Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: What Is The Future of The Republican Party

  1. #1
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,638
    Post Thanks / Like

    What Is The Future of The Republican Party

    I thought maybe this would be a good topic.

    If Obama wins the election, which seems likely (although anything can happen), what effect do people think this may have on the future of the Republican Party?

    From what I have read and seen, it seems as though many Republican voters (specifically those who post on this forum) are not as happy with their party as they were, say, 15 years ago.

    I constantly hear many people say they feel as though the GOP has been hijacked from the "real conservatives" by the neo-cons. I read how many posters here were just not that excited about any of their candidates during the primary season, and the candidates they did consider supporting ended up disappointing severely with their Primary Campaigns.

    There are also many people here who count themselves as independents almost solely due to the fact that they have felt alienated from their party. Some people are even talking up Bob Barr, who may be running on the Libertarian ticket, but is probably closer to being a Republican.

    Obviously, there are those who will vote with their party no matter what, but even some of them are not overly excited about McCain.

    So my impression is that the party at a crossroads. Where do the Republicans go from here?

    I myself have voted Republican in the past and would do so again in the future if the right candidate presented themselves.

    So I thought it would be interesting to hear what people think not only what is the future direction the party may go in, but also what direction would you like them to go in?

    To me, these questions bounce around in my head from time to time;

    Who do Conservatives and Republicans have their eye on for the future? Is there someone who may be on the horizon like Obama was for the Dems in '04?

    Do they look back?

    Was Gingrich so absolutely certain of a Dem win for the presidency and therefore purposely did not run due to that fact, or is he really not interested. If he were to run in the next election, would he be someone the Republicans would get behind?

    And lastly, what if McCain does wins. Do you think that would stunt the growth of the party? Would he help improve it in the eyes of some of the disenchanted voters?

    What would the Republican party have to do in order to win the vote and support of the right leaning independent who will not vote for McCain? How do they win that vote?
    Last edited by piney; 10-17-2008 at 12:34 AM.

  2. #2
    All League
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Wildcat Country
    Posts
    4,755
    Post Thanks / Like
    That's a lot of different questions. I'll answer one.

    I think the Republicans, like the Democrats did many years ago, hit the point of trying to represent too many divergent viewpoints. A Northeast fiscal conservative/social moderate (like me) is not too pleased with what constitutes the Republican base these days. It seems that the social conservatives have entirely co-opted the party. I also suspect that many if not most of the senior party leadership, while pandering to the base, actually share few of their opinions and in fact disdain them. It's a party adrift, with an angry base and an unclear message. In other words, it Democrats Part 2.

  3. #3
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,638
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=BushyTheBeaver;2808175]That's a lot of different questions. I'll answer one.

    I think the Republicans, like the Democrats did many years ago, hit the point of trying to represent too many divergent viewpoints. A Northeast fiscal conservative/social moderate (like me) is not too pleased with what constitutes the Republican base these days. It seems that the social conservatives have entirely co-opted the party. I also suspect that many if not most of the senior party leadership, while pandering to the base, actually share few of their opinions and in fact disdain them. It's a party adrift, with an angry base and an unclear message. In other words, it Democrats Part 2.[/QUOTE]

    well, with that in mind, what should be next for them, or what do you think is next?

    I myself get the feeling that they may get worse before they get better, I think an Obama presidency could translate into a Republican gain during the mid-term elections, and if so, then it may not be a long enough period of being "powerless" for any real change to happen.

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    Post Thanks / Like
    If Sarah Palin is the future of the party I'm unregistering as a republican and will work hard on a legitimate third party.

  5. #5
    All League
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Parsippany, NJ
    Posts
    3,641
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=CTM;2808204]If Sarah Palin is the future of the party I'm unregistering as a republican and will work hard on a legitimate third party.[/QUOTE]

    I'd like to see them run from that part of the party.

  6. #6
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Red Bank
    Posts
    214
    Post Thanks / Like
    The southern governors are the most likely competition for Obama in 4 years, as in Charlie Crist of Florida or Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. Gingrich would be an entertaining option, though a lot of people have a negative opinion of him and he's also getting up there in age. Of course, the field is so open it will be possible for a lesser-known politician to make a run at the nomination.

    I don't think Palin even thinks of making an appearance despite the urging of the Christian right.

    And you never know, but a military man like Petraeus could attempt it. Though I highly doubt it.

    Honestly, outside of Crist and Jindal, there are very few republicans with any buzz and even they are still pretty much nobodies. So you could get an Obama-like candidate appearing out of nowhere or you could get a Huckabee.

    But Bushy's right, the GOP really needs someone to come out and unite the party or at least point it in the right direction. A free market, small government, libertarian-esque social conservative. Is that so hard? Cause I do think the future of the party is in moving towards the libertarian position and away from the neo-con agenda.

  7. #7
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    Abandon the useless and counter-productive Religious-based Conservativism to concentrate of Fiscal and National Security Conservativism, whilst moving their social policies to a moderate/libertarian "freedom-first" position?

    And then I wake up in the real world, and realize nothing will change. Nothing whatsoever.

  8. #8
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    If the Republican party gets back to a core value of supporting Capitalism, low taxes which enable individuals to move ahead they will be fine.

    Socialism, Communisim and Fascism all thrive on fear panic and misery loving company. When the sun comes out and people believe in themselves again these core values will be embraced by a majority of Americans again.

  9. #9
    Practice Squad
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    414
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;2808355]Socialism, Communisim and Fascism all thrive on fear panic and misery loving company. When the sun comes out and people believe in themselves again these core values will be embraced by a majority of Americans again.[/QUOTE]

    Kudos Winston!

    This may be the single best post ever. Damn, people have written volumes about political theory and you nailed it in two sentances.

    Back to the original thread, one should ask what the future of the Democratic Party holds?

    How the heck is Obama going to run against Bush in 2009? :rolleyes:
    How the heck is Obama going to blame a Republican House and Senate in 2009? :rolleyes:

    When a candidate's support, like Obama's, is so overwhelmingly based not on a conviction in him but as a protest vote against the Bush years, it doesn't bode well in the future.

    Don't get me wrong, Bush is stupid and gets all the grief he deserves. But Obama isn't running a campaign based upon what he is going to do as President, he has been running a campaign based upon the fact that he is not George Bush. That is the only thing Obamaniac's have in common - they all don't like Bush (as it appears a substantial majority of others agree). But once the boogeyman is gone, Obama will need to deliver. And he has promised an awful lot (without specifics I might add) that he and Pelosi and Harry Reid need to deliver.

    Don't be suprised that in 2 years the Repbublicans take back the House and/or Senate. It happened in 1994 after the Democrats spent 2 years fighting over Hillary's health care plan (note - they were fighting over the First Lady's not the President's plan - we call that a clue in the business).

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    who cares what the future is of the GOP. it's that party that gave us 8 years of Bush, they get what they deserve.

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    3,061
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2808335]Abandon the useless and counter-productive Religious-based Conservativism to concentrate of Fiscal and National Security Conservativism, whilst moving their social policies to a moderate/libertarian "freedom-first" position?[/QUOTE]

    If only...

  12. #12
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,292
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;2808370]who cares what the future is of the GOP. it's that party that gave us 8 years of Bush, they get what they deserve.[/QUOTE]

    If you look ahead a bit, there are some future events that bode poorly for the political religious right. First, both candidates have spoken out about electoral reform, and Obama (cant speak for Mccain) has said that he would rebalance the electoral college before the 2012 elections. Assuming that votes are reapportioned the 'rust belt' and the trackless expanses of the west/midwest will lose serious electoral/political sway, while the states in the sun belt and on the west coast will have greater representation. Since the religious base of the Republican party is concentrated in the areas which will hemmorhage votes, they have almost no choice but to pursue a different coalition.

  13. #13
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    7,986
    Post Thanks / Like
    Party distinctions have become virtually useless, as the driving force from election to election is marketing to those viewed as 'swing voters,' which can be pretty much any group that views itself as marginalized in the moment. Winning trumps ideology at every turn. If you've got to pander to win, then ideology will simply be repackaged to fit the bill. We are a culture that has been taken over by advertising. Advertising lives and breathes on expediency. I would be interested in seeing how people shape up re ideological groupings rather than party... that seems a more salient way of distinguishing who we are...

  14. #14
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    443
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;2808355]If the Republican party gets back to a core value of supporting Capitalism, low taxes which enable individuals to move ahead they will be fine.

    Socialism, Communisim and Fascism all thrive on fear panic and misery loving company. When the sun comes out and people believe in themselves again these core values will be embraced by a majority of Americans again.[/QUOTE]
    The funny thing is, that while Communism and Fascism may thrive on fear, panic and misery (don't agree in regards to socialism), pure Capitalism and low taxes usually leads to, you guessed it, fear, panic and misery. Just look at our current situation. This is what happens when the financial policies (or lack there of) is being dictated right out of a Milton Friedman textbook.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    9,157
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;2808370]who cares what the future is of the GOP. it's that party that gave us 8 years of Bush, they get what they deserve.[/QUOTE]

    They gave this country two recent recessions and an unwinnable money pit in Iraq. I could care less about them.

  16. #16
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=foxtrot;2808414]The funny thing is, that while Communism and Fascism may thrive on fear, panic and misery (don't agree in regards to socialism), pure Capitalism and low taxes usually leads to, you guessed it, fear, panic and misery. Just look at our current situation. This is what happens when the financial policies (or lack there of) is being dictated right out of a Milton Friedman textbook.[/QUOTE]

    Pure Capitalism you really think that's what lead to the leveraging of our financial system and wasn't encouraged by public policy, tax policy the demand of Government to support bad loan policy and a federal reserve pushing an agenda of cheap and plentiful money supply?

  17. #17
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    443
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;2808486]Pure Capitalism you really think that's what lead to the leveraging of our financial system and wasn't encouraged by public policy, tax policy the demand of Government to support bad loan policy and a federal reserve pushing an agenda of cheap and plentiful money supply?[/QUOTE]
    To be honest, I think it was an unfortunate mixture of different things. But yeah, a huge part of the problem was, that since the days of Reagan and Thatcher the predominant view has been to leave the financial players play any kind of game they wanted, because it was believed that that was how you created wealth in society - by letting a selected few run amok with creative ways of making huge sums of money. Well it blew up in their faces, and now that's spreading to the rest of us.

  18. #18
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=foxtrot;2808506]To be honest, I think it was an unfortunate mixture of different things. But yeah, a huge part of the problem was, that since the days of Reagan and Thatcher the predominant view has been to leave the financial players play any kind of game they wanted, because it was believed that that was how you created wealth in society - by letting a selected few run amok with creative ways of making huge sums of money. Well it blew up in their faces, and now that's spreading to the rest of us.[/QUOTE]

    A huge portion of this country are investors in stocks, own homes, cars, computers, send their kids to college. It may be a select few who became multi millinaires but certainly by any standard the vast majority of this country has done well.

  19. #19
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    443
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;2808540]A huge portion of this country are investors in stocks, own homes, cars, computers, send their kids to college. It may be a select few who became multi millinaires but certainly by any standard the vast majority of this country has done well.[/QUOTE]
    Oh, I'm not disputing, that Capitalism is the best way to run a society. Just that in its purest (or almost purest) form it does have some serious flaws. While a huge portion of your population owns homes, cars, computers and kids in college, there are also a rising number of people who can't afford a home - even if they do have a job. And at the same time a selected few was rolling in cash as result of business deals, that was so far out, that the financial system eventually broke down - releaving the state of money, that could have been used to better the lives of those that don't have much. Now you can call me a socialist, but that just doesn't seem fair in my book. And it doesn't sound like a healthy way to run a country in the long run either.

    Now, I don't wanna go ahead and say that we are better in Denmark, where I come from, because there's plenty things wrong with my country to. But as far as economics go, we have proven over a period of over fifty years, that a distribution of wealth within a capitalist system actually does work. We have growth, we earn money and people do have freedom to whatever they want, as long at it is legal. I pay a high amount of taxes, but I do it gladly, because my education was free, and the government even paid me money, so I could concentrate on my studies instead of having a job. Now we can do that, not because we have any oil or any other natural wealth, but because we as a society wanted it that way.

    Now if people dissagre to distributing wealth from a moral og philisophical viewpoint I fully respect that. But from a pure "what is best for society"-viewpoint I think the limited version of capitalism is much better than the pure one.

    In other words, I think you guys were better off with Roosevelts "New Deal", than with Reagans Gordon Gekkoishs "Greed is good deal".

    But then again, I'm the kind of guy who reads Naomi Klein and are considered way leftist even in my own socialistic country, so what do I know :)

  20. #20
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=foxtrot;2808579]
    Now if people dissagre to distributing wealth from a moral og philisophical viewpoint I fully respect that. But from a pure "what is best for society"-viewpoint I think the limited version of capitalism is much better than the pure one.

    In other words, I think you guys were better off with Roosevelts "New Deal", than with Reagans Gordon Gekkoishs "Greed is good deal".

    But then again, I'm the kind of guy who reads Naomi Klein and are considered way leftist even in my own socialistic country, so what do I know :)[/QUOTE]

    I'm going to suggest that Roosevelt and Reagan had two things in common that were both extremely good for our country. They had faith in the individualís ability to succeed and they weren't afraid to implement some radical ideas to get a country that was in terrible financial shape moving again.

    Unlike Denmark that's socialism was developed in a fairly homogenous society the social programs in the US that were implemented during the great society tended to institutionalize poverty instead of providing a way out of it.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us