Are the Republicans dead?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by countezero, May 16, 2008.

  1. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    You are not a pessimist, just objective. Out of the 10-10 candidates starting the race there were only 3 who weren't part of the elites: Paul, Kuchinich and Gravel. They actually meant a change, and of course they didn't have a chance. The rest are pretty much the same, but the whole election has the pretense of democracy at work, which is of course baloney, when your choice is limited....
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Clubbing with Reagan

    He seems to be using the Reagan paradigm as a weapon. The strongest correlations between Reagan and Dubya come from the neoconservatives. The rest seems to be an exploitation of rhetoric in a partly-successful effort to keep the GOP on his side long enough to do the damage his backers intended.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. countezero Registered Senior Member

    The so-called neoconservatives may have been around and participated in the Reagan administration, in some capacity, but they did not hold a similar sway over it. Nor, at that time, did they seem to espouse and argue in favor of what have since been labelled neoconservative ideas.

    One simply can't imagine Reagan operating on the world stage — or the domestic one, for that matter — the way Bush has. Of course, Reagan was operating within the paradigm of the Cold War, but even if one accounts for this, I think it's safe to say that his foreign adventuring — and his approach to foreign adventuring — is ideologically dismilar to Bush's. A lot of Republicans, for example, like to forget about Reagan's tepid responses to terrorism and his decision to pull the Marines out of Beirut. One cannot imagine Bush adopting similar strategies. But again, the Cold War, and to a lesser extent, the 9/11 mindset, make it difficult to make such apples-to-oranges comparisons mean anything.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. superstring01 Moderator

    I know you deleted this portion, but minus the personal jab in your delete message, it's a valid point:

    A two sentence retort is hardly whining. How is it whining whenever someone offers their contrasting opinion, but when YOU do it, it's some erudite treatise that is the paragon of virtue? I mean, is your reply to my reply which was a reply to her reply somehow whining too? Let's be honest, all this is just a bit of heated discussion. Are we to be subjected to subtlel jabs either within the whole of the text, or on your little "delete message" everytime we disagree?

    I'm not saying that the Republicans don't deserve all of the vitriol they get, and to be certain, one cannot wash away the wounds inflicted upon America by the Republican party by saying, "Well, the Democrats would have done the same thing." Furthermore, my comments were not directed at current political state of affairs in the USA just a blatant statement that hides an equally large truth. "The biggest joke is that if McCain does not take the house, the conservatives will develop amnesia over the last eight years and blame the democrats for everything that Bush did to stuff the country into the toilet bowl." I mean, they both get amnesia every decade or so, don't they? It's the same old tune just revamped every decade.

    It's not like SAM was offering a point-by-point critique of the Republican platform, just an ad hom jab at Republicans in general which fails to recognize the greater point: what she said is true of every politician in America and not just true of the Republican party. If that is the truth, then making statements like it's only one side is pretty blatantly deceptive. It would be like Mussolini carrying on about just HOW horrible Hitler is, bemoaning his human rights record and his treatment of the political opposition.

    No. Just the truth as I see it. If we have to be subjected to your endless tirades, then I can certainly chime in and say what I believe without you making it personal.

    I've been trying to play nice, either by ignoring you, or discussing whatever point there may be with you, on a civil level and you delete a post and leave the not so subtle jab, "It really doesn't matter, anyway. It's not like he's capable of understanding." So, I'm somehow less than you because I don't buy into your ideology or that I'm not capable of understanding because I see political extemism as political blindness. That I think that the Dems and Reps are about the same degree of evil... have said so, will continue to say so, whenever I get the chance.

    Deleting the post wasn't necessary, but provided that you did, you certainly don't have to take one last jab JUST to be sure to make me aware of how quickly you'll make it personal.

    Sigh... what can I say. It's a broken system.

    Last edited: May 17, 2008
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    (Insert title here)

    The Team B paranoia of the Ford years certainly showed itself in the Reagan presidency. We should not be surprised that members of that cadre and their allies could be found among the administration.

    Indeed. That is part of Robinson's consideration of the issue:

    And before you remind that you already covered that point—

    • "There are plenty of folks on this site who will howl and moan about Bush II being a continuation of Reagan, etc. Heck, I think Tiassa, a few inches up, posted some rubbish from Robinson saying something along those lines." (#1862466/27)

    • "One simply can't imagine Reagan operating on the world stage — or the domestic one, for that matter — the way Bush has. Of course, Reagan was operating within the paradigm of the Cold War, but even if one accounts for this, I think it's safe to say that his foreign adventuring — and his approach to foreign adventuring — is ideologically dismilar to Bush's." (#1863058/43)​

    —I would simply suggest that, if we consider the "evangelical Right", it should be apparent that it is possible to "worship" something while not actually operating according to its tenets.

    And on that second point: Is there a difference between fighting the Cold War (e.g. trying to end it) and starting a "Cold War"?

    Many of Bush's critics view the president's foundering machismo as a petulant and pale imitation or stylization of Reagan by a bad actor who just doesn't understand the role he's trying to play.


    Robisnon, Eugene. "The GOP's Ideas Deficit". Washington Post. May 16, 2008.
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    The sleazy tailor

    Then why not just restore the post? You know, tailor yet another topic to suit your needs?

    Your consistency, String. That's part of the key. You're invoking the Democrats out of a pile of sky-blue whole cloth in left field. And you do it a lot.

    It's the point under consideration. The American memory span is a curious beast that the GOP has learned very well how to exploit. Republicans are just trying to cover their asses at this point. If they were remotely sincere, Congressional Republicans would not have worked so hard to help Bush bring about the disastrous policies that he has. If they were remotely sincere, they would not have fought so hard to corner the new Democratic majority last year on war funding.

    If they were remotely sincere, this country would be a better place for it.

    Furthermore, clumsy, amateurish criticisms of the Democratic failure in Congress tend to overlook—and sometimes outright refuse to consider—the situation. If the Democrats could override a Bush veto and still caved nearly every time, we might actually blame the Democrats for something substantive. As it is, I tend to think Reid is incompetent at best, a poor choice for a Senate majority leader.

    Making it personal? What the hell do you call dredging up a deleted post in order to froth your self-righteousness?

    Yeah, whatever.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 17, 2008
  10. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Sort of. I mean, I agree Reagan was more militant than his two predecessors, but I am not sure how much this has to do with neoconservatism, which wasn't really that powerful a force back then.

    The principle architects of Bush's administration were all around, in one fashion or another, during the Reagan days, but not in particularly impressive positions. And those so-called Neo-Cons don't seem to have influenced Reagan with their ideology all that much, assuming one can agree on what the tenets of Neo-Con ideology is.

    But perhaps that argument is unnecessary?

    The difference in foriegn affairs between the Reagan and Bush II presidencies is somewhat obvious, I think...

    Sure. Happens all the time. And Robinson is not the first to make the argument that Bush failed — or failed in the eyes of his supporters at least — because he misinterpreted Reagan and his idealogy. I think the Wall Street Journal said as much a few years ago...

    There is a difference, but there is an even larger difference between your understanding of the Cold War and mine. Leaving that aside, I saw the thread you started and have been meaning to post in it, but then I thought, why bother? You're convinced of your premise — and I doubt I could add anything to show you how flawed your comparison is. A new Cold War? One imagines your clever enough to describe the conflict in something other than historical terms that don't really apply.
  11. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member


    It's the same people with the same methods. They've been around the White House during GOP administrations since Nixon, at least.

    Reagan fought the Cold War against a caricature of the Soviet Union that had been around at least since Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld attempted to undermine his own president's arms-control agreement with the Soviets.

    Yes, you're so damn smart, Counte, you don't need to say anything.
  12. countezero Registered Senior Member

    I disagree. The methods and their effects wouldn't be so obvious if they had been around for such a long period of time. But to really discern whether you're right Neoconservatism is going to have to be defined.

    Sure. Whatever. The Soviet Union, despite its economic shortcomings, was active in more countries and ramping up its military spending in the late 70s and early 80s more than at any other time in history. The notion that we were boxing with a paper tiger is a convenient one of hindsight.

    I've said plenty. I've said comparing the War on Terror to the Cold War is ridiculous. In fact, it's what conservatives falsely do...
  13. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Republicans are in deep trouble, and rightly so. The American voter only has two choices, Republican or Democrat. When the Republican Party acts as badly as it has, there is no other cholce left to the voter. Vote Republican and exacerbate the decline of the Republic into chaos or to vote against them and hope for a better outcome. In this case, it appears the American voter has made the right choice. The choice that will perpetuate our Republic.

    If the Republicans want to regain their credibitlity they are going to have to start acting in favor of those who elected them. For example, last year the Democrats in the house passed a bill to eliminate the provision from the 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug Bill that forbid the government from negotiating drug prices for the program...eliminating the blank check the Republicans gave the drug companies.

    Eighty five percent of the Republicans in the house voted against the removing the provision while 100 percent of the Democrats voted for removing the provision.

    The Republicans face some tough choices, live up to the principals to which they give lip service and act in favor of the citizens of the United States and give up their associations with fat daddy lobbyists or face decimation at the polling stations.

    On another subject, Bush II tried to emulate Reagan. But Bush II is in no way any kind of Reagan!
  14. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    I recently heard a saying, "a reputation is like glass, once broken it can never be repaired". While I think the Republicans can restore their reputation, it will take a lot of work and a lot of change on their part. They have to learn that sooner or later they cannot just pay lip service to principals and do the opposite. They have to start living their principals, and I have yet to see them make that crucial step. They continue to try to govern with sound bites (e.g. Bush II and recent ear mark position).
  15. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Take 'em out back?

    They've been interrupted twice, by Carter and Clinton. They were in remission during the first Bush presidency, as we might infer from the fact that it was Clinton to whom they proposed a national security strategy that was initially rejected as barbaric and belligerent before it was eventually adopted and referred to colloquially as the "Bush doctrine".

    This is, in fact, PNAC's vision of conquering the Middle East, which we are about today.

    The vital tenet of the neocons we must recognize here is that Strauss believed, in essence, that a society without a central, binding myth would come apart. In Nixon, Ford, and Reagan years, that central myth was the good-vs.-evil escalation of the Cold War. Presently, it's the good-vs.-evil myth of Islamic terrorism.

    But here's the kicker: according to Strauss, apparently you're not obliged to believe the myth you're pushing.

    And that's the problem. With no real connection to the myths they've pushed, they don't seem to realize just how extreme and ridiculous it sounds. It's possible, in the end, to have a fight between two bad guys, and the only question of good vs. evil is which one isn't quite as bad as the other. It's not much to go on. Americans already understand this situation, as a good portion of the country often holds their noses when they vote for president.

    As any libertarian with a brain wave will tell you, it's about to happen again. We should not think for a moment that an Obama victory means Americans are finally rallying 'round the Democrats. Both the '06 and '08 elections are about Bush and the Republicans, and how badly they've screwed up, and not about how cool the Demcrats are, or anything like that.

    Funny story, though: I was talking to my neighbor last night. He's a nice guy for a gun-totin' type that thinks the fact that his neighbors are Mexican is a good reason to pack heat. (As opposed to the white drug dealers who just moved out. And I mean both, white skin and white drugs.)

    But, at any rate, I made my usual point about coming way right to vote for Democrats, and he began extolling the virtues of a vote for conscience, and how he found a candidate he could vote for. I asked him who this was and—here's the really strange part—he couldn't remember the guy's name.

    Don't know what to make of that.

    There is a difference between responding to the truth and transforming it into such exaggerated hype as to demand a different response.

    Consider Team B during the Ford years. One of the CIA's findings that Team B disagreed with was the state of Soviet submarine acoustic detection. The CIA could find little to nothing suggesting the Soviets had a reliable system. In the absence of other evidence, Team B pushed the opinion that this must necessarily mean the Soviets have an even better, more dangerous system that we can't find any hint of.

    I mean, really. Tell me that doesn't sound kind of familiar in the context of the War on Terror.

    Sure. And it is. Except it's what the neoconservatives are trying to do. One of the critical errors about this plan, though, is that unlike the Soviet Union, al Qaeda and similar groups have a lesser stake in playing by any sense of rules. All we're doing, in the end, is empowering a bunch of villains who prefer their wars hot.

    Quite obviously, we're not finished paying for that mistake.

    To reiterate: Quite obviously, we're not finished paying for that mistake. Look at the red stains around their mouths. That's not blood. It's Kool-Aid.
  16. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Spot on - of course the good news is that AQ are no longer any kind of credible threat to the west - what little they did have of a terror network saw its final death throes in the training camps of Afghanistan.

    The Bad news is that AQ are no longer any kind of credible threat to the west - what little they did have of a terror network saw its final death throes in the training camps of Afghanistan.

    So we can keep running around not finding an enemy that isn't there - and use that fact to keep suggesting other countries they might be hiding out.
    Guess what happens next?
  17. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Actually, there is a 3rd choice, not to vote. Voting just give them legitimacy... But instead we will have a record turnout and they willget the same old, same old shit and 4 years from now we will be in even bigger shit...
  18. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Republicans will come back, democrats are going to take a huge fail in the next coming years as oil peaks unforgivably, unless of course republicans stay in some power...

  19. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member


    People tend to blame?

    How about this: People pulled their head out of their arse and realized they elected a boob and a Sith into the WH. The only thing most people ARE happy about is seeing the door hit them on the arse on the way out.

    The GOP have been spending like drunken sailor on shore leave only for SEVEN YEARS.

    Yeah, I don't care what the name of the party is - these guys SUCK.
  20. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    I disagree, not voting just plays into their hands. They don't care what you think of them as long as they continue to bath in power and wealth. Your not voting yields the same result as voting for them...that is why Republicans have historically not favored voter turnouts.
  21. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Of course you are wrong. look up the rules, I bet there is a minimum participants they need to vote otherwise the election would be not valid and they have to repeat it. At least that is how it is in most democratic countries. For the second time around they usually don't have the minimum requirement.

    If you don't have a choice, you might as well not choose. Imagine if instead of the eligible numbers only 10% voted!


    The significance of voter turnout

    It is often considered that high voter turnouts are desirable, though among political scientists and economists specialising in public choice, the issue is still debated.[10] A high turnout is generally seen as evidence of the legitimacy of the current system. Dictators have often fabricated high turnouts in showcase elections for this purpose. For instance, Saddam Hussein's 2002 referendum was claimed to have had 100% participation.[11] Opposition parties sometimes boycott votes they feel are unfair or illegitimate, or if the election is for a government that is considered illegitimate. For example, the Holy See instructed Italian Catholics to boycott national elections for several decades after the creation of the State of Italy.[12] In some countries, there are threats of violence against those who vote, such as during the 2005 Iraq elections, an example of voter suppression. However, some political scientists question the view that high turnout is an implicit endorsement of the system. Mark N. Franklin contends that in European Union elections opponents of the federation, and of its legitimacy, are just as likely to vote as proponents.[13]

    Assuming that low turnout is a reflection of disenchantment or indifference, a poll with very low turnout may not be an accurate reflection of the will of the people. On the other hand, if low turnout is a reflection of contentment of voters about likely winners or parties, then low turnout is as legitimate as high turnout, as long as the right to vote exists. Still, low turnouts can lead to unequal representation among various parts of the population. In developed countries, non-voters tend to be concentrated in particular demographic and socioeconomic groups, especially the young and the poor. However, in India, which boasts an electorate of more than 670 million people, the opposite is true. The poor, who comprise the majority of the demographic, are more likely to vote than the rich and the middle classes. In low-turnout countries, these groups are often significantly under-represented in elections. This has the potential to skew policy. For instance, a high voter turnout among seniors coupled with a low turnout among the young may lead to more money for seniors' health care, and less for youth employment schemes. Some nations thus have rules that render an election invalid if too few people vote, such as Serbia, where three successive presidential elections were rendered invalid in 2003.
  22. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member


    Just go out and run for local office. If you want something done then you have to do it yourself.

  23. Brutus1964 We are not alone! Registered Senior Member


Share This Page