• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How to Revive the Republican Party

What Should the Republican Party Focus On?


  • Total voters
    29
The party members, not the leaders, nominate almost every single candidate who runs for office.

There is a very simple reason why Ron Paul-type candidates are almost never nominated (let alone elected): That isn't what the American people want. The American people obviously want larger government.
You mean they nominate the candidate the media tell them to nominate.

The US citizens is too busy watching Idol, Dancing with the Stars, Survivor, etc to educate themselves about something as trivial as the leaders of the country. Its so much easier to just go with what the pundits or, even better, Jon Stewart says. :roll:


.
 
So you are saying the US Constitution is basically worthless. Those currently in power can do whatever they please because.... well, whatever they want to do is more important than the US Constitution.

Sounds like a stupid idea to me, but then what would an outsider know. :roll:


.

Well, that is effectively how the country's been run since FDR used the Constitution as his diaper, isn't it?
 
Last edited:
You mean they nominate the candidate the media tell them to nominate.

The US citizens is too busy watching Idol, Dancing with the Stars, Survivor, etc to educate themselves about something as trivial as the leaders of the country. Its so much easier to just go with what the pundits or, even better, Jon Stewart says. :roll:


.

So that falls under people getting the government they deserve?
 
The party members, not the leaders, nominate almost every single candidate who runs for office.

You believe that with all your heart, do you?

You can't recall the 2000 primary season in New York, when Al D'Amato ordered the conservative Rrepublican to stand down so some liberal weenie Republican could run unopposed to have a better shot (yeah right) at defeating the Red Queen Carpetbagger.

Oh, certainly, the state political machines had no say in getting GW Bush nominated in 2000, right, over all the other candidates, right?

Do grow up, okay? Real politics is nasty, dirty, and not for idealistic little girls.

There is a very simple reason why Ron Paul-type candidates are almost never nominated (let alone elected): That isn't what the American people want. The American people obviously want larger government.


The reason Paul didn't get nominated was the He's A Dweeb Effect. That, and the media refused to give credence to his ideas, they being far too interested in Guilliani (liberal) and Romney (liberal) and McCain (liberal).
 
The American people are simply willing to accept larger government in order to get what they want. Democrats use the government to push for large amounts of funding for vast social programs and a nanny state. Republicans use the government to be the morality police and trade civil liberties for the illusion of safety.

The public will cheerfully trade small government in order to get a welfare check and be molested by the TSA. The fundamental problem with small government as a political objective, is that you need to gain vast amounts of centralized power in order to make any changes in Washington. Once a political party has gained such power, they are not willing to give up by making government smaller.
 
You can't recall the 2000 primary season in New York, when Al D'Amato ordered the conservative Rrepublican to stand down so some liberal weenie Republican could run unopposed to have a better shot (yeah right) at defeating the Red Queen Carpetbagger.

The conservative Republican in question was under no legal obligation to step down, and would've been the nominee had he run and received more votes than the "liberal weenie Republican," and would've been the senator had he run and received more votes than the "Red Queen Carpetbagger."

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Oh, certainly, the state political machines had no say in getting GW Bush nominated in 2000, right, over all the other candidates, right?

GW Bush won the nomination because he received more votes than the other Republican candidates.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Do grow up, okay?

Do go **** yourself and die of AIDS, okay?

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The reason Paul didn't get nominated was the He's A Dweeb Effect. That, and the media refused to give credence to his ideas, they being far too interested in Guilliani (liberal) and Romney (liberal) and McCain (liberal).

The media actually gave him far more attention than his vote percentage deserved...and he still came nowhere close to winning. And if you'll recall, Mike Huckabee came reasonably close to winning the primary despite receiving almost no media coverage until the last couple weeks before the voting began.

And if you're just going to whine that the media isn't fair, my advice is to get over it. Start your own 24/7 cable news channel that sings the praises of Ron Paul or Lyndon LaRouche or Alan Keyes or whatever other nutcase you want. If their ideas are truly as popular as you think, then you should have millions of viewers.
 
Last edited:
"Democracy lasts until citizens realize they can vote themselves largesse from the treasury. Collapse follows due to loose fiscal policy..."

Whatever the origins of that statement (and I know they've been disputed), it seems all too depressingly accurate.

I have this really bad feeling that we're going to have to take this trend to its extreme conclusion, and suffer the dire consequences, before the electorate learns better.

G.
 
"Democracy lasts until citizens realize they can vote themselves largesse from the treasury. Collapse follows due to loose fiscal policy..."

Whatever the origins of that statement (and I know they've been disputed), it seems all too depressingly accurate.

I have this really bad feeling that we're going to have to take this trend to its extreme conclusion, and suffer the dire consequences, before the electorate learns better.

G.

I think that only happens in countries where the population is highly uneducated about roots of problems. For instance, that is a real problem in many Latin America countries and how their economic growth has really slowed in the last century.

However, if you look at Europe and their modest grow with many of their conservative leadership, democracies could easily correct from too much wealth distribution.
 
There has been a lot of talk recently about the soul-searching the republican party is doing, after its losses last election.

What do you think republicans need to focus on, in order to win back its appeal?

Fiscal Conservatism - balancing the budget, small government, ending corporate bailouts, ending certain social programs.

Social Conservatism - opposition to same-sex marriage, abortion, and other hot button issues.

National Defense - increase military spending and recruitment, more aggressive international policies.

Nationalism - oppose multiculturalism, english as an official language, more immigration control.

Step number one should be to remove Rush Limbaugh as the face of the GOP. Then I'll take you're party seriously.
 
We could use something dynamic. Newt did it with a contract with America. I would suggest strict term limits on the Congresscritters. Couple that with a strict conservative agenda. I am a believer that we have a strong voting public on our side, but they haven't had anybody to vote for. This administration will help get out our voters, as they self-destruct.
 
The conservative Republican in question was under no legal obligation to step down,

Welcome to the real world of politics. Glad you could finally make it.


GW Bush won the nomination because he received more votes than the other Republican candidates.

You had help figuring that out, right? Now, ask the difficult question....how did he manage to do that, without any preliminary groundwork? Because he pulled favors from his old man's friends and bent influential state organizers.

Duh.

Do go **** yourself and die of AIDS, okay?

You seriously believe a person can infect themselves when they're not already infected?

The media actually gave him far more attention than his vote percentage deserved...and he still came nowhere close to winning. And if you'll recall, Mike Huckabee came reasonably close to winning the primary despite receiving almost no media coverage until the last couple weeks before the voting began.

Gee, and like you're trying to disprove my statement that the media focused exclusively on the people they wanted to win, instead of covering the campaign fully and honestly?

And if you're just going to whine that the media isn't fair, my advice is to get over it. Start your own 24/7 cable news channel that sings the praises of Ron Paul or Lyndon LaRouche or Alan Keyes or whatever other nutcase you want. If their ideas are truly as popular as you think, then you should have millions of viewers.

You have no issues with the corruption of the Fourth Estate?
 
I think that only happens in countries where the population is highly uneducated about roots of problems.

The United States is one of those countries.

The roots of today's problems can be traced to Wilson, the sapling was watered by FDR, the mature tree was fertilized by LBJ, and the fruits are being gathered by today's Democrat leaders.

However, if you look at Europe and their modest grow with many of their conservative leadership, democracies could easily correct from too much wealth distribution.

They socialist leadership causing slow to negative growth in Europe.
 
I'm gonna put away my partisan hat and approach this as it is.

On CNN.com there was a Facebook member who posted this:

get rid of people such as ann coulter, rush limbaugh, and dick cheney who are helping to alienate moderate voters. Right now the Republican Party seems like a 'clique group.' There's a lot of name calling and not a lot of working together to get this country fixed.

I agree with this quote. The party has moved far too much to the right. I'm not saying that Coulter and Limbaugh and Cheney are the leaders of the party, but they really need to shut up and stop making other Republicans who want the party to thrive look bad.

The party needs to focus on attracting moderate voters, because that is something the Dems did pretty well. If Obama's plans work out quite well, then the party is screwed because they would be the viewed as the party that said "no" to everything in the beginning. The party needs to start saying yes to things that are progressive and helpful in nature. If they want to come back strong, there are some things they need to give up in the name of partisanship and just go along with what is right.

For example, the recent move by Obama to cut away tax loopholes for big business and the wealthy. EVERY taxpayer in this country should be supporting this, but nonetheless some Republicans continue to claim that this is a "tax hike" when it is actually a "crackdown." This is a big one, because of Reps try to unanimously vote against this, then its just a bigger nail in the coffin.
 
We could use something dynamic. Newt did it with a contract with America. I would suggest strict term limits on the Congresscritters. Couple that with a strict conservative agenda. I am a believer that we have a strong voting public on our side, but they haven't had anybody to vote for. This administration will help get out our voters, as they self-destruct.

I agree. We haven't had a conservative candidate since Reagan. We also need to paint our own picture of ourselves. We've been real good at standing back and letting the MSM define the republican party. And there have been enough RINOs like Specter, Snow and Collins to lend credence to the MSMs definition. We have to take back our brand and market it.

Screw this big tent stuff. What do we need a tent for. A tent of any size implies boundaries. Why do we want to limit ourselves? Let's emphasize low taxes, low government and strong defense. Let's start to follow the Constitution again. We have enough serious problems right now that all the social issues rank near the bottom of importance in most polls. So let's just leave them alone. If questioned about the social stuff, the answer should be that that's up to the states to decide.
 
The United States is one of those countries.

The roots of today's problems can be traced to Wilson, the sapling was watered by FDR, the mature tree was fertilized by LBJ, and the fruits are being gathered by today's Democrat leaders.

Partially, but interestingly, countries that are more socialist tend to have better public education systemes so their populations are better resistant to poor politicians (with everything else constant). And our population is still smart enough to have a backlash against large governments. (see Reagan)

They socialist leadership causing slow to negative growth in Europe.

Their economic growth is SLOWED but it isn't negative purely because of socialist policies. (our economy is also in negative growth, but that is because of the world economy, not because of our policies per-say)

I am just against people who say that social-democratic/mob-democracy countries can't stay solvent because of constant increased in the wealth distribution in countries. Europe is an example of the strengths of social-democracy and welfare state.
 
I agree. We haven't had a conservative candidate since Reagan. We also need to paint our own picture of ourselves. We've been real good at standing back and letting the MSM define the republican party. And there have been enough RINOs like Specter, Snow and Collins to lend credence to the MSMs definition. We have to take back our brand and market it.

Screw this big tent stuff. What do we need a tent for. A tent of any size implies boundaries. Why do we want to limit ourselves? Let's emphasize low taxes, low government and strong defense. Let's start to follow the Constitution again. We have enough serious problems right now that all the social issues rank near the bottom of importance in most polls. So let's just leave them alone. If questioned about the social stuff, the answer should be that that's up to the states to decide.

You could almost call Bill Clinton conservative because he reduced both spending per/gdp and not to mention his surplus. Not even Reagan did that because of his (smart) increased military spending.

But Bill didn't support a strong military like Reagan of course. Smart move after the Cold War had ended though.
 
You could almost call Bill Clinton conservative because he reduced both spending per/gdp and not to mention his surplus. Not even Reagan did that because of his (smart) increased military spending.

But Bill didn't support a strong military like Reagan of course. Smart move after the Cold War had ended though.

The Gingrich Congress kept Clinton in check. That's why he didn't do much damage other than when he had his pants down.
The surplus was primarily due to the dot com bubble and we know what happened to that (I still own my JDSUniphase stock).

Clinton's dismantling of the military was not a smart move. It helped give us 9/11.
 
Clinton's dismantling of the military was not a smart move. It helped give us 9/11.

How exactly would a stronger military have prevented 19 guys from hijacking planes which took off from American airports? :confused:
 
The Gingrich Congress kept Clinton in check. That's why he didn't do much damage other than when he had his pants down.
The surplus was primarily due to the dot com bubble and we know what happened to that (I still own my JDSUniphase stock).

Clinton's dismantling of the military was not a smart move. It helped give us 9/11.

True, but Clinton also vetoed many of the requests of congress for tax cuts that would have lowered the surplus or made it a defecit. Everyone played their part. My point is that if it was any other president, the surplus from the dot com book would have been spent on something. With a divided government the politicians always find ways of running a defecit... so congress and Bill should get the credit that they deserve,


The military doesn't stop terorist attacks. Maybe if 9/11 was a conventional military attack then he could of stopped it by using more money.

Secret service maybe could of worked, but i don't think there was any way to stop 9/11 with such lazy airport security.
 
The Gingrich Congress kept Clinton in check. That's why he didn't do much damage other than when he had his pants down.
The surplus was primarily due to the dot com bubble and we know what happened to that (I still own my JDSUniphase stock).

Clinton's dismantling of the military was not a smart move. It helped give us 9/11.

Please elaborate on Clinton dismantling the military. I think this is a much exaggerated claim.
 
You could almost call Bill Clinton conservative because he reduced both spending per/gdp and not to mention his surplus. Not even Reagan did that because of his (smart) increased military spending.

But Bill didn't support a strong military like Reagan of course. Smart move after the Cold War had ended though.

Yeah, there's no point in mentioning a surplus that didn't exist.
 
How exactly would a stronger military have prevented 19 guys from hijacking planes which took off from American airports? :confused:

The military cuts and the feeble attampts at responses like the baby aspirin factory boondoggle showed our enemy that we were weak and unwilling to fight. In the middle east, weakness is death. Just ask Israel. Every concession the Israeli's have made (showing weakness) has been met with stronger demands, suicide bombs or missiles. We show weakness, we get 9/11. Bush comes along and says we don't play that game anymore and we haven't been attacked since. Coincidence? I don't think so.

And now? Hell, the Somali rag-tag pirates don't even respect a U.S. flagged ship. Who knows what's next...
 
This is hilarious.

When you have people like Mitt Romney, Eric Cantor, and Jeb Bush trying to "create a new America" you have a clear problem for the Republican party.

Its like learning new tricks from old dogs. The issues of the party are the same, the platforms are the same, the people are the same. They need new people. Even if it means Sarah Palin, regardless if whether she is good or bad, she is new, and she is part of the new image of the GOP.
 
Social Conservatism, (which at this time 22% of the poll thinks the GOP should focus more on,) is the MAIN reason, IMO, that the GOP has been kicked to the curb by mainstream America.

They need to leave morals up to the church and quit trying to stick their party's noses in people's personal lives.

Twenty-two percent couldn't get a dog catcher elected (unless five or more candidates are in the running.:mrgreen:)

Also, all to often, those pundits (and their supporters of the government getting into the business of morals,) are often so crude and offensive when presenting their views to the majority of folks who simply disagree with them, that they do their party more harm than good. It's not always their stance on any particular issue but more their approach. You can be as right as rain but once you're branded a prick, ain't nobody gonna care if you are right or wrong.

Some people place no value on just being "cool." And that's their right. But they shouldn't whine because most folks prefer not to buddy up with a-holes. They can keep "purifing" the party (achtung!!) and go Limbaugh nuts if they want too. But it ain't gonna score 'em any points.

There was a time when being a republican was cool. I so long for days past. :(
 
Last edited:
Social Conservatism, (which at this time 22% of the poll thinks the GOP should focus more on,) is the MAIN reason, IMO, that the GOP has been kicked to the curb by mainstream America.

They need to leave morals up to the church and quit trying to stick their party's noses in people's personal lives.

Twenty-two percent couldn't get a dog catcher elected (unless five or more candidates are in the running.:mrgreen:)

Also, all to often, those pundits (and their supporters of the government getting into the business of morals,) are often so crude and offensive when presenting their views to the majority of folks who simply disagree with them, that they do their party more harm than good. It's not always their stance on any particular issue but more their approach. You can be as right as rain but once you're branded a prick, ain't nobody gonna care if you are right or wrong.

Some people place no value on just being "cool." And that's their right. But they shouldn't whine because most folks prefer not to buddy up with a-holes. They can keep "purifing" the party (achtung!!) and go Limbaugh nuts if they want too. But it ain't gonna score 'em any points.

There was a time when being a republican was cool. I so long for days past. :(

Great post, CA.

I don't think many would believe it but at one time I was a Republican, then I shifted to Independent, then I shifted to a Democrat.

Looking back, I think the core reason for the shifts came down to the social conservative issues.
 
Back
Top Bottom