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.
In response to OP, undoubtedly you are right that the GOP needs a new vision, but I don't know of anyone out there who has the answer of what that vision might be. George Bush's 'compassionate conservatism' was an effort to answer, but it ended up as just Democrat-lite, a bridge to nowhere.
We just lost one election. I'm not sure it's time to re-tool from the ground up. Did the Democrats re-tool from the ground up after 2010?.
Wrong! GOP has lost 5 of the last 6 presidential popular votes, and demographics will make 2016, 2020, 2024.. worse for them than '12 w/o radical change.
As for Bush, there is NOTHING wrong with compassionate conservatism. But it cannot exist with a GOP primary base that is best characterized by Lindsay Graham as angry, white men.
Come every 4th November, they continue dropping their share of the vote, and oh, that makes them even angrier.
Honestly, my hunch is the GOP will not escape their futile POTUS campaigns, unless a candidate emerges who will thumb his nose at the base. The GOP base is the reason in 6 POTUS elections, they averaged just 203 electoral votes.
Wrong! GOP has lost 5 of the last 6 presidential popular votes, and demographics will make 2016, 2020, 2024.. worse for them than '12 w/o radical change.
As for Bush, there is NOTHING wrong with compassionate conservatism. But it cannot exist with a GOP primary base that is best characterized by Lindsay Graham as angry, white men.
Come every 4th November, they continue dropping their share of the vote, and oh, that makes them even angrier.
Honestly, my hunch is the GOP will not escape their futile POTUS campaigns, unless a candidate emerges who will thumb his nose at the base. The GOP base is the reason in 6 POTUS elections, they averaged just 203 electoral votes.
You're cherry picking. For example if I wanted to cherry pick I could say that 2000 was basically a tie election ( within the normal error rate for vote tabulation, which is about .5%). So let's toss 2000. 1992 was also an anomoly due to Perot; Clinton only got 43% yet won. Toss that too. Then going back to 1980, R's have prevaild 4 of 7 times in presidential elections.
D's controlled the US House for 40 years prior to 1994. Since 1994, R's have held control for 14 of the last 18 years. You see how much fun cherry-picking can be?
As I've posted before, there have been several claims of '40 year dynasties' on both sides in recent decades. They all were proven laughably wrong. Karl Rove predicted a 40 yr R dynasty sometime after 2000. By 2008 Dems held the WH, US House, and Senate.
You're cherry picking. For example if I wanted to cherry pick I could say that 2000 was basically a tie election ( within the normal error rate for vote tabulation, which is about .5%). So let's toss 2000. .
2000 was very close, 1992 was a romp and Perots vote would have split between BOTH parties.
Nice try, though.
In addition, never before has demographics and a party platform been so out of sync. As 2016,2020, 2024 come and go, you will know what I had warned you about.
2000 was very close, 1992 was a romp and Perots vote would have split between BOTH parties.
Nice try, though.
In addition, never before has demographics and a party platform been so out of sync. As 2016,2020, 2024 come and go, you will know what I had warned you about.
Whatever. You're still guilty of cherry picking with your 5 of 6 stats. And your imaginary stats from the future.
By 2000, Rs controlled the wh, US house, and US senate. A couple years later, Karl Rove predicted a 40 year dynasty of GOP control. By 2008, D's controlled the WH, US House, and US Senate.
Back on topic, a new vision for the GOP would be great, and maybe one will come along from some academic scribbler, but right now we don't have one. In the 1990's Tony Blair talked about a "third way" but as far as I can tell there was no third way. It was just the old tried and untrue big gov't socialism, nannyism, and redistributionism.
"Even more, they need to have a clear, consistent, non-negotiable commitment to a policy of gradual disengagement of the federal government from many domestic areas in order to begin to whittle away at its excessive role and overweening power. That policy must also include, however, an ongoing effort to work with the non-profit sector to build up civil society institutions to take care of human needs—this will make clear to people that they are not just angling to ignore the needy. They also need to develop the proper rhetorical means to convey this message, since an effective educator is not just one who speaks the truth but knows how to put it across."
There's nothing wrong with the concepts by themselves, but taken alone they are ice cold and lacking humanity. It's a vision based on radical individualism. It's a vision that truly leaves out large swaths of the population who are not motivated by high economic achievement or upward social mobility. The GOP's not-so-subtle message is that only "taxpayers" and net economic producers are worthy citizens. Humble employment is degrading in this view, unless it's a stepping stone to "success". Note how conservative personalities commonly denigrate "burger flippers" and "useless degrees" because of their low economic value. This is a vision in which the interdependence of family and community life can only be crudely and unnaturally tacked on.
You made up a bunch of garbage and came to a false conclusion.
It is not the role of government to raise people from cradle to grave. Government has a specific defined role. Society is the one that makes the peaceful changes.
Since when is humanity bombing and killing innocent people in the Middle East?
When our sanctions contributed to the deaths of 500,000 children in Iraq was that our government showing humanity?
Since when is humanity manipulating the economy so the 1 percent and members in Congress gain and we the people loose our equity?
Is this your idea of humanity?
It's always about policy. You can try all you want and falsely portray the individuals of either party, it doesn't change the fact that the big government you back is one of the worst offenders to humanity. Yet you want more of it. THAT speaks volumes.
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.
