Forget the Republicans.


PDA






cbsbyte
June 14, 2007, 01:17 PM
WASHINGTON -- The race for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination has become wide open, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News
Of greater concern for Republicans generally, however, is the party's weak state heading into the 2008 election. By 52% to 31%, Americans say they want Democrats to win the presidency next year.

Americans give the Republican Party their most negative assessment in the two-decade history of the Journal/NBC survey, and by 49% to 36% they say the Democratic Party more closely shares their values and positions on the issues.

"The political environment for Republicans continues to erode," says Republican pollster Neil Newhouse, who conducts the Journal/NBC survey with Democratic counterpart Peter Hart. A long-term worry for the party: Republican gains among the Hispanic constituency, long a target for President Bush, have vanished at a time when Washington is enmeshed in a debate over immigration policy.

The party's woes can be partly traced to the political decline of President Bush. His approval rating in the Journal/NBC survey has fallen to its lowest ever, 29%, while 66% of Americans disapprove of his performance. The telephone survey of 1,008 adults, conducted June 8-11, has a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points.

Mr. Bush's decline from 35% approval in April reflects diminished support from his core constituency: Among Republicans, approval of the president's job performance has dropped to 62% from 75%. It also reflects bleak assessments of his new strategy in Iraq: By 54% to 10%, Americans say the situation there has gotten worse rather than better in recent months.

The poll hardly brings reassurance for the Democrats, who control both the House and Senate. Amid political gridlock on domestic issues and inconclusive debates over Iraq, the approval rating for Congress stands lower than Mr. Bush's, at 23%. Just 41% of Americans say their representative in Congress deserves re-election, comparable to levels before Democrats swept Republicans out of power in November.

Yet the Democrats' overall strategic posture as 2008 approaches remains far stronger. Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, who has strengthened her lead in the race for the Democratic nomination, leads Mr. Giuliani by 48% to 43% in a potential general-election matchup after trailing by a similar margin three months ago. Despite Mr. Thompson's rise among Republican contenders, he trails the second-place Democratic candidate, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, by 50% to 31% in a hypothetical November 2008 contest.
[Chart]

Among Democrats, Mrs. Clinton draws 39% of the vote, up from 36% in April, while Mr. Obama receives 25%, down from 31%. Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, the 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee, receives 15%, with Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico and Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware lagging behind at 4%.

Mrs. Clinton's standing in the Democratic race follows her performances in televised debates and an attempt to downplay differences with Mr. Obama over Iraq. Though her leading rival courts Democratic voters by noting that he opposed from the start a war she voted to authorize, she enjoys a wider lead among Democrats backing an immediate troop withdrawal than among those who oppose one.

Moreover, on both of the rank and file's top two characteristics for their party's nominee -- capacity to bring about change and experience for the presidency -- Mrs. Clinton holds an edge. Fully 71% of Democrats rate the former first lady highly for being "knowledgeable and experienced enough to handle the presidency," while 30% rate the first-term Sen. Obama highly on that dimension.

"Her competence campaign is working," Mr. Newhouse said.

Yet the same dynamic hasn't succeeded in stemming the decline of Sen. McCain, who was once viewed as the 2008 Republican front-runner on the strength of his 2000 campaign. Rank-and-file Republicans rate knowledge and experience their top priority in a 2008 nominee, and 62% rate the longtime Arizona senator highly on that score. Yet Mr. McCain receives comparatively low marks for being an "inspirational and exciting" candidate, and for sharing the party's positions on the issues.

Among those profiting at Mr. McCain's expense is Mr. Thompson. The actor and former lawmaker is recognized by seven in 10 Republicans, and he stands as the early favorite among the one-third of Republicans who call themselves "very conservative." Notes Mr. Newhouse: "Republican voters have gotten their first look at Fred Thompson, and he looks pretty good."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118177312675434460.html?mod=blogs

I hate to say it but it looks like the Republican ship has finally sunk. The American people have finally come to their senses, and realized the wrong direction this country has been heading in since 2000. Even Fred Thompson trails Obama in head to head match ups. In a Democrat will win the election in 2008. So write in who you want to win, since it really will not matter in the end.

If you enjoyed reading about "Forget the Republicans." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
camslam
June 14, 2007, 01:23 PM
What is needed is a complete overhaul. It doesn't matter if you are a republican or democrat, I would say there isn't even 10% of congressmen that have our countries best interests as their #1 priority. Most of these bums just want to get re-elected.

I would love to throw them all out, but since that isn't going to happen, just continue being prepared for the day when people have had enough.

Matt King
June 14, 2007, 01:26 PM
Ron Paul. He is what the GOP should really look like. I really hope, albeit a bit unrealistically, that Ron Paul will win the election. How ever his campaign has one major flaw. While he has a wide range of support across the political spectrum, within the GOP his support base is very narrow. While I do think that he could give all of the other candidates a run for their money in a general election, I seriously doubt that he will be able to make it out of the primaries.

Phetro
June 14, 2007, 01:27 PM
The American people have finally come to their senses, and realized the wrong direction this country has been heading in since 2000.

Mmm hmmm. And the uh, "democrats" are going to make everything all better, just like a fairy tale. Isn't that what you're implying?

Frog48
June 14, 2007, 01:29 PM
The Republican party has been hijacked by the "Neo-Con" and "Christian Conservative" factions. If they're flushed out and the party returns to traditional conservative ideology, I believe the party would regain strength.

Mannix
June 14, 2007, 01:29 PM
I disagree. It's still much too early to tell. Thompson hasn't even officially announced his candidacy. Once that happens, I think he has a decent chance to pull ahead of Giuliani, and even the Dems. I'm voting Paul for sure, at least in the primaries, but I could be tempted to vote Thompson if he's on the ballot.

Prince Yamato
June 14, 2007, 01:32 PM
Spout the same, "democrats will win" right before the general election, and watch the tide of Republican votes surge.

cbsbyte
June 14, 2007, 01:33 PM
Mmm hmmm. And the uh, "democrats" are going to make everything all better, just like a fairy tale. Isn't that what you're implying?

What I am implying is that this country has always been some where in the middle politically, when it goes to far in one direction the voters swing back the country in the other direction. Now that the Republicans have had there time in office it is now time for the Democrats. The republicans can not rule forever, and it is now time for them to go back to a minority party for some time, at least to the next Reagan which might take awhile.

ArmedBear
June 14, 2007, 01:38 PM
What about the Democrats' "direction" is better?

What, exactly, do the Democrats offer us?

Gun bans as an answer to crime, global warming hysteria, higher taxes without regard to consequences, a Federal takeover of medicine, same pork, government planning as an answer to every imagined problem, Federal control dressed up as "liberty"?

No, this is not a defense of the GOP.

For those with an IQ below 75, saying "the Democrats suck!" is not the same as saying "the Republicans are the answer."

Sadly, many voters DO seem to believe this, and swap sides periodically, believing that the problem is in one party or the other, not in our whole political system.

But lest anyone think this is an argument for the Libertarian Party, it's not.

It's actually an argument for a divided government. Get a diverse bunch of self-serving idiots in office, not a monolithic body of self-serving idiots. Those are really our only two choices.

Those who complain about our political divisions don't realize that a divided DC is the best thing for the average American. God help us when DC gets together and does something "bipartisan". That's the worst.

What I am implying is that this country has always been some where in the middle politically, when it goes to far in one direction the voters swing back the country in the other direction.

True enough. I am concerned, though, about a Federal government dominated by one party across the board, especially when that party's leadership is far from centrist.

tcgeol
June 14, 2007, 01:54 PM
The Republican party has been hijacked by the "Neo-Con" and "Christian Conservative" factions. If they're flushed out and the party returns to traditional conservative ideology, I believe the party would regain strength.

I'm not a fan of "neo-cons", although most people who use this term don't really know what it means, but you apparently really don't understand how many "Christian Conservatives" there are. If your goal is to kill the Republican party, the best way to do it is to kick us out. You don't have to agree with them on every issue, but you better learn to like having a Democrat president and congress if you get rid of us.

It is just too early to really know what might happen in the election. We aren't even to the point where we know who the top candidates might be, although unfortunately, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo probably won't be among them. For those who say there is no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans running, though, take a look at the field. If you limit yourselves to Giuliani and Romney, you might be right. Every other candidate running, though, is pro-gun, or at least is compared to every Democrat running, excepting possibly Richardson.

MrRezister
June 14, 2007, 01:58 PM
Ron Paul. He is what the GOP should really look like. I really hope, albeit a bit unrealistically, that Ron Paul will win the election. How ever his campaign has one major flaw. While he has a wide range of support across the political spectrum, within the GOP his support base is very narrow. While I do think that he could give all of the other candidates a run for their money in a general election, I seriously doubt that he will be able to make it out of the primaries.

If '06 was as heavily influenced by the public's dissatisfaction with the war as the Dems claim, then the Republicans are sunk regardless. They only have one anti-war candidate to run, and they are burying him as quickly as they can.

I'm voting with Paul all the way as of right now. I would be interested to see if he could pull off a Lieberman-style attack from offsides.

ArmedBear
June 14, 2007, 02:09 PM
If '06 was as heavily influenced by the public's dissatisfaction with the war as the Dems claim, then the Republicans are sunk regardless.

Dissatisfaction with the war is not monolithic, either. There are...

1. People who are just plain anti-war, no matter what. It's hard to see Code Pink, or even their far more numerous and more moderate supporters being "satisfied" with a war.
2. People who want to win the war, and who don't see the current Federal government really trying to win. Note that this WaPo piece was publicized by Michael Savage, who is not anti-war, but, along with many of his callers, is angry with the way we're conducting the war. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/08/AR2007060802405.html
3. People who are ambivalent, but could be swayed either way depending on what they see/hear about why we're fighting, and how. They don't like what they see/hear.
4. People who think we should spend the money on more handouts for people in the United States, not on a war. They may or may not fit #1.
5. Democrats who oppose any major action by Republicans, no matter what it is, war, economic policy, whatever. (Same thing exists on the other side. "No nation building!" in 2000 really meant, "No nation building by the Democrats!" as we soon found out.)
6. Globalists of many stripes who, while they might support a UN military action, oppose military actions by the US. There are Republicans and Democrats, Libertarians and Greens, marxists and multinational executives in this group.

Note that a candidate who appealed to #2 and #3 would be most unappealing to #1 and #4. #5 is all about partisanship, and the #5'ers are on one side or another in every election and probably balance each other out. #6 people form alliances with the others. They're the wildcards. One way or another, though, "dissatisfaction with the war" does not necessarily lead to only one kind of vote.

I think that the 2008 election is not over yet. It'll be a helluva ride between now and then.

These polls about "if Guiliani ran against Obama, who would you vote for?" at this stage, are just entertainment for the idly curious. The real campaign will start next Spring. It will be interesting.

sarge83
June 14, 2007, 02:13 PM
I am a conservative who has voted mostly republican since I was able to vote nearly 25 yrs. ago. The GOP is headed down the same road as the Democratic party, elitist and arrogant, self-serving politicians to the core, only worried about their next election.

Many in the GOP say, you have to work within the party to change it, well the RINO's clearly control the party and the conservatives do all the work and pay the bills. In many ways we are like the black vote in the democratic party. For yrs. I would agree, change from within, but after the immigration debacle I don't think it's worth saving. I have many conservative friends, people that voted for Ike and Goldwater who are sitting out the next election and believe that only a good dose of Hillary will get the countries attention. We had to have Jimmy Carter in order to get Reagan.

We put up with one immigration bill fiasco after another, no child left behind, spending like crack whores, the medicare prescription socialist scheme to buy votes and lastly the latest immigration bill that won't die.

The current up-yours by the President and the GOP senators and them telling us we are bigots and un-American over the amnesty bill is a "bridge too far". I am voting third party or not at all.

BobCav
June 14, 2007, 02:17 PM
IMHO, the Democrats are far too Socialist for my taste and the Republicans are far too Capitalist as well. There's no happy medium or even balance anymore. It's all one extreme or the other and that makes for a BIPOLAR NATIONAL IDENTITY.

It's as though the Dems are in the pockets of those who would wish greater government control and the Repubs are in the pockets of those who wish for more corporate control and I can't stand for either.

I'm starting to agree with a friend of mine who used to be on Reagan's staff......

America is dead.

I may very well write in "NONE OF THE ABOVE"

ArmedBear
June 14, 2007, 02:20 PM
The current up-yours by the President and the GOP senators and them telling us we are bigots and un-American over the amnesty bill is a "bridge too far".

That's not ALL the Senators, by a long shot!

If I have a chance, I'll vote for whoever DIDN'T do that, and against who did.

Does it make sense to punish Jim DeMint for what John McCain does?

It works better if you show politicians that they will be rewarded or punished, depending on what they stand for, individually. Doesn't it?

jpk1md
June 14, 2007, 02:22 PM
Personally I have hope for Fred Thompson and his ability to energize voters and the party.

With the election being so far out and the Dems being pulled more and more to the extreme left by the Moveon.org folks there is still plenty of time for the party to implode....Barack has little substance, Billary has been involved in a host of scandels and her position shifts more frequently than the wind changes direction......

FT is solid on the core issues that I care about...I think a large number of people will find comfort in the fact that you know where he stands on any given issue while the talking heads waffle back and forth.

Run Fred Run.

cbsbyte
June 14, 2007, 02:31 PM
FT is solid on the core issues that I care about...I think a large number of people will find comfort in the fact that you know where he stands on any given issue while the talking heads waffle back and forth.

Funny you say that, in the latest polls he is polling way behind Obama. I guess maybe not enough voters know about him or people could careless about him.

Chad
June 14, 2007, 02:31 PM
America is dead.

I may very well write in "NONE OF THE ABOVE"
If America dies, the cause will certainly be apathy.
Everything this country is or will be we have allowed to come to pass.

ArmedBear
June 14, 2007, 02:37 PM
If America dies, the cause will certainly be apathy.
Everything this country is or will be we have allowed to come to pass.

True.

Furthermore, few of us run for office, volunteer to work on a campaign, are members of a local political party affiliate, etc.

We just bitch that "they" don't present us with good candidates every few years, and talk about punishing "them" by not voting.

Now THAT'S bound to work.:rolleyes:

MJZZZ
June 14, 2007, 02:41 PM
The issue of one party or the other being better doesn't matter. Until our elected officials start basing their votes on what is better for the country instead of what will better line their pockets, our country is in for a bad time. I'm truly ashamed to see the voting records and the lists of pork barrel projects our elected leaders are wasting our taxdollars on. Most politicians see getting elected as a way to enrich their families and donors, and until that stops it will be business as usual for both parties. Mike

DomMega
June 14, 2007, 02:42 PM
Its unfortunate but I think the voting in this country is rigged. How the hell did Bush even get into office? He was tied up with Al Gore in the closest race for the White House this country has ever seen. He miraculously won Florida when everyone said he didn't and oh, look, his brother is the governor, how convenient. He's helped little by little to destroy everything this country stands for and the next candidate has a lot of cleaning up to do.

Ron Paul is the only candidate that makes sense to vote for. It was funny what Bill Mahr said when he had him on his show.

"You're my new hero. I think anyone that doesn't vote for you has one major problem and thats that they're stupid."

Haha. I think the reason the Republicans have been having so many problems lately is because the ones that call themselves Republicans are the furthest thing from that. Empty patriots that don't stand for anything except making their wallets fatter. I've listened to both sides and I seriously believe that Ron Paul is the only means we have to reversing what this country and its leaders have done to itself. If we don't get these borders closed up and the benefits the illegals have in coming here, we're pretty much doomed. Ron Paul will take care of that for us among a multitude of other things.

Again, its real easy to point the finger when we do nothing ourselves to be proactive but instead just blame the politicians for all our whoas. Change can be had but you have to take that first step yourself in trying to attain it. America is dying and we the people need to step up to the plate and start some serious reform. It amazes me that Bush hasn't been impeached yet but thats probably because nobody cares enough to make any noise.

XD Fan
June 14, 2007, 02:52 PM
This has all been done before. The Republicans look all powerful, then they wan and the democrats come to power for a while. It has been happening regularly since Reconstruction and before. The Republicans will be back at some point, and then they will weaken again. The Republican ship is not sunk nor is the Democratic ship.

Sometimes I think it is the people that are fickle, not the politicians. I do not understand how a person can vote for one guy in an election, and then in the next election vote for someone with exactly the opposite values.

RNB65
June 14, 2007, 02:58 PM
Election is still 17 months away. That's an eternity in Washington. The entire political landscape will be changed by then.

Lone_Gunman
June 14, 2007, 03:39 PM
The Republican party has been hijacked by the "Neo-Con" and "Christian Conservative" factions.

I think the Christian conservatives have already lost a lot a power to the Neo-Conservatives.

Of course, the Christian conservatives have not yet realized they have been abandoned by the Republican party, mainly because they have ingrained in their brains that the Democrats are pure evil, and anyone opposing Democrats must therefore be good.

But the truth is, the Republicans have not done anything for the Christian conservatives except give them lip service since Bush has taken office. Bush campaigned hard about a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, but once he won the election he of course did not make any attempt to do that. He also campaigned hard on limiting abortion, but nothing has happened with that either, except the Partial birth abortion ban that was passed, and then subsequently struck down as unconstitutional by the Republican controlled Supreme Court.

The Christian conservatives have been abandoned by the Neo-Cons. The only thing that matters to the Neo-Conservative controlled Republican party is spending, corporate profits, and economic world domination brought about by fighting foreign wars.

Many people are hoping that Fred Thompson will become some type of Conservative savior of the Republican party. Clearly, though, Fred represents the status quo of neo-conservative politics. He supports Campaign Finance Reform, Medicare Reform (ie, free drugs for old people), and the Patriot Act. None of these things falls into the realm of traditional conservatism. They are all part of the the Neo-conservative philosophy.

Chad
June 14, 2007, 03:40 PM
MJZZZ:
For some reason I recently read the entire list of all the legislation introduced in the House and Senate this session.

It's enough to make me cry, or puke, or both...

Between the socialist garbage, the pork and the nanny/tyrant wishes there was maybe 2% decent legislation.

Granted most of this doesn't get anywhere, but I couldn't help but think "we elected these people? Why?!"

Don't for a minute depend on the politicians making it better...that will never happen.
It's up to us to make it better...even if it does seem like it's too late.

S.P.E.C.T.R.E.
June 14, 2007, 03:53 PM
We're a year and half away from the elections. In years past, candidates hadn't even announced yet.

Gore hasn't announced, nor has Fred Thompson, two possible candidates who will have a major effect on the race. I know it's interesting to speculate but at this point it's still anyone's game.

araiford
June 14, 2007, 04:11 PM
I predict that the Republicans will never hold power in this country again.

fatelk
June 14, 2007, 04:40 PM
I do not understand how a person can vote for one guy in an election, and then in the next election vote for someone with exactly the opposite values.
These are people who are swayed to and fro, generally quite ignorant. They spout something they heard on TV like it's gospel truth. They tend to go with what they feel, rather than look into the facts.

I predict that the Republicans will never hold power in this country again.
You must be young.

Personally I'm burned out on politics; I don't even know why I'm reading this thread or posting. My only thoughts as to who will make it through the primaries: looking at it from this side I'd have to say it will either be Giulani or Thompson versus Hillary.

One comment about Hillary: her biggest weakness is the fact that about 25% of the country already hates her with a passion. I'm not saying she can't win, she very well could and might (heaven forbid!). I'm just saying that there is a ready-made army of campaign volunteers just waiting (chomping at the bit, really) to go to work against her, no matter who the republican nominee is.

Titan6
June 14, 2007, 04:53 PM
Guess I will jump in with some truth. I am sure some will see it as repub bashing.

ARMED BEAR
What, exactly, do the Democrats offer us?

The same as the repubs:

Gun bans as an answer to crime,

Rudy and Romney

global warming hysteria,

The agro fuel debacle

higher taxes without regard to consequences

Insane amounts of debt

a Federal takeover of medicine,

The prescription drug program

same pork,

Different Pork

government planning as an answer to every imagined problem,

No planning, just wasted resources as in FEMA

Federal control dressed up as "liberty"?

The Patriot Act.

Tell me how this is better? Cuz it ain't. They are a souless, leaderless party without vision or a road map... totally lost. If there was ever a time for another party now would be it. But the other parties are really not much better either.

ArmedBear
June 14, 2007, 04:59 PM
And in anticipation of the predictable (and not inaccurate) response, I already wrote:

No, this is not a defense of the GOP.

For those with an IQ below 75, saying "the Democrats suck!" is not the same as saying "the Republicans are the answer."

Helluvalot of good it does. That's why such discussions never get anywhere, and people who agree on 99% of everything come off as opponents. Doesn't give me much hope for improvement.

And in answer to this:

If there was ever a time for another party now would be it. But the other parties are really not much better either.

I already wrote:

We just bitch that "they" don't present us with good candidates every few years, and talk about punishing "them" by not voting.

Now THAT'S bound to work.

This crap just keeps going 'round in circles, and we wonder why the political class spins off in some random direction that has little to do with us, and everything to do with filling their pockets and increasing their power.

Titan6
June 14, 2007, 05:20 PM
Yep.

Yep.

And I wrote this:

They are a souless, leaderless party without vision or a road map... totally lost.

So ummm.. who is providing your party leadership? What is the vision of your party? Because it sure isn't what it used to be.

nobody_special
June 14, 2007, 05:48 PM
I'm not thrilled with any of the announced candidates, Republican or Democrat. I think that says something, considering how many players there are on the field.

I'm liberal-libertarian: strongly pro-individual rights, pro-environmental protection, somewhat anti-corporate, and moderately tolerant of social programs. Of the Republicans, Ron Paul is the only one I would ever consider voting for -- even though I don't think he'd be an effective president, and I don't always agree with his positions. None of the rest are good candidates from a traditional conservative point of view. The Republican party these days is too divided between the neo-con fascists and the Christian fundamentalists.

Most of the candidates are too authoritarian. Among the Dems, I might consider Bill Richardson. I agree with the article that the Republicans are unlikely to win the presidency in '08, and Richardson is the most promising of the Democrats.

The whole thing is depressing. The election is over a year away, and we've already had debates... it feels like they're all eager to pick over the bones of the Bush administration. Fine by me -- I hate the Bush admin. with a passion -- but I don't see any of the likely 2008 candidates as being much of an improvement.

Sistema1927
June 14, 2007, 05:59 PM
Yep, the GOP is dead and waiting to be buried.

That is what they said in 1861.

That is what they said during the 1930's.

That is what they said during Watergate.

That is what they are saying today.

jpk1md
June 14, 2007, 07:08 PM
My prediction is that we will see a final election with at least 3 major candidates vying for POTUS. I really believe that this may be an election where an Independent blows the doors off the 2 party race for Potus

A few scenarios are as follows.

Guiliani (R)
Thompson (I)
Clinton or Obama (D)

OR

Thompson (R)
Clinton or Obama (D)
Bloomberg/Gore (I)

Or some variation of the above.

I'm pretty confident that we will see Thompson in the final election regardless if he wins the Republican Primary or not....he will not have any trouble finding the funds.

Bloomberg seems to have interest in joining the fight and doesn't lack the money to fund it himself....

Gore is a maybe.

Lets not forget Gingrich...

Lots can happen in the next year.....I just don't know why folks are getting so amped up so early.....personally I would like to see Fred Thompson in the White House but....

Ratzinger_p38
June 14, 2007, 07:18 PM
and then subsequently struck down as unconstitutional by the Republican controlled Supreme Court.

Totally false. The partial birth abortion ban was UPHELD by the SCOTUS, after being ruled unconstitutional by several state supreme courts.

tcgeol
June 14, 2007, 07:26 PM
None of the rest are good candidates from a traditional conservative point of view.
This really isn't the case. Tancredo, Hunter, Paul, and maybe Thompson (not convinced yet, but maybe) are traditional conservatives. The problem is that as a libertarian/liberal, you aren't looking for the same things that traditional conservatives represent, really. Some of them will overlap well, like RKBA, but a lot won't.

One problem here is that many confuse real conservatism with extreme libertarianism. They will say that so and so is not a real conservative, but they might be. They just aren't libertarian. They do overlap a lot in real policy decisons, but they start from different viewpoints and so come to different conclusions. I would call myself a conservative with libertarian leanings, but I have found myself disagreeing as much with libertarians on some issues as with liberals or conservatives. (One fun thing to do is tell people at your church that you are for legalization of marijuana. That leads to some really interesting conversation, although some understood the Constitutional principles.)

xd9fan
June 14, 2007, 08:11 PM
All this makes me think of a side question:
Its clear that Congress will not place term limits on themselves......Can States do it?

nobody_special
June 14, 2007, 08:23 PM
Tancredo, Hunter, Paul, and maybe Thompson (not convinced yet, but maybe) are traditional conservatives.

Tancredo voted for REAL ID and to reauthorize the Patriot Act, and his voting record also suggests he represents Chrisitan fundamentalist interests. He has an extremely poor rating from civil liberties and civil rights groups. That's not what I'd call a traditional conservative. Hunter is much the same, with the added disadvantage of being ~50% funded by corporations.

Thompson, AFAICT, is a neo-con.

You can check 'em out at votesmart.org.

Yes, my political ideology differs from that of a traditional conservative - but probably less than it differs from the agenda of the two mainstream parties.

Tomcat47
June 14, 2007, 08:36 PM
What happned to Ross Perot? ..............

Thats what we need an independent.....one that rides the fence....

but old Ross....he was a business man. It would have hurt but I think he woud have balanced th budget, fired everyone in washington, cleaned up the files, put out the cat....etc etc. maybe

One thing is for sure...he said....hear that sucking sound....that is your future! He nailed that one.

I still have hope for the GOP though. Only beause I never had any for the other. I got my eye on romney and old Fred too! when is he ever gonna announce. Maybe a Thomas / Romney ticket!
maybe we should put all 20 candidates from both party and let them fight it out!
No hillary would come out on top!.....oops didnt mean it that way:evil:

Frog48
June 14, 2007, 09:04 PM
I'm not a fan of "neo-cons", although most people who use this term don't really know what it means, but you apparently really don't understand how many "Christian Conservatives" there are. If your goal is to kill the Republican party, the best way to do it is to kick us out. You don't have to agree with them on every issue, but you better learn to like having a Democrat president and congress if you get rid of us.


Dont get me wrong, I consider myself a devout Christian, but I do not think that the so-called "Christian leaders" should be imposing morality upon others through law. Their attempts to ban gay marriage and abortion are my primary objections. While I personally despise abortion, and I'm not particularly thrilled by the idea of gay marriage, I recognize that those should be STATE issues, not Federal issues.

The only thing that matters to the Neo-Conservative controlled Republican party is spending, corporate profits, and economic world domination brought about by fighting foreign wars.


Dont forget other notable characteristics of the Neo-Cons... perpetuating their own power through increasing the size of the Fed Gov, and hoarding powers by ignoring the Constitution, thanks to the wonderful Patriot Act.
Thats where I have my beef with the "Christian Conservatives", trying to pass federal laws regarding issues that should be dealt with at the state level (if anywhere).

tcgeol
June 14, 2007, 09:13 PM
Tancredo voted for REAL ID and to reauthorize the Patriot Act, and his voting record also suggests he represents Chrisitan fundamentalist interests. He has an extremely poor rating from civil liberties and civil rights groups. That's not what I'd call a traditional conservative. Hunter is much the same, with the added disadvantage of being ~50% funded by corporations.

I will definitely agree with you on REAL ID, and on parts of the Patriot Act, but the rest is exactly part of what I would consider a traditional conservative. You will have to go a long way to convince me that a lot of what you call "Christian fundamentalist interest" would not have traditionally been considered conservative thought. I know that you disagree with a lot of it, but that doesn't mean that it isn't traditional conservative.

xd9fan
June 14, 2007, 09:17 PM
Tancredo voted for REAL ID and to reauthorize the Patriot Act
wow
sad

tcgeol
June 14, 2007, 09:18 PM
While I personally despise abortion, and I'm not particularly thrilled by the idea of gay marriage, I recognize that those should be STATE issues, not Federal issues
I agree. Those are definitely state issues, as long as the full faith and credit clause is not invoked to force other states to recognize homosexual marriage.

HiroProX
June 14, 2007, 09:25 PM
I'm almost tempted to start voting for the worst candidate for the purpose of making things worse as fast as possible.

Marshall
June 14, 2007, 09:38 PM
but I do not think that the so-called "Christian leaders" should be imposing morality upon others through law. Their attempts to ban gay marriage and abortion are my primary objections.

Maybe I'm wrong, correct me if I am. But, in order to have gay marriage be law, you have to make law. That in itself would be making moral law, which is what you object to. Is it not?

Frog48
June 14, 2007, 09:42 PM
Maybe I'm wrong, correct me if I am. But, in order to have gay marriage be law, you have to make law. That in itself would be making moral law, which is what you object to. Is it not?

Reread what I said. If individual states want to address those issues, I'm fine with that. I just dont like the federal government sticking their nose where it doesnt belong.

As for whether laws would be needed to enable gay marriage, it depends on a state by state basis, depending on how they currently define marriage.

pdowg881
June 14, 2007, 10:06 PM
The way I see it, it is none of the government's business what two consenting adults do behind closed doors in the privacy of their own home.


But back on topic: Is it possible that if Hillary got the Democratic nod that Independents leaning towards Democrats might vote Republican? If the thought of Hillary as Pres enough to turn people away from Dems?

Marshall
June 14, 2007, 10:10 PM
I understand that.

And I'm not arguing one way or the other. Just was pointing out that making law for a moral issue, is the same as making law against a moral issue whether it be state government or federal. :)

Frog48
June 14, 2007, 10:11 PM
Fair enough.

Marshall
June 14, 2007, 10:12 PM
The way I see it, it is none of the government's business what two consenting adults do behind closed doors in the privacy of their own home.

What does that have to do with the subject of making laws concerning gay marriage?

Titan6
June 14, 2007, 10:56 PM
If all the repubs have left in the clip is gay marriage we can expect to have 100% democrat government by this time in '09.

pdowg881
June 14, 2007, 11:00 PM
Marshall:What does that have to do with the subject of making laws concerning gay marriage?

It means that because I said I believe it isn't the govts business they should not make any laws about it one way or the other. Same for the state level.

brerrabbit
June 14, 2007, 11:12 PM
A true conservative standpoint is that it is none of the governments business who marries who. A christian conservatives viewpoint is that it is against god and society and must be prevented. A neocon will outlaw it do it to get votes or try to funnel money to cronies.

Lifelong conservative republican, newly conservative independant. While the republicans cannot win without the neocons and christian conservatives, the republicans also cannot win without the conservatives.

If the republicans don't like the score? Then they should have represented me and the party ideals.

I am not going to get into voting for the lesser evil anymore. No matter what, candidates from the major parties are all lizards.

I didnt leave my party, my party left me.

MarshallDodge
June 14, 2007, 11:46 PM
This whole thing with abortion, gun control, and gay marriage is a smoke screen for inept government. The government doesn't really care about any of it anymore. It's about big business and who puts more money in their pocket.

I have no idea what the Republicans are trying to do right now but I don't think I want to see what the Democrats are gonna do.

What is the ratio of Democrat anti-gun bills compared to Republican?

gravel
June 15, 2007, 12:26 AM
Lets visit the Brits and see how safe they are at home. My cousin lives there and says it's crazy when only the lawless are armed. Anti-gun politician whom ever should be run off like a turpentined dog. Thank you.

brerrabbit
June 15, 2007, 01:00 AM
Gravel

But the problem is not the anti gun standpoint, if in doubt, take a look at how much antigun legislation was introduced and passed during republican controlled congresses.

While the democrats may not be our friends in this matter, neither are the republicans. Voting for the party that least disrespects you and liberty in general is not the right answer.

scout26
June 15, 2007, 01:14 AM
Yep, the Republicans are doomed, since Bush has only slightly higher approval ratings then the democratically controlled Congress........ It's a long time 'til the election folks way to many things can happen between now and then. Remember that just before the '04 Iowa caucases the media had already annointed Howard Dean as the next POTUS.....How did that work out for him ??????

nobody_special
June 15, 2007, 02:47 AM
I will definitely agree with you on REAL ID, and on parts of the Patriot Act, but the rest is exactly part of what I would consider a traditional conservative. You will have to go a long way to convince me that a lot of what you call "Christian fundamentalist interest" would not have traditionally been considered conservative thought. I know that you disagree with a lot of it, but that doesn't mean that it isn't traditional conservative.

Traditional conservatives would support civil liberties. AFAIK, the only Republican candidate (including Thompson) who supports civil liberty is Ron Paul.

The Christian fundamentalists want to legislate moral issues: gay marriage, abortion, stuff like that. Such legislation restricts on civil liberties, and a true conservative would not support it (consider the history of the "separation of church and state"). Religion has no place in government.

And perhaps abortion shouldn't be a federal issue. "Gay marriage" is a federal issue though, since there are federal tax consequences to marriage. The "full faith and credit" clause would certainly apply as well. Brerrabbit is right in that a true conservative wouldn't give some couples more rights than others.

I mean, come on... the flag desecration amendment almost passed the Senate vote last year... and it needed a 2/3 majority. So about 66% of our Senators think it's more important to restrict a 1st amendment right than to deal with, oh, I don't know... real problems such as the war or budget deficit? It's insane... a significant majority of our elected representatives voted to pass an amendment which is fundamentally at odds with the entire idea of the 1st amendment. These sorts of things are considered important issues?!?!?

The Republicans are probably going to lose the presidency in '08, just like they lost Congress last year. And for good reason -- the Republican congress almost universally supported the president's inept and unlawful practices. The Democrats will have control for as long as they can keep it; most likely until they screw up badly enough that people clamor for a change again (which likely won't take long).

Flyboy
June 15, 2007, 05:10 PM
I do not understand how a person can vote for one guy in an election, and then in the next election vote for someone with exactly the opposite values.
Probably the same way he can vote for one guy in an election, watch him do pretty much the opposite of the values he talked so much about, and then vote for him again because of his so-called "values." You know, values like smaller government. Things the Republican party seems to babble about on a regular basis, and then throws in the trash as soon as it wields power.

nemoaz
June 15, 2007, 07:39 PM
Luckily, this is a poll is not of likely voters. Since most Democrat supporters are too lazy to vote, this sort of poll always favors the Democrats.

Waitone
June 15, 2007, 07:48 PM
As long as the democrat-republican paradigm constrains our thinking, we are so screwed. The proper paradigm is them-us. Nowhere is it more visible than in the current debate over illegal immigration and what to do about it. Maintain the democrat-republican approach and we will continually be plagued with the likes of Clinton and Bush.

cbsbyte
June 15, 2007, 10:45 PM
Since most Democrat supporters are too lazy to vote, this sort of poll always favors the Democrats.

Do you have any proof of this or are you just stating something you want to be true? Democrat voters are usually the ones that make it to the polls. In the Next election they will probably be more Dems at the polls than Republicans.

If you enjoyed reading about "Forget the Republicans." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!