The Republican Thread

[kapkomet]

Paulson and everyone in Congress that voted for that bailout bill.

Bush lied, people died... oh wait...

 

This will all be GWB's fault, no matter what (or that's how they'll spin it, they already are)... Congress has no responsibility for their votes anymore (at least since 2003) - unless you're a Republican, then you're an evil f***er who mislead those poor Democrats.

[mr_genius]

Bush lied, people died... oh wait...

 

This will all be GWB's fault, no matter what (or that's how they'll spin it, they already are)... Congress has no responsibility for their votes anymore (at least since 2003) - unless you're a Republican, then you're an evil f***er who mislead those poor Democrats.

 

So true.

[Balta1701]

I'm really not sure if this belongs in the Repub thread or the Dem thread. But here goes. There was a debate of sorts between the major candidates vying for the RNC head position today. One of the more interesting developments seems to be the praise that they all had for, of all things, the Ron Paul campaign.

For much of the 2008 campaign, Texas lawmaker and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul and his supporters served as a thorn in the side—or a punching bag—for the mainstream GOP establishment.

 

Yet today, the six men vying to run the Republican National Committee praised the grassroots enthusiasm Paul tapped into during his campaign—and discussed how they would like to capture that enthusiasm to expand the party’s appeal.

 

“Ron Paul certainly brought a whole new generation of voters and I think it’s important going forward that we recognize the strengths and the attributes of these individuals who are out there actively building the party and building a movement, a consensus if you will, on certain issues. We can’t look that in the eye and say ‘No, we don’t want that,’” said former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, adding that the RNC needs to find “creative ways” to work with candidates supported by Paul and his followers, and to work with Paul directly to that end.

 

“I think, at this stage at this party, everyone who can help us should be brought into the room to help us,” Steele said.

 

South Carolina Republican Party Chairman Katon Dawson recalled memories of Paul’s supporters campaigning during his state’s early primary.

 

“I witnessed early on the Ron Paul army in South Carolina,” Dawson said, stressing the importance of building new coalitions. “I want people involved in my party that will hang off bridges and paint on their cars and make up t-shirts. There was a passion that I saw of those people for him and his ideas. Do we agree with all of them? No, but we are a party that has to embrace differences.”

 

Saul Anuzis, Michigan Republican Party Chairman, touted his outreach to Paul supporters, attending campaign functions and talking to supporters. “I think you treat [Paul supporters] like everybody else—if they want to be part of the Republican Party, if they want to participate, we have to welcome them in.”

 

Former Mike Huckabee campaign manager Chip Saltsman recalled seeing the passion behind Paul’s operation on the ground while the two former rival campaigns shared office space in Iowa. (Saltsman also identified Paul, an obstetrician, as “Dr. Paul”—a key distinction among his supporters.) “Dr. Paul…he is a wonderful man with wonderful ideas,” Saltsman said, “Do we agree with him all the time? Absolutely not.”

 

Incumbent RNC Chairman Mike Duncan agreed the GOP has to broaden their appeal, and noted that he has met with Paul on two occasions. The key, Duncan said, was respect. “I personally have treated leaders of his campaign with respect, I’ve met with them. I personally treated his foot soldiers with respect whether it was at our convention in Kentucky or whether it was the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis, St. Paul,” he said.

 

Only Ken Blackwell did not praise Paul by name, although he agreed with the overall sentiment of broadening the party’s base. “We are a federation that invites differences,” he said, “The RNC can no longer be a social club, it must be the flagship Republican organization in this nation.”

[mr_genius]

I'm really not sure if this belongs in the Repub thread or the Dem thread. But here goes. There was a debate of sorts between the major candidates vying for the RNC head position today. One of the more interesting developments seems to be the praise that they all had for, of all things, the Ron Paul campaign.

 

good, the GOP needs to get away from the neocon stuff (whcih they are doing). the majority of Republicans demand it.

Edited January 6, 2009 by mr_genius

[lostfan]

He could've used some better organization IMO, and he is a boring public speaker which is probably why he never caught on, but his ideas brought excitement that probably rivaled what Obama did for the Dems at that stage. Plus he got shafted by the debate hosts at every turn.

[mr_genius]

He could've used some better organization IMO, and he is a boring public speaker which is probably why he never caught on, but his ideas brought excitement that probably rivaled what Obama did for the Dems at that stage. Plus he got shafted by the debate hosts at every turn.

 

Ron Paul is actually a fairly interesting and dynamic speaker. I guess he doesn't have the energy of an Obama or Reagan type speaker, which is important when trying to rally people around a campaign.

[lostfan]

Ron Paul is actually a fairly interesting and dynamic speaker. I guess he doesn't have the energy of an Obama or Reagan type speaker, which is important when trying to rally people around a campaign.

That's what I meant, I mean it's not like he doesn't know what he's talking about (although I might not necessarily agree with what he's saying) but he doesn't have much in the way of personality. Compared to Obama, Reagan, or dare I say Palin at least.

[bmags]

Paul had by far the best use of internet fundraising. I doubt that was an 08 fad. It's clearly going to be the future of political fundraising, they'd be foolish to ignore it.

[NorthSideSox72]

That's what I meant, I mean it's not like he doesn't know what he's talking about (although I might not necessarily agree with what he's saying) but he doesn't have much in the way of personality. Compared to Obama, Reagan, or dare I say Palin at least.

Paul got flustered a little too easily when speaking.

 

But I agree with mr. g here, overall, the GOP needs to go more towards what Paul brought to the table - less social crusading, smaller government, personal freedoms. I hear that from lots of current and former GOP voters. You don't go as far as Paul goes, but, you move that direction.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

So it is worth noting that now two of the final four Democratic Presidential candidates have had to suffer major national embarassment due to scandals? (when you throw John Edwards into the pile with Richardson)

[StrangeSox]

Paul got flustered a little too easily when speaking.

 

But I agree with mr. g here, overall, the GOP needs to go more towards what Paul brought to the table - less social crusading, smaller government, personal freedoms. I hear that from lots of current and former GOP voters. You don't go as far as Paul goes, but, you move that direction.

 

Ron Paul is a strong Christian evangelist and doesn't believe in a rigid separation between church and state. He has introduced the "We The People Act", which would allow government institutions to display religious imagery and messages. He also introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which would have defined life as beginning at conception. He also strongly opposes civil unions or marriages for homosexuals. He also staunchly rejects evolution, though he wouldn't want to force ID into schools because he's against public schools on principle.

 

He is absolutely a social conservative.

[NorthSideSox72]

Ron Paul is a strong Christian evangelist and doesn't believe in a rigid separation between church and state. He has introduced the "We The People Act", which would allow government institutions to display religious imagery and messages. He also introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which would have defined life as beginning at conception. He also strongly opposes civil unions or marriages for homosexuals. He also staunchly rejects evolution, though he wouldn't want to force ID into schools because he's against public schools on principle.

 

He is absolutely a social conservative.

Interesting, I didn't get that impression. But then, I didn't really study him too deeply either, because he was too extreme for me to take seriously as a candidate. I was glad he was in the race, but didn't research in any depth.

 

Paul is big on individual freedoms, which is a core GOP belief that I agree with. I knew of some of this stances in this area, and agreed with them. But I was not aware he was rabidly anti-gay, which bothers me.

 

[StrangeSox]

Interesting, I didn't get that impression. But then, I didn't really study him too deeply either, because he was too extreme for me to take seriously as a candidate. I was glad he was in the race, but didn't research in any depth.

 

Paul is big on individual freedoms, which is a core GOP belief that I agree with. I knew of some of this stances in this area, and agreed with them. But I was not aware he was rabidly anti-gay, which bothers me.

 

I wasn't really aware myself until about three weeks ago when I saw mention of it while browsing a science blog. Paul says he is big on individual freedoms, but he wants to inject (or at least allow others to inject) religion into public institutions. He has also supported candidates from the Theocratic Constitution Party. That's a bit of cognitive dissonance to me.

 

I also wonder if many of the people who routinely talk about "states rights" in regards to abortion do so because they think they have a shot at getting it banned at that level but not the federal level, but that's just conjecture on my part.

Edited January 6, 2009 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

I wasn't really aware myself until about three weeks ago when I saw mention of it while browsing a science blog. Paul says he is big on individual freedoms, but he wants to inject (or at least allow others to inject) religion into public institutions. He has also supported candidates from the Theocratic Constitution Party. That's a bit of cognitive dissonance to me.

 

I also wonder if many of the people who routinely talk about "states rights" in regards to abortion do so because they think they have a shot at getting it banned at that level but not the federal level, but that's just conjecture on my part.

The religion injection thing bothers me too. And I certainly agree, some folks use the States Rights argument as either a way of compromising (which isn't so bad I suppose), or a way to get it banned that they think will work better.

 

If abortion is about human rights, it really can't be a states issue.

 

[mr_genius]

Ron Paul is a strong Christian evangelist and doesn't believe in a rigid separation between church and state. He has introduced the "We The People Act", which would allow government institutions to display religious imagery and messages. He also introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which would have defined life as beginning at conception. He also strongly opposes civil unions or marriages for homosexuals. He also staunchly rejects evolution, though he wouldn't want to force ID into schools because he's against public schools on principle.

 

He is absolutely a social conservative.

 

We the People Act has to do with State rights. Paul told Congress, "The best guarantor of true liberty is decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to liberty is concentrated power." Basically it limits what the federal government can dictate to states on issues like holiday decorations or other long running religious traditions the people of a state wish to continue

 

Paul is against a federal government dictating morality, be it left wing or conservative from what I can tell. But you are right, Ron Paul is not a liberal.

Edited January 6, 2009 by mr_genius

[mr_genius]

The religion injection thing bothers me too. And I certainly agree, some folks use the States Rights argument as either a way of compromising (which isn't so bad I suppose), or a way to get it banned that they think will work better.

 

If abortion is about human rights, it really can't be a states issue.

 

States should be allowed to pass reasonable legislation on the abortion issue (such as parental notification for minors), especially in cases of late term abortions. Your morality should not be dictated throughout the country, that is why we are a federation of states.

 

edit: and everyone spare me the tired "BUT SLAVERY WOULD BE LEAGAL THENN!!1!!1!" arguments. everything gets compared to this whenever states rights comes up, no matter what the issue is. it's just ridiculous.

Edited January 6, 2009 by mr_genius

[mr_genius]

Before any of this goes any further here is how it is

 

1) Hopefuly the GOP is going to focus on fiscal conservative issues, back to the base of the party

 

2) The GOP is not going to be the gay marriage party. The truth is it's not going to be in the platform and the majority of Americans don't want it. Even liberal states like California are against gay marriage. The GOP is still going to have elements of social conservatism.

 

3) The GOP is not going to pander to the far left wing, so no point in boo hooing; your tears will be of no consequence.

 

4) Moderates will get much more of a say within the party if things are going to turn around for the Republicans.

 

Currently, the GOP has some advantages with the scandal ridden Democrats and the thought that the Democrats hold that they will never lose another election as they think the GOP has been destroyed. Truth is everyone was saying this same stuff about the Democrats after GW won in 2004 and it was completely false.

Edited January 12, 2009 by mr_genius

[BearSox]

This is a sad day in America when someone like Al freakin Franken is gonna become a U.S. Senator.

[kapkomet]

The religion injection thing bothers me too. And I certainly agree, some folks use the States Rights argument as either a way of compromising (which isn't so bad I suppose), or a way to get it banned that they think will work better.

 

If abortion is about human rights, it really can't be a states issue.

 

I personally am 100% against abortion. Period.

 

But to me, it is a states rights issue. If the state of Texas (using this wonderful state as an example) decided that they were going to legalize abortion, I wouldn't like it but I would live with it.

 

My whole damn problem is EITHER party telling me what my moral standards should be. It's not the damn national goverment that should tell me that, it should be the states and/or local codes that should tell us that... and then we choose to live where we want to based on those codes.

 

Think about that. Does it make sense what I'm trying to say?

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I personally am 100% against abortion. Period.

 

But to me, it is a states rights issue. If the state of Texas (using this wonderful state as an example) decided that they were going to legalize abortion, I wouldn't like it but I would live with it.

 

My whole damn problem is EITHER party telling me what my moral standards should be. It's not the damn national goverment that should tell me that, it should be the states and/or local codes that should tell us that... and then we choose to live where we want to based on those codes.

 

Think about that. Does it make sense what I'm trying to say?

I see what you are trying to say, yes. I guess I just see it differently. I want the government to do as little as possible, at any level, to foist their beliefs on me by way of law. But, for those key individual rights that need to be protected, I think those clearly should be national, not state. Civil rights should not fall to the states to decide, IMO.

 

[southsider2k5]

So I thought we only had one President when it came to forgein policy? If so why is Biden going to places like Pakistan and Afghanistan? Its nice to see Obama is already going to duck all of the tough politics to hide behind Bush.

[lostfan]

So I thought we only had one President when it came to forgein policy? If so why is Biden going to places like Pakistan and Afghanistan? Its nice to see Obama is already going to duck all of the tough politics to hide behind Bush.

Like what, say, Israel? His stance on that is not much different from Bush's, if at all. On other stuff, if he said more, I'm 100% positive he'd get criticized for upstaging the current president/being a prima donna.

[southsider2k5]

Like what, say, Israel? His stance on that is not much different from Bush's, if at all. On other stuff, if he said more, I'm 100% positive he'd get criticized for upstaging the current president/being a prima donna.

 

I'd just like some consistancy. I could respect that. Don't insult people's intelligence by using one excuse in one case, and then do the exact opposite in something that is not as politically poisonous.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'd just like some consistancy. I could respect that. Don't insult people's intelligence by using one excuse in one case, and then do the exact opposite in something that is not as politically poisonous.

Obama does one thing consistently - avoids announcing plans or ideas to problems until his team has worked them over for a while. You could see this as being good or bad, or a bit of both, depending on the situation. This falls right into that. And its one area where Obama is the opposite of Bush.

 

[santo=dorf]

Ron Paul is a strong Christian evangelist and doesn't believe in a rigid separation between church and state. He has introduced the "We The People Act", which would allow government institutions to display religious imagery and messages. He also introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which would have defined life as beginning at conception. He also strongly opposes civil unions or marriages for homosexuals. He also staunchly rejects evolution, though he wouldn't want to force ID into schools because he's against public schools on principle.

 

He is absolutely a social conservative.

So does that mean I should get my birth certificate updated to push my DOB back 9 months?

Edited January 12, 2009 by santo=dorf