Conservative cities in CA (Lincoln, Arnold: assessment, residential, retiring)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Dull speaker with some rather odd views who doesn't seem very presidential.
OTOH, Crist is a superb speaker who comes across as very presidential. He is also the governor of a large swing state who attracts Dem and independent votes and who would do the same in a presidential election. There were quite a few Dems who said they'd have voted for McCain if Crist had been his VP.
From your perspective, perhaps someone who's put in years of service to the party as a "reward" for an election that he can't win? (That would suggest you'd want Giuliani as the nominee, and I could picture Rudy putting Jindal on his ticket as VP to have a younger, more conservative southerner from an unconventional background to balance out the ticket.)
As for being dull, I know 3 people who live in LA, all say, what we heard on TV after Obama's speach was very different from what they normally hear. He does talk fast..He was the guest speaker at a huge fund raiser here (I couldn't begin to afford to attend) same thing, all that heard him said he was a great speaker. I don't really know..AS for Giuliiani, I don't think he can get the nomination after what he did last year, but then look at McCain?? Anything is possible. I wouldn't mind seeing Rudy in there or Romney for that matter. I happen to not like Romney, at all...I don't know enough about Crist. Our daughter and son in law live in the Orlando area and have mixed feelings.
Of course there is always my favorite, Huck, but no way will he get the nomination because of his strong Sothern Baptist ties.. I agree with that, he is also too conservative for me, I just love to hear him speak. Now, if I don't sound like someone in my second childhood????
If one uses historic analogs than the GOP will not come to power again until 2028 at the earliest [ie. FDR had to clean-up after Hoover & was president for 4 terms - though premature, the prospects of Obama gaining the stature of Franklin Roosevelt has been noted by presidential historians]. Past shifts in congress where under quite different circumstances w/ both party's about equal in numbers. That has drastically changed & the downward descent of the Republican party is far from over & likely to be more than a decade.
Even Senator Lindsey Graham [R-South Carolina] announced today that the GOP is in quite serious trouble now that Senator Specter [PA] has joined the Democratic party. Moderates are fleeing from the Republican party in droves & there is no sign that they will come back. When only 21%-24% of Americans claim to be Republicans that puts the GOP close to Ross Perot's Independent Party's percentage of the 1992 vote.
And maybe that is what is happening now with Libertarians voting Democratic. Esp when Limbaugh announced today that both John & Meghan McCain need to leave the Republican party we are watching the total collapse of the GOP & it will be a slow death
Don't listen to me, Nita [turn on any News network to hear for yourself] The GOP is splitting apart. That's reality. Or maybe we can come back to this thread in about 6 months & see what the GOP looks like [be prepared to loose your dinner
As for being dull, I know 3 people who live in LA, all say, what we heard on TV after Obama's speach was very different from what they normally hear. He does talk fast..He was the guest speaker at a huge fund raiser here (I couldn't begin to afford to attend) same thing, all that heard him said he was a great speaker. I don't really know..AS for Giuliiani, I don't think he can get the nomination after what he did last year, but then look at McCain?? Anything is possible. I wouldn't mind seeing Rudy in there or Romney for that matter. I happen to not like Romney, at all...I don't know enough about Crist. Our daughter and son in law live in the Orlando area and have mixed feelings.
Of course there is always my favorite, Huck, but no way will he get the nomination because of his strong Sothern Baptist ties.. I agree with that, he is also too conservative for me, I just love to hear him speak. Now, if I don't sound like someone in my second childhood????
Nita
Funny, amongst the Republicans I know, Huckabee gets tarred with the "RINO" epithet more than anyone else, even Arnold.
One Republican that I know during the primaries said she'd no sooner vote for Huckabee than she'd vote for John Edwards, and said that Huck should've run as a Dem instead. (Actually, Huck could have just as easily been a Dem, but he'd have had no chance of any ambitions in national politics due to his social views even though he certainly could've been Governor of Arkansas. There's not much difference between Huck's views and AR Dem Senator Mark Pryor or quite a few Texas Dems.)
The GOP has to rediscover its "big tent" roots in order to regain power, and recognize that a national party line doesn't work in US politics.
If one uses historic analogs than the GOP will not come to power again until 2028 at the earliest [ie. FDR had to clean-up after Hoover & was president for 4 terms - though premature, the prospects of Obama gaining the stature of Franklin Roosevelt has been noted by presidential historians]. Past shifts in congress where under quite different circumstances w/ both party's about equal in numbers. That has drastically changed & the downward descent of the Republican party is far from over & likely to be more than a decade.
The same was said about Reagan. Today he is demonized by the youth that has no idea what USSR or stagflation even means, instead they spout crap they heard on the web from someone else(Reaganomics!!! OMG WORST THING EVER).
The same was said about Reagan. Today he is demonized by the youth that has no idea what USSR or stagflation even means.
The US DID experience stagflation under Bush immediately prior to the current recession. It just didn't last anywhere nearly as long.
Reagan made significant changes in US politics, just as FDR did earlier, but parties relying upon the accomplishments and achievements of their heroes of the past doesn't last forever. The Dems thought in the early '80s that they could regain the White House by invoking the New Deal and New Frontier, but it didn't work. Eventually parties have to change to keep up with the times. Whoever holds the center gains power ; Roveism was a fluke (and even then didn't produce overwhelming victories).
It is certain that the Republicans will regain Congress and/or the Presidency at some point in the future (they already control the judicial branch). I disagree with Happ's assessment that it will not come until 2028 (20 years of Dem control in the 20th century was a fluke that had mainly to do with FDR's personal popularity, and the GOP held Congress for most of Truman's administration). Likewise I disagree with the assessment of some GOP posters that the GOP will retake Congress in 2010 or the Presidency in 2012 (barring the circumstances I mentioned above re: the Presidency), although I do think they will pick up some House seats in 2010. OTOH, by 2014 the party will have had its chance to remake itself. If it chooses to go even more conservative for 2010 then that point in time will be delayed. I have a feeling that the GOP nominee in 2016 will be someone that not too many people have heard of right now, and the Dem nominee in 2016 may also be someone not too many people have heard of right now (as Biden or Hillary will be too old to follow Obama in 2016).
Funny, amongst the Republicans I know, Huckabee gets tarred with the "RINO" epithet more than anyone else, even Arnold.
One Republican that I know during the primaries said she'd no sooner vote for Huckabee than she'd vote for John Edwards, and said that Huck should've run as a Dem instead. (Actually, Huck could have just as easily been a Dem, but he'd have had no chance of any ambitions in national politics due to his social views even though he certainly could've been Governor of Arkansas. There's not much difference between Huck's views and AR Dem Senator Mark Pryor or quite a few Texas Dems.)
The GOP has to rediscover its "big tent" roots in order to regain power, and recognize that a national party line doesn't work in US politics.
Remember there are all kinds of ways to be liberal, conservative, republican, democrat, whatever. Mostly he is very conservative: at least that is how I see him...As for Mark and Lincoln as well, they are republicans wearing democrat hats..I think this is one of the problems (if you can call it that) today, we are all more conservative or liberal, than Dem or Rep.
Interesting.... I've never met a Republican who thought much of anything about Crist one way or another. He's always seemed to me to be an opportunistic non-entity.
Quote:
Sanford, alas, has no chance because he values his principles above political advancement and is willing to throw away his political future for the sake of his principle. Men like that don't become president.
If you're talking about his rejection of the stimulus, I think that's exactly the sort of thing that will give him a shot -- if the economy is still in chaos by then (and there seems to be no bottom). The Republicans can use the theme that Obama is bankrupting America and Sanford could be a standard-bearer who opposed the 3 trillion-dollar stimulus from the start.
Quote:
Not exactly - come on, Palin? McCain didn't distance himself from Bush enough as well.
Bush was so toxic I don't think it would have been possible for any Republican to distance him- or herself from him enough. The "Republican" label itself was all the Dems needed to charge up its voters. (Just look how well it worked on happ. )
Quote:
The GOP has watched what the Tories in the UK do before. Thatcher's success made Reagan's possible. I surmise that Cameron's success will make the next GOP president's possible.
Both Thatcher and Reagan rode into office on a message of conservatism, particularly economic conservatism, one that resonated for an England and an America that by the end of the '70s were both economic basket-cases. Both the Tories and the Republicans were offering clear, bold alternatives and the people of their respective nations were fed up enough to take them up on it. What the Democrats are doing now is so far from economic conservatism that it sets up the same potential 1979/80 dynamic for the Republicans in 2010/12. If they can come up with someone who knows how to take advantage of it.
Quote:
What you advocate the GOP do would make them into a regional party forever and ensure a Dem hold on government. I'm a Dem and I do not think one party Dem rule is good for America nor for the Democratic Party itself.
What I'm advocating the GOP do is provide an alternative to the Democrats, simple as that. John McCain's Republican Party collapsed in 2008 because there was so little distinguishable difference between him and Obama on too many key issues. (And before him Bush and the GOP Congress were spending like crazy, destroying the party's credibility on economic responsibility.) Whether McCain or Obama won, you knew you were going to get the same thing policywise on way too many issues, from illegal immigration to court appointments.
One-party rule, no matter which party it is, is never good; we can certainly agree on that. (We need look no further than south of the border to see what 80 years of one-party rule did to Mexico.) If the GOP can't get its act together and finally collapses entirely, the way the Whigs did in the 1850s, something else will have to arise to fill the vacuum; that's the history of American politics, in which the pendulum always swings back one way or another. But since the disintegration of one of the major parties hasn't happened in 150 years, I think it's more likely the Republicans regain a foothold, sooner rather than later; and they will have a prime opportunity to do so in 2010 if they can figure out that they have to present voters with an alternative.
'Cause you can't beat something with nothing, and McCain, Schwarzenegger, and their ilk are about as nothing as you can get.
Interesting.... I've never met a Republican who thought much of anything about Crist one way or another. He's always seemed to me to be an opportunistic non-entity.
I must know different Republicans than you do.
Quote:
If you're talking about his rejection of the stimulus, I think that's exactly the sort of thing that will give him a shot -- if the economy is still in chaos by then (and there seems to be no bottom). The Republicans can use the theme that Obama is bankrupting America and Sanford could be a standard-bearer who opposed the 3 trillion-dollar stimulus from the start.
From what I've read about and heard about Sanford, he is more devoted to his principles than political advancement, and is willing to throw away his political career for the sake of his principles. Even his supporters have said that. Someone like that doesn't usually get the nomination, and if they do, they're losers, even though they tend to get good marks from historians.(Compare the general opinions held today of Barry Goldwater and George McGovern, both men of principle although of very different ideologies, with the candidates who beat them in landslides, Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon respectively, both very sleazy characters who abused their power tremendously while in office and left the White House in disgrace to the point that their own parties preferred to forget about them in subsequent years.) Sanford is the type of politician whom historians will be kind to but won't rise above his current job.
Quote:
Both Thatcher and Reagan rode into office on a message of conservatism, particularly economic conservatism, one that resonated for an England and an America that by the end of the '70s were both economic basket-cases. Both the Tories and the Republicans were offering clear, bold alternatives and the people of their respective nations were fed up enough to take them up on it. What the Democrats are doing now is so far from economic conservatism that it sets up the same potential 1979/80 dynamic for the Republicans in 2010/12. If they can come up with someone who knows how to take advantage of it.
And David Cameron is an inspiration for Republicans just as Thatcher was in her time. He's taken a party that was virtually left for dead under the dominance of its right wing who still longed for Thatcher and brought it to a point where it is certain to gain power in the next UK election by a massive landslide.
Quote:
What I'm advocating the GOP do is provide an alternative to the Democrats, simple as that. John McCain's Republican Party collapsed in 2008 because there was so little distinguishable difference between him and Obama on too many key issues.
On a few issues, not all. The collapse came once Palin was put on the ticket, and deepened when the economy collapsed in a big way.
Quote:
(And before him Bush and the GOP Congress were spending like crazy, destroying the party's credibility on economic responsibility.)
The recent memory of how the GOP Congress is the difference between now and 1993. In 1994 the GOP had not controlled the House for 40 years. Only a handful of Congressmen in 1994 had been in the House when the GOP last controlled Congress. The memory of a Republican House today is still very fresh.
Quote:
Whether McCain or Obama won, you knew you were going to get the same thing policywise on way too many issues, from illegal immigration to court appointments.
McCain said that someone like John Roberts would be an acceptable SCOTUS appointment even though he said he wouldn't appoint someone like Alito. The major difference between Roberts and Alito is one of style rather than substance - both are conservative but Roberts isn't an "in your face" conservative. Do you really think Obama would appoint someone like Roberts when he makes his first SCOTUS appointment?
Quote:
One-party rule, no matter which party it is, is never good; we can certainly agree on that. (We need look no further than south of the border to see what 80 years of one-party rule did to Mexico.)
Or certain US states.
Quote:
If the GOP can't get its act together and finally collapses entirely, the way the Whigs did in the 1850s, something else will have to arise to fill the vacuum; that's the history of American politics, in which the pendulum always swings back one way or another. But since the disintegration of one of the major parties hasn't happened in 150 years, I think it's more likely the Republicans regain a foothold, sooner rather than later; and they will have a prime opportunity to do so in 2010 if they can figure out that they have to present voters with an alternative
The alternative being offered SO FAR is none too appealing to the average American. However, it is inevitable the GOP will eventually clean house. Remember one needs the independents and the people from the other party to gain support. Ideological purity is a disadvantage in a presidential candidate (even though if it is attached to a set of principles it can gain respect for a losing candidate from historians).
Quote:
'Cause you can't beat something with nothing, and McCain, Schwarzenegger, and their ilk are about as nothing as you can get.
McCain actually has shown principles throughout his political career, and his problem was blatantly sucking up to a part of the party that he was not part of in an extremely insincere manner. As for Arnold - he happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and if one looks at the history of the California Republican Party he isn't an aberration at all. His problem has been his lack of negotiating skills in dealing with a failed political system, a polarized and dysfunctional Legislature filled with divas and attentionwhores, and virtual civil war within his own party during a time of great crisis for his state. It would take someone with the skills of an Abraham Lincoln or a Roosevelt (either one) to deal with a situation like that, and very few politicians are on that level.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
we are watching the total collapse of the GOP & it will be a slow death 
