy? Yes, we know people like this exist on both sides of the aisle. But the problem is, how come out of the hundreds of other folks at this rally, nobody pulled this fella aside and said "hey, that might not be a good idea"? By simply standing aside (and laughing), they do little to quell the sentiment that the GOP isn't welcoming people of color. Why would anyone in their right mind want to walk into such a rally?
Bky2SGrmC8g


In the interest of fairness, we all know that Hilary Clinton arguably ran a more racially tinged race vs Obama last Fall. And yes, the Democratic Party has its own issues. The difference is, the Dems have enough people in house (ie: Jim Clyburn) to call out such nonsense when it happens. The GOP does no such self-policing. In fact, you could argue that it more or less fans the flames by either claiming reverse racism (WTH?), or doing nothing at all.

Again, the sad thing is, everyone need two viable parties to pick and choose from. This keeps both major parties on their feet. But when one party is so outwardly hostile, and doesn't appear to give a sh*t who gets offended in the process, it makes the decision for whom to vote so much easier. And that's a shame.

Question: If the GOP changed its messengers, do you think you'd be more receptive to their message? Does the GOP even have a genuine interest in doing so, or are they perfectly content/oblivious about their imminent extinction in a continually browning America?

[DarrinS]

http://dontgosouth.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/obsession1.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

I agree republicans voters are turning away from republican candidates. They are increasingly staying home and not voting, or voting third party. I believe the reason is because the republicans are moving more and more to the left as time goes by.

[101A]

Damn, you're right. I've seen the light!

Republicans should be JUST like Democrats. The Dems, after all, have done SO much with their utter dominance of the houses of congress since WWII to help disadvantaged minorities. They've improved their education scores, their socio-economic status en masse - their poverty, illiteracy and illegitamacy rates have gone down with all of the liberal programs designed to help them! It's worked, why can't the Rebublicans just see this? Hell, Robert Byrd saw the light, didn't he? I mean he as a Grand fucking Dragon of the KKK - but he didn't become a Republican; he's a Democrat; he changed his ways, and saw the light. It's not like with his leanings he would join a party designed to keep the minorities in their place, dutifully pulling the lever at a 95% clip for an agenda that keeps them mired in poverty and subservience! No, follow the Democrats - they'll lead to the promised land!

[nuclearfm]

I agree republicans voters are turning away from republican candidates. They are increasingly staying home and not voting, or voting third party. I believe the reason is because the republicans are moving more and more to the left as time goes by.

Keep telling yourself that. People like John McCain was a more than decent candidate, bad timing being affiliated with a bad party. I'm willing to bet you think he's a liberal.

[jman3000]

On Hannity's radio show yesterday a black man called in and said that in order for the GOP to win over black's, they should make Rush Limbaugh their figure head because they love him.

I honestly don't know if he was being facetious or not... but Hannity actually asked him if he was being sincere before discussing it further.

[nuclearfm]

Damn, you're right. I've seen the light!

Republicans should be JUST like Democrats. The Dems, after all, have done SO much with their utter dominance of the houses of congress since WWII to help disadvantaged minorities. They've improved their education scores, their socio-economic status en masse - their poverty, illiteracy and illegitamacy rates have gone down with all of the liberal programs designed to help them! It's worked, why can't the Rebublicans just see this? Hell, Robert Byrd saw the light, didn't he? I mean he as a Grand fucking Dragon of the KKK - but he didn't become a Republican; he's a Democrat; he changed his ways, and saw the light. It's not like with his leanings he would join a party designed to keep the minorities in their place, dutifully pulling the lever at a 95% clip for an agenda that keeps them mired in poverty and subservience! No, follow the Democrats - they'll lead to the promised land!

Oh geeze. He's also an pre-civil rights era Democrat. Learn your history. I bet you know such things but are conveniently ignoring it.

[101A]

Oh geeze. He's also an pre-civil rights era Democrat. Learn your history. I bet you know such things but are conveniently ignoring it.

I bet you realize just how racist most Democratic politicans are, but just conveniently ignore it.

You think the Dems. plan to keep down the minorities began AFTER LBJ?

[jman3000]

Most laws put into effect by Democrats have been largely symbolic and not of real substance in regards to race... but let's not pretend that Republicans are some minority friendly entity though.

[nuclearfm]

I bet you realize just how racist most Democratic politicans are, but just conveniently ignore it.

You think the Dems. plan to keep down the minorities began AFTER LBJ?

I think both parties have been in contempt. However one ignores it and often encourages it, the other makes note of it and how wrong it is. I'll let your own bias conclude that.

Making note of wrongs can go a long way.

[101A]

I think both parties have been in contempt. However one ignores it and often encourages it, the other makes note of it and how wrong it is. I'll let your own bias conclude that.

Making note of wrongs can go a long way.

I think it is wrong for policies of the United States government to encourage the destruction of the family; when those policies, in turn, result in an alarming increase in illegitimacy among a specific race, beyond others, I think we ought to make note of it, and even do something about it. If someone, however, makes note of it; they are shouted down as racist.

You're about the most cliche riddled, closed minded person who claims open-mindedness I've seen on this board in a while.

[jack sommerset]

Does anyone here think the GOP won't win back congress in 2010?

[jman3000]

Does anyone here think the GOP won't win back congress in 2010?

They won't. Too many seats to make up.

They'll make a sizable dent, especially in the South / Midwest... but no way they make up that many seats in one go.

I'm sure they can get the D's Senate seats down a couple pegs though.

[LnGrrrR]

Does anyone here think the GOP won't win back congress in 2010?

Are you talking Senate or House? And are you talking about a majority? I still think that Dems will control both House and Senate, but I'm sure they will lose some numbers.

[rjv]

I think it is wrong for policies of the United States government to encourage the destruction of the family; when those policies, in turn, result in an alarming increase in illegitimacy among a specific race, beyond others, I think we ought to make note of it, and even do something about it. If someone, however, makes note of it; they are shouted down as racist.

You're about the most cliche riddled, closed minded person who claims open-mindedness I've seen on this board in a while.

rush limbaugh is not shouted down as racist because he opposes a welfare state. he is accused of being prejudicial because of the manner in which he states his arguments and because of his race baiting tactics.

[101A]

Does anyone here think the GOP won't win back congress in 2010?


I think they'll pick up a bunch of seats, but fall short of control; too much ground to make up, AND too many conservatives disillusioned with them and pissed off - third party candidates will temper Republican gains, IMO.


Hell, I don't want Republicans back if it means the same tired leadership as before! Look what their control got us!!

Obama, Pelosi AND Reid!!

Republican control is the best thing that ever happened to the Democrats!

[nuclearfm]

I think it is wrong for policies of the United States government to encourage the destruction of the family; when those policies, in turn, result in an alarming increase in illegitimacy among a specific race, beyond others, I think we ought to make note of it, and even do something about it. If someone, however, makes note of it; they are shouted down as racist.

You're about the most cliche riddled, closed minded person who claims open-mindedness I've seen on this board in a while.

I think the policies you are questioning are debatable. But I would agree that some may encourage that. I've framed the similiar arguments and have not been called a racist. I'd try reframing yoru argument.

I am strongly against the primary actions of planned parenthood, if that's what you are getting at. I'm not at all closed minded. It's called talking about reality.

[jman3000]

2012 is a different animal. If the economy is better, if we're out of the banking industry / auto industry, and Obama's foreign policy pans out, then the D's might win some of those back.

If the above doesn't happen, then yes, the R's might get it even or take over by 2012.

[nuclearfm]

I think they'll pick up a bunch of seats, but fall short of control; too much ground to make up, AND too many conservatives disillusioned with them and pissed off - third party candidates will temper Republican gains, IMO.


Hell, I don't want Republicans back if it means the same tired leadership as before! Look what their control got us!!

Obama, Pelosi AND Reid!!

Republican control is the best thing that ever happened to the Democrats!

I'm hoping the Objectivist party grabs some house seats. It'll be a nice new voice of input.

[101A]

rush limbaugh is not shouted down as racist because he opposes a welfare state. he is accused of being prejudicial because of the manner in which he states his arguments and because of his race baiting tactics.


I was not speaking of Rush specifically; when was the last time a politician had the balls to stand up and make a reasoned argument against the Welfare state? Republicans who vote against measures that expand it are said to be "ignoring black (or minority) issues". Just like Republicans (or Democrats) who want to build a fence, or not grant amnesty too illegal aliens are said to be against issues important to Latinos - and racist.

After reading your post I went back and listened to the entirity of the Limbaugh link above. What, exactly, does he say that is racist? The poster who posted it said that that link PROVED he was a racist. I say he simply touched on taboo subjects, but didn't say anythign "racist" - he didn't claim black people are genetically inferior, or could not succeed because of their race; he said they are being held down and sold out by the very people who are their champions. If I missed something, tell me what it is; give me the time stamp.

[jack sommerset]

Are you talking Senate or House? And are you talking about a majority? I still think that Dems will control both House and Senate, but I'm sure they will lose some numbers.

They will lose one of them. Not sure which one. I wouldn't be surprised if they lose both. Time will tell.

[101A]

I think the policies you are questioning are debatable. But I would agree that some may encourage that. I've framed the similiar arguments and have not been called a racist. I'd try reframing yoru argument.

I'm not called a racist, but then again neither I, nor you, have a national spotlight in which to trumpet our message...we post on internet discussion boards; not a threat to pretty much anyone.


I am strongly against the primary actions of planned parenthood, if that's what you are getting at. I'm not at all closed minded. It's called talking about reality.

Fair enough. I apologize.

[DarrinS]

How do you fix the GOP?


They definitely need better marketing. But the dems will give them plenty of material over the next few years.

[coyotes_geek]

JMO, but if the republicans want to get back in power any time soon their only chance is to quit bitching about every little thing Obama does and focus 100% of their attention to pushing the fiscal conservative agenda. Just hammer the point over and over and over that we can't afford to be spending all this money. Now given Bush's liberal spending and your support of the bailouts you're going to have a hard time being taken seriously. Unfortunately that's the price you're going to have to pay. The message should be one of acknowledging that mistakes were made, the bailouts were necessary, but now it's time to cut spending and start acting responsibly.

Quit bitching about czars, quit bitching about speeches to school kids, quit fueling a bunch of hysteria. Quit doing it because all it's doing is making people think you're one new welfare bill away from drinking the Heaven's Gate cool-aid to escape the earthly shackles of muslim socialists.

Republicans also need to realize that the social side of the conservative agenda isn't getting them anywhere. If you want to be the party of small government then you've got to realize that includes keeping government out of people's social lives. That doesn't mean that you have to suddenly become pro-choice and support gay marriage. But at least recognize that advocating having the federal government legislate your beliefs onto others is going to drive people away. Your only way out is to push those issues as states rights decisions. That's consistent with a small government theme and at that level do whatever makes you happy.

Fourth point, never utter the phrase "family values" again. Family values is not an issue. it's nothing more than a catch phrase that makes you come across as smug and arrogant by believing that you have some kind of superior claim to moral rightousness over someone who disagrees with you politically. Plus it makes you look like a bunch of hypocrites when one of your red team elected officials has an affair. And make no mistake, they have affairs just as offen as blue team officials do.

Last point, your marketing campaign sucks. You've got to find a way to change the perception that you're just the party of angry white guys.

[coyotes_geek]

Does anyone here think the GOP won't win back congress in 2010?

They won't win back control, but they'll make up some ground.

[nuclearfm]

jmo, but if the republicans want to get back in power any time soon their only chance is to quit bitching about every little thing obama does and focus 100% of their attention to pushing the fiscal conservative agenda. Just hammer the point over and over and over that we can't afford to be spending all this money. Now given bush's liberal spending and your support of the bailouts you're going to have a hard time being taken seriously. Unfortunately that's the price you're going to have to pay. The message should be one of acknowledging that mistakes were made, the bailouts were necessary, but now it's time to cut spending and start acting responsibly.

Quit bitching about czars, quit bitching about speeches to school kids, quit fueling a bunch of hysteria. Quit doing it because all it's doing is making people think you're one new welfare bill away from drinking the heaven's gate cool-aid to escape the earthly shackles of muslim socialists.

Republicans also need to realize that the social side of the conservative agenda isn't getting them anywhere. If you want to be the party of small government then you've got to realize that includes keeping government out of people's social lives. That doesn't mean that you have to suddenly become pro-choice and support gay marriage. But at least recognize that advocating having the federal government legislate your beliefs onto others is going to drive people away. Your only way out is to push those issues as states rights decisions. That's consistent with a small government theme and at that level do whatever makes you happy.

Fourth point, never utter the phrase "family values" again. Family values is not an issue. It's nothing more than a catch phrase that makes you come across as smug and arrogant by believing that you have some kind of superior claim to moral rightousness over someone who disagrees with you politically. Plus it makes you look like a bunch of hypocrites when one of your red team elected officials has an affair. And make no mistake, they have affairs just as offen as blue team officials do.

Last point, your marketing campaign sucks. You've got to find a way to change the perception that you're just the party of angry white guys.

a+

[jack sommerset]

2012 is a different animal. If the economy is better, if we're out of the banking industry / auto industry, and Obama's foreign policy pans out, then the D's might win some of those back.

If the above doesn't happen, then yes, the R's might get it even or take over by 2012.

Won't happen until taxes are lowered and Obama stops spending money. And that won't happen. It really is that simple. Foreign policies. Telling everyone you are sorry is ridiculous. BUT he has not dug himself too deep he can't help there. One of those houses are going to the GOP. No way Obama gets re-elected.

[coyotes_geek]

Republican control is the best thing that ever happened to the Democrats!

Pretty much. The democrats did a masterful job of saying "Bush sucks" while silently going along with pretty much everything Bush wanted to do. Which of course only gave them more ammo to use against him and the republicans.

[jack sommerset]

How do you fix the GOP?


They definitely need better marketing. But the dems will give them plenty of material over the next few years.

The sad thing is the dems have not figured out they are the ones making the GOP look better.

[101A]

JMO, but if the republicans want to get back in power any time soon their only chance is to quit bitching about every little thing Obama does and focus 100% of their attention to pushing the fiscal conservative agenda. Just hammer the point over and over and over that we can't afford to be spending all this money. Now given Bush's liberal spending and your support of the bailouts you're going to have a hard time being taken seriously. Unfortunately that's the price you're going to have to pay. The message should be one of acknowledging that mistakes were made, the bailouts were necessary, but now it's time to cut spending and start acting responsibly.

Quit bitching about czars, quit bitching about speeches to school kids, quit fueling a bunch of hysteria. Quit doing it because all it's doing is making people think you're one new welfare bill away from drinking the Heaven's Gate cool-aid to escape the earthly shackles of muslim socialists.

Republicans also need to realize that the social side of the conservative agenda isn't getting them anywhere. If you want to be the party of small government then you've got to realize that includes keeping government out of people's social lives. That doesn't mean that you have to suddenly become pro-choice and support gay marriage. But at least recognize that advocating having the federal government legislate your beliefs onto others is going to drive people away. Your only way out is to push those issues as states rights decisions. That's consistent with a small government theme and at that level do whatever makes you happy.

Fourth point, never utter the phrase "family values" again. Family values is not an issue. it's nothing more than a catch phrase that makes you come across as smug and arrogant by believing that you have some kind of superior claim to moral rightousness over someone who disagrees with you politically. Plus it makes you look like a bunch of hypocrites when one of your red team elected officials has an affair. And make no mistake, they have affairs just as offen as blue team officials do.

Last point, your marketing campaign sucks. You've got to find a way to change the perception that you're just the party of angry white guys.


Nice.

[doobs]

- Stop nominating tired old men because it's "their turn."
- Simplify the platform. Stick to low taxes, spending restraint, and free enterprise.
- Keep promises, no matter who's in power.

Oh, and never get caught looking things up on a white nationalist website. That would probably be a bad thing, right?

[nuclearfm]

Won't happen until taxes are lowered and Obama stops spending money. And that won't happen. It really is that simple. Foreign policies. Telling everyone you are sorry is ridiculous. BUT he has not dug himself too deep he can't help there. One of those houses are going to the GOP. No way Obama gets re-elected.

Right now that's how it looks. The same thing occurs with many past presidents... BushII, Clinton (not so much Reagan). The one president who didn't take mush heat in the past 2 decades his first year was Bush1 and when the heat finally came, it was overwhelming. This criticism is going to have to remain high for that to happen.

[hope4dopes]

:lol
http://dontgosouth.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/obsession1.jpg

[SpurNation]

CG...ever thought about running for office? Your points are Spot On.

[hope4dopes]

Somebody throw nookuler a life vest.

[boutons_deux]

"republicans are moving more and more to the left"

:lol :lol :lol

The Repugs are so deep off the right end and in the fatal bear-hug of "Christian" racist supremacists that the Repugs are targeting their own moderate and moderate-right for replacement.

The ONLY region where the Repugs poll above the Dems is in the racist/"Christian" South.

[101A]

- Stop nominating tired old men because it's "their turn."
- Simplify the platform. Stick to low taxes, spending restraint, and free enterprise.
- Keep promises, no matter who's in power.

Oh, and never get caught looking things up on a white nationalist website. That would probably be a bad thing, right?

Who isn't a tired old man in the GOP these days?

For Obama NOT to get re-elected SOMEONE is going to have to run against him; a tired old man won't beat him, IMO (though POTUS is looking more and more old and tired by the day his own self). Hell, the ONLY reason W got reelected was because the Dems put up such a lame ass as the other choice.

[101A]

CG...ever thought about running for office? Your points are Spot On.

When did that become a prerequisite?

[nuclearfm]

Pretty much. The democrats did a masterful job of saying "Bush sucks" while silently going along with pretty much everything Bush wanted to do. Which of course only gave them more ammo to use against him and the republicans.

Yup they did. But in all honesty, Bush was terrible. It got to the point Many Libertarian based groups opposed him and advocated Democrats.


The most urgent political task now is to topple the Republicans from power, if possible in the House and the Senate. This entails voting consistently Democratic, even if the opponent is a “good” Republican.

-Leonard Peikoff

[doobs]

How do you fix the GOP?


They definitely need better marketing. But the dems will give them plenty of material over the next few years.

You gotta wonder what the Republicans out there are cataloging and stockpiling to use against Obama and the Democrats, like gaffes and stupid remarks and questionable associations. With all of Obama's speechifying and such, I think there will be some deliciously entertaining political ads in 2010.

[doobs]

Who isn't a tired old man in the GOP these days?

For Obama NOT to get re-elected SOMEONE is going to have to run against him; a tired old man won't beat him, IMO (though POTUS is looking more and more old and tired by the day his own self). Hell, the ONLY reason W got reelected was because the Dems put up such a lame ass as the other choice.

Yeah, but the Republicans seem to have a special affinity for tired old men. It's like they're thinking, hey, Reagan was old, why not nominated someone who's even older?

[SpurNation]

I think party titles should be outlawed and eliminated from politics all together.



"Hello my name is ___________, I'm a candidate for office. Here's my views. Please vote for me in November."

[angrydude]

not betraying the voters trust when they do get elected would be a good start.

Stopping the fixation with dead topics such as abortion as a litmus test for candidates would be another. but that's never going to happen.

[coyotes_geek]

CG...ever thought about running for office? Your points are Spot On.

Nope. If I got into politics I'd be the one drinking the heaven's gate cool-aid.

Thanks for the compliment though.

[rjv]

After reading your post I went back and listened to the entirity of the Limbaugh link above. What, exactly, does he say that is racist? The poster who posted it said that that link PROVED he was a racist. I say he simply touched on taboo subjects, but didn't say anythign "racist" - he didn't claim black people are genetically inferior, or could not succeed because of their race; he said they are being held down and sold out by the very people who are their champions. If I missed something, tell me what it is; give me the time stamp.

i think you should reread my post one more time before making that request regarding the video on this thread. my comments in no way indicated that the comments in that specific video were racist.

[rjv]

the GOP has never really been fiscally conservative. they just spend their money on different things. pick your expenditure: after school programs or a star wars missile defense system.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I want ot help the GOP purge all of the moderates out of thier party. Where do I sign up for the purging?

[DarrinS]

Pelosi
Reid
Dodd
Waxman
Rangel
Boxer
Byrd
Durbin
Barney Frank
Schumer


But it's the GOP that needs fixing?

:lol


These people will help the GOP significantly.

[nuclearfm]

Pelosi
Reid
Dodd
Waxman
Rangel
Boxer
Byrd
Durbin
Barney Frank
Schumer


But it's the GOP that needs fixing?

:lol


These people will help the GOP significantly.

You know, I agree with a lot of those. However, Barney Frank isn't exactly partisan hack. People ignore a lot of his intellectual honesty and focus on his lisp.

tLig0eQ6b4Y

[DarrinS]

You know, I agree with a lot of those. However, Barney Frank isn't exactly partisan hack. People ignore a lot of his intellectual honesty and focus on his lisp.

tLig0eQ6b4Y


At least Frank doesn't try to defend ACORN like 99% of libs on this board do. Bill O is such a smug SOB in that video, but it's funny.

[nuclearfm]

At least Frank doesn't try to defend ACORN like 99% of libs on this board do. Bill O is such a smug SOB in that video, but it's funny.

99% of the libs? :lol

Makes things easier to group all non nutjobs together doesn't it?

[hope4dopes]

I like the idea of a party that would push a states right agenda and gut the federal goverment. I don't think the repubs will do it I know the dems won't.

[angrydude]

I like the idea of a party that would push a states right agenda and gut the federal goverment. I don't think the repubs will do it I know the dems won't.

I'd settle for sound money at this point.

[spurster]

There are a few things that would greatly improve the GOP:

1) Fiscal conservatism. Actually put forward a realistic plan that balances the budget, even if that means increased taxes here and there. Sorry, realistic at this point does not mean eliminating SS or Medicare or Medicaid. Also, blindly cutting taxes to increase the federal debt is not fiscal conservatism.

2) Fairness in the marketplace. Actually be for regular citizens rather than big business. The GOP social agenda was a way to appeal to many of us without sacrificing their kowtowing to giving big business the right to gouge us. The GOP's positions on curtailing credit/debit card usury and improving student loans are not helping.

3) Environmental conservatism. Actually be for the environment instead of pollution and global warming. I am not sure why the global warming skeptics want to play Russian roulette with the climate.

I don't think any of the above conflicts with being conservative.

[SpurNation]

Backing a consumption tax in place of an income tax would do a lot for distancing the GOP from perceived corporate servitude by the party.

[spursncowboys]

There is nothing better than listening to libs ask and talk about how to fix the republican party. Of course they want repubs to go left, thats when they win. It seems all the repubs have to do is sit and watch the libs jack everything up. All the repubs have to do is run conservatives against the blue dogs. Then the usual battles and they got majority by 2012. The Conservatives need to move the primaries out of iowa and NH lastly. These two have no business being the most influential states in the process. Make Ohio, Virginia, and Texas the first three.

[spursncowboys]

There are a few things that would greatly improve the GOP:

1) Fiscal conservatism. Actually put forward a realistic plan that balances the budget, even if that means increased taxes here and there. Sorry, realistic at this point does not mean eliminating SS or Medicare or Medicaid. Also, blindly cutting taxes to increase the federal debt is not fiscal conservatism.

2) Fairness in the marketplace. Actually be for regular citizens rather than big business. The GOP social agenda was a way to appeal to many of us without sacrificing their kowtowing to giving big business the right to gouge us. The GOP's positions on curtailing credit/debit card usury and improving student loans are not helping.

3) Environmental conservatism. Actually be for the environment instead of pollution and global warming. I am not sure why the global warming skeptics want to play Russian roulette with the climate.

I don't think any of the above conflicts with being conservative.
The first two are spot on. The Environmental thing is still unproven.Many people believe global warming to be a hoax.

[Gino]

The majority of American's are more conservative than liberal (this was also poven by a recent poll).

I dont appreciate the south's view on most social issues, but Republicans (specifically Ronald Reagan) won the "is government good or bad" debate a LONG time ago. If the Dems tried to institute any type of real socialism, mainstream America would kill it in the blink of an eye.

The GOP will be fine. Obama's doing most of their work for them. America likes its celebrities, but they love their leaders. Reagan, JFK, Roosevelt etc.

Obama is not a leader. He has no clue what to do and it shows.

[jack sommerset]

I want ot help the GOP purge all of the moderates out of thier party. Where do I sign up for the purging?

:lol You are helping the GOP doing exactly what you have been doing. Keep up the good work!

[spurster]

Global warming is not a "liberal" position. Part of the problem with the GOP is claiming that science they don't like is "liberal". The reason the GOP sides with the global warming skeptics is because big polluting businesses want to keep their polluting business model going as long as they can.

[nuclearfm]

Global warming is not a "liberal" position. Part of the problem with the GOP is claiming that science they don't like is "liberal". The reason the GOP sides with the global warming skeptics is because big polluting businesses want to keep their polluting business model going as long as they can.

Yup, it's not so much as Global warming as it is pollution being the issue. We need to stop putting crap in our air and water. Any time I pass near a industrial facility out in East TX I gag. It's literally sickening. A lot of things are deep in the ground for a reason.

[101A]

Global warming is not a "liberal" position.

I'll give you that.

It's an ignorant, dangerous position.

Today I read that the melting of the Antarctic Ice sheet is going to cause sea levels to rise. These sheets have no land under them; solid ice; with Sea, ostensibly, below. If the ice is "floating" on the water, when it melts it WILL NOT cause the sea levl to rise, right? I mean, when my ice melts in my ice tea glass, the water doesn't run over. Somebody 'splain.

[nuclearfm]

I'll give you that.

It's an ignorant, dangerous position.

Today I read that the melting of the Antarctic Ice sheet is going to cause sea levels to rise. These sheets have no land under them; solid ice; with Sea, ostensibly, below. If the ice is "floating" on the water, when it melts it WILL NOT cause the sea levl to rise, right? I mean, when my ice melts in my ice tea glass, the water doesn't run over. Somebody 'splain.

Yeah, that is pretty wrong, it shouldn;t change. Are you sure they weren't referring to places with land? Irregardless of global warming or not, if a lot of the ice melts (on land) it will cause sea level to rise.

[spursncowboys]

There was a report that said although the sides of glaciers are melting, there are other glaciers that are getting thicker and bigger. Pollution is another thing. This should be a local or state issue. If a state like California wants to make pollution standards ridiculously high, then fine(this is a bad example becuz Cali cant run the state even slightly efficient.) and if Texas rather have more jobs then that should be good too. There should be a minimum level (or maximum level in this case) for pollution.

[nuclearfm]

There was a report that said although the sides of glaciers are melting, there are other glaciers that are getting thicker and bigger. Pollution is another thing. This should be a local or state issue. If a state like California wants to make pollution standards ridiculously high, then fine(this is a bad example becuz Cali cant run the state even slightly efficient.) and if Texas rather have more jobs then that should be good too. There should be a minimum level (or maximum level in this case) for pollution.

What? Pollution control makes no sense (especially in small states) if it's not enforced completely. We have the EPA for a reason.

[DarrinS]

Global warming is not a "liberal" position. Part of the problem with the GOP is claiming that science they don't like is "liberal". The reason the GOP sides with the global warming skeptics is because big polluting businesses want to keep their polluting business model going as long as they can.



I don't think that global warming is a "liberal" position. I also don't think being skeptical of the "science" behind AGW is a "conservative" position.

If I put a flawed statistical analysis in a scientific journal and you point it out, does that mean you "dislike" my science? Or does it mean that my analysis is just flawed?

Likewise, if I publish the result of a calculation, say the sum of a column of numbers, and my decimal is in the wrong place, making my result wrong by a factor of ten, and you point this out to me, are you just disliking my science? Or, are you pointing out an error.

Both of these examples really occured in past IPCC reports. So, it's not that I dislike the concept of anthropogenic global warming, I just don't like flawed analyses.

[NoOptionB]

Let the country fall.

[spursncowboys]

COMMENTS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

By John Coleman

[email protected]

it is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM.

Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data back in the late 1990's to create an allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental wacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremist, notable politicians among them then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.

Now their ridicules manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party.

However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you "believe in." It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a nonevent, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won't believe me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.

I suspect you might like to say to me, "John, look the research that supports the case for global warming was done by research scientists; people with PH D's in Meteorology. They are employed by major universities and important research institutions. Their work has been reviewed by other scientists with PH D's. They have to know a lot more about it than you do. Come on, John, get with it. The experts say our pollution has created an strong and increasing greenhouse effect and a rapid, out of control global warming is underway that will sky rocket temperatures, destroy agriculture, melt the ice caps, flood the coastlines and end life as we know it. How can you dissent from this crisis? You must be a bit nutty.

Allow me, please, to explain how I think this all came about. Our universities have become somewhat isolated from the rest of us. There is a culture and attitudes and values and pressures on campus that are very different. I know this group well. My father and my older brother were both PHD-University types. I was raised in the university culture. Any person who spends a decade at a university obtaining a PHD in Meteorology and become a research scientist, more likely than not, becomes a part of that single minded culture. They all look askance at the rest of us, certain of their superiority. They respect government and disrespect business, particularly big business. They are environmentalists above all else.

And, there is something else. These scientists know that if they do research and results are in no way alarming, their research will gather dust on the shelf and their research careers will languish. But if they do research that sounds alarms, they will become well known and respected and receive scholarly awards and, very importantly, more research dollars will come flooding their way.

So when these researchers did climate change studies in the late 90's they were eager to produce findings that would be important and be widely noticed and trigger more research funding. It was easy for them to manipulate the data to come up with the results they wanted to make headlines and at the same time drive their environmental agendas. Then their like minded PHD colleagues reviewed their work and hastened to endorse it without question.

There were a few who didn't fit the mold. They did ask questions and raised objections. They did research with contradictory results. The environmental elitists berated them brushed their studies aside.

I have learned since the Ice Age is coming scare in the 1970's to always be a skeptic about research. In the case of global warming, I didn't accept media accounts. Instead I read dozens of the scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct when I assure you there is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. It is all a scam, the result of bad science.

I am not alone in this assessment. There are hundreds of other meteorologists, many of them PH D's, who are as certain as I am that this global warming frenzy is based on bad science and is not valid.

I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped.

The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway.

[nuclearfm]

COMMENTS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

By John Coleman

[email protected]

it is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM.

Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data back in the late 1990's to create an allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental wacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremist, notable politicians among them then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.

Now their ridicules manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party.

However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you "believe in." It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a nonevent, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won't believe me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.

I suspect you might like to say to me, "John, look the research that supports the case for global warming was done by research scientists; people with PH D's in Meteorology. They are employed by major universities and important research institutions. Their work has been reviewed by other scientists with PH D's. They have to know a lot more about it than you do. Come on, John, get with it. The experts say our pollution has created an strong and increasing greenhouse effect and a rapid, out of control global warming is underway that will sky rocket temperatures, destroy agriculture, melt the ice caps, flood the coastlines and end life as we know it. How can you dissent from this crisis? You must be a bit nutty.

Allow me, please, to explain how I think this all came about. Our universities have become somewhat isolated from the rest of us. There is a culture and attitudes and values and pressures on campus that are very different. I know this group well. My father and my older brother were both PHD-University types. I was raised in the university culture. Any person who spends a decade at a university obtaining a PHD in Meteorology and become a research scientist, more likely than not, becomes a part of that single minded culture. They all look askance at the rest of us, certain of their superiority. They respect government and disrespect business, particularly big business. They are environmentalists above all else.

And, there is something else. These scientists know that if they do research and results are in no way alarming, their research will gather dust on the shelf and their research careers will languish. But if they do research that sounds alarms, they will become well known and respected and receive scholarly awards and, very importantly, more research dollars will come flooding their way.

So when these researchers did climate change studies in the late 90's they were eager to produce findings that would be important and be widely noticed and trigger more research funding. It was easy for them to manipulate the data to come up with the results they wanted to make headlines and at the same time drive their environmental agendas. Then their like minded PHD colleagues reviewed their work and hastened to endorse it without question.

There were a few who didn't fit the mold. They did ask questions and raised objections. They did research with contradictory results. The environmental elitists berated them brushed their studies aside.

I have learned since the Ice Age is coming scare in the 1970's to always be a skeptic about research. In the case of global warming, I didn't accept media accounts. Instead I read dozens of the scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct when I assure you there is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. It is all a scam, the result of bad science.

I am not alone in this assessment. There are hundreds of other meteorologists, many of them PH D's, who are as certain as I am that this global warming frenzy is based on bad science and is not valid.

I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped.

The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway.


What a waste of an article and a life. Global warming is real. Whether it is significantly caused by us is debate able.

[hope4dopes]

There is nothing better than listening to libs ask and talk about how to fix the republican party. Of course they want repubs to go left, thats when they win. It seems all the repubs have to do is sit and watch the libs jack everything up. All the repubs have to do is run conservatives against the blue dogs. Then the usual battles and they got majority by 2012. The Conservatives need to move the primaries out of iowa and NH lastly. These two have no business being the most influential states in the process. Make Ohio, Virginia, and Texas the first three. Yes this is an interesting phenomena,and this isn't even the first second or third thread where leftists offer up their advice on how to "help" the republicans whereas I have never seen a thread on how conservatives think the DNC could be "helped". I don't know if they're so dillusional they can't percieve the irony,or they're so facisnated by their own brilliance they feel a need to share but it's kinda funny.

[hope4dopes]

What a waste of an article and a life. Global warming is real. Whether it is significantly caused by us is debate able.Unfortunately it is taboo to debate it,at least to any great extent.because of the political pressure a great many scientists voices are being silenced by this goverment, and by the U.N.
Scientific inquiry is not politacally correct, the people doing it are convinced it is for the good of the planet, but intelligent people want all the information not just what the U.N. allows them.This suppression of information makes people skeptical of what they hear, which is a shame because it is an issue that really needs to be discussed in an open and impartial way.

[hope4dopes]

There was a report that said although the sides of glaciers are melting, there are other glaciers that are getting thicker and bigger. Pollution is another thing. This should be a local or state issue. If a state like California wants to make pollution standards ridiculously high, then fine(this is a bad example becuz Cali cant run the state even slightly efficient.) and if Texas rather have more jobs then that should be good too. There should be a minimum level (or maximum level in this case) for pollution.
Well California does attempt to ship as much of their toxic garbage as they can to the poorer states to deal with, and barring that ship more of it into the third world to dispose of it's called "green for me and fuck you succa"
It's your basic rich liberal solution.Pretty soon the poor of california will be forced to ride buses, cause they won't be able to afford to drive,But they will get a tax break on bicycles.They've drained the eel river dry for the wine industry,but somehow I don't think the liberals of the Bay Area are going to give up good afforable chardonay for a bunch of stupid fish or spotted owls or anything else, well maybe for the mexican drug cartels growing pot in the national forests.

[spurster]

Global warming is not a "liberal" position.



It's an ignorant, dangerous position.


Ignoring scientists who are warning you of a large potential for disaster is an even more ignorant and dangerous position.

[baseline bum]

There was a report that said although the sides of glaciers are melting, there are other glaciers that are getting thicker and bigger. Pollution is another thing. This should be a local or state issue. If a state like California wants to make pollution standards ridiculously high, then fine(this is a bad example becuz Cali cant run the state even slightly efficient.) and if Texas rather have more jobs then that should be good too. There should be a minimum level (or maximum level in this case) for pollution.

I.e., citizen's rights to breathe clean air are superseded by those of a few who want to squeeze every single cent of profit possible, to hell with anyone else.

[baseline bum]

Ignoring scientists who are warning you of a large potential for disaster is an even more ignorant and dangerous position.

Science and religion are one and the same to lots of conservatives.

[Nbadan]

You start by getting a leader who disassociates the GOP from wing-nut radio....they are turning people away from the GOP...

[101A]

Yeah, that is pretty wrong, it shouldn;t change. Are you sure they weren't referring to places with land? Irregardless of global warming or not, if a lot of the ice melts (on land) it will cause sea level to rise.


Yes, the reporter got it wrong; some of what they were referring to was over Rock; so, I was wrong by extension.

[101A]

I.e., citizen's rights to breathe clean air are superseded by those of a few who want to squeeze every single cent of profit possible, to hell with anyone else.

CO2 is not pollution; and does not make the air "unclean".

[NoOptionB]

LOL, Look at them as they preach to you all about SCIENCE and religion. They, like the religious, also use selective observation to ignore facts that do not agree with their ideology.

You fools are getting so fucking duped it is hilarious. Even now. What a joke. Enjoy bowing at your altar of faux compassion ignorant Goreworship as you let Government gain more control over the masses.

I will be sure to go extra heavy on the V8 pedal today in your honor :toast

[Wild Cobra]

Does anyone here think the GOP won't win back congress in 2010?
I think there's a strong possibility they will. It is too early to tell though. I am confident they will if the democrats in congress continue doing what they have been these last few months. They are finally showing their true colors to the voters.

[Nbadan]

What true colors are those? Saving us from the Bush depression? and Financial meltdown?

Getting rid of torture prisons overseas?

Scaling back laws by the Bush administration that stomp over our constitution, something the GOP now wants to protect?

Wanting health-care for every freedom-loving American?

[Nbadan]

See, that 's exactly what I mean, the GOP isn't gonna win until it changes it's talking points....quit attacking...attacking....attacking, it's the GOP's reflexsive reaction, and start coming up with plans that people like...

[Winehole23]

What true colors are those? Saving us from the Bush depression? and Financial meltdown?Premature to say.


Getting rid of torture prisons overseas?Nope.


Scaling back laws by the Bush administration that stomp over our constitution, something the GOP now wants to protect?Nope.

Warrantless wiretapping? Check.

State secrets privilege? Check.

Indefinite detention? Check.

Transferring prisoners detained out of theater to legal black holes like Bagram? Check.

Obama's using Bushian logic in the courts to keep the new powers his predecessor carved out for him. In this area, Obama isn't fighting the tide but drifting along with it.


Wanting health-care for every freedom-loving American?Don't you mean new insurance mandates and fines for Americans who already can't afford insurance?

[spursncowboys]

What true colors are those? Saving us from the Bush depression? and Financial meltdown?

Getting rid of torture prisons overseas?

Scaling back laws by the Bush administration that stomp over our constitution, something the GOP now wants to protect?

Wanting health-care for every freedom-loving American? What torture prison prisons?

[spursncowboys]

What true colors are those? Saving us from the Bush depression? and Financial meltdown?

Getting rid of torture prisons overseas?

Scaling back laws by the Bush administration that stomp over our constitution, something the GOP now wants to protect?

Wanting health-care for every freedom-loving American?
16 million isn't every American.

[Nbadan]

What torture prison prisons?

So....nobody was ever tortured in GITMO?

[George Gervin's Afro]

I think there's a strong possibility they will. It is too early to tell though. I am confident they will if the democrats in congress continue doing what they have been these last few months. They are finally showing their true colors to the voters.

what are their true colors?

[spursncowboys]

So....nobody was ever tortured in GITMO?
No. That wasn't torture. That was illegal and unethical but not torture. Is that the only "torture prison overseas" you were talking about?

[LnGrrrR]

No. That wasn't torture. That was illegal and unethical but not torture. Is that the only "torture prison overseas" you were talking about?

Actually, it fits the definition of torture as described by the Convention against Torture, of which the US was a signatory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture



Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

– Convention Against Torture, Article 1.

[LnGrrrR]

Double post

[spursncowboys]

Actually, it fits the definition of torture as described by the Convention against Torture, of which the US was a signatory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture


The Covenant follows the structure of the UDHR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UDHR) and ICCPR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICCPR), with a preamble and 33 articles, divided into three parts:
Part I (Articles 1-16) defines torture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture) (Article 1), and commits parties to taking effective measures to prevent any act of torture in any territory under their jurisdiction (Article 2). These include ensuring that torture is a criminal offence (Article 4), establishing jurisdiction over acts of torture committed by or against a party's citizens (Article 5), ensuring that torture is an extraditable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition) offence (Article 8), and establishing universal jurisdiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction) to try cases of torture where an alleged torturer cannot be extradited (Article 5). Parties must promptly investigate any allegation of torture (Articles 12 & 13), and victims of torture must have an enforceable right to compensation (Article 14). Parties must also ban the use of evidence produced by torture in their courts (Article 15), and are barred from deporting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation), extraditing or refouling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-refoulement) people where there are substantial grounds for believing they will be tortured (Article 3).
Parties are also obliged to prevent other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and to investigate any allegation of such treatment within their jurisdiction (Article 16).
Part II (articles 17 - 24) governs reporting and monitoring of the Convention and the steps taken by the parties to implement it. It establishes the Committee against Torture (Article 17), and empowers it to investigate allegations of systematic torture (Article 20). It also establishes an optional dispute-resolution mechanism between parties (Articles 21) and allows parties to recognise the competence of the Committee to hear complaints from individuals about violations of the Convention by a party (Article 22).
Part III (Articles 25 - 33) governs ratification, entry into force, and amendment of the Convention. It also includes an optional arbitration mechanism for disputes between parties (Article 30).
US does all this.
Also what is torture? What you think severe pain or suffering is. Is loud music torture? The things that Americans did to get terrorists to confess, to me, was not torture.