A GOP Formula For Victory In 2008

[82Marine89]

Despite the gloomy prognostications of Hillary's inevitability as the next heir to the White House, she is no more "invincible" as a candidate than was her husband. And here a reality check is in order. Although the press would have us all believe that Bill Clinton was and is universally adored, attaining a status somewhere between that of a rock star and the savior of humanity, history tells a much different story.

Bill Clinton's approval ratings, we were incessantly told, hovered somewhere up in the stratosphere during most of his term as president. Yet the truth is that he won in 1992 with barely forty three percent of one of the smallest voter turnouts in almost a century. As the incumbent in 1996, and against an appallingly weak Dole campaign, Bill Clinton was still unable to garner fifty percent of the vote. And again voter turnout was abysmally light.

The Clinton presidency never was the result of a popular swing to the left. Rather, as uninspired as the public was with his self-absorption and perpetual adolescence, it was even less enthused with the possibility of a continuation of the waffling and fence-sitting it had received from the GOP. And unfortunately, the current political landscape is no different.

Going into the 2008 election cycle, the biggest political "enemy" Republican candidates face is neither the novice from Chicago, the "debutante" from New York, nor that guy who probably uses more shampoo in one week than most Americans could justify using in a year. Rather it is the public perception of "business as usual."

After being let down by their weak-kneed and morally rudderless "leaders" on a regular basis ever since Ronald Reagan left office, cynicism is running high, and trust in the political establishment is in short supply. The moment the conservative base perceives that the GOP candidate is once again offering banalities and platitudes, and is attempting to appeal to the "middle," the race is essentially over, and our side loses.

The "Beltway Insider" crowd is already making its presence known in this very manner, predictably seeking to shift the debate to the left, in hopes of appealing to "moderates." "Conventional wisdom" says to move to the center and avoid "controversial" issues. But following such a path would be politically fatal.

Those Republican candidates who attempt to find "common ground" with the present power structure will be quickly abandoned by the grassroots.

Conversely, recent history and experience have unequivocally shown that the public will rally to the support of a candidate who unabashedly embraces bold and decisive stances, and who is unafraid to body-slam the insidious apparition of creeping liberalism that threatens to unravel the fabric of our society.

Although virtually every aspiring Republican candidate speaks reverently of Ronald Reagan, and even claims to be his rightful heir, the Trojan Horses among them follow up by immediately and incorrectly invoking the "Big Tent," one of Reagan's shining hallmarks of leadership, as reason to cave and back-peddle on crucial, defining issues.

In truth, two very disparate concepts of "Big Tent" exist, which can be characterized as the Reagan version and Bob Dole's imitation. Reagan basically told America, "Here are the core ideas in which I believe. Leave your petty differences aside and join me as I institute my vision for America." Dole, on the other hand, essentially said to everyone, "Tell me whatever you believe in and I will join you."

Reagan's version is based on leadership and principle. It rallies, inspires, and motivates. The latter, which results from following and pandering, generates disillusionment and cynicism. Conservative Americans need not be reminded of which one worked, and which one was a loser. If Republicans fall for the counterfeit version again, the results this time around will be no better than they have ever been.

For the "Big Tent" to properly operate, it must be understood that "Reagan Democrats" can be convinced to cross party lines only if they are offered something higher and nobler, not merely cheaper, than that which they can get from their own party. Those Democrats who will not vote for a conservative are certainly not going to go for "light beer" liberalism from a "moderate" Republican when they can get the full strength version from their own side.

In the same vein, it must be understood that the constitutional purpose of a Vice-Presidency is neither to "broaden the base" nor to seek electoral votes from blue states. Rather, it is to ensure that if a chief executive is unable to complete his term of office, the successor is someone who will stay the course.

Any candidate who truly believes in those principles that moved him to run in the first place should pick a running mate who will continue in his footsteps. And if he says so in unequivocal terms that display a commitment to conservative values and the Constitution, he will only gain in credibility and stature as a result.

The single component that most consistently yielded victory in past elections, and the absence of which invariably portends defeat for our side is "contrast." Come Election Day, Democrat candidates are always anxious to blur the lines. Everyone can recall John Kerry with his purchase of a "Huntin' license," Michael Dukakis riding around in an M-1 tank, and the predictable election eve Democrat embrace of "family values." The list goes on.

However, when in the presence of Republican candidates of unwavering conservatism, these ploys were unmitigated disasters. Efforts of that nature can only succeed when GOP attempts at "moderation" make it easy for Democrats to posture to the right of them.

In short, a Republican who is unafraid and unembarrassed to trumpet his conservatism, not as a primary season façade, but as a sincere expression of his heart, still holds the best hope for the GOP. Nor should he ever attempt to bridge the gap between himself and his Democrat opponent. On some issues, no "common ground" exists. Attempts to mix pure water with sewage will not result in purer sewage. And the country knows it.

LINK
(http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/cadamo/2007/cga_10181.shtml)

[April15]

Reagon was a bad president. No self respecting dem would vote for such a big business buffoon. To claim otherwise is just posturing for points.

[82Marine89]

No self respecting dem

That's quite the oxymoron.

[April15]

That's quite the oxymoron.To some people.

[82Marine89]

To most people with common sense.

[April15]

To most people with common sense.That clearly eliminates conservatives!

[PostmodernProphet]

the kind of formula that's going to get a Republican elected this time goes more like "two eye of newt, one bat wing, one cup graveyard mold".........

[82Marine89]

That clearly eliminates conservatives!

Sorry buddy, but dems are the ones that use emotion tempered with logic and conservatives use logic tempered with emotion.

[April15]

Sorry buddy, but dems are the ones that use emotion tempered with logic and conservatives use logic tempered with emotion.You sure aren't much of a republican.

"The Democrats are the party of government activism, the party that says government can make you richer, smarter, taller, and get the chickweed out of your lawn. Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then get elected and prove it."

P. J. O'Rourke

[82Marine89]

You sure aren't much of a republican.

"The Democrats are the party of government activism, the party that says government can make you richer, smarter, taller, and get the chickweed out of your lawn. Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then get elected and prove it."

P. J. O'Rourke

I'm not a Republican.

I also don't want an activist government. I don't want hand-outs that will make me richer, smarter, taller, and as a landscape contractor, I went to school so I could learn to handle my own chickweed. I want a government that is as small as possible. No where in the Constitution does it say that giving me these things is what government is supposed to do. There is an outline and both the dems and the pubbies have done their best to ignore it. Government is so convoluted that most folks have given up. I refuse to. Apparently you want someone to hold your hand, spoon feed you, and wipe your ass when you're done. Sorry, but I'll do that stuff for myself.

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

Reagon was a bad president. No self respecting dem would vote for such a big business buffoon. To claim otherwise is just posturing for points. :lame2: you don't know much about history Ronald Reagan was one of the most popular presidents ever loved by both Demorats and Republicans BUT hey your only 15 and maybe one of your liberal biased teachers will teach you that :fu:

[Yurt]

I'm not a Republican.

I also don't want an activist government. I don't want hand-outs that will make me richer, smarter, taller, and as a landscape contractor, I went to school so I could learn to handle my own chickweed. I want a government that is as small as possible. No where in the Constitution does it say that giving me these things is what government is supposed to do. There is an outline and both the dems and the pubbies have done their best to ignore it. Government is so convoluted that most folks have given up. I refuse to. Apparently you want someone to hold your hand, spoon feed you, and wipe your ass when you're done. Sorry, but I'll do that stuff for myself.

you'll have to dumb down your logic when talking to april, but imo, good try.

[April15]

Well, well. I guess we have a lot of non thinkers here. Are you aware that Mr Baffoon made international deals, thats like treaties, before being elected president. That he sold weapons and technology to Saddam and the Iraqi's that caused the world to speculate he still had them. That his actions were treasonous and congress did not impeach him. Fuck you . I lived through his reign as Governor and president. Some of the worst years of my life both business and personal.
If you like the fucking he gave you it is no wonder you like the fucking bush is putting on ya now. Dumb rocks!

[Yurt]

Well, well. I guess we have a lot of non thinkers here. Are you aware that Mr Baffoon made international deals, thats like treaties, before being elected president. That he sold weapons and technology to Saddam and the Iraqi's that caused the world to speculate he still had them. That his actions were treasonous and congress did not impeach him. Fuck you . I lived through his reign as Governor and president. Some of the worst years of my life both business and personal.
If you like the fucking he gave you it is no wonder you like the fucking bush is putting on ya now. Dumb rocks!

Like I said, yee must dumb down yer logic when talking with Apffril.

[82Marine89]

Well, well. Blah, blah, blah.

How about addressing my comment instead of changing the subject?

[April15]

How about addressing my comment instead of changing the subject?Your comment is null and void. Like you.

[82Marine89]

Your comment is null and void. Like you.

That's your problem, when someone hands you your ass, you change the subject instead of dealing with it. Typical liberal. Why don't you explain to me why you need the government to provide for you? Why can't you do and think for yourself? Are you afraid that you can't succeed without the help of Big Brother?

[Yurt]

Your comment is null and void. Like you.

L-O-G-I-C

repeat it 5 times, then multiply that by 10

:)

[avatar4321]

Your comment is null and void. Like you.

What exactly is wrong with actually supporting your points? He isnt asking you to believe what he believes. Just to give a good reason for why you believe it. If you are just going to write his points off as irrelevant and insult him then whats the point of even being on the board. It just demonstrates you have no desire to actually discuss the issues this country is facing.

[82Marine89]

What exactly is wrong with actually supporting your points? He isnt asking you to believe what he believes. Just to give a good reason for why you believe it. If you are just going to write his points off as irrelevant and insult him then whats the point of even being on the board. It just demonstrates you have no desire to actually discuss the issues this country is facing.

Like I said, typical liberal.

[bullypulpit]

:lame2: you don't know much about history Ronald Reagan was one of the most popular presidents ever loved by both Demorats and Republicans BUT hey your only 15 and maybe one of your liberal biased teachers will teach you that :fu:

Just because he was popular doesn't mean he was good. And given the radical shift to the right the GOP has taken since the Reagan era, he would be regarded as too liberal to be elected by today's GOP.

[theHawk]

So does that mean we should vote for Hillary? LOL

[GW in Ohio]

Here's how the GOP can win the presidency in '08:


Remind voters that Republicans are God's chosen people, and that God doesn't like Democrats because they kill babies.
Add Defense of Marriage initiatives to the ballot in key states. This will bring out of the woodwork those geniuses who think that same-sex marriages will ruin their marriages and cause God to rain fire and brimstone on saints and sinners alike.
Have Bush start a war just before the election. Tell voters they can't change horses in midstream while we're at war.
Remind the voters what a sinful, godless couple the Clintons are. Then point out that Giuliani and Thompson have always honored God, through all their marriages.
Remind voters what a sleazy womanizer Bill Clinton was. Try and blame Hillary for Bill's infidelities.
Bring up Whitewater....Monica Lewinsky....the lost Rose Law Firm documents....Hillary's big score in cattle futures....


There you have it, Gopers....a battle plan for winning the White House.

Now get out there and kick some liberal ass.

:salute::flameth::boom2::tank::salute:

[Sir Evil]

There you have it, Gopers....a battle plan for winning the White House.

Now get out there and kick some liberal ass.

:salute::flameth::boom2::tank::salute:

:gives:

That post sucks.

[retiredman]

I'm not a Republican.

I went to school so I could learn to handle my own chickweed.

you went to a school that taught classes in how to get chickweed out of your lawn??????

[gabosaurus]

Have you noticed how many GOP Congressional delegates have recently decided not to run again? I think it was 17 at last count. It's called "jumping off a sinking ship." One of them stated that he "was not willing to serve in a Democrat-controlled Legislature."

When you read election coverage, much of the attention is focused on Hillary or Obama. Not many even care who gains the GOP nomination. Because it is not going to happen. The 2008 elections are going to be a referendum on the failures of the Bush administration.
Even the Conservative Christians are considering supporting an Independent candidate. Where does that leave the Republicans? It's called "up the creek without a paddle."

THIS is why sensible liberals opposed impeachment. They oppose radical statements and solutions. They want the Bushies to continue to screw up, right through the 2008 campaign.
Because we know that the result will be a huge setback for the GOP. Like it or not, there will be a Democratic president and two-thirds control of the House and Senate.

[theHawk]

Have you noticed how many GOP Congressional delegates have recently decided not to run again? I think it was 17 at last count. It's called "jumping off a sinking ship." One of them stated that he "was not willing to serve in a Democrat-controlled Legislature."

When you read election coverage, much of the attention is focused on Hillary or Obama. Not many even care who gains the GOP nomination. Because it is not going to happen. The 2008 elections are going to be a referendum on the failures of the Bush administration.
Even the Conservative Christians are considering supporting an Independent candidate. Where does that leave the Republicans? It's called "up the creek without a paddle."

THIS is why sensible liberals opposed impeachment. They oppose radical statements and solutions. They want the Bushies to continue to screw up, right through the 2008 campaign.
Because we know that the result will be a huge setback for the GOP. Like it or not, there will be a Democratic president and two-thirds control of the House and Senate.


Yup, and President Hillary will continue the war in Iraq just like Bush, but libs won't say anything about it, except to blame Bush for all the problems there. The Congress will tax the shit out of everyone, and spend even more. They'll all ignore Iran and let them build nukes and bomb Israel, starting WWIII.

Gosh, I just can't wait for this Presidency to kick off....

[typomaniac]

That's your problem, when someone hands you your ass, you change the subject instead of dealing with it. Typical liberal. Why don't you explain to me why you need the government to provide for you? Why can't you do and think for yourself? Are you afraid that you can't succeed without the help of Big Brother?

I'll tell you what I'm afraid of. I'm afraid of "small government" fanatics enabling thieves like the guys who ran Enron. I'm afraid of corruption continuing to get worse until we end up like Mexico, where payoffs are making it more and more expensive just to lead a normal life.

Aren't you afraid of this? If not, you'd damn well better be.

[glockmail]

I'll tell you what I'm afraid of. I'm afraid of "small government" fanatics enabling thieves like the guys who ran Enron. I'm afraid of corruption continuing to get worse until we end up like Mexico, where payoffs are making it more and more expensive just to lead a normal life.

Aren't you afraid of this? If not, you'd damn well better be.
As corruption is the hallmark of the Hillary campaign, you should be very afraid.

[Hagbard Celine]

That's your problem, when someone hands you your ass, you change the subject instead of dealing with it. Typical liberal. Why don't you explain to me why you need the government to provide for you? Why can't you do and think for yourself? Are you afraid that you can't succeed without the help of Big Brother?

You didn't hand April15 her ass. You spewed a bunch of rightwing talking points about small government and not giving up on the Constitution--non issues. You didn't even ask her a question. The field was wide open for her comments, so why don't you address those instead of trying your best to convolute the original issue the two of you were discussing: Reagan. She laid down quite a few points regarding Reagan's foreign arms deals and his run as governor, particularly with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, so what do you have to say about them? Where did you get your opinion of President Reagan? From a Dunesbury comic? Because that's really how it's coming across.

[typomaniac]

As corruption is the hallmark of the Hillary campaign, you should be very afraid.

I'm afraid of her in that area, too, but I'm a lot more afraid of the most corrupt administration since Warren Harding's (the current one). She is by far the lesser of two evils.

[glockmail]

I'm afraid of her in that area, too, but I'm a lot more afraid of the most corrupt administration since Warren Harding's (the current one). She is by far the lesser of two evils. Explain.

[April15]

That's your problem, when someone hands you your ass, you change the subject instead of dealing with it. Typical liberal. Why don't you explain to me why you need the government to provide for you? Why can't you do and think for yourself? Are you afraid that you can't succeed without the help of Big Brother?You handed no one but yourself an ass. I do not need government to provide for me. I have my own construction business and outside of the republican eras I have done well.
That you can't see how corrupt Raygoon was with the insights I gave there is no reason to believe you can learn or understand. One thing I do know is raygoonites defend him to the hilt. What he did is indefenseble. That you can not see it is a tribute to rocks.

[typomaniac]

Explain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Harding#Administrative_scandals

[glockmail]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Harding#Administrative_scandals

That only makes one half of your argument. :poke:

[Immanuel]

I'm afraid of her in that area, too, but I'm a lot more afraid of the most corrupt administration since Warren Harding's (the current one). She is by far the lesser of two evils.

Most corrupt since Harding? What are you talking about? I distinctly remember the campaign promise that he was going to bring "honor and integrity" back to the Oval Office.

Oh wait, there are those two words that are synonymous with lie... "campaign promise".

Never mind.

Immie

[manu1959]

Most corrupt since Harding? What are you talking about? I distinctly remember the campaign promise that he was going to bring "honor and integrity" back to the Oval Office.

Oh wait, there are those two words that are synonymous with lie... "campaign promise".

Never mind.

Immie

stop bad mouthing clinton.....

[manu1959]

You didn't hand April15 her ass. You spewed a bunch of rightwing talking points about small government and not giving up on the Constitution--non issues. You didn't even ask her a question. The field was wide open for her comments, so why don't you address those instead of trying your best to convolute the original issue the two of you were discussing: Reagan. She laid down quite a few points regarding Reagan's foreign arms deals and his run as governor, particularly with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, so what do you have to say about them? Where did you get your opinion of President Reagan? From a Dunesbury comic? Because that's really how it's coming across.

couple of things....april 15 is a dude even though he argues like a girl....were you even alive during reagans administration?

[Immanuel]

stop bad mouthing clinton.....

Okay, please forgive me.

Immie

[typomaniac]

That only makes one half of your argument. :poke:

The other half you will never recognize regardless of what anyone ever says. :bang3:

[glockmail]

The other half you will never recognize regardless of what anyone ever says. :bang3: Try me. Or try this: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=143665&postcount=1

[bullypulpit]

Despite the gloomy prognostications of Hillary's inevitability as the next heir to the White House, she is no more "invincible" as a candidate than was her husband. And here a reality check is in order. Although the press would have us all believe that Bill Clinton was and is universally adored, attaining a status somewhere between that of a rock star and the savior of humanity, history tells a much different story.

Bill Clinton's approval ratings, we were incessantly told, hovered somewhere up in the stratosphere during most of his term as president. Yet the truth is that he won in 1992 with barely forty three percent of one of the smallest voter turnouts in almost a century. As the incumbent in 1996, and against an appallingly weak Dole campaign, Bill Clinton was still unable to garner fifty percent of the vote. And again voter turnout was abysmally light.

The Clinton presidency never was the result of a popular swing to the left. Rather, as uninspired as the public was with his self-absorption and perpetual adolescence, it was even less enthused with the possibility of a continuation of the waffling and fence-sitting it had received from the GOP. And unfortunately, the current political landscape is no different.

Going into the 2008 election cycle, the biggest political "enemy" Republican candidates face is neither the novice from Chicago, the "debutante" from New York, nor that guy who probably uses more shampoo in one week than most Americans could justify using in a year. Rather it is the public perception of "business as usual."

After being let down by their weak-kneed and morally rudderless "leaders" on a regular basis ever since Ronald Reagan left office, cynicism is running high, and trust in the political establishment is in short supply. The moment the conservative base perceives that the GOP candidate is once again offering banalities and platitudes, and is attempting to appeal to the "middle," the race is essentially over, and our side loses.

The "Beltway Insider" crowd is already making its presence known in this very manner, predictably seeking to shift the debate to the left, in hopes of appealing to "moderates." "Conventional wisdom" says to move to the center and avoid "controversial" issues. But following such a path would be politically fatal.

Those Republican candidates who attempt to find "common ground" with the present power structure will be quickly abandoned by the grassroots.

Conversely, recent history and experience have unequivocally shown that the public will rally to the support of a candidate who unabashedly embraces bold and decisive stances, and who is unafraid to body-slam the insidious apparition of creeping liberalism that threatens to unravel the fabric of our society.

Although virtually every aspiring Republican candidate speaks reverently of Ronald Reagan, and even claims to be his rightful heir, the Trojan Horses among them follow up by immediately and incorrectly invoking the "Big Tent," one of Reagan's shining hallmarks of leadership, as reason to cave and back-peddle on crucial, defining issues.

In truth, two very disparate concepts of "Big Tent" exist, which can be characterized as the Reagan version and Bob Dole's imitation. Reagan basically told America, "Here are the core ideas in which I believe. Leave your petty differences aside and join me as I institute my vision for America." Dole, on the other hand, essentially said to everyone, "Tell me whatever you believe in and I will join you."

Reagan's version is based on leadership and principle. It rallies, inspires, and motivates. The latter, which results from following and pandering, generates disillusionment and cynicism. Conservative Americans need not be reminded of which one worked, and which one was a loser. If Republicans fall for the counterfeit version again, the results this time around will be no better than they have ever been.

For the "Big Tent" to properly operate, it must be understood that "Reagan Democrats" can be convinced to cross party lines only if they are offered something higher and nobler, not merely cheaper, than that which they can get from their own party. Those Democrats who will not vote for a conservative are certainly not going to go for "light beer" liberalism from a "moderate" Republican when they can get the full strength version from their own side.

In the same vein, it must be understood that the constitutional purpose of a Vice-Presidency is neither to "broaden the base" nor to seek electoral votes from blue states. Rather, it is to ensure that if a chief executive is unable to complete his term of office, the successor is someone who will stay the course.

Any candidate who truly believes in those principles that moved him to run in the first place should pick a running mate who will continue in his footsteps. And if he says so in unequivocal terms that display a commitment to conservative values and the Constitution, he will only gain in credibility and stature as a result.

The single component that most consistently yielded victory in past elections, and the absence of which invariably portends defeat for our side is "contrast." Come Election Day, Democrat candidates are always anxious to blur the lines. Everyone can recall John Kerry with his purchase of a "Huntin' license," Michael Dukakis riding around in an M-1 tank, and the predictable election eve Democrat embrace of "family values." The list goes on.

However, when in the presence of Republican candidates of unwavering conservatism, these ploys were unmitigated disasters. Efforts of that nature can only succeed when GOP attempts at "moderation" make it easy for Democrats to posture to the right of them.

In short, a Republican who is unafraid and unembarrassed to trumpet his conservatism, not as a primary season façade, but as a sincere expression of his heart, still holds the best hope for the GOP. Nor should he ever attempt to bridge the gap between himself and his Democrat opponent. On some issues, no "common ground" exists. Attempts to mix pure water with sewage will not result in purer sewage. And the country knows it.

LINK
(http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/cadamo/2007/cga_10181.shtml)

If Republicans today were conservatives of the same stripe as Barry Goldwater, they wouldn't be in the straights they find themselves...Saddled with a president whose popularity is approaching that of some social diseases...A seemingly intractable and deadly occupation of a foreign country that was no threat to the US...Budget deficits as far as the eye can see...An imperial presidency intent on gathering even more power to the executive branch, thereby undermining the constitutionally established separation of powers and the checks and balances.

Today's conservatives as defined by the GOP's right wing fringe, trumpeting itself as the "mainstream" of the GOP are unworthy of the title. They have abandoned everything that conservatism once stood for. Instead they have been replaced by an ideology of mean spiritedness...jingoism...And a bedrock belief that government doesn't work which renders them incapable of governing once elected.

[PostmodernProphet]

I'm afraid of her in that area, too, but I'm a lot more afraid of the most corrupt administration since Warren Harding's (the current one). She is by far the lesser of two evils.


the current administration isn't even the most corrupt administration since that other Clinton's administration.....

[theHawk]

If Republicans today were conservatives of the same stripe as Barry Goldwater, they wouldn't be in the straights they find themselves...Saddled with a president whose popularity is approaching that of some social diseases...A seemingly intractable and deadly occupation of a foreign country that was no threat to the US...Budget deficits as far as the eye can see...An imperial presidency intent on gathering even more power to the executive branch, thereby undermining the constitutionally established separation of powers and the checks and balances.

Today's conservatives as defined by the GOP's right wing fringe, trumpeting itself as the "mainstream" of the GOP are unworthy of the title. They have abandoned everything that conservatism once stood for. Instead they have been replaced by an ideology of mean spiritedness...jingoism...And a bedrock belief that government doesn't work which renders them incapable of governing once elected.

So what should conservatives do? Vote for Hitlery or some other liberal? :laugh2:

[GW in Ohio]

the current administration isn't even the most corrupt administration since that other Clinton's administration.....

"Corrupt" isn't the word that comes to mind when I think of the Bush administration.

Stupid......inept.....incompetent......blind...... all those seem much more appropriate.

:salute::cool::salute:

[glockmail]

"Corrupt" isn't the word that comes to mind when I think of the Bush administration.

Stupid......inept.....incompetent......blind...... all those seem much more appropriate.

:salute::cool::salute:
Those terms better decribe you.

[GW in Ohio]

Those terms better decribe you.

Yes, you're right.

Perhaps I would make a good candidate for the GOP.

:salute::dance::salute:

[Immanuel]

Yes, you're right.

Perhaps I would make a good candidate for the GOP.

:salute::dance::salute:

You would only make a good candidate of either party if you have no scrupples.

Immie

[bullypulpit]

So what should conservatives do? Vote for Hitlery or some other liberal? :laugh2:

Become real conservatives instead of the Potemkin village patriots so many of the conservative and GOP leadership have become.

[typomaniac]

Become real conservatives instead of the Potemkin village patriots so many of the conservative and GOP leadership have become.

The problem there is, most partisans on this board don't have the first clue what a real conservative is. They'll just let Rush or their preacher tell them.

[JackDaniels]

The problem there is, most partisans on this board don't have the first clue what a real conservative is. They'll just let Rush or their preacher tell them.

That is the sad truth. If you support the current Republican Party, it means you support:

- War to bring Democracy, a Liberal idea first advocated by Woodrow Wilson
- A huge increase in Medicare spending (2002 Medicare Bill)
- More federal control of education (NCLB)
- More government spending
- More government in general

The current Republican Party are FDR clones, and socialists from that time period would be proud.

[glockmail]

That is the sad truth. If you support the current Republican Party, it means you support:

- War to bring Democracy, a Liberal idea first advocated by Woodrow Wilson
- A huge increase in Medicare spending (2002 Medicare Bill)
- More federal control of education (NCLB)
- More government spending
- More government in general

The current Republican Party are FDR clones, and socialists from that time period would be proud.
Except for the first one and possibly third these are good points. Bush has taken a page from the Democrats and tried to gain popularity by expansion of entitlements. But once Hillary gets in we will be truly socialist, and the economy will suck so bad we won't be able to pay for it.

[JackDaniels]

Except for the first one and possibly third these are good points. Bush has taken a page from the Democrats and tried to gain popularity by expansion of entitlements. But once Hillary gets in we will be truly socialist, and the economy will suck so bad we won't be able to pay for it.

No, each point is simple FACT and simple HISTORY.

[glockmail]

sure whatever :rolleyes:

[GW in Ohio]

Except for the first one and possibly third these are good points. Bush has taken a page from the Democrats and tried to gain popularity by expansion of entitlements. But once Hillary gets in we will be truly socialist, and the economy will suck so bad we won't be able to pay for it.

glockie....baby.....

You're stuck in a time warp.

It's not the 1960s and more, or even the '70s or '80s or '90s.

Hillary's moved on. she's more or less a moderate these days. The problem is, you and a lot of your conservative brethren are still stuck back in the '60s, or wherever it is you're stuck.

As a matter of fact, this is a problem with a lot of right wingers. The world has moved on, but you haven't.

[glockmail]

glockie....baby.....

You're stuck in a time warp.

It's not the 1960s and more, or even the '70s or '80s or '90s.

Hillary's moved on. she's more or less a moderate these days. The problem is, you and a lot of your conservative brethren are still stuck back in the '60s, or wherever it is you're stuck.

As a matter of fact, this is a problem with a lot of right wingers. The world has moved on, but you haven't.



Another post with no basis in fact. Pure bullshit as we come to expect from you.:pee:

[JackDaniels]

sure whatever :rolleyes:

Wow...I never knew you were so igorant of US History...

[GW in Ohio]

glockie....baby.....

You're stuck in a time warp.

It's not the 1960s and more, or even the '70s or '80s or '90s.

Hillary's moved on. she's more or less a moderate these days. The problem is, you and a lot of your conservative brethren are still stuck back in the '60s, or wherever it is you're stuck.

As a matter of fact, this is a problem with a lot of right wingers. The world has moved on, but you haven't.

A major reason the GOP is headed for an ass kicking in next year's elections is that conservatives are clueless about what is happening around them.

Hillary Clinton has morphed into a mainstream political figure, but right wingers refuse to acknowledge this. They prefer to cling to the image of Hillary as a flaming left-winger, even though she's moved way beyond that.

I guess you guys will have fun in next year's election, bringing up the Rose Law firm and Bill's indiscretions and stuff like that, and you'll have fun all the way to the elections, at which point the fun will stop for right wingers.

Get used to it, boys and girls, Hillary Clinton will be your next president.

[Immanuel]

A major reason the GOP is headed for an ass kicking in next year's elections is that conservatives are clueless about what is happening around them.

Hillary Clinton has morphed into a mainstream political figure, but right wingers refuse to acknowledge this. They prefer to cling to the image of Hillary as a flaming left-winger, even though she's moved way beyond that.

I guess you guys will have fun in next year's election, bringing up the Rose Law firm and Bill's indiscretions and stuff like that, and you'll have fun all the way to the elections, at which point the fun will stop for right wingers.

Get used to it, boys and girls, Hillary Clinton will be your next president.

Hillary's morphing is one of convenience.

She realizes that she can't win being left wing so like every other candidate she is moving towards the center. This might help her to win OR the right wing smear machine will get churning soon and remind the country of her "far out" ways.

I don't think she is a shoe-in. There is too much that can happen between now and November 2008.

What she does if she wins is unpredictable. Will she stay center or move back to the left? I don't know and am not concerned because President Bush has proven to me that the Office of the Presidency is almost meaningless in terms of governing except for nominations of judges and executive orders.

Immie