Yeah, the Republican Party is dead, down & out, consigned to the trash bin of history

[RobDownSouth]

The democratic party does the exact same thing, period. Deny it, and you deny knowing the workings of BOTH political party's.

A few years ago, I almost ran for an office in a large suburb, as a republican. I had the silly notion of federalism in mind. Things like smaller government, less taxation, fiscal responsibility, etc. Yea... Sounds good as a marketing package, but when I went to the "school" that "trains" the incoming generation of party leaders, it wasn't about moving your agenda forward; it was about re-election all day every day, period. Continuation of party power, period.

Hmmm... a bit of false equivalency here, methinks.

Both parties DO focus on re-election uber alles, but with varying degrees of a) intensity and b) success. Because of my position in the working world, I get invited from time to time to hobnob with insiders of both political parties. It's been very instructional.

The Republicans seem to do a light-years better job of keeping candidates in line, making them swear fealty to the party platform. Democrats go through the motions of doing so, but lack the stomach to enforce party discipline, at least on the local (county/area) levels that I deal with.

For example, there's an important position on the local Democratic party power structure. It's a key position because it controls how campaign dollars are allocated to candidates. Unfortunately, in the name of "diversity", the position requires taking into account sex, African-American and "alternate lifestyles" (read:gay) when filling it, which has led to an incredibly diverse but not especially competent rotating group of position holders.

From the so-stupid-it-has-to-be-true dept: At one very heated Dem. executive committee meeting, the chairwoman got very flustered (I thought several folks were going to come to blows). She suggested we all take a five minute timeout (fine with me) and sing Kumbahya to lessen the tension. That's the point when I realized the Democratic party was a non-starter in my area, at least for that year...(and it wasn't). The "superstars" in the local Democratic machine are all self-made, telegenic African American males who ignore the party and have built their own "machines".

I'd be interested in hearing more about your adventures in "charm school". I'm surprised they let a Godless libertarian like yourself attend!

 

[JohnGalt2009]

Hmmm... a bit of false equivalency here, methinks.

Both parties DO focus on re-election uber alles, but with varying degrees of a) intensity and b) success. Because of my position in the working world, I get invited from time to time to hobnob with insiders of both political parties. It's been very instructional.

The Republicans seem to do a light-years better job of keeping candidates in line, making them swear fealty to the party platform. Democrats go through the motions of doing so, but lack the stomach to enforce party discipline, at least on the local (county/area) levels that I deal with.

For example, there's an important position on the local Democratic party power structure. It's a key position because it controls how campaign dollars are allocated to candidates. Unfortunately, in the name of "diversity", the position requires taking into account sex, African-American and "alternate lifestyles" (read:gay) when filling it, which has led to an incredibly diverse but not especially competent rotating group of position holders.

From the so-stupid-it-has-to-be-true dept: At one very heated Dem. executive committee meeting, the chairwoman got very flustered (I thought several folks were going to come to blows). She suggested we all take a five minute timeout (fine with me) and sing Kumbahya to lessen the tension. That's the point when I realized the Democratic party was a non-starter in my area, at least for that year...(and it wasn't). The "superstars" in the local Democratic machine are all self-made, telegenic African American males who ignore the party and have built their own "machines".

I'd be interested in hearing more about your adventures in "charm school". I'm surprised they let a Godless libertarian like yourself attend!

LOL! Rest assured, they were a bit surprised that one slipped in. No one more than the guy that put my name in the hat. But yes, a demon entered into their mist.

Objectively, I would certainly have to agree that how the "party's" enforce their lines are certainly different. Yes, the repub's can be a bit more "strict" in the delivery, but that may simply be that the demographic making up the rank and file tend to be, white and male, corporate types. I fit all of those, but I also come with a bit of a bad, individualist, idealist attitude.

I also tend to be quite liberal socially, and while there is acceptance of that in the party; they have aboslutely no friggin clue how to get that message out. And, they have no backbone to challenge the old guard that somehow have some juice in this day and age.

I could not stomach that, and cannot stomach that.

I have a story for ya that it'd be good to share over beer. It is actually a civil rights issue that is potentially nuclear in our state. It is bizarro because the D's and the R's agree on the issue! But the arena is a bit more esoteric.

Sadly, at the end of the day, I think that most of the party rank and file, from both parties are really not that far apart. But we have become a culture that throws information out so fast and furiously, and de-personalizes it, that the assumption becomes that the differences are hostile.

I love nothing more than finding the common ground with someone "from the other side".

 

[Luk]

A moron? Wow... Name calling? That is the best you have? Go ahead and ignore me, it isn't a loss to me. Frankly, I came here to challenge what I believe, and to learn what others think. Yet you, and probably several like you, while unable to logically respond, choose to have a tantrum and ignore someone you can't handle. By all means, go for it. Just know, it is a cowardly act on your part.

BTW, you want to call me an idiot, yet claim that your beloved party did not "punish" one who defected? Which would be totally incorrect. Just ask Joe.

Moreover, your comments about what the repub party expects is also incorrect.

Health care didn't pass because it is an abomination, and I've laid out some points else where; that people like you have failed to make any rational counter towards.

But go ahead and ignore me.

You came here for that?

 

[JohnGalt2009]

You came here for that?

Yawn?
I've said this in a couple of posts already... I am not really concerned with talking to a group of people that I agree with. There is little to learn, and little to challenge.

Despite a couple of children making some mild name calling remarks, I am interested in hearing more perspectives than just my own. It gives me the chance to think and reason.

Plus I get a kick out of the kids that can do little more than name call, or toss an insult over the fence, then run like a coward.

 

[Luk]

Yawn?
I've said this in a couple of posts already... I am not really concerned with talking to a group of people that I agree with. There is little to learn, and little to challenge.

Despite a couple of children making some mild name calling remarks, I am interested in hearing more perspectives than just my own. It gives me the chance to think and reason.

Plus I get a kick out of the kids that can do little more than name call, or toss an insult over the fence, then run like a coward.

Someone ran from you on the internet?

Is this LT's right wing alt?

 

[JohnGalt2009]

Someone ran from you on the internet?

Is this LT's right wing alt?

Seriously? Sorry, rhetorical question...

I offered you a thoughtful response, you chose to be smarmy. Speaks volumes.

 

[Luk]

Seriously? Sorry, rhetorical question...

I offered you a thoughtful response, you chose to be smarmy. Speaks volumes.

No, what you did was call people who don't agree with you kids and cowards.

 

[JohnGalt2009]

No, what you did was call people who don't agree with you kids and cowards.

Incorrect, you are attempting to exploit context.

The comment that you are attempting to take from an ant hill to a mountain was directed at people who make petty remarks, without rationally addressing the content of a discussion; then run from the discussion.

You chose to see what you wanted to see. I prefer to have a discussion with people that I disagree with, which is what you chose to ignore.

 

[TurdFergeson]

Labels can be useful, but should never be trusted explicitly.

For example: something could say "fresh milk".

Sounds good and wholesome, right?

But you shouldn't start gulping it down without at least examining and smelling it, first.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

That's the thing. We as Democrats don't always agree, at least not at first. The Democrats haven't alienated their moderates and fiscal conservatives completely as the Republicans have with their moderates and social liberals. Options are weighed, debates rage until a compromise is made that all can agree on.

The Republicans seem to impose a decision on it's congressional members through force and intimidation. The leadership states it's position and all members are compelled to agree with it on penalty of being labelled a "RINO". It's been displayed here innumerable times. They have all but driven the moderates and independents away from their party by shuffling as far tot he right as possible without losing touch with reality altogether.

Although an argument could be made that the fringe elements lost touch with reality long ago. Take dizzybooby for example.

This is pure, blind, partisan ascription.

There is little, if any difference in the way the two parties operate.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Democrats, U_D, are the party of groups, quid pro quo, and doublethink, which is why you so often see them come to a consensus from the bottom up.

They oftentimes have to set aside their common sense and conservatism in order to support the loons because without the support of the loons, then the Republicans win. It's a two-fold thought process; a double-edged sword. It's better to be part of the group/herd/consensus that to get singled out. It's better to have a shot at your ideas being put forth and not see them advanced than it is to have the Republicans make decisions based on the good of the individual, even if it's your cause and idea being advanced, because the Repulican ideas are harmful to the happiness of the loons who can't afford to be singled out. Who knows, maybe next week you'll discover you're actually one of the loons and don't want to be judged, just accepted...*



Republicans still tend to individualism and principled, even stubborn adherence to personal philosophy. They will gleefully join the Democrats in attacking their own extremes even if it means losing, and that comes from the "moderates" and effete country-clubbers towards the Christian extremists as well as the Christians towards the moderate RINOs.

[definition - loon: he who engages in aberrant behavior and still expects to be considered as part of the mainstream of humanity]
__________________
"There is only one success; to be able to spend your life in your own way, and not to give others absurd maddening claims upon it."
Christopher Morley

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Anti-incumbent backlash hits city halls

Alexander Burns
Politico

A series of upsets and close calls in big-city elections is producing the first group of politicians to fall victim to voters' economic frustrations: America's mayors.

While political observers are focused on the outcome of the Nov. 3 gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey for early insights into the 2010 midterms, it's in City Hall where the most ominous trend is emerging.

Some incumbent mayors have already lost their races. Others have held on to win—or are likely to win next week—with greatly diminished margins from their previous re-election bids. Either way, local incumbents are bleeding badly after being buffeted by the pressures of high unemployment, low tax revenues and a volatile, impatient electorate.

Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, a second-term incumbent and president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, was defeated for re-election in an August primary by two candidates with thin political resumes. On October 6, Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chavez fell short in his bid for a third consecutive term, putting the city's top office in Republican hands for the first time in a quarter-century.

Even for mayors who have survived re-election campaigns, the results haven't been pretty. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who beat an incumbent by 18 points to win the seat in 2005, won a second term earlier this year with just 56 percent of the vote despite facing no significant opposition.

In two more elections coming up next month, high-profile mayors are expected to prevail, though by considerably smaller margins than they’ve been accustomed to winning. Boston's Tom Menino, who barely cracked 50 percent in a September primary election, is drawing support from just 52 percent of likely voters in his bid for a fifth term. New York City's Michael Bloomberg, too, attracted just 52 percent of votes in a recent poll.

In 2005, Menino won by a 35-point landslide while Bloomberg won by close to 20 points.

"People are lashing out, have less patience with the elected officials closest to them," said Louisville Mayor Jerry Abramson, the longest-serving mayor in city history and a former president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. "That kind of angst materializes either in walking away from the system or in deciding that whoever is up for election must have played some role, somehow, in some way, in the international financial crisis."

iSmart

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Oh Gawd, please don't say it's true, not the LA Times too!!!

Perish the thought!

Reporting from Kennett Square, Pa. - As he is quick to point out, President Obama is presiding over two wars, a sour economy and an epic fight to rework the nation's healthcare system.

Now tack on a trio of state and local political races. With an off-year election fast approaching, Obama is stepping up his commitment to Democratic candidates in hopes that an infusion of campaign charisma might pump up turnout.

What the party is finding, though, is that the electricity of 2008 is tough to recapture.

Some Democratic candidates running for local office around the country call the phenomenon the "Obama hangover." It is proving tougher to recruit volunteers and get people to vote.

"It's like the morning after the party," Michael McGann, a Democrat running for clerk of courts in the Philadelphia suburbs, said in an interview. "The party was wonderful and exciting. The day after it's like, 'Gee, I don't want to do that again for a while.' "

Combating the malaise, Obama is trying to galvanize voters by reminding them of the "fired up, ready to go" fervor that made last year's race riveting political theater.

A television ad for Virginia gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds released Wednesday showcases Obama, who is heard using some of the same rhetorical lines that helped get him elected: "Last year, Virginia, you helped lead a movement. . . . I need every one of you to get fired up once again."

Are voters buying it? Obama's party has a hard sell.

Apart from Virginia, Democratic candidates are trying to scratch out victories in the New Jersey governor's race and in a congressional race in upstate New York's 23rd District.

In New Jersey, the election is in some measure a referendum on the Democratic incumbent, Jon Corzine, who has been in office nearly four years. Local issues loom large in New Jersey. A recent poll by Monmouth University showed that people see property taxes as the dominant issue, trumping the economy and healthcare.

Asked whether a campaign appearance by Obama on behalf of Corzine would affect their vote, 73% said no.

Conditions look even tougher for Democrats in Virginia. A recent survey by Public Policy Polling showed Deeds trailing Republican Bob McDonnell by 12 points.

Obama's approval rating among white Virginia voters has slipped 3 points since the 2008 election, and, compounding the problem, black voters are not as excited about Deeds as they were about Obama, said Ron Faucheux, president of Clarus Research Group, a polling firm.

Worse for the Democrats, if any one constituency is energized this season it's conservatives, who are angry about rising deficits, some pollsters said.

"There's real anger on the right, and that anger isn't matched by enthusiasm on the left," said Dean Debnam, president of Public Policy Polling. "So the emotion is on the side of the far right. And voting has become very emotional."

A clean sweep by Democrats looks unattainable. So for Obama, the question is how much to invest in what could turn out to be losing candidacies.

Maybe they SHOULD go out of iBusiness!

 

[WriterDom]

Funny how times change.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Funny how we'll be more popular than ever once health care was passed has turned into, "I DIDN'T VOTE FOR IT" in certain Democratic circles and unmentioned in the others...




However, the Ruling-Class Republicans may be consigning themselves to the fate of the whigs if they keep embracing their liberals and pissing on their conservatives.

 

[Saint Peter]

rip

 

[rosco rathbone]

We shall see. I think if you pull back and look at the big picture, the GOP still has serious problems that haven't been dealt with.

If the entire country approves of the hard right turn, I'll eat my words.

 

[unregistered]

 

[rosco rathbone]

Falling poll numbers across the board for Democrats means a big left wing turn in November.

Here's an interesting quote from 538:

Although Ms. O’Donnell and Mr. Coons remain relatively unknown to some Delaware voters, and a comeback by Ms. O’Donnell is not impossible, the forecasting model gives it only a 6 percent likelihood of happening — and has established Mr. Coons, therefore, as a 94 percent favorite. Had Republican voters selected Mr. Castle instead, the numbers would be exactly the opposite: Mr. Castle would be the 94 percent favorite to win the seat, leaving Mr. Coons with just a 6 percent chance of an upset.

Interesting because the moderate, pro-choice Republican wasn't just ahead of the Democrat, he was a massive favorite.

 

[KingOrfeo]

However, the Ruling-Class Republicans may be consigning themselves to the fate of the whigs if they keep embracing their liberals and pissing on their conservatives.

Don't you realize that you have that just exactly backwards?

Even Karl Rove, who knows a thing or two about winning elections, thinks it was a big mistake for the Delaware GOP to nominate a Tea Party candidate for Senate, and that she has no chance in the general election. Polling to date bears that out.

The problem -- which you and other Liticons seem to have an astonishingly hard time wrapping your heads around -- is that, outside certain red-county enclaves, what you mean by "conservatives" are a numerical minority in America, and most non-conservatives look askance at them. They might have formed a "Silent Majority" in Nixon's day, but that was a long time ago, and now they are a noisy minority.

 

[unregistered]

 

[The_Trouvere]

Bruce Walker
American Thinker

Another blast of copy & paste hot air from American Thinker. Slug is dependent on American Thinker because he is incapable of doing his own thinking.

 

[The_Trouvere]

Democrats Re-Establish Narrow Edge in Party Affiliation

Falling poll numbers across the board for Democrats means a big left wing turn in November.

Gallup September 15, 2010

PRINCETON, NJ -- Slightly more Americans identify as Democrats or lean Democratic (44%) than identify as or lean Republican (41%) in September to date, re-establishing a Democratic edge that disappeared in August, when the parties were even.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/143009/Democrats-Establish-Narrow-Edge-Party-Affiliation.aspx