• 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!

Who is the future of the Republican Party?

What Republican Leaders will have the most influence in the GOP?


  • Total voters
    49
Wow; no clear consensus in this poll.
I think that's a pretty telling statement on the state of the Republican party today.
They have no clear leader, and none seems likely to emerge any time soon.

I agree. I think there is as much of a chance that Hillary Clinton is elected Presidnet as there is a Republican.
 
Republicans don't need to worry about the presidency right now. They need to focus locally in state congressional elections, govenorships, and the House/Senate elections. The presidency is one/two people on a ticket and that election is over 2 years away. They are better served to get seats back in other area of government, a repeat of 94. Obama is going to be like Clinton, in that he is too popular culturally to unseat. A better government will be one that doesn't have one party with a monopoly of power.
 
Republicans don't need to worry about the presidency right now. They need to focus locally in state congressional elections, govenorships, and the House/Senate elections. The presidency is one/two people on a ticket and that election is over 2 years away. They are better served to get seats back in other area of government, a repeat of 94. Obama is going to be like Clinton, in that he is too popular culturally to unseat. A better government will be one that doesn't have one party with a monopoly of power.

I don't think so much that Obama is too popular nationally to unseat but rather that the GOP doesn't have anyone nationally popular enough to compete with him in '12.
 
I don't think so much that Obama is too popular nationally to unseat but rather that the GOP doesn't have anyone nationally popular enough to compete with him in '12.

Agreed. The GOP still hasn't developed a redeemable identity, primarily because Republicans haven't decided what direction they want the GOP to take. I mean, have they seen the error of their ways? Are they really ready to turn in a more Libertarian direction (Ron Paul) or a more responsible and serious direction (Paul Ryan)? Or do they need a real political manager to run the government effectively without upsetting anybody (Romney). Or do we need a combative president, willing to take on the Federal Bureaucracy with a vengeance (Chris Christie). What do Republicans want?

I honestly have no idea. Republicans don't seem to have any concrete beliefs about how government should achieve the goals Republicans profess to believe.
 
Last edited:
Agreed. The GOP still hasn't developed a redeemable identity, primarily because Republicans haven't decided what direction they want the GOP to take. I mean, have they seen the error of their ways? Are they really ready to turn in a more Libertarian direction (Ron Paul) or a more responsible and serious direction (Paul Ryan)? Or do they need a real political manager to run the government effectively without upsetting anybody (Romney). Or do we need a combative president, willing to take on the Federal Bureaucracy with a vengeance (Chris Christie). What do Republicans want?

I honestly have no idea. Republicans don't seem to have any concrete beliefs about how government should achieve the goals Republicans profess to believe.

But the same thing could be said about Democrats. I mean the reason why the Democrats aren't governing as well as their voter base wants is because they're split on issues as well. I mean we have Liberals who want to nationalize more services, Progressives who only want to nationalize key services, such as health care, and Blue Dogs who seem to just want to maintain the status quo. Right now, full on Liberals seem to a minority, and there's conflict between the Progressives and the Blue Dogs.

But this is all because of our voting system. A winner-take-all system naturally tends to two-party systems to prevent spoilers. Such a two-party system demands a broad party base to take in as many voters as possible. I'd prefer it if we used IRV to get a multi-party system with better party discipline so voters can know just what they're voting for.
 
The GOP is currently going through an identity crisis of sorts. It may take some time to reach a new stable and sufficiently broad-based consensus. What I believe the Party needs are candidates who can combine problem-solving, a demonstrated ability to find common ground and forge alliances to reach policy decisions that can be widely supported (as will be needed if entitlement reform and fundamental health care reform are to be pursued to address the nation's long-term fiscal challenges), understanding of the nation's critical overseas interests (something both non-interventionists/isolationists who see few or no such interests, and neoconservatives who cannot distinguish between peripheral and critical interests, lack), and strong communication skills. Governor Romney might be a transitional candidate. Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan might be the kind of candidates around which the GOP can coalesce down the road (both have policy ideas, but they will need to accumulate some policy successes to gain national awareness).
 
But the same thing could be said about Democrats. I mean the reason why the Democrats aren't governing as well as their voter base wants is because they're split on issues as well. I mean we have Liberals who want to nationalize more services, Progressives who only want to nationalize key services, such as health care, and Blue Dogs who seem to just want to maintain the status quo. Right now, full on Liberals seem to a minority, and there's conflict between the Progressives and the Blue Dogs.

But this is all because of our voting system. A winner-take-all system naturally tends to two-party systems to prevent spoilers. Such a two-party system demands a broad party base to take in as many voters as possible. I'd prefer it if we used IRV to get a multi-party system with better party discipline so voters can know just what they're voting for.

I agree. I think that would be a good system. However, it has its own problems, don't you think? Canada and the UK aren't in that much better shape than we are politically or economically speaking. I think a better solution is to return to a State-Driven Constitutional Republic. Have the Senators nominated by the States and Representatives elected by the people.

But in the end, I think the people needs to start getting themselves informed. The Two Party system isn't a failure because the Republicans and Democrats won't allow third parties. The American People just don't vote for third party candidates.
 
The GOP is currently going through an identity crisis of sorts. It may take some time to reach a new stable and sufficiently broad-based consensus. What I believe the Party needs are candidates who can combine problem-solving, a demonstrated ability to find common ground and forge alliances to reach policy decisions that can be widely supported (as will be needed if entitlement reform and fundamental health care reform are to be pursued to address the nation's long-term fiscal challenges), understanding of the nation's critical overseas interests (something both non-interventionists/isolationists who see few or no such interests, and neoconservatives who cannot distinguish between peripheral and critical interests, lack), and strong communication skills. Governor Romney might be a transitional candidate. Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan might be the kind of candidates around which the GOP can coalesce down the road (both have policy ideas, but they will need to accumulate some policy successes to gain national awareness).

I think Eric Cantor is a robotician (an invented politician who is nothing but a sock puppet). He came out of nowhere and was given a national spotlight by the neocon Republicans to do their biddings.

Most of his rhetoric is only neocon talking points. He's much too far right to appeal to the centrist votes, imho.
 
Last edited:
The biggest question for the Republican Party is who will lead it.
Someone with Reagan Conservative core beliefs and can half assed eloquently deliver them.
Add a Lee Atwater, James Carville campaign manager, someone not shy to drive the message hard and you have the possibility for a 50 state landslide.

Obama now has a vast public record of failure and contempt for America.

All his slickness can be negated with a Reagan Conservative candidate willing to politically annihilate Obama's sheer incompetence. Someone that will do it without mercy to protect the nation and begin a restoration of the nation in accordance with its founding documents.

Even Matthews, Olbermann, Fineman at MSNBC projectile vomited after the last speech.
That says volumes.

Who will be that candidate?
No idea. It could be an unknown.
It could be Sarah Palin. I like Michelle Bachmann too. Jan Brewer?

.
 
Last edited:
Someone with Reagan Conservative core beliefs and can half assed eloquently deliver them.
Add a Lee Atwater, James Carville campaign manager, someone not shy to drive the message hard and you have the possibility for a 50 state landslide.

Obama now has a vast public record of failure and contempt for America.

All his slickness can be negated with a Reagan Conservative candidate willing to politically annihilate Obama's sheer incompetence. Someone that will do it without mercy to protect the nation and begin a restoration of the nation in accordance with its founding documents.

Even Matthews, Olbermann, Fineman at MSNBC projectile vomited after the last speech.
That says volumes.

Who will be that candidate?
No idea. It could be an unknown.
It could be Sarah Palin. I like Michelle Bachmann too. Jan Brewer?

.

Saying that Obama has contempt for America is about as low as you can go on the partisan hackery scale. Would you care to offer some concrete proof for your slur? If not, then it is you who has contempt for America.:2usflag:
 
Someone with Reagan Conservative core beliefs and can half assed eloquently deliver them.
Add a Lee Atwater, James Carville campaign manager, someone not shy to drive the message hard and you have the possibility for a 50 state landslide.

Obama now has a vast public record of failure and contempt for America.

All his slickness can be negated with a Reagan Conservative candidate willing to politically annihilate Obama's sheer incompetence. Someone that will do it without mercy to protect the nation and begin a restoration of the nation in accordance with its founding documents.

Even Matthews, Olbermann, Fineman at MSNBC projectile vomited after the last speech.
That says volumes.

Who will be that candidate?
No idea. It could be an unknown.
It could be Sarah Palin. I like Michelle Bachmann too. Jan Brewer?

.

Reagan had a tough first two years, but he recovered. Paul Ryan, Tim Pawlenty, and Mitch Daniels are the only candidates I think could defeat President Obama. I think Romney and Palin and Bachmann are too ideological, which isn't a bad thing, but it hurts when you alienate voters. Mitch Daniels wouldn't alienate a fly. He's too dry, too gray, too pragmatic to offend anyone (excepting establishment Republicans/Democrats and conservative/liberal activists who can't stand pragmatic politics)
 
Saying that Obama has contempt for America is about as low as you can go on the partisan hackery scale. Would you care to offer some concrete proof for your slur? If not, then it is you who has contempt for America.:2usflag:

Have you read President Obama's books? He doesn't have contempt for America as he envisions it in the future, but he has contempt for America "the status quo".
 
Have you read President Obama's books? He doesn't have contempt for America as he envisions it in the future, but he has contempt for America "the status quo".

You are silly if you think we are a perfect country. Every right thinking person should have contempt for our current problems and a wish to improve the country (by whatever they consider to be improvement since we do not all share the same vision)
 
Saying that Obama has contempt for America is about as low as you can go on the partisan hackery scale. Would you care to offer some concrete proof for your slur? If not, then it is you who has contempt for America.:2usflag:

Obama is a constitutional lawyer. Yet he ignores The Constitution.

Alone, the manner he shoved ObiKare down our throats, using a parliamentary procedure Byrd warned Clinton not to use because it was not intended for the purpose, and after Brown was elected to Dead Kennedy's seat... illustrates a contempt for the American people and the law of the land. Nevermind this type of crap was never intended by the Founders.

This is a decent start.



How Unconstitutional is Barack Obama? Let me count the ways : Stop The ACLU

The guy doesn't like America.
It's why he wants to remake it.

.
 
You are silly if you think we are a perfect country. Every right thinking person should have contempt for our current problems and a wish to improve the country (by whatever they consider to be improvement since we do not all share the same vision)

You are silly if you think other nations are not equally screwed up. You really need to get some perspective. Just because a nation has problems, doesn't mean that it should be hated. Every nation has problems and almost every nation has citizens to love their country. (except in America, where we are taught to feel ashamed - lol, which is kind of funny, because now all these liberals walking around feeling ashamed of their country are really having trouble pretending to like it now that Obama is President. Just makes for some awkwardness).
 
The Status Quo for 200 years was a Constitutional Republic. Since FDR it has been a representative Democracy.
I'll agree, except we still have the Electoral College. Dems want to kill that too.

FDR's institution of the Raw Deal and corrupting the Supreme Court were political atom bombs we have yet to recover from.

.
 
Obama is a constitutional lawyer. Yet he ignores The Constitution.

Alone, the manner he shoved ObiKare down our throats, using a parliamentary procedure Byrd warned Clinton not to use because it was not intended for the purpose, and after Brown was elected to Dead Kennedy's seat... illustrates a contempt for the American people and the law of the land. Nevermind this type of crap was never intended by the Founders.

This is a decent start.



How Unconstitutional is Barack Obama? Let me count the ways : Stop The ACLU

The guy doesn't like America.
It's why he wants to remake it.

.


I asked for proof, not biased opinions.
 
Back
Top Bottom